HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-07 Council PacketAgenda
Edmonds City Council
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JANUARY 7, 2025, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
January 7, 2025
Page 1
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL
MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
TO ATTEND VIRTUALLY, CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB
BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 BY PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
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
4. PRESENTATION
1. Mayor's Finance Update (10 min)
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE
AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO
THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. IF USING A
COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE, RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. IF USING A DIAL-
UP PHONE, PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. Written Public Comments (0 min)
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
January 7, 2025
Page 2
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes December 3, 2024
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes December 3, 2024
3. Approval of Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes December 4, 2024
4. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes December 10, 2024
5. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes December 10, 2024
6. Approval of Council 5:30 Special Meeting Minutes December 17, 2024
7. Approval of Council 7:00 Special Meeting Minutes December 17, 2024
8. Claim for Damages for filing
9. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
10. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
11. 2025 Legislative Agenda
12. Ratification of Employee Separation Agreements
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Review of Development Code Updates for 2025 (15 min)
2. Potential Action on Interim Ordinances for Neighborhood Centers and Hubs (35 min)
3. Interim Ordinance for STEP Housing (File AMD2024-0006) (30 min)
4. Resolution Calling for a Special Election Concerning Annexation into the South Snohomish
County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority (10 min)
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Mayor's Finance Update
Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
On July 2, 2024 the council voted to have a Mayor Update as an ongoing item on all regular meeting
agendas. This was in response to a recommendation from the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel.
Staff Recommendation
No action, informational
Narrative
The Mayor, or another member of the administration, will answer questions about City finances that
have been requested by council in advance and will also share actions related to the fiscal emergency
that have transpired since the last update.
When there is nothing new to report, this agenda item will be the opportunity to share that there is
nothing new to report.
4.1
Packet Pg. 3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Written Public Comments
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of written public comments.
Narrative
Public comments submitted to the web form for public comments
<https://www.edmondswa.gov/publiccomment>
between December 12, 2024 and December 31, 2024.
Attachments:
Public Comment January 7, 2025
7.1
Packet Pg. 4
Edmonds City Council Public Comments – January 7, 2025
Online Form 2024-12-14 11:53 AM(MST) (1) was submitted by Guest on 12/14/2024 1:53:21 PM
(GMT-07:00) US/Arizona
FirstName Lauren
LastName Summers
Email
CityOfResidence Shoreline
AgendaTopic Gymnastics program
Comments A well attended and critical program for the Edmonds community and surrounding
areas. This program has so much value for building strong bodies for kids and sparking a lifetime
love of movement and physical activity. Please reconsider pulling funding from this awesome and
long standing program. We love and will continue to love gymnastics at Francis Anderson center
Online Form 2024-12-16 12:52 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 12/16/2024 2:52:36 PM (GMT-
07:00) US/Arizona
FirstName Tom and Mary
LastName Monahan
Email
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic Police Department
Comments We have been residents of Edmonds for over 40 years. We are completely opposed
to contracting out police services. I am a retired police officer and I am well aware that county
agencies are spread thin and have longer response times . Further I don't want officers who are
loyal to their county agency and are more concerned about their issues than about Edmonds
issues. Edmonds is a very active and growing community and needs its own police force. Current
budget issues are transitory but if the city eliminates its police force it is gone for good. Balancing
the budget on the backs of emergency services is a terrible idea. Please think about the future of
Edmonds.
Online Form 2024-12-16 04:32 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 12/16/2024 6:32:32 PM (GMT-
07:00) US/Arizona
FirstName Jean
LastName Salls
Email
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
7
,
2
0
2
5
(
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Edmonds City Council Public Comments – January 7, 2025
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic Republic Services pollution
Comments On my walk today Republic Services was out collecting recycle materials on 240th
Street S.W. It was steadily spilling oil approximately every 50 to 100 feet leaving heavy marks as it
traveled West and again as it returned Eastbound . This is the second time this year that their trucks
have had this problem. The oil will eventually make its way into Puget Sound and Edmonds beaches
via storm runoff resulting in pollution and endangering humans, their pets and wildlife. I have
complained in the past and will contact them again but I believe it is the responsibility of Edmonds
City government to protect its citizens from an irresponsible vendors lack of concern and failure to
remedy the situation
Online Form 2024-12-17 01:48 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 12/17/2024 3:48:37 PM (GMT-
07:00) US/Arizona
FirstName Jamie
LastName Christensen
Email
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic Gymnastics program
Comments Hello, I am writing in support of the city keeping our youth gymnastics program
running despite our budget issues. This program is amazing and it would be a detriment to our city if
it was cut.
Online Form 2024-12-17 02:12 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 12/17/2024 4:12:42 PM (GMT-
07:00) US/Arizona
FirstName Christina
LastName Davidson
Email
CityOfResidence Seattle
AgendaTopic Maintain funding for Gymnastics Program
Comments The City of Edmonds Gymnastics program has brought confidence, strength, body
awareness and gymnastics skills to so many children over the years. I think it is something the City
of Edmonds should highlight as an accomplishment and gem of the City. The fact that you have an
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
7
,
2
0
2
5
(
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
Edmonds City Council Public Comments – January 7, 2025
established program with so much history, that you have parents sending their children to a
program they themselves experienced and loved, is a rare gift. I have personally seen the growth in
my children with the teaching, patience and direction provided by Ms. Savannah and her
exceptional team. I am thankful we finally found a program that is a good fit and I am heartbroken to
find out that it may be cut in the 2025 budget. The City of Edmonds gymnastics program is an
excellent program and it’s profitable, so there is no reason to cut it to reduce the budget. Please
vote to maintain this program and fund it, so that children can continue to grow in their skills for
years to come.
Online Form 2024-12-17 07:37 PM(MST) (1) was submitted by Guest on 12/17/2024 9:37:35 PM
(GMT-07:00) US/Arizona
FirstName Danielle
LastName Sarkissian
Email
CityOfResidence Edmonds
AgendaTopic KEEP Gymnastics!!
Comments This is a last minute plea to keep the gymnastics program! It’s terrible to see such a
community and kid oriented program leave—especially one that encourages movement and
physical fitness. I wouldn’t object to higher fees if cost is the primary obstacle. Please, please keep
the gymnastics program!
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
7
,
2
0
2
5
(
W
r
i
t
t
e
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes December 3, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-03 Council Special Minutes
8.1
Packet Pg. 8
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 3, 2024
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President (arrived 5:30 pm)
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Council
President Olson (she arrived at 5:30 pm).
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW
42.30.110(1)(I)
At 5 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i) for a period of 30 minutes.
4. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The meeting was reconvened at 5:30 pm.
5. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. DISCUSSION OF FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS
Mayor Rosen introduced guests from South County Fire (Regional Fire Authority) Fire Chief Bob Eastman
and Fire Commissioner Ed Widdis. He described the process for tonight’s discussion: Council President
Olson will provide introductory remarks for context, City Attorney Jeff Taraday will describe the purpose
of the documents in the packet, and Councilmember Tibbott will provide an overview of the relevant
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 2
content in the documents specific to Edmonds. Council questions/comments will follow in a round robin
format in councilmember order with three minutes for each comment/question/answer; Council President
Olson and Councilmember Tibbott will be the primary responders, and depending on the nature of
comment/question, possibly the guests from SCF. Council President Olson and Councilmember Tibbott
will not participate in the round robin as they will be the primary responders. There will be five minutes
reserved at the end for the guests from SCF to add content followed by Councilmember Tibbott’s review
of next steps in the process.
Mayor Rosen explained part of the reason for this agenda item is frustration expressed by community
members in the past that a public hearing was held before the presentation to council and their interest in
hearing the same content as the council to inform their comments for the public hearing. A public hearing
will be held during the regular meeting that will follow this special meeting.
Council President Olson said she was excited this day has arrived, when finally the whole council and
community are together virtually and in the same room to go through the specifics of what annexation to
the RFA would look like. The council chose this as the preferred alternative in May without knowing the
specific details and without knowing that a contact with the RFA was an option for consideration. Today,
the council begins the process of determining whether, with the details known, annexation to the RFA is
still the council’s preferred alternative. She is a former certified contracting officer and one of four members
of the City’s team on the Future of Fire; at this point all become members of the city team on the Future of
Fire. Councilmember Tibbott is the 2024 PSPHSP Committee Chair and the City’s lead on the Future of
Fire endeavor. Mayor Rosen, a former executive, and City Attorney Jeff Taraday were also on the team.
Mr. Taraday has been involved in all fire contracts and amendments to the fire contract in the years he has
been the city attorney.
Council President Olson continued, this team has been completely immersed in this subject for the last
several months and she was sure would fail to cover all the things the council and community do not know
because they are so familiar with the topic. The team will rely on questions and input to realize what they’ve
missed and will endeavor to provide all information on annexation and other fire options fully and
transparently. Due to time constraints tonight, the priority will be on annexation since Chief Eastman,
Commissioner Widdis and Board Executive Assistant Melissa Blankenship are here tonight.
Mr. Taraday advised his review of the documents would be a high level, 30,000 foot overview of the
documents in the packet to provide an orientation before going into the more detailed Q&A. There are three
documents in the packet, the RFA Plan Amendment (packet page 4), Pre-Annexation Agreement (packet
page 39) and a separate contract lieu of annexation (packet page 100). He will focus on the first two
documents and will not review the contract in lieu of annexation. The Plan Amendment can be thought of
as the legislative document of the RFA, analogous to the City’s comprehensive plan, but much more limited
in scope because the RFA only does fire and EMS and not all the things a city does. The RFA Plan
Amendment describes the terms of the various annexations that have happened over time as well as the
terms of annexation for Edmonds if annexation goes forward. The RFA prepared a new section 12 to that
plan entitled, Annexation of the City of Edmonds (packet page 28), which includes various subsections.
Mr. Taraday highlighted Subsection E of Section 12, Transition of Property and Assets, where the plan
references the Pre-Annexation Agreement. The first paragraph of Subsection E addresses Stations 16 and
20 and the transfer of those stations and points to the terms of Pre-Annexation Agreement, specifically
identifying that the Pre-Annexation Agreement shall control. The second paragraph of Subsection E
addresses Station 17 and again references the Pre-Annexation Agreement and mentions that the Pre-
Annexation Agreement controls. With regard to Subsection G, Finances, he recognized some people have
wondered what, if anything, Edmonds gets that wasn’t necessarily required to happen as part of annexation.
Under Subsection G if annexation is approved, the RFA would be entitled to bill and collect transport fees
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 3
originating within Edmonds commencing on the annexation effective date. Hypothetically if annexation
happens on June 1, 2025, all transport fees collected from transports originating within the City would go
to the RFA which is different than the current interlocal agreement (ILA). Under the current ILA, the City
would receive those transport fees. There is a credit in the agreement for that.
With regard to Liabilities under Subsection G, Mr. Taraday explained there are three categories of liabilities
the City has that the RFA would assume on the annexation date: 1) payment obligations related to Sno911,
2) LEOFF 1 firefighters retiree medical, and 3) the City’s payment for Snohomish County Department of
Emergency Management (DEM) for three years (2025-2027). No exact dollar amounts are stated in the
document. If there are questions about the amounts, those answers can be obtained, but he does not have
those details tonight.
Mr. Taraday continued, the Pre-Annexation Agreement is somewhat complicated in that there are several
exhibits attached. Attached to Pre-Annexation Agreement are the following:
• Exhibit 1a: Quitclaim Deed for Station 16 (packet page 48)
• Exhibit 1b: Quitclaim Deed for Station 20 (packet page 52)
• Exhibit 2: Master Bill of Sale (packet page 55) which addresses transferring station furniture and
fixtures
• Exhibit 3: Temporary Contract (Packet page 59) that will effect in the event the city council
chooses to put annexation on the ballot and the election fails
• Exhibit 4: Use Agreement related to Station 17 (packet page 74). Station 17 is treated differently
than Stations 16 and 20 for reasons that can be described
• Exhibit 5: Fire Prevention ILA (packet page 87) which addresses payment of fire marshal salaries
and collection of fire permit fees for permits processed by the City of Edmonds.
Mr. Taraday explained he would now provide more detail on things he thought were significant or things
he has heard people in the community identify as points of concerns. He read from Section 3.2.2 in the Pre-
Annexation Agreement regarding what the City pays in event of annexation in 2025, “Upon such
Annexation Date, the RFA shall be entitled to all Transport Fees for transports originating within the City
limits for the balance of 2025. These Transport Fees shall be credited against the 2025 Contract Payment
under the Original ILA. For purposes of this section 3.2.2, the term “Transport Fee” shall be interpreted in
the same manner as the term is used in the Original ILA.” Essentially that section says the City will continue
to make the current contract payment for the balance of 2025 even if annexation passes, but that payment
will be reduced by the amount of the transport fees the RFA would collect during the balance of 2025.
Using June 1, 2025 as a hypothetical annexation date, that section describes what the City of Edmonds pays
for the final 7 months of 2025 for its fire and EMS service. Starting January 1, 2026, assuming annexation
was on the ballot and passed, there would no longer be any contract payment because on that date the City
would no longer be contractually obligated to make a contract payment and the RFA receives its fire and
EMS levy dollars and fire benefit charge directly from Edmonds taxpayers.
Mr. Taraday read from Section 3.3 in the Pre-Annexation Agreement, “If the Annexation Measure fails in
2025, then, by mutual agreement of the Parties on or before July 1, 2025, the RFA shall, commencing
January 1, 2026, provide fire and emergency medical services to the City pursuant to the Interlocal
Agreement for Temporary Provision of Fire and Emergency Medical Services attached hereto as Exhibit 3
(the “Temporary ILA”).” That section essentially says if the City puts annexation on the ballot and the
election fails, there is an attachment, Exhibit 3, Temporary ILA, which would potentially become the terms
of the contract in 2027. It is a potential due to the phrase, “by mutual agreement of the parties.”
Mr. Taraday continued, in other words, the City of Edmonds does not have an automatic right to those
terms in the event the election fails; it is essentially a pre-negotiated contract, but at the end of the day both
sides have an opportunity to confirm they are willing to agree t o those terms. For example, if there is an
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 4
election in April and hypothetically the election fails, there would be a short window of time in May and
June 2025 for the City and the RFA to decide if the terms of that temporary contract are acceptable for the
purposes of the next year. It is intended to be a short term agreement. The City’s team asked for that to be
a unilateral option of the City and the RFA would not do that. The City team wanted it to be solely the
City’s decision to exercise the option for a temporary agreement, but that ultimately was not agreed to by
the RFA and instead the mutual agreement clause was used. The parties would have until July 1, 2025 to
make that decision; there are no guarantees that those in fact would be the contract terms.
Mr. Taraday read from Section 4, “On the date that the City annexes into the RFA, the City shall transfer
title to the following property and assets and, as soon as practicable, transfer them to the RFA in an “as is,
where is” condition:” Stations 16 and 20 – there is no payment for these transfers. Reasonable minds can
differ whether that is a good or bad thing, but no city that has entered the RFA via annexation was
compensated for their stations so Edmonds was being treated the same as other cities who are part of the
RFA.
Mr. Taraday referred to Exhibit 1a, the Quitclaim Deed for Station 16, noting the language is the same for
Station 20. He paraphrased key language at the end of the deed, In the event the RFA ceases to operate the
Property as an Active Fire Station, title and ownership of the Property shall revert to City of Edmonds upon
payment of fair market value, reduced by the fair market value of the property on the date of the City’s
annexation as annually adjusted by inflation. He summarized, should the City be in a position to buy the
stations back at some point in the future, the City would only pay for improvements made to the stations
by the RFA because equity is established by an appraisal and whatever the equity is established at increases
over time by the CPI-U. If at some point the City wants to buy back the stations and hypothetically the RFA
has made no improvements, unless real estate inflation was dramatically different than CPI-U inflation,
there should be any payment due. On the other hand, if the RFA builds a new fire station that costs millions
of dollars on one of those properties, it’s reasonable to expect that the RFA be compensated for that
investment. He commented this was a reasonable provision, there are others he did not feel were reasonable.
Mr. Taraday referred to Exhibit 3, Temporary Agreement, that could potential take effect in the event the
council puts annexation on the ballot and annexation fails and the Temporary Agreement takes effect. He
paraphrased Section 11.3, If this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than the annexation of the
City into the RFA the City and RFA agree to the following disposition of assets and equipment upon
termination. He referred to Section 11.3.1.c, RFA Owned Rolling Stock, explaining all the RFA rolling
stock used in the City of Edmonds is RFA owed rolling stock. Section 11.3.1.c states: “The City may, with
the concurrence of the RFA, purchase any rolling stock owned by the RFA which is stationed at the City
Fire Station. Such purchase shall be at fair market value.” He did not feel this was a reasonable provision
and was frankly one of the most contentious points of the negotiation. This provision significantly increases
the uncertainty and expense of the City ever being able to restart its own fire department.
Mr. Taraday continued, for those interested in the potential of the City restarting its own fire department,
this provision is a problem. There is a significant wait time to order new rolling stock from the factory; this
provision requires the City seek concurrence from the RFA to purchase fire engines and aid cars as well as
payment of fair market value. The reason this is controversial is it is a significant change from the language
in the current ILA. In the current ILA, Section 11.7.1, Purchase Back Rolling Stock, reads “All rolling stock
in use by the District at the City fire stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at a price
that considers the fair market value of the asset and adjustments to the fair market value that would be fair
and equitable including City contributions to apparatus replacement.” The City has been making
contributions to apparatus replacement for the last 14-15 years. The weight he placed on that should be
mitigated or adjusted based on councilmembers’ own sense of whether they wanted to operate the City’s
own fire department again. It is completely irrelevant if the City does not want to operate its own fire
department again.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 5
Council President Olson added the teams at the table had gotten to point where all the other documents
were mutually agreed upon, and this was the one exception. Conversations have continued with the RFA
since this was included in the packet.
Mr. Taraday referred to Ext A (packet page 70) related to the contract payment and establishing a formula
for determining the contract payment using three components, 1) the RFA levy rate for 2025 and collected
in 2026 (currently unknown) X the City’s assessed value (currently unknown), 2) RFA EMS Levy rate for
2025 and collected in 2026, and 3) the amount generated by applying the RFA benefit charge formula
within the City. Certain assumptions have to be made about what the City’s assessed value will be next
year as well as RFA levy rates. Anyone who looks at this and says they know what the contract p ayment
will be in 2026 is not truthful because it is an unknowable number. His estimate, using certain assumptions
such as a 3% growth in the City’s AV and other things, was $20.7M. He has also heard $19M mentioned.
No one knows the exact amount, but it will be a lot different than what the City is paying now.
Mr. Taraday referred to the Station 17 Agreement, noting Station 17 is not being transferred, it is essentially
a rent-free lease and if it were ever transferred, there would be the same reversion language where the City
could buy it back with the same equity. He referred to Exhibit 5, agreement related to fire code official
services, which is non-controversial agreement.
Councilmember Tibbott said he planned to spend time on Section 12 of the RFA Plan Amendment, but Mr.
Taraday did a good job providing an overview. He emphasized there are statements specific to the City of
Edmonds in that Amendment, however, the RFA is also obligated to be fair to all the cities in RFA, so the
amendments related to other cities in the RFA are either identical or almost the same to preserve equity for
all the cities that participate in the RFA. At the time annexation is approved, the City would have a non-
voting representative on the Commission.
Round Robin Council Comments/Questions/Answer
Councilmember Eck asked about benefits or advantages to the City from annexation other than fire and
ambulance services; gains for the City that may not been emphasized. Councilmember Tibbott responded,
for the most part when one looks at emergency services, you see fire trucks and ambulances and think that
is the extent of what the RFA does. He highlighted two of the macro resources that come to the City with
annexation; first, the emergency preparedness that the RFA contributes to participating cities including
preplanning, resources that are in place in the event of catastrophic emergencies, and resources available
for emergency response and emergency planning. A second is their reserve fund would also be available in
the event of a major response, the RFA could provide resources, pay overtime for firefighters, and provide
a backstop for costs related to a catastrophic response.
Council President Olson said the Community Paramedic Program is a very strong program in general and
benefits frequent callers that have high emergency medical needs. As a community whose residents are
older than the other cities in the RFA, Edmonds has a high propensity of those calls. With regard to reserves
mentioned by Councilmember Tibbott, Station 20 is close to end of life and there is an expectation that it
will be remodeled or completely rebuilt, a capital project the City would have to bond for. If Edmonds
annexes into the RFA, that is a project the RFA would take on.
Councilmember Chen said he will focus on the transfer of Stations 16 and 20. He expressed appreciation
for the City team’s work on this and Mr. Taraday’s detailed explanation. Based on the explanation and the
documentation, the two stations will be transferred to the RFA at no cost to the RFA, however, in future
when those stations are no longer in service and they revert back to the City, the City would have to pay
fair market value net of equity. That is a double standard and not a fair term. If fair market value is used,
the stations could transfer from the City to RFA at fair market value. If the transfer occurs at no cost, then
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 6
that should be vice versa at no cost. Council President Olson referred to her Letter to the Editor in My
Edmonds News today that addressed that issue and refers to the RCW related to transfer of stations. She
invited the RFA to respond.
Chief Eastman responded the way they look at fire stations is the taxpayers purchased the fire stations and
they are the citizens’ fire stations. They are designed to provide fire service, taxpayers already paid for
them, and if it is no longer used as a fire station, from the fire department’s perspective, a fire station cannot
just be abandoned, another would need to be built. One way or the other, there is a cost to the taxpayer. In
the end it becomes semantics. The reason the documents are drafted this way is it is v ery similar to what
was done for all the cities that annexed into the RFA and wanted the ability to get their fire stations back.
It was done with Lynnwood at the creation of the RFA and with Mill Creek. In end if the City gets the
station back, the taxpayer has to pay to buy new so it becomes a challenge either way.
Councilmember Dotsch commented as things are moving, growing and expanding, if one of the fire stations
is no longer needed by the RFA and it is abandoned, but upgrades have been made and the Edmonds can
buy it back but will no longer use it as a fire station, the City shouldn’t have to pay for the upgrades. Mr.
Taraday responded the way the agreement is currently worded, if upgrades have been made, the City likely
will pay for those if they have market value. If upgrades were made and they have been fully depreciated,
it’s possible the City may not pay for those but the way it is currently worded is the City would pay for any
upgrades that were made by the RFA. Councilmember Tibbott commented if the City was re-acquiring a
station, it presumably would be used for fire services. Councilmember Dotsch commented not necessarily.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed, commenting every possibility cannot be anticipated. Council President
Olson commented even if the building were used for a different purpose, the new building would obviously
be worth more than a 20-100 year old building.
Councilmember Paine asked how Edmonds represents its own interests with regard to level of service,
contracts, purchases, etc. if the City annexes into the RFA, how does the City ensure Edmonds’ interest are
addressed. Councilmember Tibbott answered at the point the City was fully annexed into RFA, the City
would have a representative on the board until positions open and then like any of the other cities, Edmonds
would have an opportunity to put forward commissioner candidates from Edmond as well as for the at-large
positions. Edmonds residents have an opportunity to vote for all commissioners. The Fire Commission
Board includes representatives from all the cities who participate in the RFA.
Councilmember Paine asked about input regarding contracts, level of service, etc., or would that be
determined without the City’s input. Chief Eastman answered although the City’s representative is a non-
voting member, they have equal say, are treated as a member, their input is valued by the board and they
have a very strong voice. Once the City annexes into the RFA those decisions are ultimately made by the
board based on his recommendations. The Edmonds City Council would not have direct control; citizens
would have a voice at board meetings just like they do at city council. There is nothing in the documents
that states the existing service will continue forever; there is latitude for the fire chief and the board to
change deployment within the City as needed.
Councilmember Nand commented the council has received a lot of skepticism from tax-fatigued
constituents. She will use her time to address their criticisms and educate them on the situation that the
council finds itself in. Washington has the most regressive tax system in the country in terms of how the
burdens of taxation are allocated. This is primarily driven in Washington by property tax; property tax is
capped by the Eyman initiative in 2011, so funding essential services of government, which under the
constitution, the general welfare, police power, fire safety authority is reserved to the states who push it
down to municipalities. After the 2001 property tax cap, cities were challenged to provide essential services
without going bankrupt. The state’s solution was to create junior taxing districts such as fire districts, library
districts, etc. The comments and criticisms from skeptical constituents reflect frustration with why the RFA
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 7
exists and why Edmonds doesn’t have its own fire department like it used to. The reason is because
Edmonds got shoehorned into this really torturous tax structure that makes it difficult to fund essential
services. She invited the RFA to explain the EMS levy, benefit charge, assessed value, etc. There is a lot of
fear mongering and tax fatigue in Snohomish County.
Chief Eastman answered the Plan identifies three main funding sources plan, 1) general fire levy which is
capped at $1/$1000 AV, 2) EMS levy capped at $0.50/$1000 AV so the most the RFA can charge on
property taxes is $1.50/$1000 AV, and 3) a benefit charge. He explained the benefit charge is not a property
tax, it considers what the property is used for (commercial, multifamily mobile home and residential) due
to different fire resource needs for each category of property and improvements by square footage. The
benefit charge is apportioned among those property classes and is not based on AV; 2,000 square foot
homes pay the same fire benefit charge regardless of AV.
Councilmember Eck relayed one of the concerns she has heard is why so many vehicles and personnel are
sent to specific emergencies. Councilmember Tibbott commented he was involved in negotiations this time
and previously and learned 2-3 times as much during the current negotiations. The answer the RFA staff
will provide was one of those insights. Chief Eastman said the question he has heard is why 9-11 firefighters
are sent to a CPR call. One of the most important things on a CPR call is good CPR. He was unsure if
anyone in the room or councilmembers have actually done CPR; he has been doing it for 40 years. Two
minutes of CPR becomes exhausting and the survival percentages drop exponentially with poor CPR. The
RFA tries to get five firefighters on the scene of a CPR call and they rotate every 2 minutes to maintain
good quality CPR, which is the most important thing. Other things that happen during a cardiac arrest or
CPR is ventilating the person, and usually suction which takes 1-2 firefighters to appropriately manage an
airway in addition to the 5 firefighters doing CPR. A firefighter is needed to defibrillate (shock), 1-2
firefighters depending on the type of patient are needed to give access for medicine, a person needs to draw
up the medicine, someone gets the history and 1-2 people get the gurney for transport. Adding that up gets
to 9-11 people very quickly. He was proud to say SCF’s cardiac survival rate was twice the average in the
rest of the country. He acknowledged it sounds like a lot of people; there is a video on the SCF website that
shows it in action. If CPR is done with less people, survival rates drop which is why nine people go to that
critical patient. The response to fire is the same, a lot of people are necessary.
With regard to the transfer of assets, Councilmember Chen said with the logic of the taxpayers have already
paid for the fire station, that same logic would apply when the asset is converted back to the City. If the
asset is transferred to the RFA at no cost now, it makes sense when it reverts to the City, it would also be
done at no cost. If the RFA makes improvements, that is also done using taxpayer’s money. Council
President Olson said RCW 52.26.100(2)(a) speaks specifically to assets transferred into RFAs by cities.
She was unsure it applied to every agency and every scenario but it addresses asset transfer to RFAs.
Councilmember Chen said the same RCW can apply the other way as well. Council President Olson
assumed he was referring to improvements, pointing out the City can buy the asset back at no charge if no
improvements are made. Councilmember Tibbott explained if major improvements were made such as have
been discussed for Station 20, it is not just Edmonds taxpayers contributing to that asset improvement, all
the cities in the RFA are contributing to the improvement of that asset. Councilmember Chen said with that
logic, Edmonds taxpayers paid for these stations, and now the City would be contributing the stations to be
used by the entire RFA. Council President Olson commented the station haven’t moved and are still
servicing Edmonds.
Mr. Taraday pointed out every other city in RFA did the same thing. Councilmember Chen’s concern would
have more weight if Edmonds was the only city doing this and every other city got paid for their stations.
Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, or Mill Creek weren’t paid for their stations; if Edmonds were paid for
their stations and none of the other cities were, it would look like the other RFA taxpayers were making a
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 15
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 8
contribution to the RFA that Edmonds did not. It depends on what precedent was set; a precedent could
have been set the other way but wasn’t.
Councilmember Dotsch asked what additional service benefits Edmonds citizens will see if the City joins
the RFA at nearly twice the price the City is currently paying. Councilmember Tibbott answered part of
that question was answered previously. One of the issues Chief Eastman brought up during negotiations is
national standards have changed related to how emergency response is provided. At the time the City’s
contract was established, it was consistent with the level of service 6-7 years ago and as those national
standards changed, the level of service changed for the entire RFA including Edmonds. Edmonds has been
receiving services the City did not contract for. Councilmember Dotsch recalled the council made a change
two years ago to the service provided. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the original contract was for a
level of service that is not consistent with current standards.
Chief Eastman pointed out the 2 FTE that were added in 2022, Edmonds started with that many in 2010, it
was reduced in 2017 and brought back in 2022 per the contract. Things the RFA has added that are not part
of the City’s current ILA include community resource paramedics and medical service officers on shift,
addition of a third battalion chief, and additional resources the RFA put in place that occur throughout the
RFA service area including in Edmonds even though they are not addressed in the current ILA. Edmonds
receives all the services the RFA offers because there was not a mechanism to add those pieces or the RFA
chose not to. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding that those items justified the increase in
price.
Councilmember Paine referred to a comment in My Edmonds News regarding staff salaries. She asked the
goal of placing RFA on the pay scale with comparable cities. For example, Edmonds aims to have its non-
represented staff at 50% of comparable cities. She also asked how the RFA’s span of control methodology.
Chief Eastman answered the board is very clear they work at the mid-range of the comps. The RFA uses
10 comparable fire agencies; the last three contracts which were settled through arbitration land in the
middle, five comps above and five below either the median or the average of the comps.
Councilmember Paine asked about the RFA’s comparables. Chief Eastman answered because SCF is a
large organization, the comps are other large agencies like Central Pierce, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Eastside
Fire. He offered to provide a list of comparables. Councilmember Paine asked about the span of control for
teams providing service and the methodology for determining it. Chief Eastman said the RFA tries to keep
the span of control between 5 and 7 people. Company officers, captains, are the first level supervisors, in
charge of engine companies or stations and are responsible for 3-5 firefighters and a couple have 7, battalion
chief is the next level who each oversee 5 stations, followed by deputy chiefs and assistant chiefs.
Councilmember Nand asked Chief Eastman to describe the background and motivation for the RFA
switching from a contract model to the direct annexation model. Chief Eastman explained Brier and
Mountlake Terrace were the first cities to contract Fire District 1. When those agreements were originally
established, the methodology used to cost out those contracts was very comparable to what citizens in FD1
were paying. As the contracts matured and as the RFA grew and things changed, what ended up happening
was a need for parity. When Brier and Mountlake Terrace annexed, the RFA had an equivalent tax rate of
about $1.32/$1000 AV; by comparison the contract was about $0.66-$0.68/$1000 AV. Those original
contract were set up on service delivery costing and did not look other things. Over time as the RFA grew,
the contracts did not have a mechanisms to keep up with the other needs in the fire service. What ended up
happening was there could be a house in the RFA on one side of the side of the street and a house on the
other side in a contract city and there was a significant difference between what they paid for fire service.
That difference became so wide that the board decided something needed to be done. That is what drove
some of that conversation.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 16
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 9
Councilmember Eck relayed another major concerns she has heard from the community is related to
response time, why is it so high and could it be reduced as part of a commitment to annex to the RFA. Chief
Eastman explained the RFA’s goal is an 8 minute total response time, from the time dispatch receives the
call to the first unit arriving on scene. The RFA doesn’t meet that, response time RFA wide including calls
in Edmonds is about 9:30. With fire and people who aren’t not breathing, the quicker firefighters get there
the better. As the fire chief, he wants faster response times within reason rather than response times getting
longer. Councilmember Eck asked if there was a standard that could be shared. She recognized the
importance of having the fastest response time possible and considering all community members when
having that discussion including vulnerable people and seniors. Chief Eastman advised the national
standard for fire response is NFPA 1710.
Given the time constraints, Mayor Rosen suggested the next round of question/comments/answers be two
minutes.
Councilmember Chen agreed the faster the response time the better since the goal is saving lives, but there
is a balance to strike related to the resources it takes to make that happen.
Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding the benefit charge should allow for lower overall
property tax levy rates as the burden of providing fire suppression service is distributed more fairly based
on fire risk. She suggested increasing the benefit charge and reducing the fire levy rate to benefit the
majority of taxpayers in participating municipalities. Chief Eastman answered the board is currently looking
at that and the strategy of putting more of the burden of resource needs onto the benefit charge. One of
things he's careful about with having different classifications of commercial and multifamily taking a larger
burden of the benefit charge is the impact on commercial properties. If the benefit charge is too high, the
City will have a hard time attracting commercial properties. Council President Olson said she has heard
there is interest in higher benefit rates than are currently charged. The benefit charge is based on fire versus
EMS; EMS is the greatest percentage of calls, 80% in Edmonds. So that reason, the benefit charge can’t be
too high.
Councilmember Paine asked what services the RFA will collaborate on with Snohomish County DEM that
are different than what the City does. Chief Eastman used the example of during the pandemic, he did DEM
for 2 years doing the fire function. The RFA has a very good relationship with DEM, and fill that function
in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). One of benefits of what the RFA has done and part of the
RFA’s plan for Edmonds to maintain a partnership with DEM allows consideration of how that partnership
can grow. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that Edmonds would have more access to
emergency management protocols. Chief Eastman answered an expense for cities is maintaining their own
EOC. He envisioned using the Snohomish County EOC and not having mini EOCs throughout the county
which would relieve the cost burden of maintaining those. Cities could just have a small operations center
where policy makers can interact with the EOC. He concluded there are future opportunities that would be
beneficial to the City and to the RFA.
Councilmember Nand relayed she recently participate in a town hall with the Edmonds Civic Round Table
where a community member asked when they would have an opportunity to ask question directly to the
RFA. She asked if the administration and RFA were planning town halls or other venues that would be
more relaxed than this format so citizens and taxpayers can get answers to their questions directly from fire
commissioners, chiefs and union firefighters. Councilmember Tibbott advised if the council moves toward
a ballot measure, there will be multiple town halls and interactions directly with fire personnel. He
participated in town halls in Lynnwood when they joined the RFA because he wanted to see what it was
like; they were very accessible, small gatherings and very helpful for answering questions.
Comments from the RFA
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 17
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 10
Commissioner Widdis commented some questions have been addressed by information in the documents.
He acknowledged there were some errors in the documents, but there was still time to work on them and
fix any issues and it is not locked in stone. The RFA just needs to know if the intent is to put annexation on
the ballot so they can plan ahead for town halls. He assumed the town halls would include fire personnel as
well as councilmembers, commenting as Edmonds’ situation is a little different regarding the taxation, it
would be good to have the city council involved. With regard to the benefit charge, it is a great tool because
taxes are based on AV, not the sticks and mortar building.
Chief Eastman relayed if the City decides to move forward, what was done in Lynnwood with the creation
of the RFA, and with Mill Creek, Brier and Mountlake Terrace, the RFA and the cities participated in the
town halls because there are questions specific to the city and to the RFA. He recalled there were at least
three town halls in each jurisdiction and seven in Brier. Some town halls were well attended, others were
not. If the council chooses to move forward and puts annexation on the ballot, his goal as a chief was to do
everything possible to ensure people have all the information they need to make informed decisions on the
ballot measure and he will work hand in hand with the City to do that. The RFA can also meet with
individual groups if there is interest in doing that.
Ms. Blankenship agreed property taxes and the benefit charge is a confusing issue for many people. Having
a benefit charge reduces property taxes. With a benefit charge, the maximum fire levy the RFA is allowed
to collect goes from $1.50/1000 AV to $1/$1000 AV which helps level the playing field a little. The board
has historically taken a very conservative approach to taxation, trying to keep taxes as low as possible and
continue to provide these very important services. Since the RFA was formed, taxes have been kept below
inflation; the RFA is proud to have been able to hold the line. The RFA looks forward to answering
residents’ questions. Annexation gives residents a direct voice and vote in their emergency services and
allows them to have a voice in their taxes and how emergency services are operated.
Councilmember Tibbott reviewed next steps. Following this meeting, a public hearing is scheduled at the
regular meeting to hear from the public regarding emergency services. The council will continue to take
public comment after the public hearing in the form of emails and meetings over the next week or so. He
expected the council to deliberate on what they’ve heard and consider fire/EMS service options at the
December 10 council meeting. He did not expect action to be taken about whether to move forward with
an annexation vote or a contract until the December 17 council meeting. If the council decides to move
forward with annexation, it would go to a vote of the people on a ballot in April 2025.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:52 pm.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 18
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes December 3, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-03 Council Minutes
8.2
Packet Pg. 19
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 3, 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
Rod Sniffen, Assistant Police Chief
Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir.
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir.
Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir.
Rob English, City Engineer
Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant
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 Acknowledgement 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.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND
COUNCIL BUSINESS, MOVING ITEM 10.1, COUNCIL 2025-2026 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS,
TO FOLLOW ITEM 10.5, POLICE COMMAND STRUCTURE COMPS, SO THE COUNCIL CAN
RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION FROM THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BEFORE
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 2
CONSIDER THE BEVY OF AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTING THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. MAYOR’S FINANCE UPDATE
Mayor Rosen relayed during the budget agenda item , there will be an update on the current status of the
budget process reflecting the changes council approved at the last meeting.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, explained she spent several years doing enterprise budgeting at a large utility.
What council has done in the 2-year budget is backward; finalizing the General Fund expenditure budget
without knowing revenues with any degree of certainty. Expense budgeting is supposed to be at a number
less than revenues. The public has very little information about plans to increase property taxes through a
vote on a new ballot measure, possibly as soon as next year. There are far too many unknowns in the revenue
forecast; it is so vague it can’t really be called a forecast. She felt she had been dealt into a poker game with
the council and mayor holding the revenue cards close to their vest and the vibe of the poker game is
whether or not the RFA annexation be approved which has a $6.5 million impact on budget assumptions,
whether the new fee-based revenue streams will be $3 million or $5 million or some other amount, and how
big the new property tax levy lid lift be will. She acknowledged the need to raise property taxes and believed
it was important to have layoffs at this time. She urged the council to return in January and do their revenue
budgeting work and deal her out of this poker game with all the revenue unknowns and stop borrowing
money because she can’t afford it.
Will Morris, Marysville, President, Edmonds Police Officer Association, relayed the membership’s
concern that not enough was being done to cut the city’s budget to allow them to continue to serve the
citizens of Edmonds. They think it would be a great disservice if the council d oes not continue to cut the
budget and are forced into looking at contracting police services through Snohomish County Sheriff’s
Office. That is the members’ biggest concern because being unable to serve the citizens of Edmonds would
be a large disservice to them. He relayed the members’ suggestion that the council cut another $1-2 million
from the police budget.
Janelle Cass, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, invited everyone to Holiday Night at the Marina
on December 12 from 6 to 8 pm, a free event that includes fun festivities including live music, Santa,
snowball toss, glow stick station, tour of the whale watching boat, warm up with hot apple cider and cookies,
and food trucks.
Mike McMurray, Edmonds, commented while watching Hallmark movies, he notices every town is low
profile like Edmonds. A lot of the character of downtown Edmonds is keeping the low profile for the core
area from 3rd and 6th which is generally 2 stories and 30 feet which his development on 6th & Main stayed
within, illustrating that new development can occur in downtown Edmonds. He referred to tonight’s 800
page packet, pointing out in comparing the proposed future land use map on page 357 with the current map,
he noticed an expansion of commercial mixed use which he assumed would include residential. The 800-
page packet doesn’t mention any height restriction which is a big deal in Edmonds; the 30 -foot limit has
existed for about 50 years and is probably one of the reason downtown Edmonds looks the way it does and
it would be a mistake not to protect that. The city council has an opportunity to protect the town’s character
and leave that 3-4 block area the same to ensure downtown stays low profile. He was concerned with
backdoor incentives and manipulation; imagining the outrage if his building had been 4 stories. When
running for office, councilmembers made promises to maintain the town’s character; if the council intends
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 3
to rush the comprehensive plan, there is no reason not to add that the downtown core needs to be respected
and retain the 30-height limit. A lot of development will occur due to the state mandates, but not every
square inch of the town needs to be redeveloped.
Pamela Crumpacker, Edmonds, relayed she and her husband, now retired, were business owners in
Seattle’s Central District for many years. She thanked Council President Olson for responding to her email
that expressed concern with each property owner being assessed $1000, a large amount considering
Snohomish County also raised their taxes. Tax increases result in citizens having less money to spend at
local businesses which will affect those businesses. She suggested the city and state needed departments of
government efficiency. She requested the council reconsider that property tax increase and instead cut
departments and lay off employees. She asked whether state mandates imposed during the past four years
had resulted in skyrocketing property taxes. Mayor Rosen relayed public comments are not an opportunity
to respond to comment; he encouraged Ms. Crumpacker to email her questions to councilmembers or to
him.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, following up on an email sent today, wondered how councilmembers feel about
the Edmonds City Code and the importance of following the rule of law. The hearing examiner position is
established by statute and requires appointment by the mayor. The item on tonight’s consent agenda
confirming the hearing examiner does not include appointment of Phil Olbrechts by the mayor, there is only
a third party claim by the planning department that Mr. Olbrechts is his appointment. The request for council
confirmation does not include a written or negotiated contract; the planning department and the mayor are
requesting a blank check. The definition of foolishness is doing something over and over again and
expecting a much different result. The city has good cause to terminate both the Lighthouse and hearing
examiner contracts; both Phil Olbrechts and Sharon Cates are Washington State Bar members and both
have a sworn duty to obey and interpret the Edmonds City Code. Both participated in the violation of
Edmonds City Code 10.35.010.A, a one year contract which he attached to his email, signed by Sharon
Cates and Phil Olbrechts, that didn’t include mayor appointment or council confirmation and did not include
a term of four years. Individuals are cited for violating city and state laws every day, but when employees
and contractors violate Edmonds law, there is no accountability. He summarized good government includes
transparency and accountability.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented approximately a year ago, the former hearing examiner executed a one-
year contract with a former director that involved a $20/hour pay raise; both parties did so with no
knowledge that the former hearing examiner had not been appointed or confirmed to do anything past
December 31, 2023. Lighthouse Law Group approved the contract as to form with full knowledge that the
former hearing examiner had not been appointed or confirmed to do anything past December 31, 2023. He
asked whether Lighthouse should be held accountable for that conduct. On March 29, 2023, he informed
city officials the hearing examiner contract would expire at the end of 2023, expressing his hope the
Edmonds city government would not overlook that for the third time, and suggesting all his questions and
more should be considered prior to confirming the mayor’s appointment for a four-year term starting 1/1/24.
Despite that, a 4-year appointment did not occur for the four years commencing 1/1/24. City staff even
documents on packet page 54 that the hearing examiner must be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by
city council for a period of four years. ECC 10.35 was the law in December 2023 and he questioned why it
wasn’t respected. He wished the hearing examiner system worked in Edmonds, but history shows that is
simply not the case. He recommended the council consider ending the use of a hearing examiner system
and urged the council to remove confirmation of the hearing from the consent agenda and give the issue the
attention it deserves. He also urged the council to consider other insurance alternatives; WCIA is not the
only option available and the city may be able to save money and get better coverage elsewhere. He
requested the council issue an RFP for city attorney services, recalling that has only been done once since
1968. If Lighthouse Law Group is the best candidate, they will win the bidding process.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 4
1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY PAINE, TO AMEND THE NOVEMBER 11,
2024 MINUTES PER THE EMAIL SENT OUT TODAY WITH UPDATED WORDING.
Councilmember Eck requested the minutes be updated and approved on a future consent.
Council President Olson raised a point of clarification, relaying because the memo was sent out in advance,
the minutes could be approved as amended per the email from the clerk. City Clerk Scott Passey agreed if
all councilmembers saw the memo and the proposed changed, the minutes could be approved tonight on
consent. Councilmember Eck advised that was acceptable to her.
Councilmember Nand asked when the email was sent out. Councilmember Eck answered it was an email
from Mr. Passey summarizing the correction. The correction was related to the summary of her comments
which she felt was incorrect so she requested they be updated. Councilmember Nand said after reviewing
the requested change, she was comfortable approving it tonight.
COUNCILMEMBER ECK WITHDREW HER MOTION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDING THE MINUTES THAT WERE CORRECTED
BY THE CLERK’S MEMO.
Councilmember Dotsch advised she did not see that email. A councilmember showed Councilmember
Dotsch the correction. Councilmember Dotsch asked for clarification regarding the correction.
Councilmember Eck explained her comment was specifically related to asking community members to have
empathy in mind when talking about city staff and cuts to the budget.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2024
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2024
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
4. CONFIRMATION OF HEARING EXAMINER
5. 2025 UPDATE OF FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT
9. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS
Council President Olson stated she was happy to have the audience here and the council looked forward to
their input and comments. She referred to the special meeting held tonight at 5:30 pm regarding the potential
RFA annexation. For anyone who missed that meeting and would like to review the video, it will be
available tomorrow. This has been a long conversation and an opportunity to begin looking at the specific
details and facts of the annexation which were not available until a week ago. If audience members were
basing their opinions on things they heard more than a week ago, that was partial information and she hoped
they would partake of all the information going forward.
Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing, commenting individuals corresponding via email or other formats
are also part of the public record and the council’s deliberations.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 5
Theresa Hutchison, Edmonds, commented it’s evident some councilmembers have taken money from the
RFA to help support their campaigns for city council. The PDC makes note of this and the endorsement
signs across campaign yard signs tell one all they need to know. These councilmembers are conflicted and
should not have a vote on the RFA annexation. Those on the negotiating team who have taken money from
the RFA have negotiated in bad faith, negotiating against the voters and their families. She understood
councilmembers were all well intentioned and given the RFA was identified as the preferred option, had
been negotiating against themselves. The city’s team was negotiating with professional RFA negotiators
and were outsmarted and out negotiated before they even started, sheep thrown to the wolves and the council
let that happen. The council needs to delay annexation to negotiate with the RFA for a much lower cost
2026 contract and give Edmonds and its taxpayers time to evaluate the alternatives. The voters will watch
to see how councilmembers whose campaigns were supported by the RFA vote on the RFA annexation. In
the spirit of full transparency, councilmembers should have a sign at their seat on the dais reading,
“campaign supported by the RFA.” The city needs to balance its budget immediately, but the council is
unwilling to eliminate even one job. Boeing just announced plans to lay off 17,000 employees; many other
companies have laid off hundreds and thousands of employees to remain solvent, yet the council can’t bring
themselves to eliminate any employees, saying it is heartless to do so. She questioned whether it was
heartless to push the RFA annexation, raise Edmonds property taxes on young families, veterans many of
whom are on disability, and senior citizens.
Bill Krepick, Woodway, said he is working with a variety of Edmonds residents on the RFA issue and
submitted a petition signed by 80 Edmonds residents opposed to annexation, 80 responses to only 250
emails, an impressive 32% response rate that included zero responses in favor of annexation. These 80
residents are asking to delay annexation until 2026 after the city has negotiated a reasonable 1-year contract
with the RFA and done due diligence on the feasibility and potential cost savings of having a fire/EMS
interlocal agreement with Everett or Mukilteo or both or having an Edmonds -run fire department. The
council put themselves and the taxpayers in an untenable position by proclaiming in May that the RFA was
the preferred and least costly alternative, relying on a flawed, incomplete, and biased Fitch Associate
consultant report to make that decision.
Mr. Krepick continued, the council failed to get any concessions in negotiations with the RFA and lost $1.4
million worth of transport credits and the ownership of three fire stations and failed to get any cost analysis
from the RFA or any justification for the 65% increase in the 2026 price compared to the current $11.5
million. Residents of Everett and Mukilteo pay about $300/person/year for safe and responsive fire and
EMS service. Edmonds residents will pay over $450/year/resident based on the new RFA proposal for
annexation, 50% more than Everett and Mukilteo pay. This vast difference in cost for service shows how
the RFA has failed to lower their costs and failed to deliver on their highly touted regional economies of
scale. Instead of penalizing taxpayers, the council should support taxpayers and demand an RFA cost-
accounting audit complete with analysis of every employee’s overtime and idle hours. He questioned why
the only people supporting annexation are firefighters, RFA management and the Edmonds City Council,
recalling the council refused to measure cost per capita, cost per service call and efficiency metrics.
Mario Rossi, Edmonds, was troubled by the news that the city administration plans to annex its fire and
EMS department to the RFA with terms that look very favorable to its finances and residents as well in a
time when Edmonds and its residents are financially struggling. The terms include the RFA raising charges
from $11.5 million to $19 million which would increase the property tax on a $1 million home by over
$950, further straining many residents’ finances. Interestingly, this sudden increase occurs when services
are being transferred, not before. The terms also include the city transferring ownership of fire stations to
the RFA for free and allowing the RFA to sell them back to Edmonds in the future. In normal times, this
would raise eyebrows, however, in a time when city is struggling and looking to raise taxes even more, this
seems utterly absurd and sounds like banana republic type business. The blue ribbon team created by Mayor
Rosen feel like the cost cutting measures and other solutions they proposed are not being heard, measures
that did not include RFA annexation. If the council cannot figure out how to manage the expense of reckless
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 6
spending, what did they expect from the population, many of whom are living paycheck to paycheck and
resorting to food banks to eat. He asked how they were supposed to pay absurd tax increases that are not
well explained; whether they are supposed to tax their cats and dogs or sell themselves into slavery. He
questioned why the RFA believes it has the right to charge the population based on property value, assuming
a more expensive house catches fire as easily as a house of lower value. He questioned why the RFA does
not monitor its expenses, can charge as much as they want and whether they would continue to increase the
price in the future. He urged the council not to betray the trust of the people who voted for them.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, asked how the city got here, commenting looking back, it was a convoluted
story. The prior administration seems to have worked behind the scenes, outside the public and council, to
encourage the RFA to send a contract cancellation notice. The prior administration also proposed a
resolution to study annexation with the RFA, with whom they were working behind the scenes to cancel
the city’s contract. The council at that time voted 4-3 to adopt that resolution and continue with evaluating
annexation, with what was going on behind the scenes unbeknownst to them. The Fitch report was
commissioned and there were a lot of questions with it. The RFA then cancels the city’s contract, after the
election and before the new administration is sworn in. During that interim when they already knew a new
administration was coming in, there were no attempts to negotiate the current contract. The council
approves moving forward with annexation after the RFA “divorced” the city and wants to “remarry” under
the terms of the annexation agreement. He personally did not think the terms between the city and RFA
were negotiated in good faith on the RFA’s part, and the end result is a flawed Annexation Agreement. The
city did not set up a parallel process to explore opportunities outside annexing to the RFA which he
suggested be done. While these negotiations were occurring, the RFA has withheld millions of dollars from
the city under the current contract.
Patricia Evelad, Edmonds, commented this is a soap opera by numbers, a $20 million deficit and it doesn’t
look good for the next two years. The city collected $12 million for fire and EMS, of which the city kept
$6.2 million to plug the deficit hole and now want to contract with the RFA that has a $10 million deficit
and says unless they get the $10 million, they cannot provide the same services. The city is supposed to
help the RFA at their expense while they owe the city $7 million which they are not paying because they
are in a hole. The $6.2 million that the city kept plus the $7 million the RFA owes the city would go a long
way toward covering the city’s $20 million deficit which is only the beginning because the city needs to
cut expenses in order to not default. In the proposed contract, the RFA wants the city to give them the fire
stations and if the contract with the RFA is ever severed, the city would be allowed to buy them back from
the RFA; she anticipated the mafia would give the city a better deal than that. She found it ridiculous for
the city to give assets to the RFA when they are charging more for services than they charge anyone else.
Councilmembers who received campaign contributions from the RFA should recuse themselves from the
decision due to a conflict of interest. She is totally against it; every year her taxes have gone up. This
contract is the result of intellectual laziness and rather than being the best contract, it is the worst. The voters
will remember who voted for RFA annexation.
Clint Wright, Edmonds, relayed his strong belief that Edmonds giving up its own fire department was a
huge blunder and he had no intention of voting for annexation or any additional levies the council proposed
in the near future. If annexation and other levies the council is contemplating pass, his property taxes will
increase at least $1000/year. The public needs to be aware that the increase will average $100/month on
apartment rents and mortgages in Edmonds.
Julie Johnson, Edmonds, commented their home needs a new roof and they started the process by getting
bids from three contractors. This same process should be followed for city’s fire/EMS protection. This will
be a huge, expensive, forever change that will be hard to get out of, yet the council seems to be in a great
hurry to annex into the RFA without considering a second option. She hoped the council was not using this
as a way to help the budget problem. The council owes taxpayers due diligence, it isn’t just homeowners’
finances at stake, it is also businesses. Edmonds has a spending problem and the city government must live
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 7
within its means. It’s time to cut the budget down to basics. Sadly, she had no confidence this council could
make a practical decision regarding the RFA. The council has seemed intrenched from the beginning that
annexing into the RFA is the only answer. It also feels like the council and mayor are against taxpayers
rather than with them. She questioned why the council was fighting with constituents when there are more
of them than there are councilmembers and they vote. She is not the only person who feels this way;
residents are frustrated the council is acting in a way that does not represent the citizens who elected them
and there has not been any meaningful public outreach or transparency. When she asks various people,
nearly 100% of her Edmonds neighbors have little or no knowledge about the RFA annexation which she
found quite shocking; people are unable to vote correctly when they don’t know what they are voting on.
She cited other significant RFA flaws which include the deficit with the RFA, it is no t Edmonds’ duty to
plug their deficit particularly when the city has its own; significant transport fees not paid to Edmonds by
SCF, the $6.2 million that will be withheld from taxpayers, and the city signing over two fire stations to the
RFA for free.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, relayed her serious concern about the business management of this fire agency,
expressing her appreciation for the fire commissioner observing the public hearing. She wondered how the
city’s cost plus overhead contract got so far out of alignment with the RFA’s taxing of their own customers.
The city’s $11.5 million compared to $19 million is a big jump and doesn’t make sense. Only monopolies
can get away with the size annual increase the RFA is offering in their 2026 temporary contract, not public
sector agencies. She wondered why the city was not negotiating increases spread over several years in the
ILA like a business would and why the RFA wasn’t opening their books to the city and to show what their
overhead costs were. As a retired cost accountant, she would love to see the RFA’s books. She didn’t accept
the notion that she heard at a November commission meeting that other cities are subsidizing Edmonds; a
cost plus overhead pricing model cannot be compared to a property tax/assessed value model on a city by
city basis. An RFA pools the risk of fire or medical events happening amongst a large population and their
large overhead costs are spread over the entire service area. If overhead costs go up, the RFA should
renegotiate the contract with Edmonds, not force an annexation vote.
Ms. Hollis continued, if RFA commissioners want to continue using the subsidy or parity argument, an
Edmonds parcel has a higher assessed value than property in Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace. If Edmonds
voters approve annexation, Edmonds property owners will be subsidizing those two cities for infinity.
Mayor Rosen ran a community survey earlier this year to ask what services were important and to priority
rank them; fast fire and EMS response was the number one public service priority. She pointed out the RFA
has a problem in their response time to the most common type of incident, basic life support. Before
residents are asked to vote on annexation, she asked the RFA to provide a plan for improving on their
performance and start delivering performance that meets or beats their own standards. She asked why the
RFA didn’t publish their annual reports for their total service area; according to RCW 52.33, it is the law
and other RFAs are doing it. She summarized Edmonds is not ready for an annexation vote next spring and
it is not right to ask residents to make an irreversible decision on annexation when the RFA doesn’t disclose
operating information for their service area as required by law.
Peter Scott, Edmonds, said he had a lot of concern when looking at the pricing structure the RFA intends
to bill the Edmonds for services after breaking their contract. He asked what cost cutting measures the RFA
had instituted to reduce their overhead, noting the benefit package they provide firefighters is grossly out
of line. People say it is because of the job. He asked whether random drug tests were done of firefighters
driving ambulances and fire trucks at excessive speeds. When he attended Brier’s RFA annexation
meetings, he was concerned when 20+ firefighters lined the back wall and he didn’t feel comfortable
speaking out regarding this matter because a company they own has investments in Brier. RFA firefighters
worked without a contract for a number of years, but then received large pay raises, they work unbelievable
amounts of overtime, and some firefighters make over $200,000/year. He acknowledged it was dangerous
work, but in his opinion, they were grossly overpaid which needed to end. For that reason he asked the city
council to pursue other proposals for residents to consider. If the city does annex into the RFA, he
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 8
recommended the city not give up the fire stations, but instead lease the stations to the RFA for $1/year and
the RFA be responsible for all building maintenance. He recommended the city not give away property or
equipment to the RFA.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented when former Mayor Gary Haakenson recommended the city contract
with South County Fire, it was supposed to save the city money, something this negotiation with the RFA
has completely lost sight of. Back when Laura Hall was the mayor, there was a successful annexation in
the South Country Fire area which included Sherwood, Woodway High School, and the Alderwood area,
only the Esperance bubble wasn’t annexed. Annexation of the Esperance bubble failed twice and South
County Firefighters doorbelled and campaigned against that annexation. South County Fire paid the city
$298,000/year to supply fire service for Esperance and Edmonds also supplied fire service to Woodway.
He urged the city not to give away its assets and suggested hiring a fire chief this year and begin
investigating how to restore the city’s fire department in a cost efficient way.
Mayor Rosen thanked everyone who participated and those observing both in council chambers and online;
it is a testimony to how strongly they feel about this issue. The public can continue to reach out to
councilmembers via email and public comments at future meetings.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
2. 2024 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced City Engineer Rob English and Paul Sharman and
Patrick Lynch, Transpo Group. Since the last presentation to council, a project list and prioritization of the
projects have been developed. He reviewed:
• Edmonds Transportation Vision
“Edmonds is a charming and welcoming
city offering outstanding quality of life
with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods,
safe streets, parks, and a thriving arts
scene shaped in a way to promote
healthier lifestyles, climate resiliency, and
access to the natural beauty of our
community.”
Mr. Sharman reviewed
• Roadway & Intersection Projects
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 9
o Intersection Improvements
▪ Traffic signal
▪ Mini roundabout
▪ Mid-block crossings
▪ Additional travel lanes
o Corridor improvements
▪ Signal adaptive systems
▪ Revitalization projects
▪ Access management
• Active Transportation Projects
o Active Transportation Network
▪ Segments from 2015 plan
▪ Alignment with land use growth
alternatives
▪ Improvements needed for Active
Transportation LOS ‘green’
o A few routes will require additional study
given geometric constraints (OVD & 196th
St SW)
• Total Project Costs
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 10
o 87 Projects
▪ 51 sidewalk
▪ 11 Roadway
▪ 9 Multiuse paths
▪ 8 bike lanes
▪ 8 intersections
o SR 99 Revitalization project stages
total $243M – 39% of entire capital
costs
• Estimated Funding Capacity
o Funding estimates based on 2022, 2023
revenue and spending as well as 2024
budget
▪ Assumes continued TBD collection
at $40/vehicle through plan
o All costs in 2024 dollars
• Estimated Funding Shortfall
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 29
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 11
o Transportation Capital Costs greatly
exceed forecast revenues.
o >50% of capital shortfall occurs on
State Routes (SR 99 & 104)
▪ More likely to secure Funding
through future State
appropriation
o How to prioritize capital projects?
• Project Prioritization
• High Priority Projects
Mr. Hauss reviewed:
• Schedule
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 30
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 12
• Remaining Items
o Approval of comprehensive plan by planning board (December 4th)
o Comprehensive plan public hearing (December 10th)
o Plan adoption (scheduled for December 17th)
Mr. Hauss relayed responses to council comments from the prior meeting:
• Alternative to bike markings on 88th due to steep grades on that corridor. The plan has been revised
to show marking on Maplewood from Main to 200th , a street parallel to 88th that is much flatter.
• Vision statement was revised.
• Adding a policy or goal regarding scooters. The city was approached in 2022 by Bird, a company
that promotes scooters. The feasibility of that addition needs to be discussed internally before
adding it to the goals and policies. Multiple jurisdictions have placed scooters and later pulled out.
Council President Olson commended staff and the consultant for a great process, commenting she has
actively enjoyed the collaboration and different things the transportation plan brought to the table and felt
like residents and councilmembers were heard and this plan reflects the community. She noticed the
recommendation was to approve adding this to the comprehensive plan; the comprehensive plan won’t be
approved until later this year. She asked about the sequencing, with this going to the planning board
tomorrow, the council likes to get their input and recommendations before approving the plan, although she
recognized the planning board had previously provided preliminary comments. Mr. Hauss recalled multiple
comments were provided at last week’s planning board meeting; those are addressed in the draft plan. The
goal is for the planning board to hold a public hearing and approve the transportation plan next week.
Council President Olson commented she would rather have those steps occur prior to council approval of
the plan.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was a dedicated bike lane planned from the ferry to 6 th. Mr. Hauss
referred to the Active Transportation Project map and said that was correct. Councilmember Dotsch asked
where that came from. Mr. Hauss said it creates a connection from the ferry to Five Corners.
Councilmember Dotsch observed the cost for a dedicated bike lane was approximately $8 million and
requires remove parking and/or changing sidewalks between the ferry terminal and the fountain. Mr. Hauss
explained the overlay on Main from 6th to 9th includes adding an uphill bike lane and a downhill sharrow.
No parking would be removed on either side from the ferry terminal to 6th, but there would be additional
space for an uphill bike lane in the eastbound direction. As the buildings cannot be moved, the sidewalks
will potentially be narrowed on both sides of the street to fit a bike lane on that stretch.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if staff had talked to the businesses on Main Street about losing their outdoor
dining due to the narrowed sidewalks. Mr. Hauss answered this is planning document, there would
definitely be outreach during the design phase. The first step is identify funding. Councilmember Dotsch
said for the size and scope of this project, she preferred to retain the sharrow.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 31
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 13
Councilmember Dotsch referred to packet page 217, total project costs, commenting multiuse paths have
the same dimension for bikes as pedestrian, approximately 10 feet. In the total project cost there is nearly a
50/50 split between the cost of multiuse paths, bike lanes and sidewalk. She recalled in the statistically
significant survey by EMC, of 19 priorities, bike lanes were last. Sidewalks were rated much higher, yet
the cost of projects seems to prioritize things the public is not asking for. She suggested reassessing the
amount of cement and project costs to lower that investment and include more sidewalks which is what the
public is asking for.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO APPROVE 2024 TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO BE
PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. MOTION DIED LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Nand asked how many times the consultants had presented to council regarding this topic.
Mr. Sharman answered six times. Councilmember Nand commented it is very expensive to bring
consultants to council meetings. In the interest of economy, she was in favor of adding the transportation
plan to the comprehensive plan as inhouse staff and the consultants have explained tonight so it can be
accomplished in a timely fashion and so the council can be good stewards of taxpayers’ resources.
Councilmember Eck said she was also hesitant to push this out further, but the fact that the council hasn’t
gotten all the planning board’s input gives her pause. In her view, staff and the consultants have done a
great job incorporating all the feedback they received and as soon as the planning board feedback is
finalized in the document, it will be ready for approval.
Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for bringing in the ADA curb study as part of the
Transportation Plan. She loved that the mission includes multimodal LOS which includes multiuse paths.
Calming elements are also important; a dozen neighborhoods have raised significant concerns about traffic
and speeds from Firdale up to Meadowdale. She recognized newer transportation infrastructure includes
electric vehicles. She was eager to hear what the planning board has to say and then the council can finalize
this.
With regard to sharrows in the downtown core, Council President Olson suggested as long as the projects
are not in works or vested based on this plan, she could go either way. She agreed with a previous
councilmembers who suggested businesses be consulted before this was included in the comprehensive
plan. She suggested a comprehensive plan amendment next year based on a sharrow versus a bike lane in
the downtown core area. Mr. English advised the next step next year is to develop a 6-year CIP which will
help separate projects into the 6 year versus the 20 year list.
Councilmember Eck commented multimodal transportation is the way of the future as well as now and it is
important to make Edmonds accessible to everyone regardless of the mode of transportation they use. She
reminded not all the projects in the transportation plan will begin tomorrow; this is a plan and the City will
be seeking funding from sources other than the City. It is important to build to accommodate current and
future community members.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if multimodal required a multiuse path. Mr. English answered multiuse paths
are most often on state routes such as Hwy 99, SR-104 and SR-524. The multiuse path meets WSDOT’s
requirement for building complete streets which is why there is a multiuse path on Highway 99. That same
model is used on SR-104 and SR-524 due to the need to comply with the state’s requirements.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled discussions about a multiuse path on Maplewood and asked if that was
planned in the future. Mr. English reiterated the bulk of multiuse paths are state routes. There are a couple
selective segments where a multiuse path is proposed such as 220th from 76th to Highway 99 to provide a
connection to the Interurban Trail. Councilmember Dotsch commented a multiuse path is very expensive
and there are sidewalks in other areas that are in disrepair.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 32
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 14
Councilmember Dotsch commented the multimodal plan for the comprehensive plan is not due until 2028.
Mr. English explained the goal is to adopt this transportation plan with the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was time to work this out. Mr. English responding a new
transportation plan with new projects will be used in the calculation of an impact fee in early 2025.
Councilmember Dotsch observed the City was ahead of the game with this plan. Mr. English answered yes
and consistent with the comprehensive plan deadline.
Councilmember Nand asked based on the revised timeline, what was the latest date for the council to adopt
the transportation element and not delay overall adoption of the comprehensive plan beyond the state’s
deadline of December 31, 2024. Ms. Hope relayed the transportation element should be adopted along with
the rest of the comprehensive plan which is scheduled for adoption on December 17. Like the rest of the
comprehensive plan, it needs to be adopted before the end of the year, but it can be done at the same time
as the rest of the comprehensive plan.
3. REVIEW OF REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope commented the council just heard about the
transportation element of the comprehensive plan which required special consideration due to the
complexity of issues. The transportation element has to be consistent with the land use element and other
parts of the comprehensive plan. She reviewed:
Questions that have come up
• What are the next required adoption dates?
o December 31, 2024 – adoption of updated comprehensive plan
o December 31, 2024 – various development regulations (e.g., stormwater codes) previously
done as needed)
o June 30, 2025 – other development regulations (“codes”):
▪ To implement recent state legislation for middle housing (at least 2 units per lot) +
accessory dwellings + conversion of commercial to multifamily use
▪ To implement other aspects of comprehensive plan (including HB 1220 to accommodate
housing at different income levels
o December 31, 2025 – additional regulations (“codes”) for:
▪ Critical areas, as needed (this reflects state’s 1-year “grace period” to not be considered out
of compliance for purposes of grants and loans)
▪ Allowing co-living where 6 or more multifamily residential units may be located on a lot.
• What if City does not meet state deadlines?
o RCW 36.70.130(7)(a):
(7)(a) The requirements imposed on counties and cities under this section shall be considered
"requirements of this chapter" under the terms of RCW 36.70A.040(1). Only those counties
and cities that meet the following criteria may receive grants, loans, pledges, or financial
guarantees under chapter 43.155 or 70A.135 RCW:
(i) Complying with the deadlines in this section; or
(ii) Demonstrating substantial progress towards compliance with the schedules in this section
for development regulations that protect critical areas.
(b) A county or city that is fewer than 12 months out of compliance with the schedules in this
section for development regulations that protect critical areas is making substantial progress
towards compliance. Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this
section may receive preference for grants or loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250.
o City is also subject to appeals or litigation for non-compliance
• Can comprehensive plan require growth to be “phased in” (some areas not allowed to grow till
later?)
o No. Comprehensive plan needs to show growth targets can be met – knowing that:
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 15
▪ Market will ensure development does not happen all at once
▪ Development already is prohibited or restricted in critical areas
o If a hub or center is not suitable for growth, it should not be included now as a place to help
meet growth targets
o Note: Implementation of HB 1110 applies to all appliable areas of the city (meaning boundaries
cannot be drawn around particular areas to prevent middle housing or ADUs there)
• Revision to draft future land use map and table
o Revision underway
o Expect to issue December 4
• Summary of changes from (October) draft Plan
o Incorporated “preferred alternative” growth strategy as approved by city council on November
4
o Moved language about other alternatives (not selected) out of the Land Use element and
described them elsewhere
o Refined some policy language, based on input
o Addition of action steps into Housing element
o Revised narrative in Introduction chapter to include more information (no goals or policies
o Added appendices for background details (including calculation of growth targets) plus
potential actions to consider
o Note: council previously received a “tracked changes” version of the revised draft
• Key Land use Element Changes
o Illustrations of 4 centers and 6 hubs (reflecting preferred growth alternative), including:
▪ Specific area of each
▪ Building height limit for each
o Centers: Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, Medical District Expansion
o Hubs: West Edmonds Way, South Lake Ballinger, East Sea View, North Bowl, Maplewood,
Perrinville
• Components of Draft Comprehensive plan
o Introductory Chapter & Elements
▪ Introduction
▪ Land use element
▪ Housing Element
▪ Climate Element (a start toward fuller
update required in 2029)
▪ Economic Element
▪ Culture, History & Urban Design
Element
▪ Capital Facilities Element
▪ Utilities Element
o Appendices (for background info)
▪ Methodology for land use capacity
▪ analysis
▪ Growth targets methodology
▪ Growth alternatives explanation
▪ Community engagement summary
▪ Potential actions to consider as
recommended by Planning Board
▪ Potential action items (full list)
• Next Steps
o Review of revised draft Plan (ongoing)
o Recommendation from Planning Board – December 4
o Issuance of Final EIS (December 4)
o Discussion of Final EIS (Council special meeting December 10)
o Public hearing on revised draft Plan (December 10)
o City council adoption of Plan, with any changes (December 17)
o Staff submittal of final Plan to state agencies
o January thru June 2025 – preparation to adopt codes implementing comprehensive plan and
meeting state requirements
o By end of 2025 – review and adoption of any updates to critical area regulations + permitting
for co-living housing
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 16
Councilmember Eck recognized Ms. Hope for seamlessly championing and keeping the process moving
since she joined the City. She referred to feedback she received as late as today from environmental
champions in the community about the marsh about strengthening language in the document related to
restoration of the marsh and the estuary. She recognized the balance of not getting into too much in detail
in the comprehensive plan and keeping it high level, but asked for Ms. Hope’s input regarding whether it
makes sense to firm up language in the document about the marsh. Ms. Hope responded the language is
pretty clear that the marsh and its habitat are a priority. It may not meet everybody’s idea of exactly what
should be said, but it is pretty strong. She offered to specifically identify that at the public hearing.
Councilmember Eck said she will encourage the environmental champions to attend the public hearing. If
she can develop stronger language for Ms. Hope’s consideration, she will do that.
Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for all the hard work done in a condensed schedule to meet
the December 17 deadline. He asked about updates to the centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered the centers
and hubs were identified in the revised draft comprehensive plan, the November version, where a map was
shown for each in the same manner as the council’s decision on November 4th other than where there was
a change requested by council, that change was made in the draft comprehensive plan. Councilmember
Chen recalled transition zones would be addressed at the code level. Ms. Hope agreed there could be more
about the transition zones in the development regulations next year.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled there was some confusion in the last draft regarding transition zones and
asked about transition zones extending well beyond centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered that is not the
intent. When the council sees the next revision to the table that went with the land use map, the wording
will be changed. Councilmember Dotsch referred to walkability, commenting what people think of as
walkability in Edmonds may not be same as in urban planning. Ms. Hope assured there will be different
wording, returning to a simpler version closer to what the council was expecting. Councilmember Dotsch
commented the land use policies contain a lot of urban verbiage. The idea of centers and hubs was being
intentional about where growth would occur. There is an opportunity to be more intentional throughout
Edmonds. She recognized heights are an issue for Edmonds residents including haphazard building heights
where residents don’t know what can be built next door. She did not want to see language that pushed the
City in a direction that residents do not want.
Councilmember Dotsch reiterated the policies still contain a lot of urban terms. She referred to Mukilteo’s
comprehensive plan which has the type of language she preferred. For example, one of their land use
policies is facilitate new development and redevelopment that is compatible with the residential character
of existing neighborhoods and provides a robust mix of housing, employment, retail and services, and
recreation amenities. That language indicates neighborhoods will still be neighborhoods even if they
include duplexes, triplexes or ADUs. The idea is for the rest of the heights and density to be closer to the
centers and hubs. Mukilteo’s comprehensive plan also contains language regarding preservation of
character for existing development, compared to the more urban planning language in Edmonds’ draft plan.
She suggested more intentional language related to neighborhoods.
With regard to activity centers, Councilmember Dotsch said the language includes a lot about centers. She
asked if an activity center was a center. Ms. Hope answered it is a different kind of center; activity center
is a term that has been in the comprehensive plan in years past. It refers to areas that are much more
commercial and substantially multifamily which would not be in single family type neighborhoods. For
example the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center and parts of Highway 99 are considered activity centers.
Activity centers are more regional in nature attracting people from outside the area. Neighborhood centers
and hubs are more for people in the general neighborhoods and not as much attracting people from outside
the neighborhood.
Councilmember Dotsch commented there is a language regarding density in centers, assuming that was
referring to centers and hubs. The Downtown Waterfront Activity Center extends from the waterfront to 9th
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 17
which is highly residential and not a commercial area. Ms. Hope agreed there was a lot of residential in that
area; that activity center has been in the comprehensive plan for many years. Centers and hubs are much
smaller in scale. Councilmember Dotsch commented the centers and hubs relate to transportation and
intentionality related to density and heights. The activity center includes the downtown core and as one
speaker mentioned, what makes downtown unique is the lower profile buildings. In the Highway 9 9
Activity Center, there was interest in avoiding a canyon with 75-foot buildings. She cautioned against not
conflating activity centers and centers. She preferred the language in Mukilteo’s comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Hope for pulling this all together so quickly. She shared
Councilmember Eck’s concern about the marsh, referring to goals on page 57 related to Unocal. She was
aware the comprehensive plan cannot be too specific, the property is still not cleaned up and is awaiting
Ecology’s determination. She asked if goals for the marsh restoration and nearshore estuary should be
included. Ms. Hope answered it is a bit of a balancing act, recognizing the situation with the Unocal
property, the timing, etc. so it would be premature to set things up in the comprehensive plan until more is
known while recognizing the importance of the marsh and all the City has done to create a good
environment there and recognizing more improvements are needed.
Councilmember Paine referred to page 703 which references the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE),
commenting there hasn’t been any discussion about expanding the MFTE. She was eager to hear changes
proposed to the MFTE program to ensure it includes commercial on the ground floor. Two areas allow
MFTE, one in Westgate and another on the Highway 99 corridor. There needs to be commercial on the first
floor to support the housing and draw visitors. Ms. Hope commented the Highway 99 area in particular
needs to be revisited in the code update in first six months of 2025 and possibly SR -104 with regard to
transitions due to the importance of commercial in those areas. There was good reason for in the past for
allowing some of that development to be residential-only, but next year may be a good time to address that
again, particularly the ground floor. Whether there is MFTE or not, that would be appropriate.
With regard to Edmonds’ housing targets, Councilmember Paine said she was pleased to see reference to
housing type to meet the AMI standards. Density will be important to meet those standards.
Councilmember Nand expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hope for saving this process. With regard to the
draft climate element, in the period between Ms. Hope’s retirement and her return, the community
advocated for a climate action manager including a petition with 200 signatures asking the council to fund
a full-time climate action manager in 2023. Unfortunately the council saw budget issues looming and
couldn’t afford that position. She was impressed by the high level policy statements in the comprehensive
plan draft climate element as well as the action items. For the public who were disheartened the city did not
fund a climate action manager in 2023 or in the foreseeable future, she asked if this might guide staff with
implementation in the future. Ms. Hope anticipated it would be useful; many pieces from the climate action
plan were included in the draft comprehensive plan. The climate action plan includes numerous projects; it
will be a matter of department directors and staff seeing what can be done. Som e of the items on that list
are also budget items; for example, a new analysis of GHG emissions. A great idea, but it costs money. The
City will need to determine what can be done without significant new budget and things that will need to
be addressed in the future. A lot of climate change issues such as sea level rise are very important; the City
will need to come up with ways to accomplish the highest priorities.
Councilmember Dotsch referred to bonus incentives and questioned whether the public had been involved.
Ms. Hope answered the incentives will be part of code update that will include a public process, planning
board review, and council approval. The incentives will be required to provide a community benefit. Parts
of the comprehensive plan that she inherited had gone a long way on a number of issues. Some of them
have been changed, others would require wholesale reinventing; staff has tried to streamline and identify
things that need further discussion via the code update. Councilmember Dotsch commented an incentive
could be commercial on the ground floor. Ms. Hope agreed that could be a benefit. Councilmember Dotsch
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 18
commented now that there is excess in the centers and hubs, could staff map out the capacity for each center
and hub and the excess capacity. Ms. Hope answered that could be done.
Councilmember Chen asked if there was a radius for the centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered the maps
illustrated exactly where those are; it varies by each center and hub. Councilmember Chen observed they
are not all uniform. Ms. Hope agreed they are not uniform, it is based on the topography, and where it is a
center or a hub. Councilmember Chen observed the centers and hubs do not cover the entire City. Ms. Hope
answered the newer version of the land use element identifies the center and hub areas. She offered to
highlight that in an email.
Councilmember Chen inquired about the process, adoption on December 17 followed by submission to the
state for their review. Ms. Hope advised the first draft of the comprehensive plan was submitted to the state
as required at least 60 days before adoption. The state’s feedback was primarily questioning whether the
numbers adequately met the housing targets and to strengthen the explanation of the calculations which
was done in the November draft. All the cities and counties who are adopting plans have to submit a
checklist to the state regarding where the various laws are addressed and, most importantly, submit the draft
60 days prior to adoption. The state reviews the plan and provides direction prior to adoption. Staff has
tried hard to address all the bills and ensure the plan meets the mark.
Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess.
4. PROSECUTOR SERVICES RFP
HR Director Neill Hoyson relayed one of applicants for the position, Zachor Stock Krepps, withdrew from
consideration so the Walls Law Firm is the only applicant. The City only received two responses to the
RFP, the Walls Law Firm and Zachor Stock Krepps. The current contract with The Walls Law Firm goes
through June 2026. The packet contains recommendations from the interview panel and the firm’s response
to the request to consider adding an attorney to manage the workload.
Councilmember Tibbott commented he read the packet and found it very interesting; four were in favor of
The Walls Law Firm and two were in favor of Zachor Stock Krepp; the police department was pretty certain
regarding their preference. He asked if Ms. Neill Hoyson was confident if Walls adding an attorney would
be adequate to address the problems that occurred during the past year. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she
was uncertain it was her place to answer that; Walls has made a commitment to retaining an addit ional
attorney and keeping up with the current caseload and the backlog. It was her understanding the domestic
violence backlog has been addressed at this point. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Ms. Neill Hoyson has
had conversations with The Walls Law Firm regarding their plans moving forward. Ms. Neill Hoyson
answered yes, during the panel interviews, both applicants were questioned about their ability to address
that, their ability to be in person for court and Walls committed to being in person as well as having a plan
in place to address the backlog and hire an attorney.
For the public, Councilmember Nand stated Councilmember Dotsch and she were invited to be part of the
interview panel as part of the council’s legal assessment subcommittee. She appreciated both applicants’
responsiveness to requests. In response to Councilmember Tibbott’s question, there was a proposal to
reconvene the subcommittee on a quarterly basis for the first year of the amended contract to ensure there
is a proper venue to iron out any difficulties between the police department, the city prosecutor, the
administration, and the various stakeholders in providing this very important function for the City.
Council President Olson said she also found the packet interesting and found merit in both candidates. Since
there has historically been an issue related to structuring the contract so payment is made based on a
maximum size of backlog and an alternate smaller payment if the backlog grew to a certain size, she asked
if that could that be considered. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered if Council President Olson was referring to
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 19
performance metrics related to the contract, she could look into that. If council says go forward with
amending the contract with The Walls Law Group and are interested in having some performance metrics
included in the contract, staff can look into that. She deferred to legal regarding how that would be
incorporated into the contract.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
ACCEPT MOVING FORWARD WITH WALLS.
Councilmember Dotsch relayed concern with the current backlog especially for the victims. If Walls is the
only applicant, she absolutely wanted metrics in the contract because their reassurance that things would
be different was not specific. She was not confident there was a plan and favored having checkpoints/check-
ins and metrics to ensure backlogs do not occur, timeliness of reporting, communication, etc. due to Walls’
history, and wanted that proactively addressed in the contract. Walls has assured they have plans to do
something different, but it is a very skeletal commitment and she wanted specifics to hold them accountable.
Councilmember Nand referred to page 832, Walls’ revised RFP, explaining Walls submitted an initial RFP
and after receiving feedback from the subcommittee, revised their RFP to include a detailed breakdown of
the cost for an additional attorney. She learned a lot about criminal law from participating in the
subcommittee process; a misdemeanor court like Edmonds provides an opportunity to train young lawyers
and the subcommittee’s recommendation to Walls was to hire a junior attorney and train them on Edmonds’
work. The Walls Law Firm responded with a detailed breakdown, itemizing the expenses and incorporating
that into their revised monthly fee. As long as those contract terms are fulfilled by the city prosecutor and
there is a contract enforcement mechanism through the subcommittee or however the stakeholders want to
ensure adequate specific performance, she would like to see how Mr. Walls and his team perform in the
future.
Councilmember Chen shared the concern about the backlog and the history. With only one candidate
remaining, he asked whether there was time to publish the RFP again. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there is
a contract in place with Walls through June 2026, but the contract terms are not adequate to meet the City’s
needs. Because the existing contract does not include the additional attorney, she feared they will struggle
to keep up with the City’s caseload. The City’s prosecutorial services would be covered, but likely would
continue to experience issues with backlog if the contract is not amended. The RFP process takes at least
2½-3 months and she was not sure it would elicit further interest. The City has run RFPs for prosecutor
services for the last few years and has gotten very limited interest, the most the City has received is two
responses. She favored contracting with Walls, having them add an attorney to see if they can keep up, and
then looking at alternative options such as bringing prosecutor services in-house. As prosecutor services
continue to increase in cost, it may make more sense for the City to that as an inhouse function.
Councilmember Eck commented it was good to learn there was some support for Walls. She expressed
appreciation for Councilmembers Dotsch and Nand being part of process. She shared a lot of the same
concerns related to the backlog and a wrong decision on a sensitive case. However, it appears they are using
that as a learning opportunity and she feel some comfort that Councilmembers Dotsch and Nand would
continue to be part of the process for the next few months to ensure prosecutor services were moving in a
better direction.
Councilmember Nand asked if that motion authorized the city attorney to renegotiate the contract terms in
the revised RFP. City Clerk Scott Passey responded the motion was only to approve the Walls contract.
Councilmember Nand asked if that should be addressed in the motion or was it implied. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday responded the firm proposed for selection is already under contract; until there is a reason to amend
the contract, there is no need for a motion to approve the contract. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the contract
needs to be amended. Councilmember Nand agreed the contract needed to be amended to reflect the terms
of the revised RFP. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the packet does not include a contract; there is a proposal
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 20
that includes an additional attorney. Mr. Taraday advised the contract would come back on consent for
approval.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND
TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RENEGOTIATE THE EXISTING PROSECUTOR
CONTRACT TO INCLUDE THE TERMS PROPOSED BY THE WALLS LAW FIRM IN THEIR
REVISED RFP AND BRING IT BACK ON CONSENT AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING.
Councilmember Chen asked if the additional cost of the attorney was included in the budget or would a
budget amendment be required. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she did not believe it was included in the
budget; a budget amendment would have been required regardless of which firm was selected. Acting
Finance Director Kim Dunscombe advised if the contract is amended and will include an increase, a 2024
budget amendment will be required. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the contract will not increase in 2024. Ms.
Dunscombe advised the current contract includes an escalator in 2025 of 13%. She will need to doublecheck
the amount included in the 2025 budget for the prosecutor contract. Councilmember Chen wanted to ensure
that was not missed.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled from the discussion with both firms that their costs were increasing based
on the red light cameras program. Ms. Neill Hoyson did not recall reference to red light cameras program.
Councilmember Dotsch wondered if revenue from that program could help cover the cost of the contract.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. POLICE COMMAND STAFF COMPS
HR Director Neill Hoyson recalled the council was interested in looking at the command staff pay structure
and Mayor Rosen directed her department to review that and provide data to council which is included in
the packet. The comps looked at comparators for the City using the council’s current compensation policy
and philosophy which is to attempt to pay at the median of the comparators. The comps looked at entry
level, first step in the range for the position, and the top stop as well as additional compensation items.
1. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON
BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING
Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe commented as the council is nearing the near of its budget
deliberations, she wanted to take a moment to reflect on where the council is in the process and provide a
short summary. Her role is to provide data and context necessary to make decisions that are in the best
interest of the community. She did not want to belabor the point about how the City reached the General
Fund ending fund balance in 2023 of $2.4 million, but it is essential to recognize the decisions that got the
City there and the discipline it will take to get the City on a different and much better financial path. She
wanted to ensure the council clearly understands the trajectory the City is on and what that means for the
sustainability of its financial position. She displayed the following chart:
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 21
Ms. Dunscombe explained over the last few years the City has experienced increased operational costs and
limited revenue growth. Without strategic adjustments, the City risks total depletion of the fund balance
while increasing General Fund debt and compromising critical services. The above graph illustrates
revenues were higher than expenses in several years. The graph illustrates total revenues and total expenses
so she urged some caution in doing trend analysis from these bars. For example, in 2019, $4M was
transferred from the Contingency Fund 012 to the General Fund so while 2019 looks like a good year, it
can be misleading. Another example is in 2025 where it looks like revenues and expenses are even, the City
is borrowing money to support expenses that year. She referred to the line indicating the General Fund
balance and slope between 2021 and 2022 and 2022 to 2023, pointing out the slope gradually gets steeper.
That decline slowed in 2024 with staff making a lot of difficult decisions with the counci l’s help. There is
an opportunity in the next biennium to change the trajectory to ensure fiscal stability in alignment with
community priorities. She displayed the following graphic which she borrowed from Mike Bailey’s Blue
Ribbon Panel presentation.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 22
Ms. Dunscombe explained the decrease in fund balance starts with accepting and approving budgets and
budget amendments. She recalled Mr. Bailey noting in 2019 the City budgeted to spend fund balance in the
amount of $1.8M and further amended the budget throughout the year, increasing that spending to $3M
which shows the fund balance story starts with approving the budget. She reviewed the following:
• Budget Amendments thus far:
Ms. Dunscombe explained the $2M reduction made at the last council meeting is offset by a payment on
the interfund loan.
Staff Recommended Budget Amendments:
Court Red-Light Program - Staff Recommendation #18
Ms. Dunscombe recalled at the last council meeting, some decisions were made regarding the court’s red
light camera program for 2025. She felt the intent was to continue with the same spending for that program.
Staff recommendation #18 is to mirror in 2026 what was done in 2025. This amendment proposes to
increase spending by $25,000 for pro tem services, $15,000 for interpreter services, and increase salaries
and benefits by $75,996.27 to bring the FTE count up from 2.0 in the proposed budget to 2.66. Mirroring
the decisions made for 2025 includes a corresponding decrease of $500,000 in revenue. The net change in
fund balance for this staff recommendation is $615,996.
Councilmember Nand asked if this was in the packet or had been emailed. Ms. Dunscombe advised it was
provided by Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson and was in the blue folder.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #18, AN INCREASE OF $115,996.27 TO THE COURT’S
2026 EXPENDITURE BUDGET AND REDUCE GENERAL FUND FORECASTED RED LIGHT
CAMERA REVENUE BY $500,000 THUS ALIGNING STAFFING, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AND REVENUE REQUESTS WITH THE APPROVED RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED BY
COURT STAFF ON NOVEMBER 26, 2024.
Councilmember Paine relayed her appreciation to Ms. Dunscombe for incorporating this amendment. She
looked forward to a summary from the courts in the spring about the red light camera program.
Councilmember Chen wondered if there was an opportunity to share the ticket system with other
jurisdictions in terms of head count; was there any information about that to reduce the 2.66 FTE. Ms.
Dunscombe said she saw some emails about that today including concern about whether it was allowed.
She recalled the judge mentioning he would be interested to see how Mukilteo got around some of the
RCWs that he believed would not necessarily allow for that. He is open to looking into and researching it
and Mayor Rosen and Council President Olson are also looking into options with regard to processing
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 23
infractions. Mayor Rosen advised he had an initial meeting with Mukilteo’s mayor today to advance that
conversation. Councilmember Chen commented he was satisfied with approving these budget amendments
that increase expenses and reduce revenue.
Councilmember Paine commented Mukilteo does not have its own court; they have basically a ticket bureau
that doesn’t handle all the things the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge handles. When she was running
Everett District Court, that court handled a lot of bigger tickets sent to them by Mukilteo, although she
acknowledged things had likely changed since 2002. A ticket bureau, a traffic violation, and a TVV is not
the same thing as a court and she wanted to ensure the discussions include someone who has been working
in the court system for a long time such as Judge Fair if he was available. She recommended proceeding
very cautiously as there are a lot of rules around courts. Mayor Rosen assured there was a conversation with
Judge Weiss before the conversation with Mukilteo’s mayor.
Councilmember Dotsch said for transparency, when programs begin, it would be nice to see hard numbers.
She appreciated seeing this information and wanted everyone to be mindful of how programs are run and
delivered and that there are more impacts than just the one side. She was hopeful this now presents a more
realistic picture.
Councilmember Nand commented since the conversation has strayed to rumors about the outsourcing of
Edmonds Municipal Court, she asked the city attorney whether it was legitimate for the administration to
engage in these discussions without authorization from a majority of councilmembers via resolution. Mayor
Rosen assured there was no outsourcing involved. Councilmember Nand said Mayor Rosen used
administrative resources to discuss outsourcing without the express approval of council. Mayor Rosen
clarified the conversation was not about outsourcing, it was about Edmonds providing services to another
jurisdiction. Councilmember Nand said she has heard rumors in the legal community that Edmonds’
administration, without approval by the council, is seeking to outsource. Mayor Rosen assured there were
no conversations like that taking place. Councilmember Nand thanked Mayor Rosen for the clarification,
commenting it is always a good idea to clear up rumors on the dais.
Councilmember Nand asked Mr. Taraday for any insight on this topic. Mr. Taraday responded the mayor
is authorized to explore proposals and formulate proposals before bringing them to council for consideration
and action. A proposal of any kind has to be formulated by someone, they usually aren’t formulated on the
dais. It is not inappropriate for a mayor to explore, formulate, decide what they want to bring to council.
Councilmember Nand commented the mayor does have a spending authority. This issue arose under the
previous administration, significant amounts of staff time and the administration’s resources were used to
explore projects for many months without any notice or authorization from council. Mayor Rosen hoped in
the last 11 months the council had seen nothing but collaboration.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Gateway Art Project - Staff Recommendation #20
Ms. Dunscombe explained this is budget neutral and is related to the Municipal Arts Fund 117, not the
General Fund. In 2024 a reimbursable grant of $60,000 was awarded from the WA Arts Commission, as
well as a donation of up to $75,000 from a private source for the Gateway Art Project; $5500 will be
expended by the end of 2024 and the remaining funds will be expended in 2025 to complete the project.
The amendment provides the spending authority in 2025 to spend the grant funds.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
APPROVE AN INCREASE OF $129,500 TO CULTURAL SERVICES 2025 EXPENDITURE
BUDGET AND AN INCREASE OF $129,500 TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES 2025 REVENUE
BUDGET FOR THE GATEWAY ART PROJECT.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 24
Council President Olson pointed out the WA Arts Commission provided $60,000 for this project and the
Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation provided the match.
Councilmember Nand relayed she and Councilmember Paine were asked participated on the committee that
selected the artwork. She complimented Frances Chapin and the Economic Development Department for
their work on this project.
Councilmember Paine asked if the Arts Festival Foundation was the private source mentioned by Ms.
Dunscombe. Council President Olson answered yes. Councilmember Paine clarified there is more than one
gateway in Edmonds; this is for the gateway project at the ferry holding lanes, not on Highway 99.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2026 Levy Lid Lift - Staff Recommendation #19
Ms. Dunscombe explained this proposed revision is consistent with the council and administration’s
discussions and provides a prudent financial adjustment aimed at fostering financial stability. This approach
not only addresses immediate fiscal challenges, but also sets the stage for more robust financial planning
with respect to other non-tax revenue sources. The staff recommendation is to remove the $5M interfund
loan in 2026 and replace it with a $6M levy lid lift. She acknowledged it may be more appropriate to delay
discussion of this item until the council reviews other amendments/recommendations.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
HEAR THE EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS WAS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Dunscombe explained part of the reason there is a $5M loan in 2026 is throughout budget development
and realizing the need to close a $13-14M gap, it took a lot of time to come up with half that and everyone
felt good about being able to bridge $7M of the budget deficit. However, staff ran out of time and she was
not prepared to include a levy lid lift in 2026 and commit to a number and an ongoing revenue source. It
was apparent to the administration that further adjustments were needed to cut expenditures in 2025 and to
lower the loan in 2025 to have a more reasonable levy lid lift in 2026. That took time, council has made
motions to reduce expenditures of $1M in 2025 and $2.5M in 2026 which allowed her to make some
adjustments to what the levy lid lift amount would need to be to start replenishing reserves and pay back
the loan in three years as recommended by the state auditor. Taking those two motions that the council
passed previously, to true up the interfund loans and start to show a replenishment plan in the strategic
outlook and other motions to significantly reduce 2025 and 2026, allowed the loan amount in 2026 to be
replaced with a reasonable levy lid lift. She did not take the term “reasonable” lightly, knowing it had
meaning to a taxpayer, but a levy lid lift with a sustained amount of revenue going forward is the only way
to replenish reserves and pay back the 2025 loan.
Mayor Rosen advised this amendment also reflects previous discussions about a potential annexation vote
in April and based on that information and the budget, most likely seeking a levy lid lift in November. In
addition, those conversations have included loan repayment in one lump sum, but it makes more sense to
repay it in two years. There has also been discussion about sustainability beyond 2026. This approach is
consistent with those discussions, and is informed and updated by the numbers and decisions t he council
has been making.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO
EXTEND 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
.
Councilmember Eck said because she is participating remotely, she did not have the visual she assumed
was provided by staff. She asked Ms. Dunscombe to repeat the dollar amount this would equate to in
estimated revenue. Ms. Dunscombe explained staff’s recommendation is to remove the $5M loan in 2026
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 25
and replace it with a $6M levy lid lift in 2026. Councilmember Eck relayed her belief that a balanced budget
needed to account for revenue and the council cannot cut its way out of this. The council knew this was
coming and have been discussing it, but are not having this conversation lightly.
Councilmember Nand asked if the council wants to pass a balanced biennial budget by December 31, 2024,
when would the council need to make a decision about replacing the $5M interfund loan in 2026 with the
proposed $6M levy lid lift. Ms. Dunscombe commented with some of the other recommendations such as
the one the council just passed that removed $500,000 in revenue, the council would need to revisit other
decisions for 2026. The budget needs to be effective by December 31, 2024 so there is appropriation
authority by January 1, 2025. There is usually a waiting period and notice period with most ordinances; that
was bypassed last year by inserting language in the ordinance to make it effective immediately. The hope
is to pass the budget within the next 1-2 council meetings, if not tonight.
Councilmember Nand recalled references to the levy lid lift during the RFA public hearing. Many
constituents are very upset about the unknowns related to tax increases. The sooner the council can reach
resolution about the amount of a levy lid lift, the more assurance it will provide the public. She assumed
continents may be angrier, but at least they would know how much the council intends to ask for. She hoped
the council could reach resolution tonight or the next council meeting. Ms. Dunscombe wanted to ensure
she was clear regarding use of the term “reasonable,” realizing this was a heavy ask for taxpayers and a big
consideration. She explained the levy lid lift would affect 2026; there are still major decisions to be made
for 2025, and other assumptions in the biennial budget that provide the opportunity to make other choices.
If the council approves including a levy lid lift in the proposed budget, it doesn’t actual levy anything for
2026, it would just be part of the adopted budget.
Councilmember Paine commented the $6M is an amount anticipated based on the loan and all the other
moving parts. Ms. Dunscombe answered that was correct. Councilmember Paine asked if Ms. Dunscombe
foresees it might be less or more. Ms. Dunscombe said she sees it being less. Councilmember Paine asked
if $6M was the top estimate. Ms. Dunscombe answered yes. Councilmember Paine referred to a comment
during audience comments about why the property taxes are so high, and explained it is because
Washington does not have a state income tax. She liked how this sounds and asked whether the vote on a
levy lid lift would at the end of 2025 and effective in 2026. Ms. Dunscombe responded the vote on a levy
lid lift would be in August and/or November, depending on type of levy lid lift. That was part of the
difficulty with including a levy lid lift in the original proposed budget was there are so many scenarios and
flavors of levy lid lifts and even in this request, there isn’t a commitment to one or the other; the process is
further along and other motions have been made which allowed the administration to provide this scenario
as option that would fit in the adopted budget.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if the council was able to reduce the budget further, ideally there would be
less borrowing initially and less interest and a lower levy lid lift. Ms. Dunscombe referred to
Councilmember Chen’s recommendation to use the contingency fund, Fund 012, as a way to reduce the
loan as well as possibly reduce the levy lid lift. She agreed there were other options. Councilmember Dotsch
observed there is no assumption at this point about the type of levy lid lift, staff’s recommendation is just
to include it in the 2026 budget. She relayed a feeling of responsibility to ensure the budget matches the
City’s spending capability and wanted to ensure if the council asked for more, it was not just adding
expenditures, that it included being very mindful about expenditures and being cognizant about tax fatigue.
Ms. Dunscombe responded that is also some of the complexity of why the initial proposed budget included
a loan instead of a levy lid lift; more time was needed to look at options.
Councilmember Chen commented no matter how it is done, the City will need additional funds, either
internal borrowing or a levy lid lift. However, in terms of how much, staff’s recommendation #18 has a net
impact on the budget of $615,000 and additional amendments councilmembers propose tonight will also
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 26
have an impact. He agreed it would be appropriate to wait until next week when there may be a clearer
picture of the amount.
Councilmember Eck commented this is a serious issue that no one takes lightly. She pointed out there are
still a number of staff positions on the table that council has not put back into the budget. She asked for a
current tally of the staff positions that are still on table that the council does not plan to put back in the
budget. She referred to concerns she has heard that the council has not cut enough positions and wanted to
share with the public the number of position that are still on the table to be cut. Ms. Dunscombe referred to
a list of positions that will remain vacant and positions in the proposed budget for layoff; there are about
22 positions, but they are not all full-time FTEs, several are in parks and do not equate to a full FTE. An
amendment to bring back the public disclosure specialist in the police department failed; a motion to bring
back the community engagement coordinator was approved. There have not been any other motions to
bring back positions in the proposed budget as layoffs.
Councilmember Eck commented the council has consistently not raised taxes as it could have out of
sensitivity to the public and it is not something the council does lightly. A small percentage of property
taxes is collected by the city versus the amount that is collected by the county, school district and other
entities. She wanted to ensure there was a well-rounded conversation and provide assurance the council
was not hopping to different revenue ideas quickly. Mayor Rosen summarized the City receives about $0.14
of every $1 paid in property taxes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
BRING THIS BACK FOR DISCUSSION AS SOON AS ALL THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS
HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council Amendments
Non-Departmental Expense Reductions – Election Costs – Amendment #C20
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
REDUCE 2026 ELECTION COSTS TO ZERO.
Councilmember Dotsch explained there was a placeholder of $75,000 in the 2026 budget for election costs.
As there are no elections planned in 2026, that amount could be removed. Ms. Dunscombe explained she
included $75,000 in the 2026 budget as a fail stop; in case things go wrong in 2025, she wanted budget
available in case the City needed to go back to the voters. She acknowledged that was a decision that could
be made at a later time if necessary.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND NAND VOTING NO.
Non-Departmental Expense Reductions – Ambulance Fees - #C21
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
REDUCE AMBULANCE FEE COST TO ZERO IN 2026.
Councilmember Dotsch explained her original motion was for 2025 and 2026, but there was discussion if
the RFA annexation is approved, there would be no costs in 2026. She retained the cost in the 2025 budget
to see how the vote goes. Ms. Dunscombe explained the proposed budget assumed voter approval of RFA
annexation. There are a lot of moving pieces that are part of negotiations that she is not 100% privy to. She
made adjustments to the three biggest, removing the EMS property tax in 2026, removing EMS transport
fees in 2026 and removing the contract expense in 2026. There are other smaller items such as this that she
left in as well as small revenues such as the RFA pays the City for some custodial services in the fire
stations. Retirement for firefighters remains an expense in 2026. She wanted to ensure whatever falls out
during negotiations, those items were covered. She respected it was the council’s decision to remove this;
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 27
reiterating it was a fail stop to ensure these items were budgeted in case negotiations and the vote go a
different way.
Councilmember Paine appreciated the thought behind this, but felt it was getting ahead of the voters’
decision on the RFA. Whatever happens with the annexation vote, the council will need to make some
decisions later. She did not support the motion as it seems a little premature although she appreciated the
effort.
Council President Olson asked how much staff time it would take to adjust all this stuff so it reflected
annexation into the RFA. Annexation was the only assumption, but it has feelers on both revenue and
expense. She did not want staff to waste a lot of t ime, but if it could be done easily, she would rather be
consistent. If the budget assumes RFA annexation, all these other things should also fall out. Ms. Dunscomb
said the difficult one was retirement and she would need to spend time with Mr. Taraday to understand
whether that was wrapped up into the RFA annexation. Some of smaller items like ambulance fees and
custodial revenue wouldn’t take much time to true up. Regardless of how the vote goes in the spring, mid
biennium adjustments will need to be made to the adopted budget in 2025.
Council President Olson commented it would reduce the levy amount in 2026. She will not support this
budget amendment as it was not a good use of staff time.
Councilmember Nand asked for an explanation of the LEOFF1 and whether ambulance fees would impact
that or was it just a mandatory expense in the 2026 budget regardless of whether voters approve annexation
into the RFA. Mr. Taraday responded he would like to look into that before answering as it was not
something he has studied in a while. As part of the pre-annexation agreement and the RFA plan amendment,
the RFA pledged to take that on, but he was not prepared to speak to the alternate scenario. Councilmember
Nand commented it is typical when planning a budget to include placeholders. When the City is running
on such a tight margin, if all the assumptions are taken out regarding the alternate plan if annexation fails
or the levy lid lift fails, the council could find itself in a very uncomfortable place in 2026. She was
concerned with removing placeholder items until there is more certainty about revenue forecasts.
MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING YES.
Reduce Police Department Professional Services – Amendment #C22
Councilmember Dotsch withdrew this amendment.
Reduce Police Miscellaneous – Amendment #C23
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
REDUCE POLICE DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET BY $25,000 IN 2025 AND 2026.
Councilmember Dotsch said there was no explanation regarding what the miscellaneous budget is for;
removing this brings the budget back to approximately 2024 levels,
Police Chief Michelle Bennett explained some of the things covered by the miscellaneous budget include
dues for professional organizations, accreditation, merchant banking fees, LIARA police personnel admin
fee, notary fees, cell hawk subscription, food for juvenile interviewees, extended callout food, dump fees,
special event equipment, inclement weather needs, explosive licenses, NSM yearly payments, department
training fees, etc. Some of these have been transferred from professional services into miscell aneous so
they match better. Ms. Dunscombe explained through the budget process, the administration forced the
police department to true up their BARS code a little which tends to make the year-over-year analysis
difficult which means a comparison of 2024 to 2025 does not necessarily pan out.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 28
Councilmember Nand said she was comfortable with Chief Bennett’s explanation regarding the essential
services that would be funded with this $25,000 allocation and she did not support the amendment.
Councilmember Paine asked if this included training. Chief Bennett answered it covers department training
fees; there is mandatory training for things like the taser instructor, pepper ball instructor, etc., those
certifications have to be maintained and those instructor fees are paid out of the miscellaneous budget.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
EXTEND TO 11. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK,
CHEN, DOTSCH AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO.
With regard to merchant fees, Ms. Dunscombe recalled a conversation on November 2 regarding ways the
City can recoup expenses via revenue; however the departments still need the spending authority to pay
merchant fees. The revenue collected is booked as a revenue and when the merchant fee is paid, it is booked
as expense.
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Automated Camera Ticket Increase
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
RAISE THE AUTOMATED CAMERA FINE FROM $130 TO $145.
Councilmember Paine explained this will increase the red light cameras infraction fine and the school zone
infraction fine from $130 to $145. An ordinance enacting this change will be required. The purpose of this
amendment is to increase traffic safety awareness through a more noticeable fine. The needed personnel
expenditures are already a sunk cost and there will be no other additional costs associated with this change.
With this change it is anticipated the red light cameras would generate an additional $210,000 in revenue
and school zone cameras would generate $72,000.
Council President Olson said as much as she hates this, she will vote for it.
Councilmember Nand commented her philosophical objection to the use of red light cameras for revenue
generation is no secret. She found that program random, regressive, and it hurts low income earners.
Although reaching into people’s pockets and taking out an extra $15 might sound simple, it could be money
they use for their child’s school, gas money to get to work, a child’s Christmas gifts, etc. She did not support
the motion.
Councilmember Tibbott commented this is a reasonable motion and he will support it. It has been sobering
for everyone that this program has significant related costs. This is not only a way to help cover those costs,
but also demonstrate a commitment to reducing infractions in intersections with cameras.
Councilmember Chen commented red light cameras are for public safety, not revenue generation and a
$130 ticket is a severe enough reminder. Although the City needs revenue, this isn’t the right way to get it.
He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Paine asked how the $130 infraction amount was determined. Assistant Police Chief Rod
Sniffen responded that is the state average in jurisdictions doing camera enforcement so that amount was
selected to be fair and consistent. Councilmember Paine relayed Seattle’s school zone cameras fine is $237
and the City of Lynnwood has escalators in their red light camera fines. She agreed public safety is critically
important. She originally thought the $130 fine was low and when she learned the maximum for red light
cameras is $145, she did not think it was unreasonable to increase the fine to the maximum.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 29
Councilmember Eck recalled the reason the council made a decision to install red light cameras was safety.
To operationalize the process, adequate staffing is required. After the earlier discussions, it makes sense to
increase the per infraction amount to pay for staff who are operationalizing this. It is not always low income
or working class residents receiving infractions; people across all income levels receive infractions. The
amount is not out of line with what other cities charge.
Councilmember Nand emphasized Edmonds is not Seattle or Lynnwood and does not have major regional
draws and businesses that can withstand people getting upset about receiving a $145 ticket. A lot of people
do not drive in Seattle or Lynnwood after getting those tickets. She feared Edmonds would rapidly lose its
reputation for being the friendliest town on the Puget Sound, that small business community would suffer
once these tickets begin to be issued and Edmonds is known as a jurisdiction that raises revenue in this way.
She apologized to the small business community for the impact this will have on them at the same time the
City is trying to increase the amount of sales tax they generate.
MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, DOTSCH AND NAND VOTING NO.
Council President Olson asked if a motion was needed to have the city attorney draft an ordinance for
approval on consent or was it implied by passing a budget amendment that requires an ordinance. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday said he sometimes drafts ordinance without an express direction. Councilmember
Paine said an ordinance landed in her inbox today and she offered to forward it to Mr. Taraday. Assistant
Chief Sniffen said he worked on a draft of the new ordinance with Sharon Cates at Lighthouse. It is a change
to the camera enforcement ordinance, so all camera enforcement tickets will increase to $145, not just red
light cameras tickets, but also school zone camera tickets.
Fund Only One Assistant Police Chief Position
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK AND SECONDED, TO REDUCE THE
POLICE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET BY ONE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF (SALARY AND
BENEFITS) EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2025 AND THROUGH 2026.
Councilmember Eck commented the council has been talking about the two assistant police chief positions.
As staff has been reduced in that department and other changes are made, it makes sense to make this
decision. It is a potential savings of up to $232,500 in 2025 prorated beginning April 1 and up to $319,300
in 2026, not an insubstantial amount.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO AMEND
TO ASK THE ENTIRE POLICE CHIEF COMMAND STRUCTURE TO ABSORB A REDUCTION
OF $551,800 THROUGH THE 2025 AND 2026 BIENNIAL BUDGET AND TO RECOMMEND A
STRUCTURE AND POSSIBLY NEGOTIATE A DIFFERENT COMPENSATION PACKAGE TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT IN THE WAY THEY MOST SEE FIT.
Councilmember Nand asked Chief Bennett to comment. Chief Bennett relayed her understanding there was
a certain dollar amount the council wanted to decrease the budget by and the department is being asked to
decide how to do that in their organizational command structure; instead of cutting a position, looking at
the entire command structure with the CPMS audit and decide the best way to cut that amount. There were
a lot of suggestions and recommendations from the CPMS audit that the department followed. As the City
finds itself in a budget crisis, there definitely are areas of the police department that are very specialized
and require certain supervision. There are sections related to operations, administrative accreditation,
internal affairs, patrol, etc. It would behoove the department to look at what council is asking and figure
out the best way organizationally to make that reduction versus cutting a particular position.
Assistant Chief Sniffen agreed with Chief Bennett about looking at the command structure and determining
what’s best for the agency as there is a need to provide supervision in certain areas that are highly critical.
By adjusting some positions at the top, the same goal may be achieved without identifying specific positions
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 30
to cut. Chief Bennett said that may include compensation; some of that will require union negotiation for
the command staff who are covered by Teamsters. She asked if there was an amount the council wanted to
achieve, and if so, there are different ways to reach that number.
Councilmember Chen asked how Councilmember Nand came up with the amount of $551,800.
Councilmember Nand answered that is the amount of savings accomplished by eliminating one assistant
police chief in 2025 and 2026. Using a dollar amount instead would allow the department to determine
which positions, compensation, command structure, etc. would need to be changed. Councilmember Chen
said he originally thought about this amendment, but did not bring it forward because he wanted the mayor
to work with the police department to determine the best structure. He did not support the amendment.
Council President Olson commented council has the authority to fund or not fund positions. It is the mayor’s
job to make organizational changes in consultation with the police department command staff. In
conversations with the community about the budget, she has heard concern about having two assistant
police chiefs and that it is an area where the City could be leaner. She applauded Councilmember Dotsch
for including the April timeframe as there is some movement/flux and it provides time to figure things out.
The City has two amazing assistant chiefs and an amazing chief. She will support the amendment.
Councilmember Paine liked this motion because the April 1, 2025 effective date provides some time and
offers some stability. With other decisions, the council will get close to $1M, the number talked about
earlier. She preferred Councilmember Eck’s motion rather than the amendment. The council can continue
to look at other budget changes between now and the end of the first quarter.
Councilmember Eck expressed appreciation for Councilmember Nand’s amendment and understood the
intent. She was supportive of departments making their own decision with regard to cuts, but would like to
put this to bed. She was open to supporting the amendment if it was that exact dollar amount, reducing by
$232,500 in 2025 and an additional $319,300 in 2026.
Councilmember Nand explained she came up with the dollar amount based on Councilmember Eck’s
amendment. In a conversation with Chief Bennett today, she suggested various structures based on the
CPMS audit. As a layperson, she has not been through the police academy and did not even know what
CPMS stands for, but Chief Bennett said it could end up instead of funding six bodies in the command
structure, there could be four bodies with a police chief, patrol assistant chief, and administrative assistant
chief and just one watch commander. The police department has a level of expertise and understanding of
the work they do and she would rather put the structure in their hands with the mayor’s approval and just
ask them to target a certain amount of savings.
Chief Bennett agreed with Council President Olson and Mayor Rosen that is ultimately the mayor’s
decision. She was trying to gain an understanding if the intent was to reduce the structure by one assistant
chief; to her knowledge, the department has had two assistant chiefs for 15+ years and commanders were
added more recently. She asked if the direction was to reduce the budget by a certain amount in two years
or eliminate one assistant chief position because some feel the department is top heavy and needs to cut one
of those positions. She wanted to leave the department in the best way organizational which can be done
through working with the mayor on restructuring the department based on what is needed to address
legislative mandates, risk, etc. Councilmember Nand this is why she selected this dollar amount.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if the amount was for the command structure or just in general. Mayor Rosen
relayed the council was indicating it would be within the command structure. Councilmember Dotsch
expressed support for the amendment, commenting eliminating the assistant chief position could still be an
option to achieve the reduction cited in the amendment.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 31
Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the amendment, finding it a clever way to allow the police
department and the mayor work out the best arrangement. He appreciated the creativity and sensitivity to
the dollar amount.
Councilmember Paine asked if the motions were competing, noting the council has never had friendly
amendments. Mr. Taraday clarified the motion on the floor is Councilmember Nand’s amendment to
Councilmember Eck’s motion.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Chen asked if the amendment and the motion resulted in two budget reductions, noting the
amendment was the same dollar amount as the motion. Mayor Rosen relayed his understanding it was a
total of $551,800 which is $232,500 in 2025 and $319,300 in 2026. Mr. Taraday explained what changed
wasn’t the amount, but the flexibility to determine how to implement that amount in terms of command
staff overall costs.
Ms. Dunscombe said with amendments like this along with the earlier motion to align the FTE chart, org
chart, and positions that are funded along with the FTE ordinance, staff will do their best to be clear what
positions are funded. Allowing this amount of flexibility is great, but it makes that process more
complicated. Mr. Taraday clarified this would be in addition to any other cuts the council previously
approved.
Council President Olson asked if anyone on the prevailing side wanted to reconsider their vote and make
the motion simpler.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT,
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RCW
42.30.090, THE DECEMBER 3, 2024, REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
HAS BEEN ADJOURNED UNTIL 6 PM ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2024, AT THE
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Nand said she knew Council President Olson was prepared for this and planned how to
make this motion, but when the council is discussing matters like the budget, she preferred to provide more
public notice than one day. She suggested scheduling another meeting next week or later this week to give
the public more notice that there will be another budget meeting in the event they want to comment. Council
President Olson appreciated the sentiment, relaying every meeting can be adjourned to the next day, that is
standard Roberts Rules.
Councilmember Dotsch preferred to continue tonight because staff is here.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, DOTSCH
AND NAND VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
EXTEND TO 11:30. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE
VOTING NO.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 32
Move Homelessness Response Funds (018) to General Fund
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
TRANSFER $50,000 FROM THE EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND (018) TO THE
GENERAL FUND.
Councilmember Tibbott commented if the council moved $50,000, $3,000 would still remain in the
Homelessness Response Fund. His rationale was there are a lot of city services that support people in
unsheltered conditions and also preventing people from becoming unsheltered. This is a good way to
supplement the General Fund with funds in the Homelessness Response Fund.
Councilmember Nand asked if this would jeopardize funding for the imbedded social worker in 2025 or
2026. Ms. Dunscombe answered funding for that position, $130,000, is in 2025 from the Edmonds
Homelessness Fund. That position is not funded in 2026. She assumed the City would seek grant funding
for 2026 and there are other options for funding that position. It is difficult to say that this $50,000 puts that
in jeopardy, but it reduces the City’s ability to fill in funding required for that position. Council member
Nand relayed her understanding there was originally $200,000 in Fund 018; the administration proposed
using $130,000 of that in 2025 to fund the police department’s embedded social worker. If there was
$70,000 remaining, she asked how Councilmember Tibbott’s amendment to move $50,000 to the General
Fund jeopardized funding the embedded social worker in 2025. Ms. Dunscombe said she would need to
check if there were expenditures in 2024 that reduced the beginning fund balance for that fund. She knew
$130,000 was appropriated in 2025 to fund the social worker position. Mayor Rosen relayed his
understanding there was a grant and the funds were filling the gap. Chief Bennett relayed the department
plans to seek a grant at the beginning of 2025 that would come to fruition in June so in theory half of the
$130,000 could be spent if the department was successful in obtaining the grant.
Ms. Dunscombe reminded the department does not have the grant in hand now. There is $51,000 in 2024
for the social worker which takes the position slightly into 2025. The $130,000 was to ensure there was
funding available for that position for the entire year. Other funding options are being explored that could
change that amount which is why it is difficult to say whether this $50,000 transfer puts that position into
jeopardy because other opportunities to fund that position are still being researched.
Councilmember Nand recalled a mid-year budget amendment to apply $51,000 toward that position in
2024. Ms. Dunscombe agreed, advising it extends slightly into 2025. She recalled an amendment to extend
it past December 11 to fully utilize the $51,000 grant. Councilmember Nand said based on that information,
she will not support the motion as she would like to use the Edmonds Homelessness Fund to retain the
imbedded social worker and provide direct services to the homeless population. She expressed appreciation
for the sentiment that resulted in Councilmember Tibbott proposing this amendment.
Councilmember Paine spoke in support of the motion and asked if the human services program manager
and the work done by that program could be supported by these funds. Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Director Angie Feser advised the human services manager and program would not be impacted by
Councilmember Tibbott’s proposal. The current proposal is to fund that position using $50,000 in opioid
funds and another $20,000 in grants. Councilmember Paine recalled the council has asked the
administration to make additional cuts and wondered if this $50,000 would be helpful for human services
programs. Ms. Feser answered the program is okay with the funding proposed in 2025 and 2026
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO.
Remove Spending Authority for Police Crime Analyst
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
REMOVE SPENDING AUTHORITY FOR SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR THE POLICE CRIME
ANALYST POSITION.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 33
Councilmember Tibbott said he learned this week that the person currently in this position will be leaving
at the beginning of next year. Instead of filling the position, it may be wise to step back and look at other
ways of providing that data; he has already heard two different novel approaches. Eliminating the position
for now is a prudent budget move.
Council President Olson commented that staff member did an awesome job and has been successful in
obtaining grants. She asked staff to wish her the best, and to tell her that she will be missed and that her
efforts were appreciated. Chief Bennett agreed she had been absolutely phenomenal. Council President
Olson hoped the City could get 2-3 cities to support that program so Edmonds does not have to pay for all
of it.
Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for the motion, finding it fiscally responsible as well as from
what she understands it is a nice to have and there could be opportunities to share costs in the future.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion. This crime analyst was also great at grant writing
so there was a revenue aspect to the position, but that may have been a personal talent and not part of the
job description. She expressed appreciation for her work, noting when she asked for numbers, they were
provided within two hours.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Pause All Non-Mandatory Boards and Commissions
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
PAUSE ALL NON-MANDATORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR 2025 AND 2026 AND
REDUCE THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT BUDGETS MOST NON-STAFF EXPENSES FOR
THESE BOARDS.
Council President Olson commented this may look like a small financial impact, but she has been told in
terms of staff time, it is a huge impact, to the tune of $500,000. The budget includes furlough and cutting
staff positions so it is critical not to have staff doing anything they don’t have to do so the core things can
get done. She apologized in advance to boards and commission members who may be hearing this for the
first time. She thought about sending an email to boards and commissions but didn’t do it because an
ordinance will be required to pause boards and commissions because they are authorized in the code. She
provided a description of the proposed amendment: Except for the mandatory boards, planning board, civil
service board, disability board, lodging tax advisory board and cemetery board, all other boards and
commission are proposed to be place on a standby status for budget years 2025 and 2026. This is due to
prioritization of resources and staff time due to the fiscal emergency. In addition, a task force is underway
to evaluate and possibly recommend reorganization of the City’s boards and commissions or the City’s
overall approach to seeking community engagement, an effort already underway with the completion
anticipated in 2025. Standby status is defined as special meetings of the boards and commissions could be
called by the mayor or the council majority but there would be no regular meetings. The duration of board
member or commissioner term will not include any of the time in standby status. The impact of $8,750
General Fund and $4,000 in Tree Fund 143 is the tip of the iceberg because this will impact how staff
spends their time in the next two years.
Playing devil’s advocate, Councilmember Nand said this seems like a very easy thing to jettison. The tree
board had already proposed meeting only four times next year in an effort to save staff time. She suggested
asking the administration, who is already engaged in a task force, to reduce expenditures and staff time
related to boards and commissions. Some boards may only need to meet 1-2 times next year, but would still
be able to meet. She would rather put that to the administration instead of a hard, fast stop on all boards and
commissions, especially ones like the DEIA and youth commission who reach vulnerable segments of the
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 34
population at a time when social isolation is very much affecting the mental health of young people and
people from underrepresented communities. She wanted to stand up for the City’s boards, commissions and
committees, although she recognized the City was facing a fiscal emergency.
Councilmember Dotsch asked about the architectural design board (ADB) with regard to the comprehensive
plan and multifamily design standards. She suggested adding ADB to the list of exceptions. As some boards
and commissions have already started, pausing them mid-year 2025 would allow them to finish what they
started. Council President Olson said she didn’t take all the ADB’s budget away because she agreed the
council will count on them for developing multifamily design standards and other things. She said $1000
of their minute taking budget remains. The ADB could still be paused and the mayor could ask them to
meet.
Councilmember Paine recognized staff time was a huge burden, but some of the boards provide a lot of
information and support for the community like the DEIA commission, the economic development
commission has done a lot of great work on the comprehensive plan, the climate protection committee has
been doing a lot of community engagement, etc. She asked when the task force will make a recommendation
and can that timeline be accelerated. She noted the boards and commissions each have different charter and
asked if there had been any analysis of that. Council President Olson responded all the boards and
commissions were originated by council so council has the authority to pause them; the intent is not to get
rid of any of the boards or commissions. Councilmember Paine asked when the task force will make a
recommendation. Council President Olson answered before the end of 2025.
Councilmember Eck said some of the boards and commissioners are specifically mentioned in the printed
amendment, but some non-mandatory boards and commissions are not mentioned such as the arts
commission and youth commission. She asked if the proposed mot ion was to pause every non-mandated
boards or only the ones listed under fiscal details. Council President Olson pointed out the list continued
onto the second page. Councilmember Eck advised the arts commission was not listed. Council President
Olson said the arts commission did not include any funding so it was not included on the list. She reiterated
the intent was not for the boards and commissions to meet, just that they would not follow their standard
schedule and the non-staff dollars on the form would be reduced. She left some funds for the ADB minutes.
Councilmember Eck clarified the motion is to pause all non-mandated boards and commissions including
those not listed; the ones not listed did not have dollar amounts associated with them. Council President
Olson agreed.
Councilmember Eck acknowledged in particular the DEIA commissioners, many of who are professionals
in the field, speak for more community members than may be realized, whether they are LGBTQIA
community members or supporters, it is not just accessibility, it’s culture and everything. While
unfortunate, she understands why the council is having this conversation. A case could be made for all the
boards and commissions as they are all important in different ways. Unfortunately the City is dealing with
a budget crisis and this pause makes sense while the overall shape of boards and commissions is being
considered. Although painful, she supports the motion.
Council President Olson asked Ms. Feser or Mr. Tatum whether they saw value in pausing boards and
commissions. Mr. Tatum responded staff spends a considerable amount of time staffing and responding to
boards and commissions so pausing them would gain a fair amount of staff time. He appreciated the ability
for the mayor to allow special meetings. One of the things that would be challenging to implement is a
complete pause is the arts commission which generates revenue, approximately $57,000 between
sponsorships, Write on the Sound, and they done a lot of work. Having the ability to convene them to
continue those revenue generating activities would be helpful. Ms. Feser concurred with Mr. Tatum’s
comments, relaying staff’s availability to do other work will be important in upcoming years especially
with staff reductions. She appreciated the flexibility to convene boards and commissions if necessary.
Working with the task force will provide direction long term.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 3, 2024
Page 35
Councilmember Nand commented Edmonds uses boards, committees and commissions more than other
cities, but other cities use consultant to fulfill that same role in seeking community input and engagement.
For example, some tree board members are licensed arborists. When updating the tree code, the City could
hire a consultant or utilize the tree board. She hoped during this pause when there was a need for community
engagement or input, instead of hiring consultant, the administration would reconvene the board, committee
or commission so the passionate volunteers could do that work much less expensively than a consultant.
Councilmember Chen commented as staff levels are reduced through budget cuts, it will be important for
volunteer boards and commissions to step forward when they are needed. He appreciated the way Council
President Olson structured this amendment, providing the flexibility to call on volunteers when there is a
need, but freeing up staff time to support them. He expressed support for the motion.
Councilmember Dotsch relayed she also liked the flexibility of this amendment. She agreed with
Councilmember Nand that Edmonds has a very active and engaged public and people are very invested in
the community which is one of the reasons it is such a great community. As positions are eliminated,
programs cut, and efforts made to manage staff’s bandwidth, this opportunity to pause boards and
commissions will be very helpful.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
EXTEND TO 11:40.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY,
COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, DOTSCH AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER OF
ADJOURNMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF
ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 42.30.090, THE DECEMBER 3, 2024,
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN ADJOURNED UNTIL 6
PM ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2024, AT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Council President Olson anticipated the council could complete the budget amendments in an hour at an
adjourned meeting starting at 6 pm.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:28 pm, the meeting was continued to December 4, 204 at 6 pm.
8.2.a
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
3
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
[
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
]
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
3
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes December 4, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-04 Council Adjourned Minutes
8.3
Packet Pg. 55
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 3, 2024
Adjourned until December 4, 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
Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
The Edmonds City Council adjourned meeting was called to order at 6 pm by Mayor Rosen.
COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING (Continued)
Councilmember Dotsch withdrew her three amendments, advising she would speak to it during council
comments.
Parking Fees Increase Residential and Employee
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO
INCREASE BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE PARKING FEES FROM $25/YEAR
AND $50/YEAR TO $75/YEAR AND $120/YEAR RESPECTIVELY.
Councilmember Paine explained the residential and employee street parking fees have not changed since
2024. The value of downtown street parking is not associated with what the private sector would charge
nor is it valued according to the adjacent property. If approved, an ordinance amending ECC 8.52 would
be in order. This increase will bring the permit fees to more closely reflect the value of on street parking
and more closely reflect the rate of inflation over the past 10 years, discourage the purchase of excess
parking passes, free up street parking for visitors and tourists, and the change would be a start for the
valuation of the right-of-way parking lane. In 2024, parking permits brought in approximately $13,000 this
year and residential permits brought in $10,000. Increasing parking permit fees bring will be closer to parity
to what is charged in the private sector and may free up parking spaces. She clarified the motion was to
increase the residential parking permit to $75/year and the employee parking permit to $120/year.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 2
Councilmember Nand asked the rationale for inverting the higher and lower cost for residential and
employee permits. Councilmember Paine answered employers typically purchase parking passes for their
employees which she confirmed with City Clerk Scott Passey. It may be a business write off and part of the
employee benefit packet. The proposed increase equates to $10/month for an employee parking permit.
Councilmember Nand said she would be okay with increasing fees but preferred employees be charged less
than residents because while it may be claimed on taxes or be part of an employee benefit packet, some of
the employees are working retail or restaurant earning minimum wage, whereas most residents who would
be seeking parking passes tend to be in the downtown area and she associated them with being more
affluent.
Council President Olson liked the idea of the employee parking permit being less, thinking the employees
were paying for it themselves and in the downtown core are mostly minimum wage workers. She was not
sure she felt differently about that even if the employer was paying for the parking permit. The City wants
businesses to be successful and remain in business. The current rates are surprising low, but she would
prefer $60 for the employee permit and $120 for residential permits.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO $60 FOR AN EMPLOYEE PERMIT AND $120 FOR RESIDENTIAL
ANNUAL PARKING PASSES.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if a residential parking pass and a guest pass was the same. Councilmember
Paine advised a guest (visitor) parking pass is $10/year. Councilmember Dotsch commented $10 is a pretty
good deal; she asked if the guest passes were linked to a license plate or residence. She agreed the cost of
the employee parking permit adds to the cost of doing business so it is reasonable to have the employee
parking permit be less than the residential permit. She noted parking in Seattle is much more expensive,
recognizing Edmonds is not Seattle, and wondered if any comparables were considered.
Councilmember Chen asked about parking fees in other cities. Councilmember Paine responded she had
not done that level of research as this was a decision the council could make for the community.
Councilmember Chen commented some employees are working at lower wage positions and he preferred
the employee permit be lower than the residential permit. Councilmember Paine responded as it was
explained to her by Mr. Passey, the employer purchases the employee passes. How that is negotiated
between the employee and employer would be anecdotal and she was not sure what that looks like.
Councilmember Eck said she was sensitive to increasing the cost for anyone working in the city, however,
the City should be looking at fees annually. The parking permit fees have not been raised for a while and
many community members would probably expect the City to reasonably increase these rates. She was
unsure the increase needed to be scientific, what has been proposed is modest on a monthly basis.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Olson asked if a visitor parking pass was issued for one day or annually. Mr. Passey
answered a visitor permit purchased with a residential parking permit is $10. A visitor permit purchased
without a residential parking permit is $25. Ms. Dunscombe explained due to how those funds are receipted,
it is an annual pass. A resident can purchase an annual residential pass and if they choose to, also purchase
an annual visitor pass at that time. Council President Olson asked if the visitor pass was tied to a license
plate. Mr. Passey explained a residential parking can be issued up to two visitor parking permits per
residential address. Proof of residency is required and a visitor is defined as the guest of a person who
resides within the permit zone, provided that the guest is not a resident of the residential address for which
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 3
the permit was issued. Council President Olson commented an annual visitor pass should be more than the
residential parking permit.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL VISITOR PASS TO $150.
Councilmember Nand found that amount punitive, fearing it would disincentivize people from purchasing
a visitor pass at all because they could just have guests utilize street parking. She preferred a lower amount
such as $30-$50.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND
THE MOTION TO LOWER THE RESIDENTIAL VISITOR PERMIT TO $30.
Councilmember Paine commented her rationale and thinking is the permits are used for people coming in
from out of town for events like parades, Oktoberfest, the Arts Festival, etc. Parking is at a premium in the
busy, active downtown zone. She would like to support a lower cost visitor permit because that is friendly,
but this zone is highly utilized and she wanted the parking spaces to be valued in a meaningful way. She
did not support the amendment.
Councilmember Chen asked for clarification whether the original motion was $150/guest parking
permit/year and the amendment was to $30/ guest permit/year. Councilmember Paine agreed those were
the motions. Councilmember Chen said he could support $30, but not $150. Guests come infrequently for
special occasions and $150 would be really punitive.
Council President Olson asked if someone who owned a house in this parking zone purchased a visitor
permit, could they give it to anyone coming to visit them. Mr. Passey answered the visitor permit is tied to
a specific vehicle and is not transferable; it would be used for a frequent visitor, etc. Council President
Olson asked what stopped someone from purchasing a visitor parking permit instead of a residential permit.
Mr. Passey answered the person cannot live within the residential zone, they must have an address outside
the zone to be considered a visitor. Council President Olson joked she was sure no one would figure out
how to get around that which was all the more reason to make the visitor permit the same $120 as the
residential parking permit. She summarized $30 is too low due to it being subject to abuse, but if it was
attached to one person and that person was the only one using it and they did not live at the residence, she
could support $30. She did not anticipate that was how it would be used so she did not support the lower
amount.
Councilmember Dotsch clarified this only affects areas where parking passes can be used; people can park
in other areas for free without a permit. Mr. Passey agreed there are designated residential zones.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled speaking to a resident who purchased a visitor permit for her son away at
college who visits during breaks. She asked if a vehicle with a parking permit could be parked as long as
someone wanted. Mr. Passey answered the City’s parking limit is 72 hours. Councilmember Dotsch did not
support the amendment, finding $30 too low.
Councilmember Nand reminded councilmembers that the budget defunds the parking enforcement officer.
The likelihood of people respecting the law and paying a significant higher amount without parking
enforcement and just depending on law enforcement officers to enforce parking makes it more likely that
people faced with sticker shock of $120 or $150 for a visitor permit will just bypass purchasing a visitor
permit and the City won’t collect any or significant less revenue. She encouraged councilmember to
increase the cost of a visitor parking permit from $10 to $30 rather than increasing it to $120 or $150.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 4
Councilmember Eck asked for confirmation that the cost is currently $10 per license place to park 72 hours
at a time. Mayor Rosen agreed. Councilmember Eck commented that is a really good deal and she did not
see any benefit to increasing the cost from $10 to $30. She did not support the amendment.
Councilmember Paine asked if someone can purchase more than one visitor permit. Mr. Passey answered
the cost is $10/visitor permit for someone with a valid residential permit and $25 without a valid residential
parking permit. There are no limits on the number of permits.
Councilmember Chen pointed out the $150 in the original motion exceeded the $120 cost of the resident
permit. An increase from $10 to $30 is a 200% increase.
Council President Olson did not support the amendment. Nobody expects when go to visit someone that
they will be handed a parking permit. This is a total luxury and only people who can afford to buy guests a
parking pass would do so. Visitors can be dropped off and have someone park the car. There are exceptions
for disabled parking that do not require permits. The lower fee is problematic due to the ability for someone
living at the residence to easily abuse it. She relayed her intent to offer an amendment to make the visitor
permit the same $120 as a residential permit.
Councilmember Nand said if she were a resident in the downtown residential BD1 and 2 zones that are
subject to parking permits and had been paying $10/year/visitor permit and was suddenly asked to pay $120
or $150, she would forego that purchase. She envisioned increasing the cost would be a deterrent to the
City collecting additional revenue. The parking enforcement officer brought in over $60,000 in revenue in
2024, revenue the City will not have due to not funding that position in 2025. She encouraged
councilmembers when looking at fees to not engage in revenue deterrent moves from the dais.
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND NAND VOTING YES.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
MAKE THE VISITOR PASS $120.
Councilmember Paine relayed the code states no more than three permits shall be issued to any one
residence, but she was unsure she was looking at the right code. She found $120 acceptable as it would be
$10/month.
Councilmember Dotsch commented Councilmember Nand made a valid point about the budget not funding
a parking enforcement officer which she envisioned would create some issues. As housing increases and
less parking is required, parking will become an issue. There are a lot of seniors who live downtown who
may be on fixed incomes, recalling the comprehensive plan showed people living with less means
downtown. She did not support the amendment, but could support $60 to match the employee parking
permit.
Councilmember Tibbott commented the council is shooting in the dark and doesn’t have a great idea how
the permits are used. He did not support $120 for a visitor permit.
AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PAINE AND ECK VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO MAKE
THE VISITOR PASS $60.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 5
Councilmember Chen commented this would be the same as the employee parking permit. It is still
affordable and half of the cost of the residential parking permit. This is a compromise and no scientific
method was used to arrive at that amount.
Councilmember Dotsch hoped a more in-depth analysis could be done next year. She agreed with the
proposed increase.
Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmember Paine for bringing this forward and beginning this
discussion. Councilmember Chen’s compromise of $60 is more palatable and she will support it.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the proposed $60 visitor parking permit. It was her
understanding in email correspondence with staff that some of the money in Fund 121 supported the parking
enforcement officer. She was hopeful with the police department reorganization that that position could be
restored. She asked for confirmation that there is still has one parking enforcement office and the second
one will be laid off. Ms. Dunscombe explained the police department has two ordinance officers, one is
animal control and one is parking enforcement. The animal control position is vacant and proposed to
remain vacant and the parking enforcement officer is in the proposed budget as a layoff so both positions
will be vacant in 2025. Councilmember Paine acknowledged that will be a challenge. She expressed support
for the amendment.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2026 Levy Lid Lift - Staff Recommendation #19
Ms. Dunscombe explained this recommendation is to remove the $5M interfund loan in 2026 and replace
it with a $6M levy lid lift. Even with last night’s motions to reduce spending, in looking at the numbers,
she did not feel there had been enough change to lower the levy lid lift from $6M. Her recommendation is
a levy lid lift of $6M.
Council President Olson asked the benefit of this approach versus a loan. Ms. Dunscombe explained one
of the reason for changing it to an ongoing revenue is to be able to pay back the loan and the reserves.
Without a substantial and ongoing revenue source, paying back the loan and fulfilling the reserve
requirement cannot be done. Replacing the loan with an ongoing revenue source will fulfill the motion
council made earlier in the process to restore the reserves. In addition, the proposed budget does not abide
by the state auditor’s office request to pay back the interfund loans within a three year timeframe. That
cannot be done with the current revenues and expenses, but changing the loan to an ongoing revenue source
will allow it.
Council President Olson said there was only one assumption in the budget as originally proposed which
she did not think was outlandish. She found it scary for the budget to rely on both passing, but she
recognized the need for a levy of some size. If the levy was not approved, she asked if the fallback would
be borrowing or making more cuts. Mayor Rosen said there would be more cuts. Ms. Dunscombe relayed
the loan in 2026 isn’t an option; expenses would have to be reduced further. Mayor Rosen added expenses
would have to be reduced to match revenue as well as repay the loan. Ms. Dunscombe agreed, commenting
that was another reason the administration felt another round of reductions needed to be made because the
$7.5M loan was too much. Given there was so much relying on the passage of a levy lid lift, the risk needed
to be lessened by reducing the loan in 2025. All those pieces needed to move together, reducing the loan in
2025 which reduces the risk of a levy not passing. It took several years get into this position, it will take
several years to get out. She agreed relying on a levy passing at the end of 2025 and making adjustments to
the mid-biennium budget was scary, but having a loan in 2026 isn’t an option for financial stability going
forward.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 6
Councilmember Nand said she has more comfort with this change due to the structural budget gap and
extremely painful cuts being made to staff. She did not see how, unless affirmative steps were taken to try
to bridge the structural budget gap, that there could be a functional city government going forward.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE REMOVAL OF THE $5 MILLION INTERFUND LOAN IN THE 2026 PROPOSED
BUDGET AND REPLACE IT WITH A $6 MILLION LEVY LID LIFT.
Councilmember Nand referred to the barrage of hate the council has received from the public about raising
taxes. However, the council is not looking at cutting into essential services including revenue generating
opportunities as the council just discussed, the parking enforcement officer. She was very concerned if the
council doesn’t aggressively pursue ways to raise revenue in addition to cutting expenses, Edmonds may
not have a functional city government in a few years. It is appropriate and responsible to signal to the
taxpayers that the council will be proposing a levy lid lift in 2025 in this amount and this is the impact it
would have on the 2026 budget. It makes the finance department’s job easier and inserts some certainty
into the process. This is a very uncertain time for the City, with the fiscal emergency, the City’s first biennial
budget, the first time budgeting by priorities (BBP) was used; the less variables of uncertainty there can be
in the assumptions, the more intelligently the council can go forward in their jobs as city legislators in
planning how city government will function going forward.
Councilmember Chen appreciated the thought behind this, but it was difficult for him to support at this
point. Regardless of whether there is a levy lid lift or internal borrowing, there is uncertainty all around. In
the end it all depends on voters’ approval of the levy as well as RFA annexation. For example, if the City
ends up contracting for fire/EMS services for another year in 2026, the City will need to come up with
another $11M net of transport fees. That is also part of this discussion. He anticipated the state legislature
would take action on the 1% property tax restriction during this session which will be another factor. There
are so many factors to consider, but right now the council is just trying to balance the budget either with a
levy lid lift or internal borrowing.
Mayor Rosen commented it is likely course corrections will need to be made. It is the intent for the
administration and council to look for additional cuts beyond the targets to reduce the loan amount and
interest and hopefully demonstrate to the community that the levy is a reasonable ask and for all the reasons
the City is asking, is valid and justified. Regardless of the council’s decision, if the council puts a levy on
the ballot and it fails, there will need to be a course correction. To underscore what Ms. Dunscombe shared,
an interfund loan in 2026 is not an option. It would seem the council would want to tell the public they have
a plan and the plan is a levy and then have the conversation about the reasons. This proposal also complies
with decisions the council made earlier in the process which are now out of alignment.
Ms. Dunscombe relayed Mike Bailey and the Blue Ribbon Panel’s original recommendation was to borrow
in 2025 and have a levy lid lift in 2026. There is also technical language in the RCWs regarding exactly
what a balanced budget is; it is quite possible that having a loan in 2026 does not technically make it a
balanced budget although 2026 would end with a fund balance above zero. There is verbiage in the RCW
regarding revenues and fund balance therein which also means revenue and fund balance within the General
Fund, meaning a loan to balance the budget isn’t not considered therein, thereby not necessarily making it
a balanced budget. She has never been through a situation where that has been interpreted in a different
way or has been called out, but she felt having the loan in the second year makes the City vulnerable to not
proposing a balance budget.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
CALL THE QUESTION.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 7
In response to Mayor Rosen’s inquiry, City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised there is no debate on a motion
to call the question and a super majority is required for approval.
CALL THE QUESTION FAILED (4-3).
Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Dunscombe for bringing this to council last night and allowing time to
think about it. This is the right decision and council will end up figuring things out after the vote at the end
of next year. She wished it wasn’t necessary, but this is super responsible.
Councilmember Eck commented this isn’t a surprise, the council has been discussing it. While it isn’t
pleasant for the council or community to hear, the council has been cutting a lot, but it is not possible for
the council to cut their way out of this. That doesn’t mean the council and administration couldn’t and
shouldn’t continue looking for efficiencies and other things to cut moving forward. To pass a balanced
budget, it is important to have revenue to offset expenses. She expressed support for the motion.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if the ending fund balance in 2025 and 2026 was better or worse than what
was in the mayor’s proposed budget. Ms. Dunscombe answered with all the fluctuations, she was sure it
would be better, but not by much. What looks better is the strategic outlook in the years going forward. She
chose the $6M levy lid lift to keep the biennium at almost the same ending fund balance in 2026. It is
definitely the way the fund balance grows and allows replenishing reserves and pay back the 2025 loan in
2 years that makes this levy lid lift imperative to make that math work. It doesn’t change the ending fund
balance in 2026 by much.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if expenses in 2025 are greater than 2024. Ms. Duncombe answered not
recurring expenses. Expenses in 2025 will be better; she included a $3M repayment in 2026 for the 2025
interfund loan which makes expenses in 2026 higher than 2025. Councilmember Dotsch asked about
without the loan. Ms. Dunscombe answered with the $1.5M reduction in 2025 and $2M in 2026, recurring
expenses are definitely going in the right direction, but she could not say for certain if recurring expenses
in 2026 would be more or less than expenses in 2025.
Councilmember Dotsch commented there are so many unknowns and she felt more could be done. She
worried about putting this burden on the taxpayers because in addition to the assumption that the RFA
annexation passes, that will be close to a 135% tax increase. She acknowledged difficult cuts have been
made but 2019 is quite different regardless of inflation; a lot of things were done, structural issues, that
haven’t been balanced. She worried if the council asks for money and doesn’t fix those and continues to
grow, there will be future asks of the taxpayers. She did not support the motion.
Mayor Rosen commented even if council stayed at 2019 and tried to keep par with inflation, it is still a slow
death because revenues do not keep up. When the council unbanked four years of property tax increases, it
was a total of $700,000. Everything possible needs to be done in every area including finding new revenue
streams, being as lean as possible and being honest with the public that things cost more and until there are
other options, this is how the City gets revenue.
Councilmember Chen commented the reality is City’s revenues are not keeping up with expenses. Going
out to the taxpayers who are also burdened with county and state tax increases is a big ask.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NAND, TO USE THE $2 MILLION CONTINGENCY RESERVE AND REDUCE THE LEVY LID
LIFT TO $4 MILLION.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 8
Mayor Rosen asked for clarification. Councilmember Chen explained using the $2M contingency reserve
for operations was the original intent, it would reduce the levy lid lift and the council should also consider
the other option of selling assets to generate cash.
Ms. Dunscombe asked if Councilmember Chen would be open to using the $2M contingency fund to reduce
the loan in 2025 which would also reduce the levy lid lift in 2026 although likely not dollar for dollar
because funds would need to be allocated to replenishing the contingency reserve. While that gives some
time in 2025 to consider the revenue options presented at the November 2 meeting or other one-time things
that can be sold, it would buy some time. She felt that would be a better use of the contingency. It would
require passing a resolution, amending the budget with budget authority, and replenishing the contingency
reserve at some point in time. Councilmember Chen agreed with that line of thinking, reducing the internal
borrowing in 2025 which would also reduce the interest as well.
Councilmember Chen restated the amendment with the agreement of the second:
USE $2 MILLION OF THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE TO REDUCE INTERNAL BORROWING
IN 2025 THEREBY REDUCING THE LEVY LID LIFT IN 2026.
Councilmember Chen explained using the $2M contingency reserve to further reduce internal borrowing
from the utility fund in 2025 would allow the levy lid lift in 2026 to be reduced to $4M.
For Councilmember Nand, Ms. Dunscombe clarified the request is to use $2M in the contingency fund 012.
She would make a transfer from the contingency fund at the beginning of the year into the General Fund.
It has never been her intent to do a loan for the full amount, but borrow as needed. This is would buy some
time to think about revenue options and likely change the amount that needs to be borrowed. From an
adopted budget standpoint, she was unsure it would reduce the levy lid lift in 2026 dollar for dollar, but it
would play out closely. Councilmember Nand commented this would be zeroing out the 4% cushion that
had been preserved. Ms. Dunscombe advised there would be about $200,000 left. Councilmember Nand
said the 16% reserve has already been spent and she was uncomfortable with going to zero on the remaining
4% because those funds may be necessary if there is an emergency. If Councilmember Chen and Ms.
Dunscombe support this, she will maintain her second for discussion.
Councilmember Paine said she had the same concerns as Councilmember Nand. She was very
uncomfortable with doing this quite yet since there will be tinkering occurring throughout next year. The
council hasn’t made many steps toward recurring revenue options; there may be some one time options.
She preferred to build confidence that the council was looking for sustainable revenue options. She want
the council to actively participate in searching for revenue options before she could support this.
Councilmember Dotsch agreed with Councilmember Paine, there are so many unknowns and moving
pieces, the public just heard about this last night and there was no opportunity for public comments at this
meeting. She preferred to see where the City is in the fi rst quarter next year, rather than blindly running
forward on this option when there are other options for the council to pursue next year. She did not support
the amendment or the main motion.
Councilmember Eck asked under the scenario of using the contingency fund, what would the City do in the
event of an unexpected emergency. Ms. Dunscombe said she was unsure how far $2M would go in a natural
catastrophe, but it definitely increases the risk of the City being unable to respond which is why the
contingency fund has remained in place. In the event of an emergency, there is the option of an interfund
loan from the utilities or, depending on the emergency, seek outside help such as FEMA which is usually
reimbursement or other state or federal grants. If there were no contingency funds available, her initial go-
to would be an interfund loan. She did not feel comfortable using contingency money, but $2M is definitely
not enough depending on the emergency that occurred. Mayor Rosen assumed Councilmember Chen’s
interest was finding the cheapest money; instead of borrowing from the utility funds that requires paying
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 9
interest, use the contingency which does not require paying interest. As Ms. Dunscombe said, if something
happened, the City could still borrow from the utility fund.
Council President Olson said using the cheapest money that the City does not have to pay interest on makes
the most sense. The only caveat is how quickly the City could borrow money. This would just swapping
out the loan for the contingency fund; if it is just as easy to access funds via a loan as the contingency fund
when/if there was an emergency, she didn’t see any difference other than a resolution is required to use the
contingency funds. Ms. Dunscombe responded this is creating a lot of what ifs; depending on the
emergency, the utilities will also need funds. What ifs are why cities have contingency funds in the first
place. This is another reason for solid ongoing revenue, building the contingency and reserves back up
which a loan in 2026 does not allow. Even in the thought process that this is the cheapest money, it provides
more time to work through 2025 with more reductions if that is council’s choice, exercising other revenue
ideas and making changes to 2026. Barring nothing happening, that is risk of not having a contingency to
fall back on. Council President Olson expressed support for the amendment, assuring the council is highly
committed to working on revenue streams and not just relying solely on property taxes. The council and
administration is scrambling to do the due diligence to get other revenue options up and running.
Councilmember Chen commented if the $2M contingency fund is used to balance the budget for now, when
2025 comes around, all options can be considered including selling city assets to replenish the contingency
fund when such revenues are identified. He concluded this is a wise move and it also reduces interfund
utility borrowing and interest payments.
Councilmember Eck commented this is a very important conversation to have and she appreciated
Councilmember Chen’s amendment. What sticks with her is Ms. Dunscombe’s remark that staff
recommendation is intended to achieve long-term sustainable revenue. She assured she and other
councilmembers take this very seriously, but the fact is the budget hasn’t been balanced with regard to
revenue. Not taking this action risks kicking the can down the road and continuing to have these
conversations and moving money around without fixing the long term problem. With regard to selling
assets, the City doesn’t have a lot of big ticket items to sell tomorrow; even if one of the buildings is sold,
that may take a year or longer. The City needs revenue more quickly than that so she will support the
original motion, but not the amendment.
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER CHEN
VOTING YES.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DOTSCH AND CHEN VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine advised the next step is the budget ordinance which will be presented on December
17. Mr. Taraday agreed there will need to be budget ordinance, but he has not verified the date with Ms.
Dunscombe. Mayor Rosen asked if a motion was required to direct Mr. Taraday to prepare the budget
ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered no, it’s obvious it has to happen; he will work on it with Ms. Dunscombe.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Chen wanted the public to know that the council, mayor, the administration, and staff are
all working toward the same goal which is to deliver a balanced budget and find ways to correct the ship,
but that will take time. He asked the public to be patient and work with them because we’re all in it together
and one way or another, will get over it.
Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmember Chen’s comments. He was confident as the council
continues to work on the financial situation over the course of the year, there will be opportunities to
reorganize departments, raise revenues in ways that make sense for the City in light of the changing
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 10
economy of the state and nation, and some really big changes will occur in the coming year that will inform
decisions that need to be made before the end 2025 and the conclusion of the biennium. He encouraged
everyone to roll up their sleeves and be ready for 2025, anticipating it would be a really great year in which
a lot of positive things would happen.
Council President Olson concurred with Councilmembers Chen and Tibbott’s comments. She harkened
back to the fact this is a brand new administration and the Blue Ribbon Panel dug into the City’s finances
during the first six months, providing a report in June. She was amazed by what the administration, mayor
and Ms. Dunscombe had been able to accomplish. This was the first budget that used BBP process and the
first biennial budget. She recalled Mr. Bailey saying BBP would be a bumpy road and there would need to
be grace. Nobody here could have worked any harder than they did, including Council Legislative Assistant
Beckie Peterson. It has been a labor of love and she assured the City will be saved. It has been a lot of work
and she was proud of everyone, especially the council . She thanked Mayor Rosen and Ms. Dunscombe.
She promised the council will work just as hard on revenues, aware that there are things already underway.
Council President Olson announced the Edmonds Civic Roundtable will be hosting an event for newly
electeds at the Point Edwards Clubhouse on December 5 at 5:30 pm.
Councilmember Dotsch thanked those who attended and those who spoke at yesterday’s meeting, assuring
the council values their input. Decisions are still being made and the council wants to continue hearing from
the public. There were 53 revenue opportunities identified, selling assets was not the only one. Increasing
parking permits was another example of things that can be done. Fresh minds/faces have been able to stir
things up and say business as usual is not the way to go. She appreciated all the hard work everyone has
done, recognizing it had been very emotional. With regard to her three budget amendments, she did not
present them based on Councilmember Nand’s amendment related to the police; she wanted to wait and see
what happens in the first quarter and give the administration time to present what they have been able to
do. The council did not discuss the Police Command Staff Comps that were on last night’s agenda and she
suggested bringing that back to council. The comps indicate the Edmonds police chief’s salary is almost
44% above the median of comparator cities on the low end and 17% above the median on the high end.
Councilmember Paine commented there are a few bright spots with this budget such as a grant writer to
help support programs and to look for revenue opportunities. She looked forward to seeing what comes
from that. There are a lot of talented people with great ideas. The next two years will be interesting,
including pausing boards and commissions, something the City needs to provide communication about.
This budget has been a hard process with a lot of information. She appreciated the representatives from the
RFA attending yesterday’s meeting. She recalled a member of the public asking when they will have an
opportunity to talk to the RFA; there will be opportunities in the future once the council approves the pre-
annexation agreement. She wished everyone a restful rest of the week.
Councilmember Nand made a statement of grief and sorrow for the hardworking members of City staff who
will be losing their jobs in the new year, who dedicated a good portion of careers to serving the community
and the city. She had some contingent amendments that she would have made if more savings could have
been identified by the end of the year, but council decided to push that out to April 1. She acknowledged
Parking Enforcement Officer Missy, HR Analysis Emily Waegner, and Camera Operator Jerrie Bevington,
real human beings for whom this is not a day of celebration, joy or relief. They did absolutely nothing
wrong and are now losing their jobs due to financial mismanagement and dysfunction in city government.
She summarized for her this is a day of sorrow and a grievous process.
Councilmember Eck commented for businesses, particularly nonprofits, the last thing they want to do is
layoff staff, but that doesn’t mean hard decisions aren’t made, that cuts aren’t made and that cuts are never
made to staff. To the previous councilmember’s point, it is a hard decision and anything that effects service
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 4, 2024
Page 11
levels to the community is also a hard decision. The council had to make some tough choices; when
councilmembers are elected, they accept responsibility for doing that. She thanked the public for their
comments, ideas and valuable input. She thanked the directors and staff, particularly those who are directly
impacted by the decisions the council has made. Obviously councilmembers are not homogonous and that
makes them better. Councilmembers all have different views, backgrounds, careers and strengths they bring
to the role of councilmember. Having councilmembers all feel the same way would not be good for the
community because community members do not all feel the same. When councilmembers have different
opinions and they listen to each other to solve these hard issues, they are adequately representing everyone
in the community and throughout each neighborhood. These same strategies can be used moving forward
to solve other hard issues in the coming year. The public’s feedback and ideas contributed to the success of
budget decisions. She invited the public to encourage friends and family who do not live in Edmonds to
visit Edmonds’ cafés, restaurants and stores where there is a lot of holiday fare and they will find Edmonds
a remarkable places to visit.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Rosen commented as the year began, it was clear everyone in Edmonds would be touched by
decisions that were made and anytime the City is not in a position where they have all the money and time
they need, nobody will be happy and at some point things effect everybody and everyone shares in the pain.
Throughout the year and especially during the last couple weeks, he has seen the community, staff and
councilmembers bring their best to the table every day because this City is worth bringing your best.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the adjourned council meeting was adjourned at 7:19 pm.
8.3.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
0
4
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
A
d
j
o
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
4
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes December 10, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-10 Council Special Minutes
8.4
Packet Pg. 67
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 10, 2024
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Chris Eck, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember (arrived 5:37 p.m.)
Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir.
Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually.
2. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. REVIEW OF FINAL EIS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Planning & Development Director Shane Hope introduced Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston and
Lindsey Amtmann, Herrara. She relayed the final EIS has been issued, is published online and has been
submitted to the State Department of Ecology. The final EIS incorporated information from the draft EIS
and other input and tweaking to make it a final EIS. The purpose of tonight’s presentation is to review it at
a high level and respond to any questions/concerns.
Ms. Hope reviewed the EIS scope and process:
• What is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)?
o Washington state law adopted in 1971 to inform government agencies and the public about
environmental considerations for proposals
o Provides method to identify environmental impacts and mitigation opportunities before action
is taken
• What is Environmental Impact Statement?
o Tool for identifying and analyzing environmental aspects of proposal
▪ The EIS process:
- Provides opportunities for the public, local, state and federal agencies, and tribal
governments to participate in developing and analyzing information.
- Provides decision-makers with environmental information
- Identifies significant impacts
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 2
- Recommends reasonable alternatives for accomplishing proposal
- Identifies potential mitigation for impacts
• Types of EIS
o There are two types of EIS:
• EIS Process Steps
• Preferred Alternative
o SEPA provides for selection of a “preferred alternative” in EIS process (but does not require
it)
o Naming a preferred alternative critical area signal the approach thought to be the most likely
for the plan or project ad clarify key things to consider
o City council selected a preferred alternative on November 4, 2024 to include a modified
combination of the two action alternatives identified in the draft EIS and draft comprehensive
plan.…
• FEIS and Final Plan
o A Final EIS includes public comments along with any updates from Draft EIS
o Edmonds’ FEIS was published online December 9, 2024
o City’s comprehensive plan may be adopted only after final EIS is issued
Lindsey Amtmann, Environmental Planner, Herrera Environmental Consultants, commented staff has done
a tremendous job working with the team of scientists, engineers and planners to develop the EIS and issue
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 3
it to the Department of Ecology. The EIS has been formally issued and is on City’s website for review.
SEPA has a rule where a project proponent such as the City of Edmonds must wait at least 7 days after the
final EIS is issued to make a decision, meaning selecting and adopting an updated comprehensive plan. A
couple of things heard during the comment period on the draft EIS that she wanted to ensure the council
was aware of, was the EIS is not detailed enough which she noted is a natural reaction to looking at a non-
project EIS. Most people are used to looking at project EIS for something like an intersection improvement
where the exact impacts on transportation or a nearby school are addressed and the exact mitigation such
as lane channelization and lighting. That cannot be done for a programmatic EIS; it is a very qualitative
analysis. This EIS meets the SEPA requirements for non-project EIS. Some comments were unsatisfied
with that and wanted to know more about the details. The responses in the comment summary are that
individual projects will undergo a project-specific SEPA analysis when they are proposed; that could be a
SEPA checklist if a project is not anticipating significant impacts or it could be an EIS if significant impacts
are expected.
Ms. Amtmann continued, another comment they heard a lot was why isn’t the EIS looking at certain
elements of the environment such as soils, seismic areas or tsunamis. That goes back to the beginning of
the project; in accordance with the SEPA scoping period, 1½ years ago the City did a SEPA scoping which
includes a published notice of the EIS and seeking input about what should be considered in the EIS. People
weighed in, the City considered comments and developed a list of elements that may have significant
impacts. Because, for example, there are no significant impacts anticipated to soil, that is not considered in
the EIS. The City doesn’t want to waste tax dollars or staff time looking at something that won’t have
significant impacts. The City also must follow SEPA which requires including significant adverse impacts.
She acknowledged there are a handful of elements of the environment that not in the EIS. The EIS is
completely adequate per SEPA and those elements simply aren’t included because significant impacts are
not anticipated. She concluded those were probably the two issues the council would hear from the public
about the most.
Councilmember Dotsch asked the results of the analysis. Ms. Amtmann responded there are no significant
impacts on any element of the environment with the exception of transportation. There is a segment of
Highway 99 northbound that will have a significant drop in its level of service (LOS) under the no action
alternative (not adopting an updated comprehensive plan and not comply with GMA) as well as under
Alternatives A and B. There were questions raised about whether the City was okay with that and just accept
that terrible LOS and the response is the City will continue working with WSDOT to address this, but the
City has to comply with GMA and needs to have an updated comprehensive plan. There could be significant
impacts from a particular development, but not from the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled 196th & 88th which was a LOS D becomes LOS E; she asked if that was
significant. Ms. Amtmann answered dropping one level is traditionally not considered significant.
Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding an E LOS was acceptable. Ms. Amtmann answered yes.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled there were some issues related to water. Ms. Amtmann responded there
were multiple comments about runoff and erosion in particular areas. This EIS is looking generally at
impacts on water. If a development were proposed in an area with a steep slope next to a stream, that is a
critical area and that development will be subject to critical area regulations. The City’s code and State
Department of Ecology guidelines for stormwater and runoff get stronger every year. What might be have
been approved when someone purchased their house 20-50 years ago would not be approved today or would
require substantial mitigation, something many people are not aware of. That is addressed in the EIS;
specific projects will have to go through the process of complying with water quality regulations and
requirements.
Councilmember Dotsch inquired about water pressure for firefighting. Ms. Amtmann answered the City
consulted with public service providers like the water district, stormwater, etc., and those individual
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 4
agencies update their planning documents in response to growth and have to increase pressure as growth
occurs.
Councilmember Eck asked Ms. Amtmann to reiterate what she said about seismic threats and its
inclusion/omission in the final EIS. Ms. Amtmann answered the critical area ordinance covers geologically
hazardous areas which can be seismic, a risk of a slump or slide, that has to be considered if something will
be built in an area at the bottom of a steep slope. Seismic threat is difficult to analyze but it is covered in
the Edmonds code. For example, if someone wants build in Edmonds, they have to go through a SEPA
checklist or EIS and will have to look at that seismic threat; it could be they have to build to a higher
standard of seismic safety. This is a seismically active area and development cannot be prohibited, but the
code can require buildings are safe for the people living or doing business there.
Council President Olson relayed the sense of expectation that the EIS would make the City aware of areas
that required additional protection. She asked if that expectation was incorrect and not what the EIS was
for. Ms. Amtmann responded the EIS is not designed to point out where extra protection is needed, it is to
look at the potential impacts of not doing the project, or Alternative A or B. Areas that need extra protection,
critical areas, are already known and mapped. The EIS was updated in 3-4 places to say the updated
comprehensive plan will have maps that show block by block where a neighborhood center or hub is
located; rather than the representative blue and pink circles, it will show exactly where they are and overlaid
on a critical area map. For example, if a neighborhood center or hub was on a CARA, near a slope, etc.,
anyone that wants to develop there will have to ensure their stormwater runoff complies with Ecology or
whatever else they need to do related to building on a steep slope. Those maps will be in the plan, but they
are not part of the EIS.
Council President Olson commented when this process began, promises were made to one of the Highway
99 neighborhoods that their area would be looked at with more scrutiny and care; if that didn’t happen, she
wanted the council know that, because it may require revisiting that in the future. Ms. Amtmann answered
all areas of the City were considered equally. She recalled discussion about why the City wasn’t doing
another Highway 99 EIS and a decision was made to look at the entire City and not favor one area like
Highway 99 or the Bowl over another. No special consideration was given to Highway 99; it was considered
at the same high level as the rest of the City. Council President Olson asked the benefits of revisiting a
specific area like Highway 99 at this point. Ms. Amtmann answered it would depend on whether there was
a proposed action that might have significant impacts, then an EIS would be done. If the council just wanted
to ensure the community was being adequately represented and treated fairly, that is a separate process, not
SEPA; that is the code, public outreach, zoning and land use designations.
Councilmember Nand referred to page 36 of EIS, Community Engagement Framework, recalling when the
council accepted VIA or Herrera’s recommendation to do a citywide EIS instead of a specific EIS for
Highway 99, they were told there would be a level of community engagement for the subarea that would
address the concerns about repealing the ordinance requiring a separate EIS for Highway 99. She asked Ms.
Amtmann to described the equitable community engagement framework and how many public meetings
and public outreach were done on Highway 99. Ms. Amtmann explained the outreach was designed to let
people from all areas of the City have a voice and not favor one area over another. Ms. Hope responded the
SEPA process wasn’t particularly oriented to a particular neighborhood, however, there was a lot of process
as part of the comprehensive plan. She was not with the City then, but knew there was quite a bit of process
that included that area. If there are changes to be made to that area in terms of development regulations,
that would be another critical time to reach out to the community.
Councilmember Nand commented most of the community was unaware they had been upzoned to
Commercial General (GC) in 2017 and when big developments were proposed without transition elements,
the council began hearing from community activists in that area which is why the council responded with
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 5
a request for more community engagement and more buy-in from the Highway 99 community, an area that
is zoned differently than the rest of the City. Ms. Amtmann explained there is a requirement for public
involvement through SEPA which the City met and the City also elected to do additional outreach beyond
the bare minimum; a list of the meetings that were held is included in the EIS.
Councilmember Chen relayed his understand about treating the entire City equally and appreciated the
discussion related to Highway 99 where special regulations were needed for some of the projects that
happened there. With regard to applying the same lens to the entire City, he referred to the Perrinville where
there has been downstream flooding that the City has been dealing with for a long time. He asked what
approach was taken in the EIS study and what was the finding regarding the potential for accelerating
flooding in Perrinville. Ms. Amtmann answered Perrinville is a stream of concern for Edmonds and it was
her understanding a lot of work has been done on that steam. If a development were proposed in that area,
it would have to go through a SEPA analysis that looked at stormwater and would be required to comply
with Edmonds’ code related to stormwater and critical areas and the Department of Ecology. If a developer
wanted to build in an area that is already getting a lot of attention and is under stress, they would be faced
with that. She asked if the preferred comprehensive plan included a neighborhood hub in Perrinville. Ms.
Hope answered a neighborhood hub is proposed in Perrinville, part of the council’s preferred alternative;
the idea was if that went forward, it would allow a small area of Perrinville to have multifamily or
commercial. Meanwhile any existing development is still subject to all SEPA, stormwater, and critical area
regulations. The council can decide whether they want to keep Perrinville as a hub, recognizing it may be
a small amount of additional development.
Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for Ms. Hope sending out the updated number of housing
units that indicate the comprehensive plan capacity is approximately 10,100 units, more than the required
9,069 which means there is some room to allow the council to consider if they still want to proceed with
that hub.
Councilmember Paine referred to utilities and water issues and the indication “this may exceed conveyance
capacity, reservoir storage and water supply.” She recalled projects intended to improve water storage and
asked if there were ways to leverage the EIS to help with grant funding or help prioritize projects based on
the EIS. Ms. Amtmann answered the City could use the EIS as a way to say we need to negotiate with our
partner agencies for more supply. The comprehensive plan is the document to help look at the future. The
EIS is just comparing the alternatives, and is not the forward-looking vision for the City. Councilmember
Paine commented there is some data in the EIS about exceeding it by 18%. Ms. Amtmann explained that
information is taken from the City’s planning documents. The EIS could be cited in discussions and
planning documents.
Councilmember Dotsch relayed Edmonds residents are concerned about cumulative impacts. For example,
Five Corners, one development goes in, a second development goes in and they pass, but a third
development doesn’t pass. She asked who was responsible for the upgrades for that third development. Ms.
Amtmann asked what she meant by passed. Councilmember Dotsch responded it passed SEPA and all that
stuff. Ms. Amtmann agreed cumulative impacts were important to think about and is an important part of
most EIS. This EIS considered the cumulative impacts of adopting an updated comprehensive plan along
with the impacts of Lynnwood and Snohomish County updating their comprehensive plans. What
Councilmember Dotsch was talking about was a project level cumulative impact. The threshold for what is
considered in a cumulative impact analysis is called reasonably foreseeable; something that is in a
comprehensive plan, funded, and has gotten a permit. One wouldn’t be able to say they think the cumulative
of a hotel would be terrible because people might want to develop around it. That is not what SEPA
cumulative impacts looks at. It would look at the cumulative impacts of the hotel and the two other projects
and determine if there would be a significant impact on the environment and then the City issues that SEPA
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 6
checklist and the City decides whether or not to permit that project. The City looks at the cumulative impact
analysis to determine whether to approve a project.
Councilmember Dotsch relayed her understanding that did not come from the FEIS. Ms. Amtmann
answered the FEIS has no authority to approve or deny a project; it simply discloses impacts so the decision-
makers can use that information to make a decision. Councilmember Dotsch relayed she was trying to figure
out where that process bumps up against something being out of scale with the infrastructure. Edmonds has
very aged infrastructure. She commented on the cumulative impacts of HB-1110 which allows 2-3 units/per
lot and up to 4 if near transit, and centers and hubs which are also cumulative. She asked when the City has
the opportunity to say something is creating challenges. Ms. Amtmann answered it comes into play at the
project level where the City has the opportunity to permit or not permit every single project.
Councilmember Dotsch asked what the City can look to when saying yes or no. Ms. Hope answered it
doesn’t relate to this FEIS; it is a project specific question. There are two major kinds of cumulative impacts
that people typically think of, environmental/stormwater and infrastructure. Those get updated on a periodic
basis and are part of the planning process. There is an opportunity to update infrastructure facilities. In
addition there is a requirement for development to pay impact fees for transportation and parks as well as
connection fees so they pay a share of future improvements and expansion of the system. Ultimately if
something is unable to meet the City’s standards, then that development has to pay a share of the additional
costs or they are not allowed to develop if they not able to meet standards (concurrency). Improvements are
made over a course of 20 years to replace and expand the system, including contributions from
development.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled when the CFP/CIP was presented, it did not initially plan for this growth.
She asked if that would come later. Ms. Hope agreed it will come later, but there has been some planning
for additional capacity for water, sewer and stormwater.
Councilmember Dotsch recognized project level was different than the high level of this EIS. Edmonds
annexed a lot of semi-rural areas, a complex design for urban design. If upstream development can tap in,
but downstream pipes aren’t at capacity, when does that coordination come into play. Some areas have not
be updated for a while and other areas have been updated. Ms. Hope suggested talking with public works
regarding more details; in general, they look at those thing on an ongoing basis, both in terms of the system
being inadequate because it is older and the need for additional capacity. The water, stormwater and sewer
comprehensive plans are due to be updated soon.
3. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW 42.30.110(1)(I)
At 6:06 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i) until 6:33 pm.
Meeting Extension
At 6:31 pm, Mayor Rosen announced the executive session would be extended to 6:43 pm.
4. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The meeting reconvened at 6:43 pm.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:43 pm.
8.4.a
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes December 10, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-10 Council Minutes
8.5
Packet Pg. 74
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 10, 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
Phil Williams, Acting Public Works Director
Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir.
Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir.
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Mgr.
RaeAnn Duarte, HR Manager
Tristan Sewell, Planner
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
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 Chen read the City Council Land Acknowledgement 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. MAYOR’S FINANCE UPDATE
Mayor Rosen commented a lot of time has been spent discussing savings and revenues. A list of revenue
ideas was created and council has taken action on some of those items including the 1% property tax
increase, increasing employee and residential parking permits, and increasing red light cameras fines. Staff
is also considering increases in permit fees, capturing some of the staff costs for special events, increasing
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 2
rates for non-profits renting city property to more than $1/year, capturing credit card fees, potentially
surplusing facilities, and implementing a charge for multiple false alarms.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
Council President Olson requested Item 8.5, 2025 Legislative Agenda, be removed from the Consent
Agenda and added to the agenda as Item 10.1.
Councilmember Dotsch requested Item 8.6, Adoption of Green Building Incentives for Commercial and
Multifamily, be removed from the Consent Agenda and added to the agenda as Council Business Item 10.4.
Councilmember Paine suggested Item 8.6, Adoption of Green Building Incentives for Commercial and
Multifamily, be added to the agenda as Council Business Item 10.1 and renumber the remaining items in
recognition of the public who are here for that item.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Merle Carner, Lynnwood, a retired Seattle Police Department major crime detective, founder of Crime
Stoppers of Puget Sound, and police liaison for the television show Washington’s Most Wanted, described
his personal recommendation for retaining the Edmonds Police Department instead of contracting with
outside sources. With regard to community relations and trust, Edmonds police officers are far more likely
to have personal relationships with Edmonds residents, businesses and community leaders which together
foster trust and mutual understanding. Regarding accountability, a local department is directly accountable
to Edmonds residents and to the leadership, a partnership that ensures policies reflect the community’s
unique values and needs and local expertise. Edmonds police officers’ familiarity with Edmonds’
geography, demographics, and unique challenges enables them to respond more effectively to emergencies
and other routine issues. A city-run police department can implement initiatives specifically designed for
Edmonds rather than relying on a broader, generalized policy from an outside police agency. With regard
to response times, outsource agencies may not prioritize Edmonds as highly as other jurisdictions they
serve, potentially leading to slower response times. Morale is important because outsourcing could lead to
dissatisfaction among police officers, many who may leave Edmonds PD for other departments. He
believed Edmonds deserves a police department that embodies its identity, values and priorities.
Outsourcing may save money on paper, but it risks losing the trust, safety and community-focused service
that a local department provides. Retaining a dedicated police force isn’t just an investment in public safety,
it is an investment in the city.
Marlin Phelps, Marysville, said the city should consider the reputation of the Edmonds Police Department,
not just fiscal savings. In the past Edmonds PD has done some horrific things. The incoming Trump
administration and new head of the DOJ and FBI have promised openness and honesty. He believed and
had evidence that the murder of Assistant US Attorney Thomas Wales in 2001 was planned and carried out
in the Edmonds public safety building. As a professional repairing refrigeration, he has heard testimony
from customers regarding how horrifically they were treated by the Edmonds Police Department, their
constitutional rights violated. He understood those officers are no longer around, but if the truth comes out
about who killed Tom Wales, it would serve the city to be separated from the Edmonds Police Department.
Shannon Sessions, Lynnwood, urged the council to save the current high quality public safety fire and
police services, remarking you don’t know what you have until it’s gone. From experience, she knew the
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 3
city is very well taken care of by the first responders. She has the pleasure of knowing most of the
councilmembers and serving with a few on community projects and she appreciated their hard work and
that they cared about the community. She recognized the council did not take these decisions lightly and
was sure some councilmembers lose sleep over these decisions. She retired last December after serving on
the Lynnwood City Council for eight years, many of those years in council leadership. Thirty-seven years
ago she enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and was a firefighter, serving and living overseas; more than 28 years
ago, she was a reporter covering public safety in south Seattle and more than 25 years ago, she was a
reporter and editor of the Enterprise Newspapers covering south Snohomish County and north King County.
She researched and wrote many of the articles involving the rollercoaster of consolidation talks between
south county fire departments and many of the articles about disbanding then-Medic 7 and integrating their
paramedics into local fire departments, a complicated transition. In addition she was the public information
officer and crime prevention at Lynnwood PD from 2005 to 2013 and worked with Edmonds Police crime
prevention and other police agencies in the area. She is also happily married to Keith Sessions, a battalion
chief for South County Fire and formerly a captain and firefighters with Lynnwood Fire. She has separately
and independently worked with many agencies and believes her perspective is relevant historically and
presently. In 2010 Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and Brier began contracting with Fire District 1. With
regard to outsourcing the police department, it is important to realize how special resources are in south
Snohomish County.
Steve Francis, Edmonds, commented he and his wife have lived in Edmonds off and on for the past 48
years and every time they’ve left, they couldn’t wait to get back to Edmonds because it is home for them.
In 1979 he was hired by Snohomish County Fire District 1 as a firefighter and assigned to Station 4, now
Station 20, for the first 11 years of his career. Over the decades, there have been many successful
annexations, mergers, consolidations, etc. to bring the department to this point. When he started work, there
were 39 online firefighters manning 4 stations; there are now 15 stations with nearly 400 personnel. It was
his understanding the City of Edmonds has four options related to fire and EMS service, 1) join the regional
fire authority, 2) restart its own department, 3) contract elsewhere for service, or 4) have a fire department
only and contract for EMS. Joining the RFA seems to be the most cost effective and logistically sound
option. Everything is already in place and he couldn’t imagine having to start over and hire 50-60 qualified
and trained personnel to man and operate Edmonds’ 3 stations. He can confidently say Edmonds is already
being protected by some of the most amazing, talented, caring and highly trained women and men he knows,
all of whom have the gift of service to others which is one of the reasons he stayed on as a chaplain with
Support 7/South County Fire. As a citizen of Edmonds, he encouraged the council to move forward and
choose to join the RFA and complete the missing piece. Since he last commented, there is a new piece
related to the uncertainty of the Edmonds Police Department. As a chaplain, he has worked side by side
with many Edmonds officers and has been blessed with their presence and protection. As with the fire
department, it would be another monumental task to replace as many as 50-60 police officers. Few officers
know the city’s potential hazards and quirks better than the current police and fire departments, and he
wondered how a dollar amount can be placed on that.
Zach Cash, Lake Stevens, member of the executive board of South County Union Firefighters, spoke
regarding the RFA discussion later on the agenda. He has met with many councilmembers and was here to
represent the members to ask the council to vote to place RFA annexation on the ballot in April. He is proud
of the work the members do daily; he served as a paramedic for several years in Edmonds before being
promoted to his current position. He knows Edmonds is a special place and the members want to continue
serving Edmonds. He recognized the work the council has done this year has been difficulty and will
continue to be a challenge, but placing the RFA on the ballot will hopefully help alleviate some of the stress
on the city’s budget and help firefighters know they will have steadiness in the work they provide to the
city. He asked the council to continue considering placing the RFA on the ballot.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 4
Wendy Drust, Edmonds, expressed support for maintaining the Edmonds Police Department, speaking
from the perspective of someone who has worked at Edmonds-Woodway High School for 30 years as well
as a family member of someone. She has worked at Edmonds-Woodway High School when there was and
was not a police office at the school and saw the investment the Edmonds Police make in the youth of the
community. She has seen the police support students during, after, and outside of school, students who need
guidance, something she would hate to see disappear. As a mother and relative, she has seen the Edmonds
Police Department be proactive and instrumental in helping a family with a child with mental heal issues
get the help they needed. The police department is community and as a teacher she knows community is
the backbone that makes a great school and city.
Gwen Baugh, Edmonds, expressed her strong opposition to defunding the Edmonds Police Department.
Her family has commercial businesses and homes in downtown Edmonds and whenever they have needed
the police, they have always responded quickly and professionally. The Edmonds Police have protected the
city for over 90 years and help ensure a very livable and safe city. She recently retired as a teacher at
Edmonds-Woodway High School; whenever there was an emergency at the school, the police were there
to protect students and staff. She recalled when the school had a resource officer, it felt so much safer and
everyone appreciated having that officer at the school and was disappointed when that was canceled a few
years ago. She referred to the city’s $20 million deficit and urged the council not to balance the budget by
jeopardizing safety; safety should be the council’s primary responsibility and another way needs to be found
to address the deficit.
Mandy Curnutt, Edmonds, said in the 45 years they have lived in Edmonds, they have had 3 break-ins
and their car has been vandalized twice. The Edmonds Police have always been there when they needed
them. She has noticed an increase in crime in recent years and they don’t feel as safe. To be safe, she doesn’t
walk without pepper spray, phone and Apple watch. It will take several years for Snohomish County to
increase the number of deputies needed for this area. The police department is the highest priority for the
community. She expressed her support for retaining the Edmonds Police Department.
Debbie Barajas. Edmonds, recognized managing the city’s budget is not an easy task especially when
dealing with significant debt, but she wanted to express her concern about the proposal to eliminate the
city’s police department and rely on county sheriff’s to fill the gap. This idea risks the community’s safety
but also raises questions about how the city got to this point financially. The city’s police department isn’t
just a law enforcement agency, it is part of the community. Officers live and work in Edmonds and know
the people, neighborhoods, and issues that make the city unique. County sheriffs have a much broader area
to cover and can’t dedicate the same level or attention or resources to the city because they have to prioritize
an entire county. This means slower response times, less familiarity with the community’s needs and frankly
less accountability to residents. Decisions about public safety would be made at the county level and the
city would lose the ability to directly address local concerns. Public safety is too important to hand off to
an overburdened department that doesn’t have the same stake in the community.
Janelle Cass, Edmonds, encouraged the council to remove Adoption of Green Building Incentives for
Commercial and Multifamily Buildings from the consent agenda. She did not think a one-size-fits-all
approach makes sense due to Edmonds’ unique topography. If there are areas or projects that may require
a few feet, that can be handled project by project to consider unique circumstances. Obviously in some
places the viewshed is not as impacted and it would be better to determine what fits each individual
neighborhood. She suggested the council discuss the green building incentives at a future meeting due to
changes the update to the comprehensive plan and development code will have. She feared doing it now
would be a waste of time. She encouraged the public to visit the Port on Thursday for Holiday at the Marina
which will include fun festivities, hot chocolate, and a band.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 5
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, reviewed good and bad news. The good news, Edmonds Stream Team just
completed its salmon surveys in Shell Creek and Lunds Gulch Creek in Meadowdale Park and recorded
record numbers of returning salmon. He thanked the property owners living on the creeks for taking care
of the property and supporting him and the students coming onto their property to look for salmon. It has
been a great experience for the students, especially the large number of fish. The bad news, this year’s
sediment flow in the creeks is the worst he’s seen in the 8-9 years he has been doing this, so bad that
sediment under a bridge over the creek blocked salmon passage. Good news, the property owner wanted
something done and called him and the Department of Fish and Wildlife who came out and cleared a route
for the fish which helped increase the number of retuning salmon. Bad news, the city has been aware of the
problem with sediment years, but hasn’t done anything about it. The sediment comes from Yost Park and
the location of the problems have been identified, but no action has been taken with regard to sediment and
erosion in the park. Community members who volunteered to help have been turned away. Good news/bad
news, community members frustrated with the city’s lack of concern with the environment, the creeks being
one example, formed a new non-profit organization, Edmonds Environmental Council. This was done
because they feel they were not being heard and needed a group that could take appropriate action when
the council is taking the wrong actions regarding the environment. He urged the council to listen to the
community’s concerns and to start caring for the environment and stop forcing community members to take
next steps to appeal actions or litigation which is bad news for everyone.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, commented there have been numerous meetings over the last year about the
future of Edmonds. He has attended quite a few, hoping to have input into the development of the city. He
wasn’t surprised to find there were plenty of people who felt the same way he does about excessive growth
threatening the character of Edmonds. At one meeting in the downtown area, amongst the 20 or so people
in attendance, nearly all wanted no height changes to the buildings in the downtown core. In fact of all the
meetings he attended, he could not recall any citizen crying out to increase building heights downtown. He
was taken aback by the 5-foot increase in downtown building heights in the Green Building Incentives on
tonight’s consent agenda. He questioned why citizens’ voices are not recognized and if public meetings are
merely held to check the box so consultants and staff can move ahead with their agenda. He recommended
pulling this issue for a later date after the full ramifications of the approved comprehensive plan are
understood by all. He found it very disturbing that a height increase could make it onto the consent agenda
without any public discussion. The low scale charm of the downtown core has been cherished by citizens
and visitors for decades and that valuable asset needs to be protected. Downtown development is inevitable
and can be done tastefully with the allowed 30-foot heights; the post office building, Graphite Arts Center
and the Commons are perfect examples. Next, he said the cost to join the RFA is staggering and will require
the city to hand over two fire stations and property worth $6-10 million with no compensation. In return,
the city gets the opportunity to be charged nearly double for the same service. If the city joins the RFA,
there is little chance of taking care of the city’s own fire needs in the future and the city will have no control
on dialing back or ramping up service as needed or allowed by budgets. The taxes need to float the RFA
vote will inevitably push citizens on or near the financial edge out of the community. There has to be another
option.
Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, quoted Marysville’s mayor after passing their budget and actually lowering
property taxes, “As residents and taxpayers ourselves, we put a priority on keeping costs contained while
providing the city services that residents depend on.” She encouraged the council to follow Marysville’s
responsible example. She relayed how tiring it was to see governments in Washington State constantly
weaponizing public safety items and schools against the taxpayers. Taxpayers are constantly having t heir
pockets picked for more money to fund items the government is mandated to provide after they have spent
taxes on lesser items. She proposed critical public safety items be funded first and then decide if programs
like gymnastics for kids, flower baskets and other programs that don’t seem to be pertinent to the function
of government are needed. If there is not enough money for these non-essential items, then the city should
go to the voters to see they want their property taxes raised to enable those t ypes of extra expenditures.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 6
According to the last payroll, Edmonds’ salaries are 49% higher than the state average, including many
whose salaries range from $163,000 to $265,000. She suggested putting that to a vote of the people instead
of the RFA annexation or a levy lift. All but two councilmembers have passed previous budgets leading to
this point; tax dollars through Covid money, partial grants and local taxes were spent on unsustainable
programs, unused equipment, bike lanes, unneeded real estate studies, red light cameras without knowing
the cost involved, and more, with seemingly no look to the future. The city government is failing its citizens.
She urged the council to make deeper cuts in every program and eliminate more employees before looking
to raise taxes or remove the city’s police department or annex into the RFA which will also raise taxes. She
pointed out the South County Fire union contributed $7400 to Councilmember Eck and $4000 to
Councilmember Paine’s campaigns in last year’s elections and she believed they should recuse themselves
from any discussion regarding the RFA.
Jerry Whitmarsh, Edmonds, said he would rather keep the city’s police department than a council who
can’t do their basic job of setting and keeping a budget and keeping the community safe.
Kim Bayer Augustavo, Edmonds, Chair of the Architectural Design Board (ADB), speaking on her own
behalf, reminded the council of the value the ADB brings to the city. Last night the ADB held two public
hearing on two high visibility developments that added value to the developer’s proposal. She understood
concerns with the budget and staff hours, but if not for the ADB, there would be two square boxes on 6th &
Dayton and 6th & Main. She urged the council to look at the bigger picture as they try to manage the budget
and don’t cut their nose to spite their face. Second, she echoed Greg Brewer’s comments about height limits
and recommended removing it from the consent agenda because it did not remove the BD1 zone; if the
BD1 zone is removed, it’s fine. She asked if the council wanted to have that legacy on their shoulders,
changing the character and look of downtown Edmonds by putting approval on the consent agenda and not
allowing the community to have further input regarding how it would forever visually change the Edmonds
that residents chose to move to. She recommended removing the BD1 and until that zone is removed, not
put it on the consent agenda for approval.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING
2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2024
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2024
3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
7. ORDINANCE AMENDING 8.10.050 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS BASE
FINE INCREASE
9. PUBLIC HEARING
1. CREATIVE DISTRICT GATEWAY ART PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING
Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin explained this project, located at Anway Park, is funded
with a capital grant from the Washington State Arts Commission for Creative Districts and the grant match
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 7
was provided by the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, an extraordinary opportunity to have a new art
installation in the community funded by a private/public partnership and does not include any City public
art funds. Anway Park is very small park with restrooms, a walkway, and dog walking area, but its main
characteristic, aside from being a neighborhood park for people who live in the that area, it is adjacent to
the ferry loading lanes for the Edmonds-Kingston ferry, a ferry route that carries about 9,700 passengers
every day. It is a significant gateway for Edmonds which is why it is called the Creative District Gateway
Art project. It is a gateway to the City as well as for the Creative District located in the downtown area of
Edmonds. When the Creative District Advisory Committee became aware of this grant opportunity, there
was a lot of discussion about what could be done to utilize this little park and all the people who pass it to
promote Edmonds and bring attention to the rich artistic attributes and cultural elements in the community.
This project was envisioned working with the Creative District Advisory Committee and the Arts
Commission and funded entirely by a public/private partnership.
Ms. Chapin continued, the process for public art includes issuing a request for qualifications which was
approved by the city council before it was advertised. The City received 21 application submissions. A
selection panel was formed, also specified in the public art process, that consisted of representatives from
the City Council, the Arts Commission, Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, and the Creative District
Advisory Committee and a professional artist with an extensive background in public art. The selection
panel reviewed the 21 submissions and selected 3 to create site specific concepts which were presented at
a public meeting with public comment. The selection panel reviewed the public comment before making
their final recommendation. The selection panel’s recommendation went to the arts commission for review
before forwarding it to city council. The recommendation was for the artist, Sean Orlando, who is here via
Zoom to present his concept proposal. Mr. Orlando is from Richmond, California and has extensive
experience in art, particularly fabricating large scale, compelling community pieces.
Artist Sean Orlando reviewed:
• Engineered Artwork
o Our values and what we do
✸ CREATIVITY: Engineered Artworks–a sculpture atelier led by Sean Orlando. We design
and produce durable, compelling large-scale artworks in community settings.
✸ EXPERIENCE: Close to 25 years of expertise creating monumental sculptures for public
and private clients.
✸ IMMERSIVITY: Our works are immersive and invite interaction. Our intention is to engage
audiences in creative spaces and expansive environments, where people from diverse
backgrounds can explore and gather.
✸ COLLABORATION: We work within a collaborative model, bringing together our
expertise in materials, engineering, and functionality with the knowledge and experience of
local stakeholders and municipal representatives
ARTIST STATEMENT: Sean Orlando and Engineered Artworks create monumental
sculptures for public and community settings. Collaboration and relationship-building is a
primary influence, whether interfacing with municipal arts agencies, civil engineers,
community representatives, or fellow artists. Orlando’s works are often influenced by
mathematical or geometrical patterns, the aesthetics of industry and locomotion, and regional
histories and ecologies. In every endeavor Engineered Artworks strives to generate immersive
environments through striking and spectacular sculptural objects, shaping compelling spaces
in which members of the public can connect with their own creative ideas and imaginative
experiences.
• Examples of similar recent commissions
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 8
THE CONCEPT: COLOR TREE
GATEWAY CANOPY
✸ SITE SPECIFIC: Illuminated organic
sculpture specific to the parameters of
the Richard F. Anway Park. The
sculpture’s asymmetric canopy provides
a curving embrace of the park site.
✸ FUNCTIONAL: Structurally sound
and designed to provide seating and
shade.
✸ DESTINATION DEFINING:
Exemplifies the experimental and
design-centered values of the Edmonds
Creative District
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 9
✸ Takes root from existing
sculpture pad, extends to
approximately 15’ in height and
15’ diameter
✸ A gateway gesture for the park,
offering those who are walking
dogs, stretching their legs, or
taking photographs, a large-scale
creative object and destination to
center their visit.
✸ At 15’ high, the sculpture will be highly visible from nearby vantage points and will cast a
geometrical shade pattern over the park’s grassy area and walkway
✸ Inspired by parametric design: Interdependent parts providing strength to the whole. As the
gridded intersecting components reach toward the centerpoint, their shape will change according
to the shape of the structure
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 10
“COLOR TREE” VIBRANT AND
CUSTOMIZABLE ELEMENTS
✸ Will work with stakeholders to
design customizable cladding of
colored panels (which will also
prevent climbing and debris buildup)
✸ Enhanced by optional
programmable illumination system
embedded within the sculpture
• Materials and Composition
o Structurally engineered stainless steel sculpture affixed to existing cement pad
o Internal EL wire or LED for optional lighting
o FUNCTIONAL AND ADJUSTABLE ELEMENTS
o Material is permanent, durable, and weather-resistant steel that requires a low level of
maintenance.
o Center/base configuration is adjustable according to size and mounting, and backrest of seating
area and debris prevention below bench can be determined with City of Edmonds
representatives.
o As determined by artist and commissioners, an arrangement of durable panel claddings will
cover the steel ribs at regular intervals to prevent the possibility of climbing.
o Design is flexible in terms of the arrangement of rectangular panels in the grid, the structure’s
base and overall height and diameter.
o Optional illumination allows for different colors or patterns of lighting if desired.
• Preliminary Budget Estimations
Project Cost Amount
Artist Fee $30,000
Engineering $15,000
Materials $23,000
Finishing $6,000
Labor $23,000
Installation $10,000
Transportation $3,000
Insurance $5,000
Total $115,000
• Suggested Timeline
Contract Signed / Commencement of Artwork Creation Begins December/January 2025
Design Engineering Finalized, Materials Acquisition begins February 2025
Materials acquisition completed, Fabrication begins March 2025
Fabrication and Finishing 8 weeks April - May 2025
Transportation and installation, 2 weeks June 2025
Final installation details and dedication June 2025
Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing.
Samantha Saether, Edmonds, member of the Arts Festival Foundation Board and on their behalf, relayed
the board is excited to financially contribute to this unique installation that will accentuate the Edmonds
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 11
Creative District. As part of the Gateway Selection Committee, they are thrilled with the selected design
and look forward to seeing it completed.
Kirsten Paust, President, Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, expressed a huge thank you to everyone who
has contributed, to Sean, to the Gateway Selection Committee, and specifically the festival which is an
important part of the community and yields the funds that enable the foundation to invest in pieces like this.
There has been an incredible partnership between the Arts Commission, the Edmonds Arts Festival, the
Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation and the City of Edmonds to get to this point using funds raised through
the annual festival and the Creative District grant that the City applied for and received. This will be a
wonderful piece to add to Edmonds near the ferry to welcome people to the City and celebrate the arts. She
highlighted the great partnership between community organizations and the City enabling this to occur and
the artist who will bring it to life.
Robert [no last name given] said he was excited to see this space get some attention, a space that feels kind
of neglected. This is a great opportunity to liven up the downtown core, especially for those waiting for the
ferry. He asked the total watts of LED illumination and the annual operating cost. Mayor Rosen advised
the public hearing is an opportunity to provide comment, and suggested he email his questions to staff.
Peter Gibson, Edmonds, commented this is a terrific piece. He provided background on the Richard F.
Anway Park, ironic as tonight the council will be discussing the possibility of eliminating the Edmonds
Police Department and contracting with an outside agency, Richard F. Anway was an Edmonds Police
officer for 30 years, a terrific man who spent a lot of time working at the ferry terminal directing traffic and
the park was named after him. He appreciated the tribute and bringing more attention to the park.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT COMP PLAN
Planning & Development Director Shane Hope introduced Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston, City
Engineer Rob English, and Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss. She reviewed:
• Overview of process & Timeline
o Comprehensive plan update process has been underway for more than 2 years
o Through Snohomish County Tomorrow process growth, housing and job targets were set for
each city and the county to provide land use capacity to achieve numbers by 2044
o City needs to adopt its updated comprehensive plan by December 31, 2024
• Planning in Washington State
• Periodic Update Requirements
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 12
o Cities and counties must conduct a
thorough review of their
comprehensive plans and
development regulations.
o Revisions may be necessary to
reflect new population and
employment projections and any
related zoning and/or urban
growth area (UGA) changes,
changes in state law, new
community priorities, and more.
• What if we don’t adopt the Plan as required
o Potential impacts
▪ Non-compliance with state law
▪ Ineligible for state grants and loans needed for infrastructure projects
▪ Hard to move to next set of GMA requirements for regulations due in 2025
▪ Non-compliance with GMA could expose City to appeals and lawsuits, which might result
in additional costs and Hearings Board or court-ordered amendments to City’s
comprehensive plan
▪ Potential loss of certain tax revenues. Note: this tool is rarely used but is possible at some
point
• Notable new state legislation
• 2044 – Meeting growth targets
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 13
• City’s Housing Requirement
• Achieving Capacity
• Community Outreach Overview
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 14
Ms. Hope reviewed the Growth Strategy Approach:
• Edmonds Growth Considerations
o Total housing units to achieve – 9,069
o Capacity distributed along the Highway 99 corridor: approximately 4000 units of existing
capacity
o Potential to distribute remaining future growth in other areas across the city
▪ Possible for some neighborhoods across the City to include small areas (centers, hubs) for
low-scale multifamily housing and commercial. This can result in:
- More walkability (less need for vehicle trips for everything)
- More affordable housing choices than just along a highway.
▪ Could help in equitable approach to development across city and result in sustainable
growth pattern.
• Centers & Hubs
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 15
• Key areas of change based on Council’s preferred Alternative (11/4/24)
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 16
o Neighborhood Centers
1. Westgate
2. Five Corners
3. Medical District Expansion
4. Firdale
o Neighborhood Hubs:
1. North Bowl
2. Perrinville
3. East Seaview
4. South Ballinger
5. West Edmonds Way
6. Maplewood
Ms. Hope reviewed Centers and Hubs from Revised Draft Comprehensive Plan (Based on “Preferred
Alternative from November 4, 2024):
• Future Land Use Changes: Westgate
• Future Land Use Changes: Five Corners
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 17
• Future Land Use Changes: Medical District Expansion
• Future Land Use Changes: Firdale
• Future Land Use Changes: North Bowl
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 18
• Future Land Use Changes: Perrinville
• Future Land Use Changes: East Seaview
• Future Land Use Changes: South Lake Ballinger
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 19
• Future Land Use Changes: W Edmonds Way
• Future Land Use Changes: Maplewood
• Housing Capacity in Hubs & Centers
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 20
• Can Hubs or Centers be changed before finalizing Plan
o Yes, so long as capacity target can still be met overall, consistent with other Plan goals
o Factors to consider:
▪ For change to height or area WITHIN a hub or center:
- How would that affect feasibility of development & actual capacity of the hub or
center?
- Would it make the hub or center less likely to function well?
▪ For change by REMOVING a hub or center:
- Is it easy to leave out now and maybe consider it in the future?
- Would that be better or worse for having a good neighborhood?
- Would that be better or worse for increasing walkability?
- Would it be better or worse for having diversity and housing choices across the city?
• Draft Plan Highlights
o City’s VISION: “Edmonds is a charming and welcoming city offering outstanding quality of
life for all with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe streets, parks, and a thriving arts scene
shaped in a way to promote healthy lifestyles, climate resiliency, and access to the natural
beauty of our community.
o General Structure of each element
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 94
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 21
o Summary of Land Use Element
▪ Involves comprehensive planning for various land uses, including residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, and recreational areas.
- Guides population density and building intensities.
- Emphasis on environmental justice , public health equity.
- Aims to reduce single occupancy vehicle usage.
- Accounts for infrastructure needs and green spaces.
- Aims to create a balanced, sustainable, and safe environment for all.
- Includes a Future Land Use Map to guide zoning and other development regulations.
o Summary of Housing element
▪ Plan for sufficient land capacity for housing needs.
▪ Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs.
▪ Aligns with states goals, policies, objectives, and provisions for housing preservation,
improvement, and development.
▪ Aims to increase housing capacity, affordability for economic segments of the community.
▪ Addresses racially disparate impacts, mitigate displacement and exclusion
o Summary of Economic Development element
▪ Establishing local goals, policies, objectives, and provisions for economic growth and
vitality and a high quality of life.
▪ Includes
- Context for economic development in Edmonds.
- Key employment sectors.
- Key concepts that staff and the Economic Development Commission believe are
important to understand the City’s economy today and in the future.
- Proposed Goals and Policies for the 2024 Edmonds
o Climate Element
▪ HB 1181 was adopted by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 2023 to include goals
and policies for climate change and resiliency. This element adds a requirements for
adaptation and mitigation of the effects of changing climate.
▪ Not due until 2029.
▪ Lays foundation for addressing these issues in the near future as we have resources &
funding.
o Culture, History, Urban Design Element
▪ Formerly the “Community Culture and Urban Design Element,” this optional element is
updated as the Culture, History and Urban Design Element
▪ Place-centered approach for new developments
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 95
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 22
▪ Integrate place making considering Social, economic, environmental, and cultural
elements.
▪ Create clear and objective development regulations per HB 1293.
▪ Makes historic preservation a priority where possible
▪ Enhances the creative and artistic identity of the City
o Capital facilities element
▪ Identifies current capital facility needs,
future needs
▪ Includes a six-year capital improvement
plan (CIP) that identifies capital projects
and costs, aligned with available resources,
and a longer-range (20-year) CFP of capital
projects.
▪ Implements the land use element by
showing how public facilities and services
will accommodate the levels and intensities
of development envisioned in the plan, and
at adopted levels of service.
▪ Includes Park and recreation facilities and
Transportation as well
GMA requirement to reassess the land use
element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that
the land use element, capital facilities plan
element, and financing plan within the
capital facilities plan element are
coordinated and consistent.
o Utilities Element
▪ Addresses the general location, proposed
location, and capacity of all existing and
proposed utilities.
▪ Identifies telecommunications services, and
hazardous liquid pipelines.
▪ Identifies all public entities that own utility
systems within and adjacent to their
boundaries and encourages coordination.
o Transportation Element
▪ Sets a framework to plan and prioritize a transportation network for Edmonds, and provides
metrics for measuring progress.
▪ Includes
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 23
(i) Land use assumptions to estimate travel.
(ii) Estimated multimodal level of service
impacts to state-owned transportation
facilities.
(iii) Facilities and service’s needs,
(iv) Financing plan and analysis
(v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts.
(vi) Demand-management strategies.
(vii) Active transportation component
o Other Elements
▪ Existing Park Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan would remain an element of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
▪ Existing Shoreline Master Program would remain an element of Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan
• Other issues and next steps
o Additional issues
▪ Should future growth be “staggered” i.e., phased?
- Difficult to make major changes at this stage of Plan process, except by removing one
or more hubs from Plan;
- Could be considered as amendment in 2025, with thoughtful process, consistent with
state guidance.
▪ How will new development affect infrastructure?
- City will continue making improvements through its CIP/CFP process & updates to
water, sewer, and stormwater system plans
- Development must be concurrent with city’s level of service standards or pay the
difference
- Development must pay impact fees, connection fees (which include share of future
system improvements) and meet city design standards
▪ How will development contribute to city?
- Can improve some sites, potentially reduce stormwater runoff (by meeting new
standards), contribute to future tax base, and help city be more vibrant and sustainable
long-term
▪ What will happen to environmentally critical areas?
- Critical areas, as defined in city code, must be protected & cannot be built on unless
specifically allowed in code (e.g., for certain steeper slopes)
- Critical area regulations will be reviewed in 2025 and updated as needed; they will
apply to future development.
▪ How will stormwater be managed?
- All new development must meet City’s stormwater code (per current standards or
better)
▪ What is plan for area around Marsh (aka Unocal property)?
- Land use designation remains the same as in prior Comp Plan while legal and
ownership issues get settled
- Draft Plan policies call for protection and enhancement, etc.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 24
- Stronger policy can be added for enhancing/enlarging fish habitat and connection to
Puget Sound
o Potential Amendments
▪ Recommendations from staff (and others):
- Planning Board recommendations (see packet)
- Include having channel for fish migration to Puget Sound at Unocal property and
seeking expansion of Marsh as estuary (exact language TBD)
- Make minor language changes to Climate Element such as climate leadership being a
“mission” for Edmonds
- Possible other items
▪ Other amendments that Council decides to make, based on CM preferences, community
input, etc.
▪ Recommendations that come from Department of Commerce (Commerce letter pending)
o What happens next?
▪ Completion of public hearing tonight
▪ Consideration by City Council of any Comprehensive Plan changes
▪ Adoption of final Plan (scheduled December 17)
▪ Submittal of final Plan (with any technical corrections) to State
Then:
▪ Implementation of items required by Comprehensive Plan update, such as:
1. Updates to development regulations
- Some due by end of this year
- Some due by July 1, 2025 (such as “middle housing”)
- Some due by December 31, 2025 (such as for critical areas) Carrying out capital
projects, as identified in the Plan
2. Following up on priority actions, programs, and other activities related to the Plan,
such as:
- Climate resiliency
- Taking steps to protect, enhance, enlarge Edmonds Marsh
- Strengthening economy for future quality of life
Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing.
John Brock, Woodway, relayed growing up in Edmonds, he enjoyed fishing at the old fishing pier inside
the marina. He and his siblings own property in Edmonds; he currently lives in Woodway and serves on
the Woodway City Council. The Woodway City Council passed its 2025 budget and 20-year comprehensive
plan last week, not as complex a plan as Edmonds’ plan, but the required elements and processes were the
same. To responsibly complete the task, they were able to rely on years of hard work by the planning
commission, town planner, town attorney and town staff, a huge undertaking. Their process was transparent,
well considered, open, and honest. The council was able to trust the process and the plan it produced. He
was very comfortable with the result and proud of the unanimous vote that approved it. He offered his
sympathy to the Edmonds City Council for the impossible place they find themselves; the City’s
comprehensive plan is incomplete and inadequate. The council is being asked to approve a plan for the
future with only a portion of the critical information that is needed. The process seems to have addressed
the state-required housing elements very well, but is fatally flawed with respect to environmental problems
created by inadequate mitigation of past development. Erosion to the fragile creeks continues unabated,
salmon habitat is being lost, and damage to private property is ongoing. Additionally, the proposed plan
does not adequately protect drinking water aquifers from the increased runoff new development will
produce. This draft plan makes it clear that the precious environment will continue to be sacrificed at the
altar of even more development. The comprehensive plan process was designed to identify and address
existing problems as well as plan for responsible future growth. The process that should have resulted in a
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 25
truly comprehensive plan has failed. Now it falls to the council to approve a plan without a full
understanding of many existing problems. A project-level review cannot make up for an incomplete
comprehensive plan and the resulting development codes it will produce. He loves Edmonds and its many
coastal resources, the vibrant downtown, and the high quality of life all enjoy, but feared this plan will not
protect or enhance the Edmonds everyone treasures.
Laura Walls, Edmonds, given the importance of the comprehensive plan to reimaging the future of the
Edmonds Marsh, she emphasized it is essential to recognize in the language of the plan that the Unocal
property is the keystone that connects and integrates the entire vision for the Edmonds Waterfront, both
ecologically and socially. First, the Unocal property is essential to any ecological restoration of the marsh
which requires daylighting Willow Creek to allow the free flow of waters between the marsh and Puget
Sound. Only this will allow a passage way for salmon to spawn upstream, n ourish their growth in the
estuary, seek the ocean and return to their spawning grounds to lay eggs, thus completing the lifecycle
blocked by the current underground culvert. In terms of the social ecology of the Edmonds community, the
Unocal property is key to building a trail around the perimeter around the marsh and an overlook on the
south side, opening the restored estuary to the public for recreational value. She imagined the profound
experience for children seeing the salmon eggs they helped raise not only hatch but grow into strong and
beautiful fish that return home to Edmonds to continue the cycle of life as well as the real cultural value to
Edmonds of contributing to the wider economy of the Salish Sea.
Ms. Walls continued, doing this will mean Edmonds will have restored a millennia old natural process, a
process Unocal destroyed. Everyone senses why this needs to happen, both to restore a sense of agency and
hope for the land we’ve adopted and made our home and to reintegrate humans back into the natural
landscape as creative participants, instead of agents of blockage and destruction. She thanked planners for
prioritizing the future of the marsh; it is a small marsh but an immense vision, one central to any whole
conception for the future of Edmonds. There is immense work ahead if this vision is to be realized, work
that needs to be recognized and acknowledged in the language of the comprehensive plan. She
recommended the language in the plan be clarified to state that any restoration of the marsh requires an
open reconnection to the sound and the reconnection requires building a daylight channel through the
Unocal property. She feared any plan for improvements that doesn’t explicitly acknowledge this problem
and difficulty as well as the importance of this challenge, risks creating an opening for failure and
compromise as soon as the going gets tough which it surely will.
Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, referred to an email she sent regarding the building and height code for the
BD1, slated to be renamed retail core, relaying her understanding the proposed code would allow for
increased building heights in BD1. Some councilmembers have said that is not accurate and she heard today
that some councilmembers are thrilled for the opportunity for redevelopment and hoped it definitely would
bring in large chain stores. She has her feet on the ground all day, every day in the Edmonds com munity,
dealing with customers, business owners, visitors, and Edmonds residents. She questioned whether
councilmembers taking this vote could say the same thing and asked if they were comfortable with this
decision being their legacy, if their constituents were fully aware of the impact of their decision. What she
hears and knows is that Edmonds is unique, special, and has nostalgic charm that people specifically come
to enjoy. Allowing redevelopment to three stories in the retail core would dramatically change what she
calls the secret sauce, what makes people want to visit, work and live in Edmonds.
Ms. Koenig asked whether a T-Mobile corporate manager would make it in to shovel the snow in the front
of their building during a massive storm, whether a Pottery Barn worker would get CERT training to be
available to the community when a natural disaster hits, or whether the XYZ corporate office would know
that the elementary school up the hill desperately needs support to bring resources to their student body ,
60% of whom are on free and reduced lunch when deciding which donation request to approve. These are
just a few things that small business owners do in the community. Change and growth are inevitable and
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 26
additional housing is necessary; however she asked the council to do a deeper dive into how this
comprehensive plan will truly effect the BD1 or retail core and make the move to grandfather in the current
height restrictions and not demolish what makes Edmonds special and penalize and financially push out
small business owners who in no small part have created the thriving community everyone enjoys.
Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, advocated for wording in the comprehensive plan about reconnecting the
Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound. She was heartened to hear from Ms. Hope that this language can be added.
With regard to timing, some may wonder why do this now when there are so many important issues, the
Unocal property is still being cleaned up, final cleanup is several years away, and why not wait until that is
completed. The short answer is no for two reasons, 1) it will not change whether or not the estuary can be
reconnected, it will only change the cost, and 2) when the cleanup and monitoring are complete, the property
will pass to WSDOT and will likely be put up for sale, perhaps very quickly. When that happens, if the city
isn’t ready to make purchase decisions, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore the estuary and return
salmon to the Edmonds Marsh could vanish. It’s hard to imagine that WSDOT would be willing to keep
the property on hold for the 2-3 years while the city gathers the information it needs. The city cannot wait
until the Unocal cleanup is finished and the property passes to WSDOT to start getting the marsh ducks
lined up in a row. Local environmental organizations are eager to help the city pursue salmon restoration
funding for both the purchase cost and reconnection. To do this, they need the city to make it clear in the
comprehensive plan that that is their intent.
Bill Derry, Edmonds, relayed two years ago Greg Ferguson and he wrote a grant application to NOAA for
a study of the marsh and estuary restoration. Next month will be time to think about the next phase of that
grant and to be eligible for grants, it is critical to a clear statement from the local community regarding their
vision. He urged the city to make it clear in the comprehensive plan that the vision for the city is to restore
the estuary as well as the marsh. He supports green building incentives, but it should not be an excuse to
increase lot coverage and lose trees. When talking about comprehensive plans, it often come down to
individual decisions on development proposals which come down to the hearing examiner. The experience
in the community seems to be that the critical area ordinances are often overridden by the hearing examiner.
He urged the council to keep that in mind and ensure there are strong statements in the comprehensive plan
to protect environmental resources.
Robin Wright, Edmonds, said she has been fairly involved in observing the comprehensive plan and
outreach to the community, but felt the citizens and the city were not always on the same page and citizens
were not being listened to. There is a huge focus on creating more density throughout the city; the city has
put in millions of dollars to revitalize Highway 99 to be better equipped to handle a lot of density and
growth and now the plan is to spread that around the city. She was not seeing in the comprehensive plan
that the same millions of dollars that were being spent to compensate neighborhoods for all the new growth
that is supposed to be coming in. She feared increased density would affect quality of life; for example,
parking at QFC in Westgate has become very difficult. She anticipated that same situation in all the hubs
which she did not think was well thought out. She agreed with the previous comments about ensuring there
is a good connection between Puget Sound and the estuary.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, commented the comprehensive plan draft is a lot to digest and it changes nearly
every time he reads it and looks at the land use map. The zones downtown have been completely renamed
so it’s hard to determine if existing codes for the renamed zones will carry through or be open to fresh
interpretation. First, he is concerned about the use of floors to designate height instead of feet. This is vague
and could lead to building height increases in the low profile downtown core. Mixed commercial 3 which
will replace some of the BD zones is indicated as 3 floors with commercial allowed. Words matter and 3
floors could be interpreted to more than 30 feet. Commercial Allowed makes it unclear if business on the
ground floor will still be required. Allowing 100% residential in the downtown core will lead to the erosion
of valuable commercial space and tax revenue. This should be setting off alarms in the business community;
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 27
he asked for language that assures citizens the downtown building height will indeed stay low profile at 30
feet and require business on the ground floor as is currently required. He appreciated all the hard work that
went into the comprehensive plan and that staff is continuing to modify and edit to obtain the best result;
however, as concerned citizens the constant changes to the text and the future land use map make it hard to
follow.
Mr. Brewer continued, at one point the plan called for residential walkable urban areas within ½ mile of all
hubs and centers; before he could figure out what that meant, it was removed from the plan. Revisiting the
future land use map on a different day he noticed several single family lots near the Seaview center were
removed from being rezoned, another significant change. Almost every time he opens the document there
are new changes. He realized the draft plan was done yet and was being tweaked continuously with no
explanation, but wondered how concerned citizens were supposed to keep up with the changes. He asked
if the initial draft was done. If someone read the draft document weeks ago and are to comment as part of
the public hearing, they may not have the latest information. He suggested the document have a hard stop
date and allow the public at least one week to review the completed document before having a public
hearing.
Georgina Armstrong, Edmonds, commented when there is a vision that goes out 20 years, it is important
to know the starting point. Goals will become harder to achieve especially when there is no money and the
city is understaffed. To say Edmonds is a climate leader as stated on the city’s website and in the draft
comprehensive plan misleads the public and council regarding what is possible in 20 years. The city calls
itself a leader, but cities who used to be behind have actually caught up and are now ahead. She explained
how that happened: in 2010 when the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee drafted the climate action
plan (CAP), Edmonds was indeed ahead of other cities since it was early times and just having a CAP put
the city ahead. That is not the case 14 years later and the city needs to accept that reality before history
repeats itself as in very little progress is being made in the 2023 CAP update, just as was the case with the
2010 CAP. The city is now a year and 9 months out from the adoption of the update with only one action
item out of 20 completed and 11 more to be completed in 2025.
Ms. Armstrong continued, cities that are leaders are getting awards for their climate programs like Port
Townsend that just received an international award for its financial sustainability initiative, the second in
four year; Bellingham received a governor’s recognition award; Bainbridge Island has outstanding
comprehensive climate programming, one component of which is Bainbridge Prepares which works to
ensure all residents are prepared for the impacts of extreme climate events; Lake Forest Park, Kenmore and
Redmond have CAPs that include a complete resilience plan; and Redmond, Bainbridge and Shoreline have
published in-depth reports on the progress they are making on their CAPs. Many cities, including Shoreline,
have completed vulnerability assessments to understand future climate risks. Most of these cities either
have climate action managers or intend to hire them and all apply for climate grants to fund their programs.
Edmonds thinks of itself as a leader in climate action and everyone wants the city to be a leader, however,
it’s easier to strive to be better when there is ground to make up. This is why Edmonds climate and
environmental volunteers prefer the city’s mission to become a better leader in climate action. The risk the
city runs by thinking it is something it is not is resting on laurels you don’t actually have.
Ron Eber, Edmonds, referred to a letter he submitted last week with specific language for protecting the
marsh consistent with what Ms. Hope was talking about as opportunities to improve Policies 10.1, 10.2 and
10.3. to make it absolutely clear that to restore the marsh to a functioning estuary suitable for salmon
requires an open channel to Puget Sound which will require crossing the Unocal property. Plans need to
say what they mean and mean what they say. He urged the council to consider what he submitted as possible
language to do what Ms. Hope suggested can be done. He concluded the marsh is so special to the
community and public trust for the future that the council is in charge of. He offered a thought from a
favorite author, Henry Thoreau, a town is saved not more by the righteous people in it or its leaders but by
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 28
the marshes and the swamps and the woods that surround it, or in Edmonds’ case, within in, which is the
key for protecting Edmonds and its waterfront.
Ginger Coward, Edmonds, commented on the comprehensive plan and the crystal ball forecast for
expanding the population over the next 20 years. She recalled Ms. Hope telling her at one of the event that
there will be a reevaluation of population growth in five years, but she didn’t hear anything about that in
the discussions of this plan. She wondered if there would be an honest reevaluation of po pulation growth
in five years and whether progress would come to a halt or slow down if the expected growth had not
occurred.
Erika Barnett, Edmonds, Salish Sea Brewing Company, commented on the critical role the
comprehensive plan has in shaping the city’s future and preserving what makes Edmonds unique. They
moved here because Edmonds is special, the small town charm, vibrant small businesses and historic
character, a combination that draws visitors and fosters a strong sense of community. The downtown
business districts are the heart of the city and represent more than just a collection of shops and restaurants,
they embody the spirit of Edmonds. The charm wasn’t created by accident; it is the result of thoughtful
planning, organic growth that supports local businesses while maintaining the character of the historic retail
core. As the comprehensive plan looks ahead, it is essential to ensure its policies protect the small business
ecosystem that drives the economy and sustains the community. Clarity and commitment are needed on a
few key points. First, building heights, the character of Edmonds relies on the human scale of downtown;
any height allowances should reflect the community’s vision, low profile structures that preserve views,
and the walkable, inviting atmosphere people treasure. Building heights must remain clearly defined and
aligned with the city’s historic charm. Second, business district integrity, downtown Edmonds thrives
because of its businesses, not condos. Ensuring BD2 remains a space for organic commercial growth rather
than a pathway to residential overdevelopment is essential for maintaining the vibrancy and economic
sustainability of the core.
Ms. Barnett continued, third, parking and access, more than 20% of Edmonds’ population is over 65, a
demographic that relies heavily on automotive access to downtown businesses and given the climate and
hills, biking downtown is impractical for most citizens. Reducing parking and prioritizing bike lanes for a
smaller, more mobile segment of the population risks alienating a large portion of the community and
customers. While multimodal transportation options are important, they must be balanced to ensure the
majority of residents and visitors who depend on automotive access can continue to enjoy downtown.
Fourth, community growth, growth is inevitable, but it must align with Edmonds’ identity. Thoughtful
planning can support organic development that enhances rather than detracts from the unique character of
Edmonds. She urged the council to take these considerations to heart and ensure the comprehensive plan
reflects the values of Edmonds and protects the small town, small business, secret sauce that makes
Edmonds the community we all love and allow it to grow in harmony with its unique character.
Janelle Cass, Edmonds, an environmental engineer, explained in her senior at the Air Force Academy she
did a project where she planned a wastewater treatment plant for a town of 40,000 people starting from
scratch. When she thinks about population growth, she thinks about flushes. She did a deep dive on the
material on the Everyone’s Edmonds site which included looking at the Department of Commerce
methodology for determining housing targets for the anticipated population growth. Edmonds is expected
to grow by about 13,000, a population of about 55,000 by 2044. That is based on average household sizes;
Edmonds is currently at 2.29, the lowest in the county except for Index. Edmonds is already ahead of the
curve because 23% of its population is over the age of 65; the Snohomish County average is 13%. She
imagined in 20 years that sector of the population may have declined and those are the people who tend to
live alone in their homes which brings down the household average to 2.29. Commerce told each county to
anticipate a reduction in household averages and designated the average as 2.475 for Snohomish County.
Instead of following Commerce’s instructions, Snohomish County planning advisory group came up with
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 29
a new way of determining housing targets that applied citywide of 2.11/household which she did not think
was feasible because as people are aging, families are moving into Edmonds so there will be more people
per house which is a lot more flushes. If the city ends up with an average household of 2.29, the population
would be 64,287 instead of 55,000, an excess of 41,000 flushes per day.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented the council has a serious problem; they are trying to deal with a
budget problem and at the same time not getting the support they need for the comprehensive plan. He
would love to debate the lady from Herrera regarding what SEPA requires versus what is sufficient for a
checklist. The EIS was supposed to help inform the decision, it was supposed to tell the city where adverse
effects would be. It didn’t do that so now the burden falls on council. This process focused on the house
bills but there are other applicable laws. He referred to RCW 36.70A.070 and WAC 365.196.485,
explaining the RCW contains mandatory elements in the comprehensive plan including that the land use
element shall review drainage, flooding and stormwater runoff in the area and nearby jurisdictions and
provide guidance for corrections, etc. That is not in the comprehensive plan. The RCW also states in the
plan that the city is supposed to avoid impacts through appropriate land use designations. He suggested
doing environmentally sensitive zoning to address that requirement. The RCW also states avoid directing
new growth to areas with high probability of conflicts between new development and protecting critical
areas. Although a critical area is a small piece, what happens around it has an impact. For example,
Perrinville Creek is a critical area, the problem is the area around it, including Lynnwood, is putting
stormwater into the creek, yet nothing in the plan addresses that so the plan is deficient as related to other
applicable law. He understood there was a deadline, relaying a number of people would be willing to help
create language such as a staggered approach to get over the hump and then work on fixing problems next
year. He urged the council not to adopt the comprehensive plan just because the city has to; he preferred to
do it right and figure out how to transition.
David Richman, Edmonds, said he has been involved with the marsh for several years and supports the
alignment of Willow Creek so it flows properly into Puget Sound. There have been other projects to try to
improve the salmon run; admittedly this would be a small salmon run, but it couldn’t be as small as the one
at Meadowdale Beach which he and his daughter witnessed. As a field ecologist specializing in biocontrol
primarily for insects and spiders, he has done some surveying of arthropod fauna which is necessary for
birds and mammals and insects that live in the marsh. The marsh is a very important part of Edmonds; if
Edmonds values its environment as it claims, this is one of the project that absolutely needs to be done,
restore the salmon, restore the Puget Sound area and thus the Salish Sea. It is important culturally and
psychologically because people gain a lot by visiting the marsh.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Rosen closed the public hearing.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. ADOPTION OF GREEN BUILDING INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL AND
MULTIFAMILY (Formerly Consent Agenda Item 8.6)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH AND SECONDED TO APPROVE
THE ADOPTION OF THE GREEN BUILDING INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL AND
MULTIFAMILY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH AND SECONDED TO AMEND TO
STRIKE 16.43.050 UNDER BD BUSINESS DISTRICT SECTION REFERENCED UNDER ECDC
SECTION 16.43.
Councilmember Dotsch explained the council has heard input from the public tonight as well as received
numerous emails. This is a separate incentive program outside the comprehensive plan, however, there are
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 30
some things in the comprehensive plan. The green building incentives do allow heights in BD1 to increase
by 5 feet, essentially allowing for 3 story development if a builder wishes to redevelop. Developers will
absolutely take advantage of it for the third story and the unintended incentive will be to tear the building
down. Redevelopment at this time does not ensure protection of the city’s historic, low profile, small
business friendly development pattern and she believed the BD portion should be removed from this
program at this time. This will allow continuity of Edmonds’ attractive, historic, low profile development
pattern. Edmonds has often been asked by other cities how they can plan and develop a downtown like
Edmonds. What Edmonds has must be cherished and that includes preserving the BD zoning and its
development codes.
Councilmember Paine said she was not necessarily opposed to the amendment, but did not have the code
that was referenced. It was her understanding that that part of the code was more closely related to the
existing code and was not part of the green building incentives. Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston
responded green building incentives are incentives in several zones including BD. The base standards still
remain and are not changing, but with green incentives such as LEED Certification, Master Builders Built
Green Certification, a builder could get an additional 5 feet in height. That would apply to BD1-4, BD5
was removed previously. One of the incentives for the BD zone is 5 feet in height and the other is a slight
change to parking. The green building incentives apply to a number of other zones. If the council wanted
to remove the BD zones, that could be done. This is part of the implementation of the Climate Action Plan
so this discussion will continue in the future. Councilmember Paine asked if it would be more efficient to
eliminate Section 16.43.050 on packet pages 77 and 78 related to the BD zones. Mr. Clugston answered the
council could strike that proposed language.
Councilmember Chen asked if centers and hubs qualify as multifamily and will the 5 feet green building
incentive apply to areas. Ms. Hope responded right now there are no hubs or centers; approving this with
any changes does not say what will occur in centers and hubs; that would be a future conversation. It would
allow redevelopment in current multifamily zones to potentially have an addition 5 feet of height if the
builder does a lot of things to make their building more climate friend and energy efficient by meeting
specific criteria. Councilmember Chen asked if the council approves the green building incentive and also
adopts the comprehensive plan with centers and hubs, would a developer have an opportunity to use both
those regulations to get a 5 foot incentive in centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered a developer could
certainly do both. The reason the idea of green building incentives began was to recognize buildings and
how they are used along with transportation are the two biggest factors that create greenhouse gas emissions
and other climate damaging effects. The idea was what can the city do to improve building quality beyond
all the current building standards and provide a little bit of incentive to help pay for the additional cost of
meeting the requirements or enclose the additional HVAC equipment, extra insulation, etc. in the extra 5
feet.
Councilmember Chen commented the current housing units based on the proposed comprehensive plan is
10,190 and the requirement according to the state and county assignment is…
Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order, that Councilmember Chen was not speaking to the motion.
Mayor Rosen requested he speak to motion related to the BD zone. Councilmember Chen said he was trying
to understand the green incentives before making a motion to table.
Councilmember Chen continued, the requirement is 9,068 housing units so there is an excess of 1,021 units.
If the city delayed the green incentives, would that negatively impact the required number of units. Ms.
Hope answered the extra 5 feet of height is not enough to achieve additional units. There usually needs to
be 7.5 feet for another floor which does not include the roof, etc. The green incentives will not increase the
number of units. Councilmember Chen commented with that information, there are too many unknowns
that will impact green building incentives and the council is in a time crunch to approve this.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 31
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO TABLE THIS TO JANUARY UNTIL THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ADOPTED. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council President Olson agreed with Councilmember Dotsch’s motion to remove the BD zones and pass
the rest of it.
Councilmember Nand recalled a comment made during audience comments that there was an attempt to
put this through on the consent agenda to hide the ball. She asked how many times staff has come before
the council to discuss the green building incentive code; she believed it had been at least 3-4. Planner Tristan
Sewell answered five times. Staff first came to council in January, and following a long pause have been
before the council four more times including tonight. For that reason, Councilmember Nand encouraged
the council to make a decision to avoid continuing to use staff time. She did not support removing the BD
zones because in looking at incentivizing development, people tend to be hostile to change. However,
buildings have a certain life and as they become degraded, the city wants developers to redevelop especially
in the historic downtown business district where new development like the post office building, the Graphite
and Charcoal, buildings that are very well integrated into the style and culture of the Edmonds downtown
business district and often replace buildings that are not in good shape which is bad for the business tenants
and the property owners. The 5 foot incentive for LEED Gold and Built Green sets a good example for the
community. Another comment offered during the public hearing was Edmonds calls itself a climate leader,
but doesn’t embrace the steps needed to be a climate leader.
Councilmember Nand continued, allowing the language in C. Height. “Development certified LEED Gold,
Built Green® 4-Star, or better may receive an additional five feet above the stated height limit” is a way to
demonstrate the city takes its responsibility to reduce greenhouse emissions seriously and while the city is
conscious of the type of development desired in Edmonds, the city is not trying to discourage development
to the point there are a bunch of rundown buildings that will damage the reputation of the business districts.
Councilmember Eck said she was not opposed to having a full conversation in the future. She appreciated
Councilmember Nand’s question about how many times this has been discussed with council, recalling it
has been discussed at committee as well as at council meetings and it wasn’t anyone intent to hide this
language. She was willing to delay the conversation and to balance the language with incentivizing
developers who will come anyway, to go green, particularly knowing the primary causes of carbon in the
atmosphere is transportation and buildings.
Councilmember Paine commented this opportunity allows the use of green building standards for
multifamily and commercial across the city. The downtown business district is special and she wanted to
ensure it was done in a meaningful way. The downtown business district is already fairly dense and having
green building incentives for commercial and multifamily across the rest of the city will help reduce carbon
impacts and allow the city to focus on the BD zones with more precision. She expressed support for the
amendment.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
POSTPONE TO A DATE AT THE END OF JANUARY TO REVISIT THE REMAINING
PORTION.
Councilmember Dotsch commented there are a lot of unknowns, and regardless of how many times this has
come to council, the public was not brought along. The other sections of this code also include height
bonuses, density bonuses, and reduced parking bonuses. One of the things she recalled hearing developers
were interested in was expedited permits; the City does not have to offer all these other things. The City
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 32
can also include things in the building code instead of an incentive program that triggers incentives that
may not be compatible, depending on where they’re located.
Councilmember Nand commented when it comes to efficient use of staff time, the fact that the City is
experiencing a fiscal emergency and laying off dozens of staff, the Planning Department is severely
understaffed and Acting Director Hope came out of retirement to try to rebuild that department, she did not
think it would be responsible to force staff to bring this to council for a sixth time when the council has
been discussing it since January 2024. She urged the council to be good stewards of taxpayer resources and
encouraged the council to vote on this tonight.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for Councilmember Nand’s position. For the first six months of
2025, staff will be working on ensuring all the codes are compliant with state law related to housing, which
will be big push. It is better to approve this tonight and let staff work on the regulatory codes next year.
Councilmember Eck commented councilmembers can agree to disagree whether visibility regarding this
issue was provided. She believed visibility was provided and the language has not changed, and she wanted
to ensure both perspectives were being shared. She did not support postponing this to the end of January.
Councilmember Tibbott said he did not support postponing to January. The council has gone through the
code language with a fine tooth comb at least twice at committee. There was a great explanation of the
green building incentives for commercial and multifamily zones, areas that will provide the biggest benefit
due to the number of units. It is a prudent way to implement these incentives. All the building codes
including design standards will apply; the only thing that is added is incentives for green buildings.
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND DOTSCH VOTING YES.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO.
2. 2025 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA (Formerly Consent Agenda Item 8.5)
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
ADOPT THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
AMEND SECTION 4, STRIKE “THAT PROMOTE” AFTER “BACK MEASURES” AND ADD
“WHICH AID IN THE FINANCING OF.”
Council President Olson said this would avoid the possibility of construing the guidance of council, that
they were in favor of some of the less environmentally friendly and less neighborhood friendly ways of
construction that are being pushed and she was concerned as originally offered the language was too broad.
That was her only objection to the 2025 Legislative Agenda, and would have approved it on consent
otherwise.
Councilmember Paine said as the person who put this into the legislative agenda, she described why she
added it. She did not object to this change, but did not appreciate the framing. Places like Housing Hope
need to have access and the city’s support through the legislative agenda to obtain additional funding. The
Edmonds Food Bank, who serves 1,000 families/week, also needs social support via inclusion in the
legislative agenda as well as the City’s own human services program. This is not related to the aggressive
building of houses, the City does not build houses, developers build houses. This is intended to provide a
variety of housing options at all income levels, focusing on the lower income levels to ensure access to
housing across the board.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 33
Councilmember Nand said she had no objection to Council President Olson’s edit. There are a lot of
interesting financing options that the federal and lower levels of government are trying to adopt such as the
Low Income Housing Credit to create more affordable housing. The statement that Director Tatum and Ms.
Munguia developed states, “Increase housing supply and support measures to increase housing stability.”
Typically when the council delegation meets with legislators, the meetings last 10 minutes; the time goes
very quickly and the goal is to get the gist of the City’s agenda across to them before they go into session.
She thanked Councilmember Paine for developing this and expressed support for Council President Olson’s
amendment.
Council President Olson commented she neglected to mention specifics, lot coverage and setbacks were
things there has been talk about changing at the state level and she did not think that was not something the
community wanted.
Councilmember Eck read the section, “Increasing housing supply and support measures that increase
housing stability, back measures that promote housing construction, explore new funding options for needs
along housing continuum including homeownership, senior housing, rent support and permanent supportive
housing.” Edmonds has community members who have these needs now, people on the housing continuum,
desire homeownership, senior housing, rent support to keep people in their homes rather than becoming
homeless and help them get back into housing, and permanent supportive housing. She was unable to
support the amendment.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND ECK VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
MOVE UP THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER INVESTMENT GRADE AUDIT ON THE
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER INVESTMENT GRADE AUDIT PAYMENT
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented council action is needed to allow finance to pay a bill.
The State passed a law in 2019, the Clean Buildings Act, which has a sequenced structure. The point of the
law is bring commercial buildings into a higher level of energy efficiency and decarbonize emissions,
basically electrifying them. The only City building that meets the first tier in that law, 50,000 square feet
(the tiers will eventually decrease to 30,000 and 15,000 square feet in subsequent biennium) is the Frances
Anderson Center which is 55,000 square feet. The City worked with ESCO contractor McKinstry who
proposed an investment grade audit. The proposal was presented to the PPW Committee in June 2023 and
two weeks later approved by council, $92,500 to do an investment grade, the first step in any ESCO project.
McKinstry started that audit in September and a request was made to have funds carried forward into the
2024 budget, but something went awry and it wasn’t carried forward. The audit continued and a report was
prepared; when staff requested payment of the bill, they learned there was no budget for it. He will make a
presentation regarding the results of the investment grade audit in January when the council is less busy.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
AUTHORIZE THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO FUND FROM THE BOND FUNDED
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BUDGET 016.100 FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE FRANCES
ANDERSON CENTER INVESTMENT GRADE AUDIT BY MCKINSTRY. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
EXTEND TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 34
3. PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT RENEWAL
HR Manager RaeAnn Duarte advised the HR Department worked with the City’s legal counsel and
Snohomish County Public Defenders Association (SCPDA) to prepare this contract. HR Director Neill
Hoyson advised the proposed contract is for 18 months. The reason, in addition to getting contracts off
cycle so they do not have to be renewed at yearend when the council is dealing with the budget, is legislative
changes may occur that will change the caseload limits for public defenders. It is anticipated the caseload
limits will be decreased which would require more public defenders to address the City’s public defense
needs. The initial proposal from the SCPDA included a significant increase in the second half of 2026
anticipating that legislative change which is why staff asked for an 18 month contract to see what happens
with that legislation and to address any increase at that time.
Kathlee Kyle, Snohomish County Public Defender Association, presented the contract renewal:
• Contract Term: 1/1/25 to 6/30/26
o The contract structure is consistent with previous agreements
• Comparing Rates Year Over Year
o 90% of SCPDA costs are employee salaries and benefits
o Compliance with Indigent Defense Standard One: Pay Parity with the Snohomish County
Prosecutor’s Office
o SCPDA is actively recruiting and retaining defenders to prevent vacancies and avoiding people
languishing due to public defender shortages.
• 2024 November Point in Time – Attorney Workloads
o Number of Cases Open Per Attorney
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 35
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT
THE CONTRACT AS PRESENTED.
Councilmember Paine commented she looked forward to Ms. Kyle’s next presentation. She expressed
appreciation to staff for getting the contract off the end of the year cycle.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. DISCUSSION/POTENTIAL ACTION OF FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS
Council President Olson commented it was her pleasure to introduce this agenda item regarding potential
annexation to the RFA. She advised the documents in the packet are the same ones that were in the packet
last week, the last approved documents from the RFA. Unfortunately there was nothing new this week so
there is no intent to take action tonight to allow the council to receive and consider the documents that
reflect the changes to areas of concern. She introduced RFA representatives here tonight, Fire
Commissioner Ed Widdis, Fire Chief Bob Eastman, and Communications Director Christie Veley,
suggesting they describe what happened at the RFA meeting tonight followed by council questions. The
RFA will meet against next week to finalize the agreement.
Commissioner Widdis referred to questioned raised, first, what happens if Stations 16 and 20 are no longer
used as fire stations such as if Edmonds were to restart its own fire department. As stated previously the
fire stations follow the fire service; if the City restarted its own fire service, they would come back to
Edmonds and that language is being rewritten. Another question was parody in the temporary service
agreement regarding SNO 911, LEOFF1 liability, and fire marshal fees. In talking with legal and some
RFA Board members, it is likely the RFA will take over the SNO 911 payments, but the LEOFF1 liability
and fire marshal are City issues. Another issue that came up was a date change, August 1 was changed to
June 1. The term of the agreement ending was December 2026, but the notification date was omitted so the
date of September 30 is being added.
Commissioner Widdis continued, 2.2 in one of the articles related to changing level of service, the section
refers to increase and a concern was raised that it should also say decrease. That section will likely be
removed. The final issue was related to rolling stock, that the City may buy back equipment with
concurrence of the RFA. That will be changed to allow the City to buy back rolling stock. A copy of the
revisions will be provided to the City tomorrow and he encouraged council and the administration to ask
any questions.
Councilmember Paine asked Commissioner Widdis to repeat the first item. Commissioner Widdis
explained if stations 16 and 20 were no longer used as fire station, the City would have to buy them. If the
City wanted to restart its own department, the stations should follow the fire service and would return to
the City with no consideration or cost.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 36
Fire Chief Eastman commented from a process perspective, what they talked to the RFA Board about
tonight was when the council receives the changes, the board get will receive the same changes tomorrow.
The plan is to bring the changes for approval at their meeting next Tuesday prior to the item on the council’s
agenda so the council will know when considering that item whether the changes were approved by the
RFA Board. That is how the RFA is expediting this so hopeful the council does not need to hold a special
meeting next week.
Councilmember Nand thanked the staff, RFA commission and the negotiating team for their work. The
City continues to get a lot of comments supporting the RFA as well as concern about annexation. She
looked forward to hearing when town halls with the community can be scheduled.
Councilmember Eck expressed appreciation for the information provided by the RFA tonight. She agreed
public engagement will be important and she was eager to have that happen as soon as possible.
Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the changes Commissioner Widdis outlined, especially
the property transfers with no consideration. He suggested the RFA entertain the idea about transferring
two stations from the City of Edmonds to the RFA at cost, meaning fair market value, and if they revert in
the future, they would also revert at cost. Chief Eastman said that has not been done with any other city and
he guessed that would not be acceptable to the board and at this point, he suggested not going there for
several reasons including that the RFA has not purchased stations from any other entity. It is in everyone’s
best interest for the RFA not to buy the stations and then sell them back and instead do it as proposed where
the stations follow the service. Currently Edmonds provides the service via contract; if Edmonds’ voters
support annexation, the stations follow the taxpayer. If the City of Edmonds restarts its own fire department
and citizens get fire service from the City, then the station would go back with the taxpayers to the City.
He summarized that is a cleaner way to do it rather than pass dollars back and forth. Councilmember Chen
expressed appreciation for the feedback and relayed his support for the changes that were made to the
original version.
Communications Director Christie Veley said the RFA has been having some really good conversations
with residents. They appreciate all the questions and feedback and engagement in the process. The RFA is
happy to answer questions when people reach out.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nand reported those who attended the tree lighting ceremony might have had the
opportunity to see Richard Taylor, Jr. perform from his new album, An Edmonds Kind of Christmas. She
was very proud of him and his accomplishments; he will next be performing at the Musicology Company
on December 13. A link to that show and to his album on Spotify or YouTube can be found in the Edmonds
Beacon.
Councilmember Paine thanked everyone who attended tonight’s meeting. She looked forward to getting all
the comments on the comprehensive plan wrapped up. She was glad to see that the bulk of the green building
incentives were approved tonight, one of the big things on the Climate Action Plan. She commented next
week will be busy and she was glad this meeting finished earlier than last week’s 11:30.
Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone who attended tonight’s meeting, commenting it was great to hear
from the public. She acknowledged there had been fits and starts, things have changed midstream and it
will be a challenging end of the year. In looking over the comprehensive plan, she wanted to be more
intentional about Edmonds. Some of the comments tonight were very informative and there is still time to
be more intentional related to the environmental gifts in Edmonds.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 10, 2024
Page 37
Council President Olson commented most are aware of the huge PR nightmare related to the alleged plan
to outsource the police which was never a plan. She appreciated the council was getting information on
absolutely all budget cutting opportunities, but if the Edmonds Police officers didn’t already know how
much they are loved and appreciated, that was a positive outcomes of the article. She suggest other
communities are looking to hire Edmonds’ amazing officers over this article and she urged them to please
don’t go, we love you.
Councilmember Tibbott commented it is great that there is time for council comments and it is not past
11:00. He applauded Mayor Rosen’s leadership in working on options and alternatives. Although it caused
a bit of PR snafu, he saw this as being proactive related to very important conversations. One of the most
exciting things is the council and administration are having ongoing and fruitful conversations with the
police department. His regard for the police department has only gone up in the last week as the council
works on long lasting solutions.
Councilmember Chen thanked the public for sharing their concerns with the council and he assured the
council hears them. Gathering information about any decisions before the front of council helps them make
better decisions for the City, whether it is regarding the comprehensive plan, fire services, or the police
department. He appreciated all the comments because they mean the citizens care.
Councilmember Eck thanked the public for the feedback they provide particularly at public hearings. The
council has a responsibility to do their jobs as seriously and diligently as possible and it is also the council’s
duty to educate the public and address misinformation whether it is about the police, green incentives or
whatnot. She concluded it is important that the council represent and listen, but also not to take the blame
for things they haven’t done and to use the opportunity to educate.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:18 pm.
8.5.a
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
0
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Council 5:30 Special Meeting Minutes December 17, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-17 Council Special Minutes A
8.6
Packet Pg. 112
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2024
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 17, 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
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 5:29 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
4. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. WA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Police Chief Bennett explained this is the agreement the City enters into annually with the Washington
State Traffic Commission to be participants with the Target Zero Task Force and receive grant funds to pay
overtime for officers who participate in emphasize patrols. The Washington Traffic Safety Commission
reimburses the City for officers’ overtime participating in those programs.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WASHINGTON TRAFFIC SAFETY
COMMISSION AND EDMONDS POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR EMPHASIZE PATROLS.
Council President Olson commented the City enters into this contract with the Washington Traffic Safety
Commission every year; this contract looks the same as other years’ contracts.
8.6.a
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
5
:
3
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2024
Page 2
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. 2025 ARLINGTON AIRPORT CONTRACT
Police Chief Bennett explained this is the renewal of a contract for the Edmonds Police Department to use
the Arlington Airport for emergency vehicle operations course.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO ACCEPT
THE ARLINGTON AIRPORT CONTRACT FOR THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATIONS
COURSE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Police Chief Bennett explained it took staff some time to find the prior Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan (CEMP) and determine whether it had been promulgated. That plan scored in the mid
50’s on a 0-100 scale. After the City’s emergency manager position was eliminated last year, some very
talented consultants were hired to update the CEMP. The consultants interviewed stakeholders, City
directors, and did a very thorough analysis in developing the proposed plan. The plan was submitted to the
state and approved with a score of 95%. Once the CEMP was approved, she and Mayor Rosen met with
Kim Mask, Washington State Emergency Management Division, and some suggestions were made for
further updates, none of which need to be made prior to the plan being approved by council.
Ms. Mask clarified when the state reviews plan, they use an all-inclusive checklist which includes meeting
the legal requirements which is where Edmonds scored 95%. She agreed the consultants did a great job.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Council President Olson said she was impressed with the CEMP and had been eagerly awaiting it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
AMEND PAGE 16 REGARDING CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT AND SUCCESSION OF
AUTHORITY, TO REPLACE ITEM 3 WITH “COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM” AND ADD
ITEM 4 THAT READS, “MOST SENIOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, IN ORDER OF CONTINUOUS
SENIORITY PROVIDED THAT THERE WERE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVING THE
SAME CONTINUOUS SENIORITY ON THE COUNCIL, THE HOLDER OF THE LOWEST
NUMBERED POSITION ON THE COUNCIL SHALL BE DEEMED THE MORE SENIOR OF THE
TWO.”
Council President Olson commented this was taken directly from the City code.
Councilmember Nand asked whether any part of the plan references the ability to suspend the sale of alcohol
during a declared emergency. Ms. Mask answered she did not believe that was contained in Edmonds’ plan
or in the criteria for the state’s review of the plan.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the proposed change and for the updated CEMP, commenting
it was miles better than the previous one.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8.6.a
Packet Pg. 114
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
5
:
3
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2024
Page 3
Councilmember Eck asked if this was Chief Bennett’s last council meeting. Chief Bennett answered she
will be here in January.
4. ORDINANCE SUSPENDING BOARDS COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS FOR THE
2025-2026 BIENNIUM
Council President Olson relayed this is an ordinance related to resolving a discrepancy between the code
and a budget amendment approved by council.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED, TO APPROVE
THE ORDINANCE PAUSING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR THE 2025-26 BIENNIUM.
Council President Olson acknowledged this has caused a lot of consternation in the community. The council
is making a lot of really difficult choices this year, not the least of which is loss of staff, furloughs, the loss
of treasured programs, as well as the loss of boards and commissions meeting routinely in accordance with
code. This ordinance pauses the routine business of those boards and commissions, but does not terminate
them; boards and commissions can be consulted with or assigned specific projects. Some commissions are
more oriented to that such as the arts commission which does Write on the Sound and other activities. She
apologized to everyone who is unhappy, relaying the council is also unhappy. She recalled Mayor Rosen
promising in this budget process that everyone would be unhappy, noting he has been 100% correct. The
ordinance in the packet reflects the budget amendment that was approved by council; and implements that
amendment in the code. She recalled the city attorney was asked to prepare this ordinance so she considered
this the second touch unless any councilmember preferred to approve it on a future consent agenda.
Councilmember Nand commented the council received communications from some board, commission and
committee members protesting the upcoming suspension. She expressed her sympathy to them and
encourage members who have enjoyed the activities pursued on their board, commission or committee t o
continue meeting and possibly find a supporting organization outside the municipal envelope while the City
struggles with its budget crisis. Edmonds runs on the passion of its volunteers and she was very dismayed
it had come to this. The council is responsible for the budget and will do their best to fix the problems that
led to this situation.
Councilmember Paine recalled after this amendment was passed at the adjourned meeting, she received a
lot of questions from the Climate Protection Committee, many of which she noted would be best answered
by City Attorney Jeff Taraday. One of the questions was whether the City still keep the emails in place to
help support the Public Records Act. The ordinance states the city council or mayor can bring back boards
or commissions for a special task and she asked if that would comply with the Open Public Meetings Act.
Mr. Taraday answered he had not had an opportunity to think about this question. He assumed without
knowing that the email addresses would not be deleted because this is a temporary measure. It will be
important for all board and commission members to understand they cannot meet by email. While they will
still have access to their email addresses, the same rules about serial meetings and not meeting by email
apply during this suspension. It was his understanding board and commission members will still have access
to email. Mayor Rosen agreed that was the intent.
Councilmember Eck expressed support for the motion, assuring no one was excited or happy about it. She
has also heard from board and commission members, particularly those who want to keep meeting due to
their dedication to their work. She encouraged leveraging that energy and those ideas by allowing them to
meet within the framework. The level of response reflects the level of commitment the boards and
commissions have toward the City and the work they have been doing.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8.6.a
Packet Pg. 115
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
5
:
3
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2024
Page 4
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW 42.30.110(1)(I)
At 5:45 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i) for a period of one hour.
6. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The meeting reconvened at 6:45 pm.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the special council meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm.
8.6.a
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
A
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
5
:
3
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of Council 7:00 Special Meeting Minutes December 17, 2024
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Recommendation
Approval of Council Meeting minutes as part of the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
Council meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
2024-12-17 Council Special Minutes B
8.7
Packet Pg. 117
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
December 17, 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
Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director
Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir.
Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Mgr.
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 6:59 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 Tibbott read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water.”
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Nick Maxwell, Edmonds, referred to Item 1.b in the Language for Potential Amendments, Polices LU-
22.1 and 22.3, explaining the planning board unanimously recommended the highlighted language be added
to protect the security of the aquifer. He hoped that language would be added as intended by the planning
board.
Robert Deigert, Edmonds, said he has heard the city is considering getting rid of the Edmonds Police
Department and getting its police services via the Snohomish County Sheriff and asked if that was true.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 2
Mayor Rosen advised this is an opportunity for the public to provide comment, not have a conversation
with council. Mr. Deigert advised he has also heard there is $12 million hole in the budget which is the
reason for getting rid of the Edmond Police. That would be a huge mistake because the Edmonds Police are
very special and residents do not want to get rid of them, especially to get services from the Sheriff’s
department instead. When he calls the Edmonds Police, they are at his home in five minutes; if he calls the
Sheriff’s Department, he has to call repeatedly and they may or may not come at all. The most important
features in a small city like Edmonds are the police, fire, and maintenance which all support the city. A city
worker who inspected a water project he was doing was driving a $100,000 Ford electric truck. He
questioned why anyone working for the City of Edmonds was driving a $100,000 truck. He also heard the
city planned to put $2 million into the Boys & Girls Club, 15% of the budget deficit. He recommended
getting rid of the fluff, and keep the good stuff like the police and fire and cut back on the $100,000 trucks.
Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, asked the council to postpone the decision on RFA annexation until all options
are fully investigated rather than spending money and resources on a special election. If the annexation
fails, there will need to be another option and further investigation wi ll put the city ahead of the curve in
that scenario. The option of annexing into South County Fire dramatically increases residents’ taxes,
conveys taxpayer owned real estate, provides no control over future increases, provides no representation
for personal taxation, and accountability and transparency of dollars will not be forthcoming. Edmonds
struggles with funding capabilities to recreate its own fire department and sustain it for the long run,
although she believed that would be the preference and should be considered. There are a lot of unknowns
and long term expenditures including paying out pensions. She suggested delving into the option of having
the City forming its own RFA to give taxpayers and the city local control over taxes and representation.
While this city-owned option has similar expenses, it is taxed separately from the city and has the option of
involving more cities than just Edmonds. She urged the council to investigate an option to share an RFA
with Mukilteo whom she believed would be very open to the conversation and possibly Everett.
Ms. Strong continued, this would allow sharing expenses of personnel, pensions, equipment and overall
costs. Each city would have a representative on the board and have input. Tax hikes would be put to the
people who would have taxation with representation and transparency and accountability would be more
likely to occur. She urged the council to consider this option as a long term solution and extend the current
contract until this could be put in place. The city has a unique law only allowing campaign contributions
of $500 maximum per candidate in each election, presumably to keep representation of the people and
disable elected officials from being bought out. The SCF fire union circumvented this with independent
expenditures of $7400 to Councilmember Eck and $4000 to Councilmember Paine in last year’s elections.
She believed they had an ethical responsibility to recuse themselves from any discussion or vote regarding
the RFA annexation. The council’s job is to represent the people of the city, not the unions.
Bill Krepick, Woodway, anticipating the council would vote on the RFA annexation tonight, wondered
what the council was contemplating in making that decision. He relayed the following questions:
1. How can the council continue to label the RFA as the preferred and low cost alternative? The cost
originally proposed in Fitch’s consulting study was $17 million, but whether it was $17 million or
$19 million makes little difference because he heard a couple weeks ago that the tax levy will be
$21 million which seems like a very large amount when comparing alternatives such as the city
establishing its own fire department.
2. Has the council actually reviewed the three cities, Placentia and Sunnyvale, California, and
Watertown, New York, who have managed to implement their own fire and EMS departments,
saving in excess of 30% versus the RFA type regional authority?
3. How can the council reach a decision when the RFA has not provided any cost information and
only provided monopoly pricing?
4. The RFA has not actually optimized their staffing to reflect what is happening in the marketplace,
85% medical calls and only 10% fire calls.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 3
He recommended at least two councilmembers needed to recuse themselves from the vote due to taking
significant contributions from the firefighters’ union. He requested the council answer his questions before
voting on the RFA annexation.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented if anyone is trying to watch on TV, the broadcast is the December
10 council meeting. He hoped the council was considering the comments he has made previously,
recognizing the council has a difficult job and the public appreciates what the council and mayor are doing
looking out for the city. He hoped the council could end today and enjoy the holidays. He wished all a
Merry Christmas. Mayor Rosen advised the broadcast had been fixed.
6. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE. TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. CREATIVE DISTRICT GATEWAY ART PROJECT ARTIST APPROVAL
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. ADOPTION OF 2025-2026 BIENNIUM BUDGET ORDINANCE
Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe relayed she was here to answer questions. The council packet
contains the ordinance along with 2025/2026 budget and a reconciliation of the General Fund taking into
consideration the amendments made throughout the deliberation process.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR
THE 2025-2026 BIENNIUM.
Councilmember Paine commented we survived, everyone did a remarkable job. She anticipated more
changes would be made during the coming year.
Councilmember Chen added his appreciation for staff’s hours of hard work in putting the final budget
together. Even with the adoption of the budget, there is much more work to be done in the coming year.
With regard to the $6M interfund loan from the utility fund, he expressed appreciation for Ms. Dunscombe’s
email that clarified the payment schedule and plans to pay back the loan within the 3 year timeframe, no
payment in 2025 and payment of $3M in principal plus interest in 2026 and 2027. He reiterated his
appreciation for all the hard work, anticipating the council will roll up its sleeves and work even harder
next year.
Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Chen’s comments complimenting Ms. Dunscombe and the
finance department. She made a statement of solidarity with the 20+ City employees who will be losing the
job in the new year. She thanked Mayor Rosen and his administration, consultant Mike Bailey and the
acting director for their degree of financial transparency and education to the public in explaining how the
City government ended up in this very unfortunate place. She hoped future councils take the lessons the
council had to bitterly learn this year forward in times of plenty and are more circumspect with their
spending so they don’t have to resort to dozens of layoffs to balance the books.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 4
With regard to the interfund loan repayment, Councilmember Dotsch observed the $3M payment in 2026
is within the biennial budget and asked how that would be reflected in the budget. Ms. Dunscombe answered
the interfund loan will be paid back $3M in 2026 and $3M in 2027 which is outside the biennium. There
will be a debt service page in the budget book when it is produced in January and she will show the second
payment in the strategic outlook. Councilmember Dotsch said she was asking about the first payment. Ms.
Dunscombe answered the 2026 payment is part of the adopted budget. The exhibits that are part of the
ordinance show appropriation authority by fund. The full budget book is not produced again until January.
Councilmember Dotsch asked for assurance the $3M plus interest was included in the numbers for the
ending fund balance. Ms. Dunscombe advised it was included in 2026 and 2027. Councilmember Dotsch
asked if an ordinance was required for the interfund loan. Ms. Dunscombe advised the budget ordinance
sets the appropriation authority, an interfund loan resolution or ordinance will need to be passed in January.
The timing is being discussed with Mayor Rosen and she also wants to talk with Mike Bailey about how
funds are drawn from the loan before presenting the resolution or ordinance to council. Councilmember
Dotsch commented it would be nice to do that as soon as possible for planning next year. Ms. Dunscombe
advised that will be an important piece for the January close.
Councilmember Eck commented while she realized everyone was glad to be putting closure to this, she
wouldn’t say there was backslapping on council. She emphasized the thanks that other councilmembers
shared; the directors have done a ton of heavy lifting through this process. She expressed her great
appreciation for the work directors have done to dig deep and find money we didn’t think we could find. It
is painful to make staff cuts and the community likely will feel the difference in service and the experience,
but those cuts were necessary. Moving forward, to have a truly balanced budget it will be important to make
gains on revenues, not just taxes. A long list of other revenue options was created and all options need to
be considered as quickly as possible. She thanked Ms. Dunscombe and all the directors.
Council President Olson said historically she has made a point of not piling on when everyone else says
thank you and just agreeing with what everyone else said, but she can’t pass up the opportunity this time
because it has been such a herculean lift particularly by Ms. Dunscombe and her department. The
department heads, the committee of city staff that reviewed all the budget by priorities, etc.; there has been
so much done by so many to make this budget come together. As others have said, there is also a lot to be
sad about in this budget, but she appreciated the effort and work that went into it.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with his fellow councilmembers’ appreciation of staff and also thanked the
public who were very involved with the process. This budget is an agreement with the residents of the City
regarding how public funds are spent. The council takes this deliberation very seriously and couldn’t have
done it without the public’s input. As Councilmember Chen mentioned, the council will be rolling up their
sleeves on some remaining work. For the most part this budget sets the course for the entire year; unlike a
business, the budget cannot be changed every month. The budget is an agreement regarding the City’s
focus; the council has learned some important values and priorities from the public and he thanked the
public for their involvement.
Councilmember Dotsch observed the packet shows the street fund in the red in 2025 and up to $500,000 in
the red in 2026. She asked if it was legal not to balance that fund. Ms. Dunscombe answered it won’t end
that way; there is a plan in place to ensure the street fund ends with a positive balance, it wasn’t necessarily
represented in this budget. The state auditor’s take on that would be as long the City demonstrates there is
a plan to get the street fund back in the positive, they wouldn’t issue a finding. There are definitely
conversations occurring to ensure the street fund ends with a positive fund balance. It will require some
work, but there are currently five vacancies which are not part of the amended budget and those positions
will remain vacant to ensure positions are brought on in a way that allows the street fund to do its work and
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 5
end 2025 in a positive position. Councilmember Dotsch observed streets are a big desire of the residents
and she was unsure how $500,000 would be found. Ms. Dunscombe advised it will be an ongoing
conversation in 2025 to ensure that work is supported to the level it needs to be.
Councilmember Dotsch referred to the assumption of a $6M levy lid lift and asked if there had been
discussions about the type of levy lid lift or was that unknown. Ms. Dunscombe agreed that is one of the
hard parts about including it in the budget is not having an idea or plan regarding the flavor of the levy lid
lift. That will tackled early in 2025 to position it for either the August or November ballot. The work is not
over yet and in some respects is just beginning. Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone for all their work,
recognizing this has been a very heavy lift that continued late into the year. The challenge with this process
was creating a budget that the public could understand and she was unsure the public understands what was
included/not included in this budget. She recognized there was a lot of unknown data and dollar variables
to balance the budget such as the RFA annexation and the levy lid lift, whether that is one year or multiple
years and could be much as a 53% tax increase.
Councilmember Dotsch continued, relaying her preference for a more fiscally conservative approach that
did not assume two big value numbers in the budget. She understood the challenges with that, but felt the
council could have been more fiscally honest about the fiscal impacts if one or both did not pass. One of
things to look forward to in 2025 as the council continues to work on the budget in a fiscally responsible
and revenue appropriate fashion is the imbalances still need to be addressed so the council is not asking the
taxpayers for money in an irresponsible way to fund programs and staffing. It will be important to add
metrics regarding what success looks like such as KPIs. She supported what has happened and a lot of the
work that has been done, but she will not support the budget.
Ms. Dunscombe expressed appreciation for the council’s comments and looked forward to working with
the council on some other really hard decisions that need to be made in 2025. She welcomed any ideas for
reporting throughout year as part of finance committee meetings to make things more transparent or clear
as the council continues its discussions throughout the year.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO.
2. ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Planning & Development Director Shane Hope introduced Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston. She
recognized the council has gone through a large process as part of the comprehensive plan update. Work
began over two years ago including gathering public input with the aim of adopting the comprehensive plan
update by the end of 2024 as required by state law. In the last several months that effort has ramped up. She
reviewed:
• Items in Tonight’s packet
o Agenda Memo
o Draft Comprehensive Plan with:
▪ Transportation element as preliminary approved
▪ CFP and CIP projects as preliminary approved
o Ordinance for plan adoption
o Letter from Dept. of Commerce
o Review and response to Dept. of Commerce’s letter
o Planning Board recommended changes
o Draft amendment language from staff
• Housing Capacity Tally
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 6
• Explanation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Correction
o Existing comprehensive plan designates a large area as master plan development (light pink
hatched
o New FLUM identified an area of the Master Plan Development as Open Space (area identified
in red)
▪ Making that change without any policy discussion raises issues
▪ Recommended map be changed to return to the existing FLUM that leaves that area as
Master Plan Development
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 7
• FLUM as amended above
Language for potential amendments by topic for council consideration on December 17
The following amendment ideas are shown in three groups:
1.a Recommendations already included in Council’s agenda packet
1.b Missed Planning Board recommendations
2. Recommendations from Dept. of Commerce
3. Optional suggestions that either remove a neighborhood hub or provide clarification.
In addition, individual councilmembers may want to propose other amendments not listed
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 8
1.a. Recommendations already included in Council’s agenda packet
NOTE: All of the following recommended amendments are already in the Council’s agenda packet
and include Planning Board recommendations. These could all be proposed in one large group by
moving to: Amend the Plan to include all proposed recommendations from staff that are contained
in the Council’s agenda memo for the Comprehensive Plan.
For Marsh and salmon passage:
o Amend Policy LU-10.3 to add, at the end of it, the phrase “and, at the property known as the
Unocal property, provide an open channel that will allow fish passage to Puget Sound.”
o Amend Policy LU-24.4 to add the word “expand”, so that it reads: “Seek opportunities to
restore, expand, and enhance the Edmonds Marsch as an estuary.”
For Planning Board recommendations:
o Amend the Plan to include all the Planning Board’s recommended edits, as included in the City
Council’s December 17 agenda memo, excluding Item 4 from the Planning Board regarding
Policy LU-10.3 for fish passage, which is being superseded by another amendment to Policy
LU-10.3.
For Climate Element:
o Remove the Climate Element section title that reads “City of Edmonds – Leader in
environmental stewardship” and replace it with the following language: “City of Edmonds –
Mission to lead in environmental stewardship”.
For transition zones:
o Revise Policy LU-15.1, by removing the current reference to transition zones and revising the
policy to read: “In low and medium density residential areas, encourage walkability, a vibrant
public realm, and appropriate city neighborhood character.”
For groundwater recharge:
o Revise Policy LU-22.1 to add the term “and materials” so that the policy reads: “Limit land use
activities and materials that would negatively impact groundwater recharge.”
For PROS Plan, Shoreline Master Plan, and Highway 99 Subarea Plan:
o Add a new Policy LU-19.3 under Goal LU-19 that reads: “The adopted Parks Recreation and
Open Space (PROS) plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan and its policies continue to
be in effect.”
o Add a new Policy LU-10.4 under Goal LU-10 that reads as follows: “The goals and policies of
the City’s Shoreline Master Program are an element of the Comprehensive Plan and continue
to be in effect.”
o Add a new Policy LU-13.4 under Goal LU-13 that reads: “The Highway 99 Subarea Plan
continues to provide information and guidance for revitalizing this special area.”
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
ADOPT THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS IN 1.A AS DESCRIBED BY DIRECTOR
HOPE.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if this included the planning board’s recommendations. Ms. Hope responded
it does. Councilmember Dotsch referred to a public comment that not all the planning board’s
recommendations were included. Ms. Hope commented that was a misunderstanding, they are all included.
Councilmember Nand referred to packet page 549, relaying she did not see a numerical breakdown of the
proposed amendments. Ms. Hope responded the list she displayed and described is identical to the list in
the packet.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 9
Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the way this is presented in groupings. These proposed
changes include language related to the marsh and salmon passage, the planning board recommendations,
climate element language, information about transition zones, ground water recharge, the PROS Plan,
Shoreline Master Plan and Highway 99 subarea plans. She thanked staff for making this so easy.
AMENDMENT CARRIED 6-0-1.
1.b. Supplement to 1.a.
NOTE: Regretfully, the following recommendations appear to have been missed from the original
packet. Staff recommends that a councilmember move to amend the comprehensive plan to include
them.
o Revise LU-22.1 to read: "Limit land use activities that would negatively impact groundwater
recharge, unless such activities protect against contaminating the aquifer."
o Revise LU-22.3 to read: "Encourage projects that actively enhance aquifer recharge, such as
artificial recharge basins, managed aquifer recharge (MAR) systems, and restoring natural
recharge areas, unless such projects risk contaminating the aquifer."
Ms. Hope advised 1.b included items that some planning board members thought were missed in the packet.
However, as staff reviewed the amendments in 1.a, all had been included so council can skip the
amendments in 1.b. She continued her review of proposed amendments:
2. Recommendations from Department of Commerce
NOTE: The following recommendations are based on the Department of Commerce letter, which
is included in the Council agenda memo. Each is shown as bulleted language by topic. Any of them
could be proposed as a separate motion from a councilmember to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Wildfire requirement:
o Add to Goal LU-1 a new Policy LU-1.12 about wildfire risk, so that the new policy reads:
“Reduce and mitigate wildfire risks to life and property by using land use planning tools and
through wildfire preparedness and fire adaptation measures.”
Essential public facilities:
o Add to Goal LU-1 a new Policy LU-1.13 about essential public facilities, so that the new policy
reads: “Use the Snohomish County Tomorrow process as needed to provide for the siting of
essential public facilities.”
Property rights
o Add to Goal LU-1 a new Policy LU-1.14 about property rights, so that the new policy reads:
“Evaluate proposed regulatory or administrative actions as appropriate to assure that such
actions do not result in an unconstitutional taking of private property.”
Capital budget decisions
o Add to Policy CF-2 a new phrase at the end of the first sentence so that the revised first sentence
reads: “Establish a clear set of criteria to prioritize capital projects based on urgency, impact,
and alignment with the city’s strategic goals and to implement the comprehensive plan.”
Barriers and actions to achieve housing availability
o In the Housing Element, add a new subsection called “Barriers and actions for housing
availability” right before the section entitled “Edmonds Housing Targets,” which shall state:
“One of the barriers to achieving more housing availability in Edmonds has been development
regulations that precluded duplexes, cottage housing, and townhomes is most areas of the city.
To address this barrier, Edmonds has begun preparing to revise its development code to allow
middle housing and some new opportunities in designated areas for multifamily housing,
consistent with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan.”
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 10
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AMEND TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AS
LAID OUT IN THE HANDOUT.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO
REMOVE THE FINAL STATEMENT, “ONE OF THE BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING MORE
HOUSING AVAILABILITY IN EDMONDS HAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT
PRECLUDED DUPLEXES, COTTAGE HOUSING, AND TOWNHOMES IS MOST AREAS OF
THE CITY. TO ADDRESS THIS BARRIER, EDMONDS HAS BEGUN PREPARING TO REVISE
ITS DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW MIDDLE HOUSING AND SOME NEW
OPPORTUNITIES IN DESIGNATED AREAS FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, CONSISTENT
WITH THE 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.”
Councilmember Nand explained while she is supportive of implementing middle housing and distributing
home equity options throughout the City, the council in a 6-1 vote made the correct move to signal to the
state that the council was in favor of retaining local control in its opposition to bills such as HB 1110, 1220,
etc. She recognized the City was required to revise its comprehensive plan, but strongly believed local
government needed to have a voice and a seat at table in local land use decisions.
Councilmember Tibbott recalled in discussions about housing typology, there is an opportunity to choose
from a variety of housing types and asked if those typologies would be comprehensive enough to include
what the state is suggesting be added to the comprehensive plan. Ms. Hope responded the state is
recognizing that there is nothing that says there have been barriers to providing those housing types. This
would formally recognize that those housing types haven’t been provided in the past and that the City plans
to do it differently in the future. Councilmember Tibbott said this recommendation from the Department of
Commerce is just admitting there were some barriers. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Tibbott found this
a rather technical set of amendments and this was a technicality he could embrace so he will support the
original motion.
Councilmember Dotsch agreed with Councilmember Nand that this statement is not correct because the
City has been told by the Department of Commerce middle housing is not affordable housing. Ms. Hope
clarified the statement says to achieve housing availability, not affordability. Councilmember Dotsch
commented a single family house could be just as affordable as a townhouse in some parts of Edmonds.
She agreed that statement is not an accurate portrayal of anything that has prevented housing and expressed
support for the amendment.
Councilmember Paine said she understood the rationale for the amendment to the amendment, but was not
able to support it at this time. Having a breadth of housing options is important to recognize where the City
came from and where it is headed. She appreciated the language offered by the Department of Commerce.
Councilmember Eck said she had no problem with the language proposed by the Department of Commerce.
It is more of a technical issue, just addressing something they have asked the City asked to address. She did
not support the amendment to the amendment.
Councilmember Nand relayed her belief that preemption of local zoning and land use decisions by the state
was a mistake and something to which the community is vigorously opposed. She did not think the council
should memorialize a statement that is contrary to a position strongly held by a large majority of the council
and a large portion of the engaged public. Even if the amendment fails, she is very much in favor of local
control and against state preemption in land use and zoning decisions.
Council President Olson said she is also for local control and against state preemption, but reading the
sentence, she did not see that it did anything other than acknowledge the fact that the City is following the
law as it now stands. She read the sentence proposed to be deleted, “One of the barriers to achieving more
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 11
housing availability in Edmonds has been development regulations that precluded duplexes, cottage
housing, and townhomes is most areas of the city. To address this barrier, Edmonds has begun preparing to
revise its development code to allow middle housing and some new opportunities in designated areas for
multifamily housing, consistent with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan,.” commenting the inclusion of this
statement is only agreeing to the law and what is laid out in the comprehensive plan.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS NAND AND
DOTSCH VOTING YES.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope clarified the first set of amendments removed Perrinville as a designated hub. She continued her
review:
3. Optional suggestions that either remove a neighborhood hub or provide clarification
NOTE: The following suggestions relate to other ideas from one or more Council members. Any
of them, if desired, could be proposed by motion of a councilmember.
Maplewood as Neighborhood Hub
o Remove all references to Maplewood being included as a Neighborhood Hub at this time.
Modification of North Bowl Hub
o Modify the North Bowl hub in all places necessary in the Comprehensive Plan to limit building
types within the North Bowl Hub to those that only support residential uses and have no greater
height than allowed on all previous RS-zoned lots that are either: 1) south of Puget Drive or 2)
west of Olympic View Drive and do not directly abut existing commercial zones.
Modification of Westgate Center
o Modify the Westgate center in all places necessary in the Comprehensive Plan to show the
designation of the parcels at 22805 & 22811 100th Ave. West as Mixed Use 3, not Mixed Use
4.
Reassurance about downtown building heights
o Revise Goal LU-7 related to Downtown and add the phrase “including its low-scale building
heights and pedestrian-friendly environment” so that the revised goal reads: “Strengthen the
unique identity of Downtown, including its low-scale building heights and pedestrian-friendly
environment.”
o Salmon and streams
o Amend Policy LU-24.1 by adding a phrase after the word “resources”, so that the revised policy
reads: “Improve water quality, fish habitat, and wildlife resources, including to protect streams
for salmon habitat, consistent with adopted state and federal standards.”
Ground floor retail in neighborhood hubs
o Add a new Policy LU-4.5 for Goal LU-4 that reads: “Encourage neighborhood oriented
commercial uses, including ground-floor retail, in neighborhood hubs and centers.”
Community character in relationship to HB 1110 for middle housing
o Amend Policy H-1.2 by adding a new phrase at the end so that the revised policy reads:
“Promote middle housing types to create greater equity and diversity, while meeting
community standards, such as for setbacks, lot coverage, and tree canopy, consistent with
requirements of HB 1110.”
High-capacity transit
o Amend Policy H-2.4 to add the phrase “high-capacity” for considering possible parking
reductions, so that the revised policy reads: “Consider the reduction of parking requirements
for residential developments in areas proximate to high-capacity transit service or based on
planned occupancy (such as seniors, affordable units) to reduce construction costs and to
promote affordability of residential development.”
Wording of Goal LU-2
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 12
o Amend Goal LU-2 by striking the language between “environment” and “residents” so the
revised goal reads: “Maintain and grow a welcoming environment for residents, visitors, and
businesses.
”Marsh and estuary
o Add to the end of Policy LU-24.4 the word “salmon” before “estuary” so that the revised policy
reads: “Seek opportunities to restore, expand, and enhance the Edmonds Marsh as a salmon
estuary.”
Councilmember Eck recalled she brought up LU-18.1 land use open space and recalled there was also a
staff recommendation for that policy, but she did not see it in the list of amendments. Ms. Hope offered to
look that up. While she was doing that, she suggested considering changes to the hubs first.
Councilmember Eck referred to the first amendment in this grouping, “Remove all references to
Maplewood” and asked about the reasons for that amendment. Ms. Hope answered that hub has potential
capacity for about 200 units; the thought was it may not fit with the neighborhood context. Councilmember
Dotsch explained with regard to GMA capacity numbers, although it say 200, only 40 units in that area can
be counted. It was not in the original centers and hubs plan presented by the previous director and it does
not currently have any commercial or retail; all the other centers and hubs are based on existing
commercial/retail. Another reason is the intersection above Puget Drive on the west side which is where
development would likely be proposed would add public safety issues to an already weak intersection. She
also learned that further west on Maplewood on the north side is a hazardous slide area which is above the
North Bowl hub and the houses below.
Councilmember Eck asked about counting only 40 of the 200 unit. Ms. Hope said Councilmember Dotsch
believes she heard that in the past, but in checking with staff, staff feels the 200 was correctly countable.
Councilmember Eck relayed her understanding if a developer applied to build in an environmental sensitive
area such as a landslide hazard area, that would be considered by staff and the permit potentially not
approved. Ms. Hope responded any proposed development project would go through a review to ensure
there are no environmental sensitive area or if there are, that the impacts can be mitigated. For example if
there is a slope, but the developer does geotechnical work that meets the professional standards, it could
possibly proceed if it was still financially feasible. There would be individual site analysis and all
environmental regulations would be incorporated into the consideration of a project.
Councilmember Eck asked how much buffer approval of the amendments related to Perrinville,
Maplewood, North Bowl and Westgate would leave. Ms. Hope said it would still be within the
approximately 9,000 units the City needs; the total in those areas would not exceed 1,000. Councilmember
Eck commented developers would not build exactly that number of units in those areas. Ms.
Councilmember Nand asked the justification for removing Maplewood as a neighborhood hub, observing
it is proposed for 3 stories and 200 units, and there could be potential for ground floor retail which would
expand the City’s tax base. Ms. Hope responded the items in this third set of potential amendments are not
ones that she necessarily endorsed, but she did not feel they were harmful and would still fit within the
overall numbers and provide more opportunity for that kind of housing.
Councilmember Nand asked Councilmember Dotsch for justification for removing Maplewood as a
neighborhood hub. Councilmember Dotsch answered there is a big church parcel there which is where most
of the unit capacity was counted; however, GMA does not allow that to be counted. She recalled there was
an asterisk in previous versions due to state law regarding church properties and that church parcel is the
biggest lot in that area. In addition, there is currently no retail or commercial there which was the reasoning
for the centers and hubs and likely why it was not in original plan proposed by the previous director. She
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 13
anticipated retail would not be feasible there because no one could stop and turn going down that incredibly
dangerous hill.
Councilmember Nand referred to a statement in the packet related to ground floor retail and neighborhood
hubs, add a new policy for LU-4.5 or goal for LU-4 that states, “Encourage neighborhood oriented
commercial uses including ground floor retail in neighborhood hubs and centers.” She asked if that would
be addressed in the code update if Maplewood were added as a hub. Ms. Hope answered yes, explaining
“encourage” does not mean “require,” it means to provide opportunities where feasible. That would be a
code decision. Councilmember Nand commented there are opportunities for commercial and third places
with retail and restaurants that can cement a neighborhood’s identity and create opportunities for
commercial activity which increases the tax base and hopefully helps cure the structural budget gap. She
favored retaining Maplewood as potential hub and to see if development could occur that was sensitive to
the issues Councilmember Dotsch raised but would still allow potential development in the future.
Councilmember Paine commented she knows this neighborhood quite well as it is near where she lives; she
was not in favor of removing it as a neighborhood hub for the reasons Councilmember Nand cited. Retaining
it as a hub means there are potential opportunities for the future. The City needs diversity in its
neighborhoods and hubs that offer a variety of commercial opportunity. There are some law firms and a
dental office in that area; it is not a bad spot to have a small store or other retail/service opportunities. She
wanted to retain Maplewood as a hub and was not in favor of removing all references to the Maplewood
hub.
Councilmember Chen recalled hearing Ms. Hope mention that Perrinville was removed as a neighborhood
hub, but he did not see that mentioned in the documents. Ms. Hope said removal of Perrinville was already
included.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE OPTIONAL SUGGESTIONS THAT EITHER REMOVE OR ALTER A
NEIGHBORHOOD HUB OR PROVIDE CLARIFICATION, BUT REMOVING MAPLEWOOD AS
NEIGHBORHOOD HUB.
Council President Olson relayed it seemed most councilmembers were in favor of these amendments, but
not the one related to Maplewood and this amendment saves the time of going through each one. She was
in favor of other proposed changes and assuming the removal of Perrinville was reflected in the document,
so she supported the motion.
Amendment as displayed on the screen by staff:
APPROVE CLUSTER #3 WITHOUT MAPLEWOOD HUB OPTION.
Councilmember Dotsch did not support the motion, reiterating Maplewood is a very odd place to think of
as a center or hub because it is literally on the highway that takes ferry traffic down the hill. To the east
there is plenty of opportunity for multifamily and commercial over the crest of the hill and beyond where
it is safe to turn. Most of the Maplewood hub is to the west and is very dangerous with an intersection that
is LOS D going to E. A very small number of the units, only 40 or so, could be counted.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AMEND
TO REMOVE ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HUBS FOR DISCUSSION, MAPLEWOOD,
NORTH BOWL, AND WESTGATE CENTER AND ALSO THE AMENDMENT RELATED TO
HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT FROM THIS PACKAGE AND CONSIDER THOSE FOUR
SEPARATELY.
Amendment to the amendment as displayed on the screen by staff:
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 14
AMEND TO REMOVE ALL THREE NEIGHBORHOOD HUB OPTIONS AND HIGH CAPACITY
TRANSIT OPTION.
Councilmember Paine anticipated the council could reach agreement on the bulk of these, but the ones
related to neighborhood hubs and high capacity transit option deserve more discussion.
Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmember Paine for making this motion, realizing she had not flagged
the high capacity transit amendment, She acknowledged some housing will not include what she and others
consider adequate parking and she appreciated the opportunity to have a separate discussion on that and
will support the amendment.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING
NO.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
REMOVE THE AMENDMENT FOR THE MAPLEWOOD HUB.
Councilmember Tibbott commented the council has had quite a bit of discussion on this amendment. There
is already multifamily housing in that area, some of which could be redeveloped over the 20 year period.
He was supportive of the idea of commercial in that area and would prefer to see that hub remain in the
comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Eck expressed support for the amendment. She heard valid concerns expressed about
traffic and the dangers of increased traffic, noting as a hub it would get priority attention because the
transportation plan is in sync with the centers and hubs
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
TO KEEP MAPLEWOOD HUB IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Dotsch commented the transportation plan for that intersection is right turn only so there
would be zero access from 196th southbound and north on 88th going across to Seaview, making it a very
difficult area to get in and out of. This is a valid concern related to not including Maplewood as a hub.
Councilmember Nand asked if the council’s previous vote addressed removing the Maplewood as a
neighborhood hub. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the vote the council took was to separately
consider the three hubs, Maplewood, North Bowl and Westgate, and high capacity transit; those four aspects
of cluster 3 were pulled out by the council’s motion for separate consideration. Councilmember Nand
recalled a previous motion made by Council President Olson to remove Maplewood as a neighborhood hub
so she thought the council already voted to retain Maplewood as a hub. Mr. Taraday explained the motion
adopted Cluster 3 minus the four items he just identified. Councilmember Nand clarified this a vote to
affirmatively add Maplewood back in as a hub. Mayor Rosen clarified approval of this motion would keep
the Maplewood hub in the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was equally confused; his intention was to retain the Maplewood hub in
the comprehensive plan.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
AMEND TO MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 15
Council President Olson said this one stood out to her in terms of it not being a good fit. There have been
discussion canyoning in other parts of the city and this will place four story buildings on both sides of Puget
Drive which has one of the lovelier views into the downtown bowl. This would affect view not only for the
residents, but also people driving through town. The way this is worded it takes away the entire section
south of Puget Drive and leaves sections on the other side, but takes out Grandview and Euclid Streets
which are very narrow so the idea of multifamily on those streets was not necessarily a good fit.
Additionally, it is a very developed single family residential area with a lot of newer, grand houses. Having
multifamily on the few parcels that aren’t developed does a disservice to the people who invested under the
previous zoning. This was very carefully worded with the help of planning staff to allow a little expansion
of the business aspects, but in a way that keeps it adjacent to what is already business or already taller and
easily fits within the excess units and will make a big difference to both residents and visitors.
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB AS STATED IN CLUSTER 3
Councilmember Paine said she would not support the motion for several reasons. It is a major bus stop for
the neighborhood for the route that goes across Lynnwood and to the light rail station and it is already a
multifamily hub. She lives a six minute walk from the intersection and there aren’t new houses there; there
are some big houses, but they aren’t new. Some of the multifamily in that area is close to 50-60 years old
and may need to be refreshed at some point. The height incentive is not as described, for the existing
commercial, as stated on packet page 522, there are options for 4 floors with the community benefits
incentive. She anticipated it would enhance the opportunity for other commercial development in that area
in addition to the existing school, hair salons and restaurant.
Councilmember Paine continued, on the north end of Puget drive, if there was redevelopment there would
be an opportunity for a 4th floor. It is currently three floors and that likely will continue in the future.
Removal of these little bits and pieces from the comprehensive plan will end up limiting future uses in the
City and the neighborhood hubs. This is a really great little neighborhood hub, ideally situated to support
local businesses and create a very walkable community. She urged the council not to support modification
of the North Bowl hub.
Councilmember Nand said she was not very familiar with this neighborhood and asked if there was already
commercial within walking distance. Mr. Clugston answered at the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic
View Drive, there is the Olympic View Deli and the gas station on one corner, on the other side of the street
is primarily the school and some residences, and a small commercial strip on the west side of Olympic
View Drive. Councilmember Nand recalled the council chose Alternative B for this hub which would allow
a 4th floor with incentives. She asked if the incentives would include public amenities like parks, street trees,
etc. Ms. Hope answered that has not yet decided, but those are the kind of things that have been discussed.
That would be addressed during the code amendment process.
Councilmember Nand observed Council President Olson’s amendment would exclude all commercial and
limit heights to three floors. Council President Olson answered only in certain areas. It has been very
carefully worded so it is the sections south of Puget Drive near the school and areas down Grandview and
Euclid, but not anywhere that is current multifamily or commercial. Nothing was being changed from what
was proposed in either of those areas and it would even be expanded based on this wording. Councilmember
Nand asked how many units this amendment would reduce from the proposed 210. Ms. Hope answered it
was hard to say, technically with any of these hubs, even if they were totally eliminated, the City would
still reach its target. It is just a matter of whether it makes sense for the neighborhood and how it functions.
Councilmember Nand found the potential for redevelopment around the elementary school exciting,
allowing young families to afford to live in Edmonds and send their kids to the local schools which are
experiencing a decline in enrollment that is affecting the state’s funding allocation. While she appreciated
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 16
the sensitivities that Council President Olson brought forward, she was in favor of retaining the proposed
language in the current draft comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Dotsch agreed with Council President Olson’s assertion of that area. She referred to the
map on page 47 that shows a creek running through the north side and single family lots that have access
to the creek, commenting the idea that those are ripe for redevelopment up to four stories is a disservice to
the creek. She recalled during a previous presentation Urban Planner Navyusha Pentakota said there is
already multifamily to the north, but it is actually single family currently. The way it is worded still allows
commercial and mixed use. She expressed support for the amendment.
Councilmember Chen said he was trying to picture how this was divided up and asked if there was a map
to help illustrate it. Ms. Hope offered to display the map of what is included in the comprehensive plan
now, packet page 116. The North Bowl currently allows three floors, bonus floor height with incentives.
The amendment would remove some of the parcels from multifamily or more than two stories in height.
Councilmember Chen observed the single family zoning is currently 25 feet. Ms. Hope said this would keep
the same height for those parcels. Councilmember Chen observed the hub concept would allow 30 feet. Ms.
Hope agreed 3 floors would typically be 30 feet. Councilmember Chen commented with the 5 foot green
building incentive, buildings could potentially be 35 feet. Ms. Hope agreed that was possible although this
area hasn’t been considered yet for that type of incentive. Councilmember Chen observed the single family
homes to the southeast of that area potentially have views. Ms. Hope displayed the map of the North Bowl
hub in the draft comprehensive plan on page 116:
Mr. Clugston explained the parcels in red are currently neighborhood commercial which would be retained.
The parcels south of Puget Drive and north of the existing commercial space would become North Bowl
hub. This is the proposal the council approved in concept. The amendment being discussed would remove
the parcels south of Puget Drive and a couple more to the northwest, leaving 1-2 parcels adjacent to the
existing neighborhood commercial.
Council President Olson reiterated the council has been very consistent in avoiding the canyoning effect in
other neighborhoods every time that has come up. She encouraged councilmembers to do that here for that
reason alone if not for the other reasons that have been stated.
Councilmember Eck commenting getting back to basics with regard to hubs and centers, it is also about
placemaking. Speaking to the concern about creeks, they are regulated by the critical area ordinance. She
heard the concerns about a canyoning effect, but the proposal is to expand on the businesses that are already
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 17
there, creating a full hub with walkability and amenities. She noted multifamily can take many different
forms and shapes. She was unsure she could support the amendment.
Councilmember Nand appreciated the sensitivities Council President Olson referenced related to canyoning
and view blockage. Some residents have expressed concern they are being taxed on their water view and if
something blocks their view, that’s not fair. If something were built there that blocked parcels zoned as
view properties, she asked if that would be adjusted in the code or their tax assessment. Ms. Hope answered
it gets complicated and she could not predict exactly how the county assessor would look at that. Typically
if there are prime views on a property, the owner pays higher property taxes. If that view were lost, she
assumed the property taxes would be lower.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was trying to get handle on what this motion would do. He has brought up
his concern in the past about parcels close to the creek and was not confident they could be developed due
to being in a critical area so he would be just as happy to remove them. He asked the maximum height in
that area with this amendment. Ms. Hope answered 3 floors, possibly 4 floors with an incentive (incentives
have not yet been determined). With the amendment, those parcels would still be subject to the current
height limit, 25 feet or approximately 2 stories. Councilmember Tibbott observed there is already a 3-story
apartment on the west side. Ms. Hope clarified the amendment was to not allow 3 stories.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AMEND TO ALLOW FOR UP TO 3 STORIES IN THIS AREA, BUT NOT 4 STORIES WITH AN
INCENTIVE.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his support for removing the properties along the creek, but saw some
potential for 3 stories in the commercial zone.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment up to 3 stories like the existing buildings.
There are plenty of examples of creeks in this neighborhood and others; it is not impossible to construct
multifamily in an area with creeks and some houses have streams going through their property including
waterfalls that block salmon passage. It is important to allow the potential for redevelopment for
commercial and residential near the school and the preschool. She could see the area being developed very
responsibly in the future and being an amenity for the entire community.
Amendment to the amendment as displayed on the screen by staff:
TO NOT ALLOW A 4TH FLOOR BY INCENTIVE IN THIS AREA.
Council President Olson said it was not her intention not to allow three floors in the areas shown in red on
the map or in the area between Olympic Avenue and Olympic View Drive. It was the section over by
Edmonds Elementary where she thought, even if that were multifamily which she did not object to, there
should be a 2-story limit due to the canyoning effect and residential and drivers’ views. Residents have the
potential to have their views blocked by 3-story buildings, but 2-story buildings would be the same height
as the existing residences. She wasn’t trying to avoid multifamily, she was trying to avoid the 3-story height
which she reviewed as a detractor for the area for both visitors and residents. She suggested if this fails,
perhaps the main amendment could be reworded to be clear two story multifamily is welcome in the area
south of Puget Drive.
Councilmember Dotsch commented another thing to think about is having a 4th story adjacent to a state
highway and kids trying to cross where there is no crosswalk. Visibility and canyoning is a challenge at the
Olympic and Puget Drive intersection where there is a crosswalk. Drivers often drive very fast down the
hill, especially ferry traffic. She summarized the south side remaining two stories would improve safety
and visibility for students.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 18
Councilmember Nand expressed support for the amendment to the amendment. She lives in a 3-story
multifamily property and doesn’t think it’s particularly obnoxious when it comes to blocking views. She
was excited for the opportunity for young families to live within walking distance of the elementary school.
She appreciated the council’s conversation that displayed sensitivity to local concerns. She was in favor of
this compromise.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING
NO.
Amendment as displayed on the screen by staff:
MODIFY NORTH BOWL HUB AS STATED IN CLUSTER 3 AS AMENDED TO NOT ALLOW 4TH
FLOOR BY INCENTIVE.
Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding the North Bowl hub will remain in the comprehensive
plan with this one exception. Mr. Taraday explained the pending motion would be to use the North Bowl
language in Cluster 3, add the amendment that was just adopted, stating there would not be an opportunity
to have a 4th floor by incentive in this area.
Councilmember Paine asked if that was Councilmember Tibbott’s intent. Councilmember Tibbott
responded his intention was to allow 3 stories on all parcels except for the ones that would be removed
along the creek. He recalled raising this as an issue in previous discussions. Councilmember Paine relayed
her understanding the south side of Puget Drive would remain as proposed in the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Tibbott answered yes, but limited to 3 stories.
Councilmember Tibbott suggested an amendment could be made to leave the hub as proposed in the
comprehensive plan, except limit it to 3 stories which would restore the possibility of building along the
creek. He noted part of the problem is deciphering the modification in the council packet, it is not simple
enough compared to what is currently in the comprehensive plan.
Council President Olson asked if the cleanest way would be for the council to vote and if the amendment
failed, make a new amendment. Mr. Taraday said that is certainly an option. He understood Councilmember
Tibbott’s suggestion to be voting down the modification because 3 stories would be the result if the
modification was voted down. Council President Olson said the original amendment was amended from 4
stories to 3, but there was an amendment to remove some areas. She asked if the areas would still be
removed. Mr. Taraday said not until the motion was approved.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO CALL THE
QUESTION.
Mr. Taraday advised five votes are required to end debate.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER
MAJORITY (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, TIBBOTT AND NAND
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE WORDS
“TO THOSE THAT ONLY SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES.” MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Councilmember Paine said she seconded Councilmember Tibbott’s motion and believed if the council votes
on this now, there will need to be a new motion before voting on the main motion. She supported voting
now with the understanding there will need to be a motion to discuss this section further.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 19
Councilmember Tibbott said he was having a having a hard time with the modification as worded; however,
he believed 3 stories was the right height limit on both sides of Puget Drive.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO
AMEND TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CREEK.
Councilmember Eck said she supports keeping the North Bowl hub in the scope of the comprehensive plan
and capping the height at 3 floors. She reminded creeks are regulated by the critical areas ordinance.
Amendment to amendment displayed on screen by staff:
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CREEK AREA TO REMAIN AS PART OF THE
HUB.
Councilmember Nand observed the North Bowl as described on packet page 522, the no action lists
neighborhood commercial as it is currently zoned. If the council adopts this modification as worded, she
asked if it will eliminate the neighborhood commercial and limit future development to only residential.
Ms. Hope answered that would not be the intent. She commented packet page 522 was an explanation of
the analysis of the hubs and centers, but the hubs proposed to be included in the comprehensive plan are on
packet page 116. Councilmember Nand asked if it is accurate to say these lots are zoned neighborhood
commercial, but this modification would eliminate that as a future zoning option. Ms. Hope answered the
intent is to keep the commercial. The original issue was height and not limiting height more than would be
normal in a hub except on the parcels occupied by single family housing. Now the conversation has
progressed to whatever is there can only be up to 3 stories. Councilmember Nand said she still struggled
with the phrase that she proposed removing.
Councilmember Chen suggested voting down the amendment and making a new one because this one is
getting too complicated.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3) COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, TIBBOTT,
PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND DOTSCH, AND
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO NOT
MAKE ANY FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO NORTH BOWL HUB AS PROPOSED IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OTHER THAN THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
Amendment as displayed on the screen by staff:
MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB IN ALL PLACES NECESSARY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO LIMIT BUILDING TYPES WITHIN THE NORTH BOWL HUB TO THOSE THAT
ONLY SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES AND HAVE NO GREATER HEIGHT THAN ALLOWED
ON ALL PREVIOUS RS-ZONED LOTS THAT ARE EITHER: 1) SOUTH OF PUGET DRIVE OR
2) WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND DO NOT DIRECTLY ABUT EXISTING
COMMERCIAL ZONES.
Councilmember Paine commented the two amendments will maintain the neighborhood commercial mixed
use aspects and will allow it to blend in nicely with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Nand found this amendment confusing and time consuming and she did not support
Councilmember Paine’s amendment or the main amendment.
Councilmember Dotsch commented due to what exists there now, if three stories are allowed, it will not be
affordable housing but view housing. The idea that this will become an affordable hub is not a realistic
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 20
goal. There are a lot of mature trees on the north side near the creek; she was in favor of Council President
Olson’s original motion to protect the area to the north.
Amendment to the amendment displayed on screen by staff:
AMEND AS SHOWN IN THE STRIKE THROUGH.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND
TIBBOTT VOTING YES.
Amendment displayed on screen by staff:
MODIFY THE NORTH BOWL HUB IN ALL PLACES NECESSARY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO LIMIT BUILDING TYPES WITHIN THE NORTH BOWL HUB TO THOSE THAT
ONLY SUPPORT RESIDENTIAL USES AND HAVE NO GREATER HEIGHT THAN ALLOWED
ON ALL PREVIOUS RS-ZONED LOTS THAT ARE EITHER: 1) SOUTH OF PUGET DRIVE OR
2) WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND DO NOT DIRECTLY ABUT EXISTING
COMMERCIAL ZONES AS AMENDED TO NOT ALLOW A 4TH FLOOR BY INCENTIVE IN
THIS AREA AND ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CREEK AREA TO REMAIN AS PART
OF THE HUB.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
MODIFY THE WESTGATE CENTER IN ALL PLACES NECESSARY IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SHOW THE DESIGNATION OF THE PARCELS AT 22805 & 22811
100TH AVE. WEST AS MIXED USE 3, NOT MIXED USE 4.
Council President Olson recalled the council discussed this previously when a neighborhood submitted a
petition asking for a transition zone. It was said at that time, which she fully supported and understood, that
that could be accomplished via the development code in the future. Since there are excess units, there was
no reason not to implement it via the comprehensive plan process to guarantee that that happens and it
affects only two parcels.
Councilmember Nand said while she appreciated the neighborhood activists mobilizing, plenty of
neighborhoods have asked for transition zones, particularly Highway 99 where single family zoned
neighborhoods will potentially be impacted by 75 foot buildings with no transition zones and no
councilmember has proposed this level of granularity in the comprehensive plan. She found it inappropriate
to attempt to do transition zones via the comprehensive plan when it would be more appropriately delegated
to next year’s code update process. She was unable to support the amendment and did not think the council
should be responding to activists from one neighborhood while ignoring the pleas of activists in other
neighborhoods.
Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for the amendment, noting there have been changes in the
comprehensive plan for other neighborhoods such East Seaview, a single family neighborhood that was
removed and essentially downzoned as well as the addition of transition zones in that area. She agreed the
two lots identified in the amendment are not necessary to meet the City’s growth target. The comprehensive
plan still has 1000 units in excess and this is a reasonable ask.
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
TO MODIFY WESTGATE AS STATED IN CLUSTER 3
Councilmember Paine did not support the motion for the reasons stated by Councilmember Nand. The only
reason there is excess capacity and the reason the City’s housing target is as low as it is, is the prior
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 21
comprehensive plan provided close to 5,000 extra units. Although she appreciated the advocacy from the
neighbors, this carve out isn’t appropriate and it interferes with comprehensive land use planning.
Councilmember Eck agreed with the previous comments, noting part of the goal of the comprehensive plan
is equity and spreading growth throughout the City in hubs and centers. She did not support the amendment.
MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES.
Ms. Hope advised the next potential modification would amend H-2.4 to add the phrase “high-capacity”
for considering possible parking reductions, so that the revised policy reads: “Consider the reduction of
parking requirements for residential developments in areas proximate to high-capacity transit service or
based on planned occupancy (such as seniors, affordable units) to reduce construction costs and to promote
affordability of residential development.”
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
REMOVE THIS FROM THE MODIFICATIONS.
Councilmember Dotsch explained this was originally discussed in relation to transit stops which exist
throughout Edmonds. The intent of HB 1110 was related to high capacity transit and this modification is
consistent with the HB 1110 language. Opening all of Edmonds to reduced parking due to a nearby bus
stop that runs every hour and not on weekends is not a feasible form of transit that people without a car can
rely on.
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
TO REMOVE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT LANGUAGE FROM THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for removing this from consideration entirely. This a 20-year plan
and there needs to be enough capacity for all sorts of different housing. Removing the necessity of parking
on each parcel and for each housing unit impacts affordability.
Councilmember Nand asked if Councilmember Tibbott’s intent was to remove the proposed amendment,
to not add “high capacity” when considering possible parking reductions. She relayed her understanding of
Councilmember Tibbott’s amendment was to promote the removal of parking capacity for affordable units
and senior units. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that Councilmember Tibbott wanted to strike the
insertion requiring high capacity transit, but keep the rest of language.
Councilmember Nand said she would generally be in favor of retaining parking as an option for affordable
and middle housing. She did not think Snohomish County had sufficient public transit to support the
community’s need for transit and to entirely remove parking from properties.
Councilmember Tibbott explained his intent was remove the high capacity reduction language as this would
be better addressed in the development regulations. Ms. Hope agreed it could be addressed in the
development code; this language is only to “consider,” and that consideration would happen at the code
stage. Councilmember Tibbott said that is his intent, that it would be addressed in the code. Developers are
the ones who will put forward a plan for development and he wanted them to have maximum flexibility
which removing this modification does.
Mr. Taraday reminded the council did not need to make a motion on an amendment just to vote it down.
These are not yet included in the draft comprehensive plan. If the council didn’t make a motion, they
wouldn’t be included in the comprehensive plan.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 22
AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
DOTSCH VOTING NO.
Council President Olson relayed a question regarding the removal of the Perrinville hub which Ms. Hope
indicated had already been done. In the draft comprehensive plan in the packet, Table 3.4, Figure 3.7 and
the map on page 116 all include Perrinville. Ms. Hope said it hasn’t been changed yet, but the proposed
amendment in the packet says remove Perrinville. Council President Olson asked if the council already
voted on that at a previous meeting. Ms. Hope said changes are not being made to the comprehensive plan
at each meeting, that will be done as part of the final draft. Council President Olson observed the Perrinville
units would also be removed from the tables, figures and maps. Ms. Hope agreed.
Council President Olson referred to the 1.b recommendations, and asked to be directed to the page where
those were already incorporated. Ms. Hope referred to the planning board’s recommended amendments in
the packet, LU-22.1 is revised to read, Limit land use activities that would negatively impact groundwater
recharge unless such activities protect against contaminating the aquifer and LU-22.3 would be revised to
read, Encourage projects that actively enhance aquifer recharge such as artificial recharge basins, managed
aquifer recharge (MAR) systems and restoring natural resource areas unless such projects risk
contaminating the aquifer. She noted the original land use policy was briefer and it was expanded. Council
President Olson relayed her understanding that what the council approved included this. Ms. Hope agreed,
what the council approved in Recommendations 1 included the planning board recommendations in the
packet.
Mr. Taraday relayed the planning board recommended amendments should be assumed to be part of the
comprehensive plan even though there was not a motion on it. Ms. Hope said the motion was to include all
the recommendations in the packet and that was already in the packet. Mr. Taraday said the one that was
not in packet was the hatchery map.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO NOT
MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS IT PERTAINS TO THE MASTER
PLAN DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EDMONDS
WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE EDMONDS MARSH AND ADJACENT TO THE UNOCAL
PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES THE FISH HATCHERY.
Ms. Hope said the 2020 comprehensive plan shows the hatchery property as Master Plan Development.
There was no policy discussion about changing that designation as part of the comprehensive plan process
and could be discussed as part of a comprehensive plan amendment docket next year. Due to some legal
issues related to such a change, she recommended retaining the existing designation for the fish hatchery
parcel.
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
NO CHANGE TO HATCHERY MAP (REMAIN AS SHOWN IN EXISTING PLAN (MASTER
PLAN DESIGNATION))
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hope recalled Councilmember Eck raised a question about LU-18.1. She thought it was included in
the amendments, but it didn’t quite make it. The proposed amendment would be to add the words “and
private” so it would consider both private and public property for potential open space.
COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO LU-18.1 TO ADD “AND PRIVATE.”
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 23
Councilmember Eck commented she did not want to limit the City to considering public property for open
space.
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
ADD THE WORDS “AND PRIVATE” TO LU-18.1.
Councilmember Nand expressed support for the motion, recalling Parks, Recreation & Human Services
Director Angie Feser has been very successful in identifying properties and approaching the property owner
to inquire about dedicating it to park space. This is an appropriate addition to the comprehensive plan.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO
AMEND THE FIVE CORNERS CENTER TO REMOVE THE RED HATCHED AREAS WEST OF
THE BROWN MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR WEST
OF SUMMIT AND NORTH OF BOWDOIN FROM INCREASED CAPACITY.
Councilmember Dotsch recalled there was a lot of public comment about Shell Creek right below that area
and these are the closest parcels that aren’t already multifamily. This would create a buffer on those lots to
protect the creek which is already rerouted and is impacted by storm events. The less density and hardscape
the better to prevent sediment.
Staff displayed the map of Five Corners and Mr. Clugston identified the parcels Councilmember Dotsch
was referencing north of Bowdoin:
Councilmember Nand did not support the amendment, finding parcel specific amendments too granular for
the comprehensive plan update and anticipating such modifications would be better addressed during the
code update that will occur in 2025.
Amendment as displayed on screen by staff:
MODIFY FIVE CORNERS CENTER TO REMOVE THE RED CROSS HATCHED AREAS WEST
OF THE BROWN MDR AND NORTH OF BOWDOIN.
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
OLSON VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO EXTEND THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY 2025. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 24
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO.
Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess.
3. DISCUSSION/POTENTIAL ACTION OF FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS;
ANNEXATION TO RFA, NEW CONTRACT, OR OTHER
Mayor Rosen explained Council President Olson will provide a brief introduction for context, SCF
Communications Director Christie Veley, Fire Chief Bob Eastman, and Commissioner Ed Widdis will
outline the changes made to the documents, followed by council questions, hopefully a motion as stated in
the packet followed by a round robin deliberation on the motion.
Council President Olson provided history, explaining the City last had a fire department in 2009 when the
City entered into a contractual relationship with the entities that have evolved into the South Snohomish
Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. Many of the former Edmonds firefighters and paramedics became
firefighters and paramedics with what is now SCF and some are still there. The City has been happy with
the services it received from the organization. When the contract was terminated in accordance with the
contract clause that allowed either party to terminate with two years notice, the City began vetting options
for the future. While the City’s budget crisis does not drive the situation, it is a factor in considering the
attractiveness of one option versus another as running a fire department is demanding on other City
departments and like cities themselves, benefits from having healthy reserves which the City does not have.
Council President Olson continued, on December 3 and 10, 2024, the council discussed documents related
to the annexation option. The RFA commissioners discussed additional changes and concessions at their
meeting and the documents in tonight’s packet were approved earlier tonight by the RFA Commission. The
RFA team will review the changes made by the commission and councilmembers can ask questions of
Chief Eastman, Commissioner Widdis, Communications Director Veley and/or members of the Edmonds
team. Once all the questions are answered, she will make a motion framed as approval of the updated RFA
Plan Amendment and Pre-Annexation Agreement and directing the city attorney to draft a resolution
placing RFA annexation on the April 25, 2025 ballot. All discussion of future fire options in the round robin
debate will be germane to the motion because the alternative is do something different which would be
supportive of a councilmember’s no vote.
Chief Eastman advised there are not a lot of changes between what the board approved tonight and what
was in the council packet. He reviewed the amendments:
RFA Plan Amendment
➢ Note 4 in Appendix B - added “in the event the City of Edmonds were to de-annex from the RFA,
both stations would be transferred back to the city for no concessions.”
City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented in the interest of clarifying the record, the statute uses the word
withdraw instead of de-annex and he wanted everyone to be on the same page regarding what de-annex
means. Chief Eastman said they mean the same thing.
Pre-Annexation Agreement
➢ Updated the approval date to December 17, 2024
➢ Section 4.1 related to Stations 16 and 20 - deleted “in the event the RFA ceases to use either station
as a fire station”
➢ Quitclaim deeds for Station 16 and 20 - added “if the city de-annexes from the RFA, no concessions
will be paid to the RFA.”
Temporary Services Agreement
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 25
➢ Third Whereas - changed RFA effective date to June 1 (from August 1) to be consistent with the
other documents.
➢ Section 3.4 Changes in LOS - section deleted. Based on conversations with the city’s team, either
additional language needed to be added or the section removed.
➢ Section 10.1 - added “provided that such agreement is reached no later than September 1.”
➢ Section 11.3.1.c - deleted “with concurrence of the RFA” and added “for example if a fire
engine/ambulance were stationed at Station 17, the city may purchase the fire engine/ambulance
from the RFA.”
➢ Exhibit A, contract payment - added “the City’s expenses in 2026 for the following: 1. The City’s
fire related payment obligations which it pays to SNO 911 in 2026.
Councilmember Nand asked Chief Eastman to restate the first amendment to Exhibit B related to disposition
of the fire stations if Edmonds withdrew. Chief Eastman advised it was in Notes section of Appendix B to
the amended and restated RFA Plan, “in the event that the City of Edmonds de-annexes from the RFA, both
stations would be transferred back to the City of Edmonds for no consideration.” He explained the stations
are being transferred to the RFA to follow the fire service, if the City withdrew or de-annexed, the stations
would follow the City who would be providing fire service.
Councilmember Dotsch asked if it would be possible to get what Chief Eastman was reading from,
commenting it was very hard to follow the changes. Council President Olson requested Chief Eastman
email the changes to her and she will forward them to council.
Council President Olson summarized the changes, advising the biggest recent concession was regarding the
fire stations, if they return to the City for use as fire stations, there would be no consideration. If the City
remains annexed and a station is not being used by the RFA, the station would come back to the City for
some other use while the City is served by some other station in the RFA. In that case, there might be some
small consideration because the City would get full credit for the market value at the time it was transferred
and pay market value at the time it comes back less the amount when it was transferred and adjusted for
inflation. Basically that is to protect the capital investment that may have been made in the interim.
Councilmember Chen referred to packet page 601, the quitclaim deeds for Stations 16 and 20, states,
“…title and ownership of the Property shall, in the sole discretion and option of the City of Edmonds, as
evidenced by a written notice letter from the City to the RFA, revert to the City of Edmonds upon payment
of fair market value of the Property as determined by appraisal…” which is contradictory to what Chief
Eastman just described in that the stations would revert to Edmonds with no consideration. He asked for
clarification. Mr. Taraday explained there are two scenarios that are both reflected in the reversionary
paragraph. In one scenario, the City de-annexes/withdraws from the RFA; in that scenario the stations
would come back to the City without any payment.
Mr. Taraday continued, there is another scenario does not involve the City withdrawing from the RFA, but
the RFA no longer using a station presumably because they have built a different station on a different
property. In that scenario if the City wanted the old station property back, that is when the fair market value
language would apply. The rationale is in that scenario, SCF has purchased land somewhere nearby and
built a new fire station on that property that would serve Edmonds. In that scenario, given the investment
made on a different property, the RFA would not return the old property without payment as called out in
quitclaim deed. The City would still get credit for its equity interest in the property and likely only pay for
improvements made to the station by RFA. Chief Eastman agreed with Mr. Taraday’s explanation. Though
it is fair market value, the calculation would include the City’s equity stake.
Councilmember Chen commented in the event SCF RFA merges with another fire authority and through
the strategic planning which is not the will of Edmonds citizens, citizens would not be responsible for the
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 26
fair market value of reverting. Council President Olson explained the City would be not paying fair market
value, it would be paying fair market value minus the credit for fair market value at the time the stations
were transferred and adjusted for inflation. It would be a rather small amount unless there had been a large
capital investment in the station. A building that has had a lot of refurbishment or in the case of Station 20,
completely rebuilt, obviously it would come back to the City as a much more valuable asset than it was
when it was transferred to the RFA. That is what that reflects, fairness to both entities. Assuming there
wasn’t a large capital investment, the amount the City would end up paying to reacquire that asset to use
for a different purpose or to sell would be quite nominal.
Councilmember Chen welcomed the change related to if the City withdraws, the assets will revert to the
City at no cost. He asked Mr. Taraday to describe the process for the City to withdraw from the RFA. Mr.
Taraday answered the statute that governs withdrawal from an RFA is RCW 52.26.110; Subsection 2(A)(ii)
addresses the scenario of the City seeking to withdraw its territory from RFA, “The withdrawal of an area
is authorized upon: (ii) adoption of a resolution by the city or town council approving the withdrawal, if the
area is located within the city or town…”, essentially adoption of a resolution is all that is needed to
withdraw the City from the RFA. Councilmember Chen observed it doesn’t require approval of the RFA.
Mr. Taraday agreed it did not require a vote of the citizens or a vote of the RFA board; it is entirely the city
council’s decision.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine referred to Section 11.3.1.c in the Temporary Services Agreement on packet page
614 related to RFA Owned Rolling Stock that was deleted with the concurrence of the RFA, and asked the
impact of removing this section. Council President Olson explained the RFA doesn’t have the right to say
the City can’t have rolling stock. It was previously with the concurrence of, and now reverts to the term in
the current contract that states if the City is providing fire service on its own, the City can buy the rolling
stock. Chief Eastman agreed that was a big issue, it started with concurrence, but now the City gets to
choose if it wants to purchase engines or medic units.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE UPDATED RFA PLAN AMENDMENT (EDMONDS ANNEXATION) AND PRE-
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A
RESOLUTION PLACING THE RFA ANNEXATION ON THE APRIL 2025 BALLOT.
Council President Olson referred to comments have been made that she would like to address in terms of
why she supports this motion. For starters, it has been said that the citizens don’t have representation as
members of the RFA. That is not a true statement; the City would have at least one commissioner it could
influence that came from the City of Edmonds and probably Edmonds residents in two different districts
and citizens would vote for all the RFA commissioners. Additionally, the upfront investment, whether that
is rolling stock, equipment or personnel, would be unwelcome right now. In addition, a significant capital
investment is required for Station 20 in the near term. This investment can be made more cheaply by the
RFA than Edmonds because they have reserves or if they choose to finance, would get better rates than the
City would right now.
Council President Olson continued, with regard to the alternatives that have been mentioned such as starting
another RFA, she wanted it to be clear that under state law all RFAs are under the same model of assessed
value and benefit charge. In the example mentioned during audience comments about forming an RFA with
Everett and Mukilteo, while Mukilteo might have higher property values than Edmonds, Everett’s property
values are low in comparison and lower than Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. The situation that some
want to avoid by being the high assessed value city is not met via that example.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 27
Council President Olson continued, the council is often criticized that options haven’t been fully vetted.
The fact is the other options take a lot more time and money in the short term and she didn’t believe they
would end up being better solutions. With the City’s financial difficulties, the short term expenditure is a
bad thing; the sooner the City has to spend the money, the worse situation it would be in. As a
councilmember who voted no on the landmark project all three times it came to council, she did not need
to know whether the landmark project was a good idea because the City was super broke which made it a
bad idea. At this point in time, the City starting its own fire department is a bad idea and it would likely
take 12-20 years to break even from the upfront costs, but it is also asking for additional peril. She
summarized she is 100% in favor of putting annexation on the ballot.
Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion. Up until now the council has heard mainly one
narrative from one part of the community centered around costs and how revenues are generated. Yet there
are at least two narratives and now is an opportunity to hear the rest of the story. He was confident that the
agreement addresses many of the requests that the negotiating team raised, especially that the buildings
come back and being able to buy rolling stock. Those were important issues the negotiating team asked for.
At the same time this agreement preserves the equity relationship with all the other partner cities. Edmonds
is the last city to potentially join via annexation and should be equal partners with the other cities. One of
the most attractive parts of annexation will be the continuation of the great service the City has been
receiving, the levels of service will be maintained which includes emergency preparedness and planning
for development happening across Snohomish County; the RFA continues to look at the future of the region
which is very important for mutual aid. He was confident the City would be well served and now there
would be time for the rest of the City to hear both narratives and for voters to decide.
Councilmember Paine thanked the negotiating teams, recognizing it was a long haul. The council has heard
a lot of comments about public safety in the community including the police department and fire services.
As Councilmember Tibbott said, this is the continuation of same service citizens have been getting with
some tweaks. The fire service personnel won’t change; it will impact citizens’ tax bill if the voters approve
annexation as it shift costs to the taxpayer. The City is very fortunate its public safety providers provide
excellent service, particularly the fire service. She summarized this is about public safety and it is critical
to look at it that way.
Councilmember Nand echoed Councilmember Paine’s appreciation for the negotiating team, the fire
commissioners, SCF team and the union firefighters who have been engaging with the City. To the
comments about union firefighters’ interactions with elected officials, she emphasized there is absolutely
nothing wrong with union members who serve the community wanting to interact with their elected officials
and choosing to donate to their elected officials. People who are opposed to annexation are constantly
talking to councilmembers and donating to councilmembers’ campaigns. . The RFA is one entity, the union
is something else entirely. She could not let comments attacking union firefighters who are risking their
lives to protect the community pass unnoticed. She thanked the RFA team for being here during this very
long meeting and showing their dedication to serving the public.
Councilmember Eck relayed her thanks to the negotiating team. She could say without doubt that all the
choices for Edmonds have been thoroughly vetted. For all the reasons Council President Olson said, the
other options just did not make sense financially or from a timing standpoint. She was thrilled to receive
the same level of service from SCF that the City already receives.
Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for the negotiation team, SCF, the commissioners and
everybody working together. He was confident once this is on the ballot, the council, city and RFA will be
transparent in providing all the information the public has been asking for including the financial impact to
individual homeowners. He acknowledged costs will go up, there is no sugarcoating that, but the parties
will be transparent about providing information. He encouraged the public to ask questions so there can be
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 28
down to earth, transparent conversations. For public safety, this is of optimal importance to the community.
It is the council’s job to ensure public safety comes first.
Councilmember Dotsch commented although she is in the minority, she appreciated all the work that has
done by the negotiating team. The council and citizens value firefighters and the service they provide. She
had hoped to pursue an extension first due to the variables that put taxpayers on the hook for joining the
RFA during a budget crisis with no specific numbers as to why the cost nearly doubled. The RFA has
promised lower costs and taxes if grouped with other cities, but she did not see that realized with the RFA’s
proposal. She would have preferred to see language stating a benefit charge would be pursued to offset
property taxes. The numbers haven’t been provided to show how the costs in the contract got so out of
alignment with what the contract that was updated a few years ago.
Councilmember Dotsch continued, the RFA vote along with the levy lid lift will be a 135% tax increase for
property owners. To the question of whether that is a reasonable amount to ask for, it will be up to voters
to decide. The fiscal oversight is essential gone for the City and its residents. Electing a commissioner is
not the same as the City having bargaining power and oversight. She would have liked to see more fiscal
restraint shown by the RFA negotiating team with regard to what Edmonds residents will be charged. It
also would have been encouraging to see a statement from the RFA regarding online commenting that
disparaged Edmonds residents and the City. For those reasons, she will not support the motion.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO.
On behalf of the RFA, Chief Eastman said Edmonds has been part of their organization since 2010 and for
some like him who have been with the RFA for 28 years, have been serving the residents of Edmonds since
the City began contracting with Districts 11 and 1 and he was glad to be able to continue that relationship.
He recognized the heavy lift is yet to come, but they are ready to do it.
4. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR
2025
City Clerk Scott Passey relayed the City code allows the council to select a council president and council
president pro tem at the last meeting of the year when the council makeup will not change in the following
year. He reviewed the process: he will call for nominations; nominations do not require a second. After all
nominations have been made he will declare nominations closed. Councilmembers will then be allowed to
speak in favor of nominees. He will then call for vote in the order nominations are made. As in the past, he
will not ask for no votes to spare councilmembers from voting against each other. As soon as a nominee
receives four votes, he will declare the council president elected and no further votes will be taken on
remaining nominees. The same process will follow for election of council president pro tem. He called for
nominations for council president.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT AS 2025 COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
With no further nominations, Mr. Passey closed nominations.
Councilmember Chen commented the council just passed several heavy decisions for the coming year
including the biennial budget with many, many what-if scenarios embedded in it and placing annexation
into RFA on the April 2025 ballot. There is much more work to be done and the council needs a council
president with experience and time. Councilmembers will have to roll up their sleeves and work toward
common goals in the coming years.
NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 29
Mr. Passey opened nominations for council president pro tem.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AS 2025 COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEM.
With no further nominations, Mr. Passey closed nominations.
Councilmember Nand commented Councilmember Paine is a pillar of the community and has deep
experience in public service dating back to her time as president of the school board during a time of
financial distress for the Edmonds School District. She has shown great compassion toward the City
workforce and vulnerable members of the community and will work well with a fiscal conservative like
Councilmember Tibbott to provide a balanced prospective as city government goes forward in 2025.
Councilmember Eck commented Councilmember Paine has shown steadiness and deep work for every
meeting, always coming extremely prepared and thoughtful. She agreed this would be a balanced leadership
for the council and she supported nomination.
NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone for all their work, recognizing it has been a heavy lift this year
which will continue next year. She looked forward to the new council leadership to guide that work. She
thanked everyone who participated by email, speaking to the council, and participating in early meetings
regarding the comprehensive plan. She wished the public had been brought along better in the processes,
especially the comprehensive plan. It was unfortunate the process was sped up at the end. She thanked Ms.
Hope for her work on the comprehensive plan. She wished everyone Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.
Councilmember Nand thanked Council President Olson and Councilmember Chen for their very hard work
serving as council president and council president pro tem. This was a terrible year to be in council
leadership and they both handled very difficult decisions with grace and compassion for the City workforce
and the community.
Councilmember Paine agreed this has been a really big year that has flown by. She wished everyone Happy
Holidays and to enjoy their friends, family and neighbors. Some of the big unfortunate changes include
heavy hits for staffing and volunteers on boards and commissions. She thanked this year’s council
leadership, recognizing it had been big and tough year. She wished all a great set of holidays, to shop local
and to enjoy the season.
Council President Olson said she will be out shopping in Edmonds and hoped people would say hi when
they see her because she hasn’t even started her holiday shopping which she was sure was true for other
councilmembers.
Councilmember Tibbott thanked the council for entrusting him with council leadership in 2025, it is an
honor to serve in that way. He commended the council for setting a pattern for healthy debate; this has been
a remarkable year with so many decisions, and councilmembers have a lot of differences, but had healthy
debate. That is something he wants to continue and believes the council can continue. He looked forward
to working with Councilmember Paine, commenting they have discussed many issues over phone and he
looked forward to continuing that working relationship and bringing good collaboration to the agendas. He
wished everyone Happy Holidays and suggested looking for him at restaurants downtown.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 17, 2404
Page 30
Councilmember Chen wished everyone Happy Holidays and suggested the council forget about the budget
for a couple days and enjoy the holidays. This year has been tough, but next year will not any easier. He
thanked the public for sending emails and coming to council meetings to let their voice be heard; the council
hears their concerns. He recognized there was more work ahead and urged the public to continue to support
the community we all love. He was confident the City will overcome the difficulties ahead and have a better
future.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES TO 10:35. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Eck thanked Council President Olson and Council President Pro Tem Chen for their
leadership this year. She had nothing to compare it to, but from her own experience she knew it had been a
tough year. She relayed food banks, particularly Edmonds Food Bank, need food now and also after the
holidays as donations drop off in January and February. She urged the public to keep the Edmonds Food
Bank in mind after the holidays because there is a genuine need across the country. She wished everyone a
lovely holiday regardless of how they celebrate and hoped everyone had a lovely time.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Rosen said today is his 352 day as mayor and as Councilmember Chen stated, the council brought
closure to the first biennial budget, the first budget by priorities process, adopted a comprehensive plan
which charted a course for the City’s future, started a process to ensure the public gets the best possible fire
and EMS service and have a comprehensive emergency management plan, took action to save some money,
and elected a new council president and council president pro tem which he summarized was not a bad
night. He echoed the comment that the way the council works together, with him and with staff is exactly
as he hoped it would be and reflects their commitment to working with the community. He looked forward
to working with the new council president and council president pro tem.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:32 pm.
8.7.a
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
1
7
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
B
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
7
:
0
0
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
2
4
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Claim for Damages for filing
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages for filing.
Narrative
Aaron Richholt
76th Ave W & Meridian Ave N
(TBD)
Eun Kim
212th St SW
($1,000,000.00)
Attachments:
Claim for Damages - Richholt - for council
Claim for Damages - Kim - for council
8.8
Packet Pg. 148
8.8.a
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
-
R
i
c
h
h
o
l
t
-
f
o
r
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
(
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
)
8.8.a
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
-
R
i
c
h
h
o
l
t
-
f
o
r
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
(
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
)
8.8.b
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
-
K
i
m
-
f
o
r
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
(
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
)
8.8.b
Packet Pg. 152
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
-
K
i
m
-
f
o
r
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
(
C
l
a
i
m
f
o
r
D
a
m
a
g
e
s
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Kimberly Dunscombe
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Lori Palmer
Background/History
Approval of payroll checks #66142 and #66143 dated December 20, 2024 for $4,573.25, direct deposit
for $847,334.74, benefit checks #66144 through #66151 and wire payments for $851,215.56 for the pay
period of December 1, 2024 through December 15, 2024.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of payments.
Attachments:
12-01-2024 to 12-15-2024 benefit checks summary
12-01-2024 to 12-15-2024 payroll earnings summary
8.9
Packet Pg. 153
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,162 - 12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
66144 12/20/2024 bpas BPAS 7,868.07 0.00
66145 12/20/2024 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 8,640.00 0.00
66146 12/20/2024 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 2,250.00 0.00
66147 12/20/2024 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 7,787.01 0.00
66148 12/20/2024 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 5,266.84 0.00
66149 12/20/2024 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 7,132.00 0.00
66150 12/20/2024 teamcom TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 615.00 0.00
66151 12/20/2024 tx TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT SDU 166.50 0.00
39,725.42 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
3769 12/20/2024 awc AWC 474,596.74 0.00
3773 12/20/2024 us US BANK 167,458.85 0.00
3774 12/20/2024 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 123,857.82 0.00
3775 12/20/2024 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 9,348.28 0.00
3777 12/20/2024 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 34,713.45 0.00
3779 12/20/2024 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,090.00 0.00
3780 12/20/2024 edm CITY OF EDMONDS 425.00 0.00
811,490.14 0.00
851,215.56 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 112/19/2024
8.9.a
Packet Pg. 154
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
2
-
0
1
-
2
0
2
4
t
o
1
2
-
1
5
-
2
0
2
4
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
c
h
e
c
k
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
c
h
e
c
k
s
,
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,162 (12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 42.75 0.00
NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 48.00 0.00
Unpaid ADA hoursABSENT113 40.00 0.00
SICK LEAVESICK121 904.09 48,880.37
VACATIONVACATION122 969.16 49,630.47
HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 209.50 10,455.31
FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 63.50 3,335.14
COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 154.00 8,620.35
Holiday Bank WWTPHOLIDAY128 64.00 3,008.50
MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 10.00 587.31
JURY DUTYJURY DUTY132 35.50 1,780.84
MILITARY LEAVE-UNPAIDMILITARY134 16.00 0.00
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEAVESICK135 1.50 58.91
Commanders Leave UsageREGULAR HOURS138 10.00 1,191.25
BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 24.00 1,087.65
Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 124.00 6,586.15
FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY154 1.00 37.60
COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 21.50 1,301.37
SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 2.80 105.29
VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 1.78 66.94
MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 124.00 11,016.49
REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 17,121.00 1,004,023.10
Emergency Sick LeaveSICK194 39.25 2,109.11
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS195 70.00 4,111.19
OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 8.00 370.54
WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 36.00 2,430.94
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 5.00 674.41
OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 135.50 12,598.32
OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 24.00 2,457.63
MISC PAYMISCELLANEOUS400 0.00 7,493.56
Medical Opt OutMISCELLANEOUS404 0.00 600.00
WORKING OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS410 0.00 1,015.12
SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 2,760.17
12/19/2024 Page 1 of 3
8.9.b
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
2
-
0
1
-
2
0
2
4
t
o
1
2
-
1
5
-
2
0
2
4
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
c
h
e
c
k
s
,
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,162 (12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 2,873.01
ACCRUED COMP 1.0COMP HOURS602 41.50 0.00
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5COMP HOURS604 75.50 0.00
Commander Standy AccrualCOMP HOURS609 10.00 0.00
BOOT ALLOWANCEMISCELLANEOUS902 0.00 66.11
ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 322.98
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 261.56
Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc 0.00 264.19
Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc2 0.00 1,494.73
Ancilary Duty PayREGULAR HOURSanc3 0.00 1,774.84
BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 237.66
TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 226.78
CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 118.83
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAMMISCELLANEOUSctr 0.00 200.00
Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,301.62
EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 928.36
EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 849.10
EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 12,125.26
Exempt Vacation PremiumVACATIONevap 13.00 932.75
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 60.00 3,828.37
HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 163.00 9,526.56
K-9 AssignmentMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 414.20
LANGUAGE PAYMISCELLANEOUSlan 0.00 600.00
LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,213.71
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 949.93
Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg12 0.00 3,750.14
Longevity 7%LONGEVITYlg13 0.00 1,210.41
Longevity 5%LONGEVITYlg14 0.00 1,158.46
LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAYlg2 0.00 166.92
LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAYlg3 0.00 289.83
Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 1,141.66
Longevity 3%LONGEVITYlg5 0.00 3,918.37
Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 28.35
12/19/2024 Page 2 of 3
8.9.b
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
2
-
0
1
-
2
0
2
4
t
o
1
2
-
1
5
-
2
0
2
4
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
c
h
e
c
k
s
,
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,162 (12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 639.02
Paid Family Medical Unpaid/SupABSENTpfmp 193.00 0.00
Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKpfms 32.50 1,960.40
Paid Family Medical VacationVACATIONpfmv 7.00 286.13
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 2,904.56
PSET SergeantMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 246.44
TAC OfficerMISCELLANEOUStac 0.00 207.10
Training OfficerMISCELLANEOUSto 0.00 207.10
Traffic Officer - CarMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 414.20
Vacation PremiumVACATIONvap 13.50 677.51
Total Net Pay: $851,907.99
$1,248,111.1820,914.83
12/19/2024 Page 3 of 3
8.9.b
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
2
-
0
1
-
2
0
2
4
t
o
1
2
-
1
5
-
2
0
2
4
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
p
a
y
r
o
l
l
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
c
h
e
c
k
s
,
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Kimberly Dunscombe
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #265345 through #265448 dated December 11, 2024 for $478,133.68, claim
checks #265449 through #265558 dated December 18, 2024 for $956,857.01, claim checks #265559
through #265674 dated December 31, 2024 for $702,787.20 and wire payments of $2,994.56, $160.76,
$37,455.57, $5,271.75 & $3,614.92.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Narrative
The Council President shall be designated as the auditing committee for the city council. The council
president shall review the documentation supporting claims paid and review for approval by the city
council at its next regular public meeting all checks or warrants issued in payment of any claim, demand
or voucher. A list of each claim, demand or voucher approved and each check or warrant issued
indicating the check or warrant number, the amount paid and the vendor or payee shall be filed in the
city council office for review by individual councilmembers prior to each regularly scheduled public
meeting.
Attachments:
Claim cks 12-11-24 Agenda copy
Claim cks 12-18-24 Agenda copy
Claim cks 12-31-24 Agenda copy
8.10
Packet Pg. 158
12/11/2024 3:04:11PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 1
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
076040 911 SUPPLY INC 265345 3,310.3012/11/2024
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 265346 227.6412/11/2024
074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 265347 304.3212/11/2024
079537 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC 265348 23,750.0012/11/2024
074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 265349 8,514.4712/11/2024
064341 AT&T MOBILITY 265350 1,749.3612/11/2024
079382 ATWELL LLC 265351 7,368.7512/11/2024
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 265352 333.7512/11/2024
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 265353 1,006.0012/11/2024
073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 265354 1,260.0012/11/2024
076930 BLACKFIN TECHNOLOGIES NW INC 265355 1,000.0012/11/2024
079747 BLUE COAST ENGINEERING LLC 265356 23,013.7512/11/2024
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265357 783.8612/11/2024
073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 265358 661.5912/11/2024
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 265359 301.2112/11/2024
075860 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO 265360 4,472.7712/11/2024
070415 CRESSY DOOR CO INC 265361 392.2812/11/2024
072786 CTS LANGUAGE LINK 265362 333.5012/11/2024
060914 CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE 265363 1,211.8812/11/2024
073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 265364 25,201.4212/11/2024
006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 265365 2,400.0012/11/2024
065739 DTG RECYCLE 265366 1,242.0012/11/2024
079749 E TYPIST INC 265367 2,367.0012/11/2024
076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265368 118.9112/11/2024
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265369 198.1712/11/2024
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265370 1,031.7012/11/2024
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265371 199.5212/11/2024
066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 265372 488.8112/11/2024
072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 265373 2,935.2612/11/2024
069567 FOSSIL INDUSTRIES INC 265374 1,197.0012/11/2024
072634 GCP WW HOLDCO LLC 265375 168.1412/11/2024
079775 GEBREYES, ELSABET 265376 500.0012/11/2024
076932 GIRARD RESOURCES & RECYCLING 265377 735.0012/11/2024
063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 265378 2,131.2612/11/2024
012199 GRAINGER 265379 115.3312/11/2024
076333 HASA INC 265380 10,042.0012/11/2024
079717 HEALING ENERGY & MASSAGE PLLC 265381 72.0012/11/2024
013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265382 859.6412/11/2024
013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 265383 3,567.6712/11/2024
078923 HKA GLOBAL INC 265384 19,442.5012/11/2024
076240 HM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC 265385 917.6012/11/2024
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265386 1,116.0412/11/2024
061013 HONEY BUCKET 265387 290.9512/11/2024
079771 HOPE, SHANE 265388 10,000.0012/11/2024
076540 IMSA 265389 200.0012/11/2024
069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA 265390 1,456.2712/11/2024
076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 265391 6,246.0512/11/2024
079227 JAMTOWN LLC 265392 462.0012/11/2024
079573 JUVVAL TECH LLC 265393 200.0012/11/2024
079524 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 265394 4,616.0012/11/2024
079069 KISHA POST 265395 525.0012/11/2024
067568 KPG PSOMAS INC 265396 5,516.0012/11/2024
079769 LAW OFFICE SAM SOMMERMAN PLLC 265397 1,770.0012/11/2024
Page: 1
8.10.a
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
1
1
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/11/2024 3:04:11PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 2
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
078471 LEMM, KEVIN 265398 585.0012/11/2024
079732 LIZ LOOMIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS 265399 8,000.0012/11/2024
074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 265400 880.9912/11/2024
075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 265401 91.5912/11/2024
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265402 1,309.1912/11/2024
076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS 265403 38,907.0712/11/2024
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 265404 6,184.1312/11/2024
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 265405 619.9112/11/2024
078285 NPDESPRO LLC 265406 6,902.9412/11/2024
072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 265410 30.8312/11/2024
065720 OFFICE DEPOT 265407 56.7512/11/2024
026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 265408 203.3312/11/2024
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 265409 1,984.5012/11/2024
079774 PACIFC COAST CARBON 265411 11,602.5012/11/2024
075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 265412 4,026.1912/11/2024
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS INC 265413 5,496.3012/11/2024
065051 PARAMETRIX INC 265414 3,135.0012/11/2024
074793 PETDATA INC 265415 1,549.8012/11/2024
028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 265416 207.6612/11/2024
072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 265417 240.0012/11/2024
064167 POLLARD WATER 265418 727.2912/11/2024
030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 265419 6,564.0012/11/2024
046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 265420 3,326.0612/11/2024
077429 PURE WATER AQUATICS 265421 12,123.3612/11/2024
062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 265422 3,554.6012/11/2024
061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 265423 1,857.0412/11/2024
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 265424 940.3012/11/2024
067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 265425 304.8012/11/2024
066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 265426 7,000.0012/11/2024
075590 SMARSH INC 265427 152.5512/11/2024
066748 SNO CO DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 265428 1,260.0012/11/2024
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265429 21,510.6412/11/2024
072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 265430 540.0012/11/2024
076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 265431 82,827.9312/11/2024
075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 265432 1,274.0012/11/2024
038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 265433 3,162.0712/11/2024
038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 265434 278.0212/11/2024
065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 265435 326.2012/11/2024
075025 THE BRANDING IRON LLC 265436 4,408.9512/11/2024
027269 THE PART WORKS INC 265437 552.6212/11/2024
079359 THE WALLS LAW FIRM INC 265438 25,000.0012/11/2024
038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION 265439 551.7512/11/2024
071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 265440 2,304.9212/11/2024
069751 VESTIS 265441 277.6412/11/2024
065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 265442 172.2512/11/2024
067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 265443 9,889.7512/11/2024
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 265444 161.4412/11/2024
075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 265445 157.1112/11/2024
068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN LLC 265446 832.6212/11/2024
078389 ZENNER USA 265447 5,668.9712/11/2024
079700 ZORO TOOLS INC 265448 88.4512/11/2024
Total count: 104
GrandTotal: 478,133.68
Page: 2
8.10.a
Packet Pg. 160
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
1
1
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/18/2024 12:27:47PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 1
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
076040 911 SUPPLY INC 265449 778.8912/18/2024
061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 265450 56.2212/18/2024
075836 AKTIVOV LLC 265451 19,077.8312/18/2024
000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 265452 132,540.1912/18/2024
001528 AM TEST INC 265453 495.0012/18/2024
073573 ANIXTER 265454 1,344.6612/18/2024
070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 265455 2,372.3612/18/2024
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 265456 1,006.0012/18/2024
075263 AVR PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC 265457 2,450.0012/18/2024
075217 BASLER, ANTHONY C 265458 260.0012/18/2024
072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 265459 125.0012/18/2024
069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 265460 2,927.1512/18/2024
028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 265461 268.3212/18/2024
079782 BKS DEVELOPMENT 265462 900.0012/18/2024
074307 BLUE STAR GAS 265463 1,026.7312/18/2024
002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 265464 63.7112/18/2024
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 265465 88.4012/18/2024
078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 265466 818.4012/18/2024
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 265467 884.9612/18/2024
077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 265468 3,900.0012/18/2024
071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 265469 1,371.7012/18/2024
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265470 312.9212/18/2024
071358 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES 265471 210.7212/18/2024
079643 CHILDREN FOR THE FUTURE INC 265472 1,875.0012/18/2024
079781 CHUUKESE NATIVE LANGUAGE SOL 265473 220.0012/18/2024
069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 265474 177.0012/18/2024
063902 CITY OF EVERETT 265475 496.8012/18/2024
076914 CM DESIGN GROUP LLC 265476 23,747.7512/18/2024
079772 COCHRAN, RYAN 265477 433.5012/18/2024
060914 CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE 265478 326.0512/18/2024
079679 CUSIMANO, JINA 265479 38.8612/18/2024
073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 265480 1,667.9412/18/2024
076172 DK SYSTEMS 265481 3,817.1912/18/2024
007253 DUNN LUMBER 265482 832.0712/18/2024
074674 ECOLUBE RECOVERY LLC 265483 286.5012/18/2024
076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265484 38.8512/18/2024
062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT 265485 80.0012/18/2024
008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 265486 409.8012/18/2024
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265487 5,770.2812/18/2024
075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 265488 130.0012/18/2024
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265489 86.8612/18/2024
079517 ELECTRONIC MOBILE SOLUTIONS 265490 5,779.7012/18/2024
075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 265491 21,397.5012/18/2024
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265492 103.2012/18/2024
075673 FARMER, MARIA 265493 130.0012/18/2024
072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 265494 292.8312/18/2024
074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 265496 2,728.0012/18/2024
079735 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC 265495 2,076.2512/18/2024
063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 265497 318.1212/18/2024
012199 GRAINGER 265498 193.8512/18/2024
074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 265499 69.5312/18/2024
079140 HAAS, ROSE 265500 305.0012/18/2024
012560 HACH COMPANY 265501 1,667.6212/18/2024
Page: 1
8.10.b
Packet Pg. 161
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
1
8
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/18/2024 12:27:47PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 2
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
079012 HARLOWE & FALK LLP 265502 80.0012/18/2024
066575 HERC RENTALS INC 265503 1,314.2712/18/2024
013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265504 2,400.0012/18/2024
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265505 632.3212/18/2024
062899 HUFF, ARIELE 265506 165.0012/18/2024
075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 265507 3,641.6312/18/2024
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 265508 52.3812/18/2024
078250 KAUFER DMC LLC 265509 300.0012/18/2024
076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTY AT LAW 265510 405.0012/18/2024
079776 M3 DESIGN BUILD LLC 265511 900.0012/18/2024
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265512 349.1012/18/2024
076895 MOREHEAD, LOUISE 265513 130.0012/18/2024
018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 265514 67.6012/18/2024
079722 NIELSON, LEAH CLAIRE 265515 395.8812/18/2024
079780 NOEL DESIGN LLC 265516 4,265.0012/18/2024
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 265517 7,728.1412/18/2024
072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 265520 88.4112/18/2024
070306 OBERG, WILLIAM 265518 250.0012/18/2024
070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 265519 13,689.0812/18/2024
002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 265521 618.6612/18/2024
079464 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC 265522 8,400.0012/18/2024
070160 POETS & WRITERS INC 265523 450.0012/18/2024
029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 265524 4,567.6512/18/2024
079020 PRECISION LANGUAGE SERVICES 265525 260.0012/18/2024
079680 PRIBULA, JESSICA 265526 106.2012/18/2024
070955 R&R STAR TOWING 265527 2,647.7612/18/2024
079653 ROCK PROJECT MGMT SERVICES LLC 265528 15,405.0012/18/2024
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 265529 470.5312/18/2024
079523 RUSTED ELEMENT DESIGN 265530 396.0012/18/2024
079174 SAVANNAH POWERS 265531 514.5012/18/2024
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 265532 131.7312/18/2024
067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 265533 147.2312/18/2024
063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 265534 210.8312/18/2024
068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO 265535 408,598.0912/18/2024
036955 SKY NURSERY 265536 144.2612/18/2024
066748 SNO CO DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 265537 4,095.0012/18/2024
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265538 3,459.6912/18/2024
063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 265539 41,952.2712/18/2024
072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE 265542 2,483.9112/18/2024
006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 265540 714.0012/18/2024
070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 265541 189.8012/18/2024
039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE 265543 54,563.7012/18/2024
074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 265544 1,500.0012/18/2024
066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 265545 2,823.1712/18/2024
066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 265546 2,250.0012/18/2024
068141 TRANSPO GROUP 265547 370.1112/18/2024
044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 265548 256.0812/18/2024
075496 VALERIE INC 265549 5,833.0012/18/2024
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 265550 27.6312/18/2024
079783 VESSEY, ZACHARY 265551 3,600.0012/18/2024
069751 VESTIS 265552 238.4812/18/2024
075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 265553 1,806.1212/18/2024
073552 WELCO SALES LLC 265554 138.4112/18/2024
071467 WEST COAST PET MEMORIAL 265555 22.0012/18/2024
Page: 2
8.10.b
Packet Pg. 162
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
1
8
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/18/2024 12:27:47PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 3
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
079778 WHITED, PETER MILO 265556 1,772.2412/18/2024
079684 WILLIAMS, PHIL 265557 100,000.0012/18/2024
078389 ZENNER USA 265558 63.9412/18/2024
Total count: 110
GrandTotal: 956,857.01
Page: 3
8.10.b
Packet Pg. 163
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
1
8
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/31/2024 2:18:24PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 1
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 265559 355.8212/31/2024
079673 ACCORD CONTRACTORS LLC 265560 75,653.4012/31/2024
008835 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC 265561 1,429.8712/31/2024
079536 AMANDA HOUGH 265562 1,400.0012/31/2024
079786 ANNA PERRONE DESIGNS 265563 42.5012/31/2024
076820 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATOR CONSLT 265564 3,600.0012/31/2024
079351 ATCO 265565 316.8012/31/2024
079382 ATWELL LLC 265566 22,042.5012/31/2024
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 265567 1,006.0012/31/2024
074815 BERESFORD BOOTH PLLC 265568 170.0012/31/2024
028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 265569 137.9012/31/2024
079787 BRIDGE LATINO LLC 265570 500.0012/31/2024
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 265571 916.7212/31/2024
003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 265572 7,234.1512/31/2024
079483 BUKOWSKI, AUGUSTUS 265573 977.5012/31/2024
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 265574 777.8912/31/2024
071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 265575 1,371.7012/31/2024
064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DISTRIBUTION 265576 1,585.1212/31/2024
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265577 542.9612/31/2024
079643 CHILDREN FOR THE FUTURE INC 265578 510.0012/31/2024
069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 265579 177.0012/31/2024
019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 265580 42,307.0012/31/2024
079151 CM AIR PROS LLC 265581 34.0012/31/2024
079062 COMCAST 265582 1,008.0012/31/2024
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 265583 115.6012/31/2024
071417 CORE & MAIN LP 265584 643.3512/31/2024
075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 265585 259.6512/31/2024
070415 CRESSY DOOR CO INC 265586 479.2912/31/2024
073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 265587 7,375.5312/31/2024
075820 DELL MARKETING LP 265588 5,947.1012/31/2024
064531 DINES, JEANNIE 265589 1,276.0012/31/2024
076172 DK SYSTEMS 265590 19,273.2812/31/2024
079756 DRT HOLDINGS LLC 265591 281.2512/31/2024
076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265592 152.5412/31/2024
008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 265593 2,018.7412/31/2024
038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 265594 17,184.0012/31/2024
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265595 4,034.7212/31/2024
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265596 479.9212/31/2024
078919 EMERALD CITY FLOORBALL 265597 2,047.5012/31/2024
079779 ENGINEERED ARTWORKS LLC 265598 1,950.0012/31/2024
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265599 218.4412/31/2024
064088 EVERON LLC 265600 233.3412/31/2024
009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 265601 690.6312/31/2024
072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 265602 1,210.1312/31/2024
079784 FULTON, JAY 265603 40.0012/31/2024
068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 265604 687.0012/31/2024
012199 GRAINGER 265605 327.8512/31/2024
079785 HARBOR MARINE MAINT & SUPPLY 265606 114.9412/31/2024
024001 HARNISH LOCKBOX LB1208 265607 35,379.0512/31/2024
072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 265608 680.9612/31/2024
074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 265609 200.0012/31/2024
013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265610 3,000.0012/31/2024
076240 HM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC 265611 786.6612/31/2024
Page: 1
8.10.c
Packet Pg. 164
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
3
1
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/31/2024 2:18:24PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 2
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265612 561.5012/31/2024
067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265613 557.5812/31/2024
061013 HONEY BUCKET 265614 1,614.2512/31/2024
079715 HOPPER, DAREN 265615 1,032.5012/31/2024
075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 265616 7,308.7412/31/2024
076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 265617 600.0012/31/2024
069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC 265618 3,136.2112/31/2024
065980 INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS 265619 20,017.0812/31/2024
072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC 265620 537.5012/31/2024
076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 265621 25,367.1812/31/2024
079227 JAMTOWN LLC 265622 184.0012/31/2024
078946 KITCHENS, KYLEE 265623 824.0712/31/2024
016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 265624 633.1712/31/2024
066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 265625 1,655.2512/31/2024
067475 LANDSVERK QUALITY HOMES INC 265626 998.7512/31/2024
075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 265627 16,607.1912/31/2024
076177 MCKINSTRY LOCKBOX 265628 92,500.0012/31/2024
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 265629 690.2112/31/2024
075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 265630 205.2012/31/2024
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265631 433.6412/31/2024
079223 MOORE, ANGELA 265632 613.2012/31/2024
018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 265633 167.3512/31/2024
067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 265634 39.7812/31/2024
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 265635 382.8312/31/2024
024302 NELSON-REISNER 265636 354.3712/31/2024
075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 265637 123.8712/31/2024
074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 265638 1,142.5712/31/2024
072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 265641 7.6212/31/2024
065720 OFFICE DEPOT 265639 52.8412/31/2024
073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC 265640 2,963.2512/31/2024
027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS INC 265642 708.0012/31/2024
008475 PETTY CASH 265643 291.7312/31/2024
079708 PIPELINING NORTHWEST 265644 132.0012/31/2024
072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 265645 540.0012/31/2024
078800 POPA & ASSOCIATES 265646 600.0012/31/2024
068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 265647 908.0012/31/2024
046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 265648 13,509.5712/31/2024
079448 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 265649 252.0012/31/2024
030455 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 265650 20,167.0012/31/2024
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 265651 168.2712/31/2024
079019 ROOT AND LIMB YOGA 265652 411.0012/31/2024
079618 RS AMERICAS INC 265653 501.0512/31/2024
079634 RYNER HOMES LLC 265654 135.0012/31/2024
076328 SCJ ALLIANCE 265655 69,874.5812/31/2024
073993 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES 265656 4,648.0012/31/2024
075387 SELECT HOMES 265657 1,983.7512/31/2024
079492 SKYCORP LTD 265658 4,353.4712/31/2024
075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 265659 49,947.0012/31/2024
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265661 48,568.8612/31/2024
037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265662 302.4012/31/2024
075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 265663 1,274.0012/31/2024
074506 SUNBELT RENTALS 265664 4,160.0512/31/2024
073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI 265665 2,894.4012/31/2024
072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 265666 232.0512/31/2024
Page: 2
8.10.c
Packet Pg. 165
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
3
1
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
12/31/2024 2:18:24PM
Positive Pay Listing
City of Edmonds
apPosPay Page: 3
Document group:jacobson
Vendor Code & Name Check #Check Date Amount
079790 TODD CLOUTIER & LARA PRADO 265667 281.9012/31/2024
069751 VESTIS 265668 751.7512/31/2024
074321 VMG: VELOCITY MADE GOOD 265669 1,800.0012/31/2024
065568 WATER SERVICES NW INC 265670 88.3412/31/2024
049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 265671 14,851.2012/31/2024
063008 WSDOT 265672 40.5812/31/2024
071634 ZAYO GROUP LLC 265673 2,187.2412/31/2024
011900 ZIPLY FIBER 265674 3,728.0112/31/2024
Total count: 115
GrandTotal: 702,787.20
Page: 3
8.10.c
Packet Pg. 166
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
l
a
i
m
c
k
s
1
2
-
3
1
-
2
4
A
g
e
n
d
a
c
o
p
y
(
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
c
l
a
i
m
c
h
e
c
k
s
a
n
d
w
i
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
2025 Legislative Agenda
Staff Lead: Todd Tatum
Department: Community Services
Preparer: Todd Tatum
Background/History
The city's legislative agenda was approved by City Council on December 10, 2025.
Previous versions of the agenda included a "marsh proviso", which granted the city first right of
purchase of the UNOCAL property once it is transferred to WSDOT and declared surplus.
At November 26th's City Council meeting, staff indicated that they did not include the proviso on the
legislative agenda for two reasons:
1. The MOU between WSDOT and the City outlines WSDOT's intention to give the City first right of
purchase after the property ownership transfers to them, and the property is declared surplus.
2. The Department of Ecology's process is ongoing and - along with the required monitoring period -
would not be likely to wrap up during the coming biennium.
On December 16th, members of city staff had an opportunity to meet with Chevron's "marsh" team. At
this meeting, members of their team expressed their belief that property ownership could transfer to
WSDOT as early as 2025.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the revised 2025 Draft Legislative Agenda
Narrative
WSDOT, the Department of Ecology, and Chevron each have their own legal mandates, interests, and
strategies for dealing with their requirements to the UNOCAL property. Staff must triangulate what is
likely to happen given what they know about these three parties' activities at any time. While it is not
clear that the property will transfer to WSDOT in 2025, the fact that Chevron believes it is a possibility
gives us reason to reevaluate whether we should include the "marsh proviso" on our legislative agenda.
The "marsh proviso" is included in the attached, revised legislative agenda in a form which Council has
approved in past documents.
The inclusion of this request will give the City the opportunity to discuss the proviso, and will be a clear
link to discussions with our delegates about possible financial solutions for a transfer or purchase of the
property.
Attachments:
COE_2025_LegislativeAgenda_123024 final for consent
8.11
Packet Pg. 167
CITY OF EDMONDS
2025 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Highway 99 Revitalization Project
Request: Maintain $22.5 million funding in the Move Ahead Washington package across 2025-27 ($4.3M) and 2027-29
($18.2M) biennia for Stage 3 of the SR 99 Revitalization Project.
The City of Edmonds places a high priority on both safety and social and environmental justice throughout our community.
The Highway 99 Corridor and its surrounding neighborhoods have historically been under-served, with lower levels of parks
and public spaces, community gathering facilities, and safe, multimodal transportation improvements.
In tandem with continued community planning, the City will pursue multiphase transportation improvements along the
Corridor, costing upwards of $206 million, including accompanying utility improvements. This significant public investment
will also promote private investment along the corridor, and bring needed jobs, affordable housing and services to an
underserved community of Edmonds.
Key 2025 Legislative Priorities
1. Edmonds Marsh: The Legislature in the 2023 session approved a proviso for the duration of the 2023-2025 biennium that
provided Edmonds the first right of purchase of the former UNOCAL site when it transfers to WSDOT. These provisions are
in effect until 6/30/25. The clean-up process with likely take through 2025. We, therefore, request an extension of the first
right of purchase.
2. City Revenue Options: Support mechanisms to expand general revenue (e.g., lifting the 1% property tax cap, increasing
REET share, and expanding state revenue-sharing).
3. Behavioral Health & Public Safety: Support co-responder programs, increase resources to deal with domestic violence, and
enhance behavioral health infrastructure (practitioners and beds).
4. Indigent Defense Standards: Engage in discussions on defense standards, emphasizing state funding for any cost increases.
5. Increase housing supply and support measures that increase housing stability: Back measures which aid in the financing of
housing construction, and explore new funding options for needs along the housing continuum, including home ownership,
senior housing, rent support, and permanent supportive housing.
6. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Support TIF’s viability.
7. Address the impacts of state environmental and housing legislation on cities: Promote the creation of funding and programs
which help cities to plan for, adapt to, and fund solutions to the changes brought on by state legislation, particularly with
respect to watershed health and restoration.
8. Work with our delegates to identify solutions to:
• The impacts of the lowest bidder requirements.
• Increasing the ability of retired law enforcement officers to return to service.
• Reduce the impacts of vexatious requests and litigation as a result of the Public Records Act.
8.11.a
Packet Pg. 168
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
E
_
2
0
2
5
_
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
g
e
n
d
a
_
1
2
3
0
2
4
f
i
n
a
l
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
n
t
(
2
0
2
5
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
g
e
n
d
a
)
City of Edmonds 2025 State Legislative Agenda • Page 2
Additional Legislative Issues
Environmental & Climate Initiatives
• Support: Legislation enhancing Puget Sound health, reducing greenhouse gases, and promoting waste reduction and
circular economies.
• Funding Requests
• Grants or low-interest loans for energy efficiency in affordable housing.
• Maintain funding of Commerce’s Climate Planning Grants.
Public Safety
• WASPC Efforts: Advocate modifications to RCW 13.40.740 to improve juvenile justice procedures, allowing
exculpatory statements and clarifying rights of juvenile victims and witnesses.
• Criminal Justice Funding: Support initiatives to increase funding for the justice system.
• Juvenile crime: Advocate for, and support, measures which provide resources to prevent juvenile crime, and provide
alternatives to juveniles at risk.
Salmon Recovery & Watershed Health
• Support WRIA 8 Priorities:
• $125M for Salmon Recovery Funding Board (2025-2027 biennium).
• $110M for Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.
• $40M for streamflow restoration in Department of Ecology’s budget.
• $8.9M to reduce toxic tire chemical exposure affecting salmon survival.
Transportation & Safety
• SR-104 and SR-99: Advocate for investments in SR-104 maintenance and planning.
• Additional investments: Interurban Trail safety enhancements, Vision Zero projects, and statewide sidewalk network
improvements.
Economic Development
• Public Works Programs: Back funding for CERB, Public Works Trust Fund, and TIB to aid business expansion.
• Placemaking Grants: Advocate for capital budget allocations for community placemaking initiatives.
• ArtsWA Funding: Support budget requests to strengthen Creative Districts and the creative economy.
8.11.a
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
E
_
2
0
2
5
_
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
g
e
n
d
a
_
1
2
3
0
2
4
f
i
n
a
l
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
n
t
(
2
0
2
5
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
g
e
n
d
a
)
8.11.a
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
O
E
_
2
0
2
5
_
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
g
e
n
d
a
_
1
2
3
0
2
4
f
i
n
a
l
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
n
t
(
2
0
2
5
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
A
g
e
n
d
a
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Ratification of Employee Separation Agreements
Staff Lead: RaeAnn Duarte
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson
Background/History
The following employees were separated from employment with the City, Megan Menkveld effective
3/1/2023; Pamela Randolph effective 3/31/2023; Dave Turley effective 5/10/2024; and Susan
Mclaughlin effective 9/8/2024. Prior to the separation of each employee, negotiating parameters were
discussed with the City Council in executive session. Even though the Council was advised of the agreed
upon terms and severance pay prior to the execution of the Separation Agreement and Release,
separation agreements fall outside of the mayor’s delegated contracting authority, therefore final
agreements must be ratified by the City Council.
Staff Recommendation
With the approval of the agenda item, City Council will ratify the executed separation agreements for
Megan Menkveld, Pamela Randolph, Dave Turley and Susan Mclaughlin.
Narrative
Megan Menkveld's employment with the City ended in March, 2023. Pamela Randolph's employment
with the City ended March, 2023. Dave Turley's employment with the City ended May, 2024. Susan
Mclaughlin's employment with the City ended September, 2024. Staff is requesting ratification of the
separation agreements.
8.12
Packet Pg. 171
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Review of Development Code Updates for 2025
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning & Development
Preparer: Heather Lakefish
Background/History
State legislation over the last few years has resulted in the need for City development code updates. In
addition, various clarifications and other updates make sense to do at the same time.
Staff Recommendation
Consider information and provide any questions or comments
Narrative
Housing-related legislation was a major topic for state legislation over the last few years. (See
attachment.) Other key topics included climate planning and critical area updates. Updates required by
a certain completion date must be adopted by the due date or the City will be considered non-compliant
and ineligible for grants until the necessary updates are adopted.
City progress
For state-required code updates, Edmonds has already completed the following:
· Accessory dwellings (per HB 1337)
· Permit processing (per HB 5290)
· Removal of limits to number of people occupying a household (per ESSB 5235).
Still due for 2024
Two code updates that were due by December 31, 2024, could not be completed ahead of the
Comprehensive Plan update, which was adopted December 17, 2024. However, these two code updates
are proposed for adoption as interim ordinances, which the City Council will consider separately on
January 7th. The two interim (temporary) ordinances are for:
1. Neighborhood centers and hubs to accommodate housing and commercial
2. Permanent supportive housing and emergency shelters ("STEP housing").
Due by June 30, 2025
The following topics are required for code updates by the end of June 2025:
· Middle housing (per HB 1110 and HB 2321, expected to amend residential zoning districts,
subdivision, etc.)
· Design standards and review process (per HB 1293)
· Parking (per SB 6015, SHB 2343, ESSB 6617)
· Multifamily (making units easier to add under HB 1042, SSB 5058, and HB 1181)
· Bonus density for affordable housing on land of religious organizations (per SHB 1377).
9.1
Packet Pg. 172
Due by December 31, 2025
The following two topics must be addressed by the end of 2025:
1. Critical area regulations, as needed (due at end of December 2024--but with a one-year grace
period)
2. Co-living housing (subject of HB 1998).
Other code updates useful (or necessary) in 2025
Additional code amendments likely to be useful or necessary in 2025 include:
· Zoning Map updates (specifically for neighborhood centers and hubs and residential districts)
· Final version of Neighborhood Centers and Hubs
· Final version of STEP housing
· Definitions in Title 21 ECDC, as needed
· Minor amendments to clarify requirements for parks
· Minor amendments to Title 19 (Building Code).
Attachments:
Housing laws of 20219 - 2024
9.1
Packet Pg. 173
1
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS OF 2019 THROUGH 2024
GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES LOCAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION
2.2
Index of housing laws 2019-2024
Accessory dwelling units – new provisions 12 Parking 15
Accessory dwelling units: 3-year property tax exemption 15
For ‘buildable lands’ jurisdictions 10
Co-living 2
Condo-conversion tenant-to-homeowner program 7
Condominiums - encouraging construction: ,7. 11. 17
Data from the Washington Center for Real Estate Research 19
Definitions Added to the Growth Management Act (GMA) 18
Foreclosure prevention 13
Funding for affordable housing 7, 14, 17 (CRF), 18 (levy) 22 (REET)
GMA housing goal and housing element changes 8
Healthy Environmental for All Act -(HEAL) 14
Homeless encampment hosts, regulating 17
Housing action plans and GMA appeal protection 19
Implementation progress report 5-year 5
Limited Areas of More Intense Development (LAMIRDs) 6
Multifamily tax exemption program: major changes 13
Moderate density housing policies in updated housing elements 8
Occupants of a building – may not limit number 13
Parking requirements (general) 3
Parking maximums near high quality transit service 16
Projections of need for housing elements 8
Racially disparate impacts 12
REET Exemption for affordable housing 7
Religious organizations’ land bonus density for affordable housing on 21, 24
SEPA appeal protections for housing actions 4
SEPA exemptions categorical 5, 18 (infill), 20 (planned actions)
Sales and use tax for affordable housing 7, 14
State agency contacts 23
Tax Increment Financing 5, 13
Transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and shelters 10
Tiny Homes and tiny home communities 7, 20
Urban growth area revisions allowed 6
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 174
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
2
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
2024 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law
Co-living
HB 1998 adds a new section to RCW 36.70A requiring communities to allow co-living on any lot located within
an urban growth area that allows at least six multifamily residential units, including mixed use zoning. This
includes any lots required to allow six middle housing units. This must be reflected in local regulations by
December 31, 2025, or be superseded by state law.
"Co-living housing" means a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and
lockable and provide living and sleeping space, and residents share kitchen facilities with other sleeping units
in the building. Local governments may use other names to refer to co-living housing including, but not limited
to, congregate living facilities, single room occupancy, rooming house, boarding house, lodging house, and
residential suites.
A city or county may not:
Require room dimensional standards larger than that required by state building code, or a mix of unit
sizes, or to include other uses
Treat a co-living unit as more than ¼ housing unit for density calculations, or ½ unit for the purpose of
connection fees
Require standards that are more restrictive that those required for other multifamily uses.
Require more than 0.25 parking spaces per sleeping unit (unless an empirical study demonstrates
more is needed)
Require off street parking within ½ mile of a major transit stop, defined for co-living as:
A stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or expanded under the provisions of
chapter 81.104 RCW;
Commuter rail stops;
Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways;
Stops on bus rapid transit routes or routes that run on high occupancy vehicle lanes; or
Stops for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of at least
15 minutes for at least five hours during the peak hours of operation on weekdays.
Updates to middle housing requirements
HB 2321 amends the GMA definition for “major transit stop”1 adding “BRT stops under construction” to the
definition, which may add additional areas where parking requirements for middle housing and ADUs are
limited. It also amends RCW 36.70A.635 (6)(e) regarding parking, that lots of exactly 6,000 SF may only
require one parking spot. Finally, it amends RCW 36.70A.635 (8)(a) to clarify that only the portion of a lot,
parcel or tract with designated critical areas or buffers are exempt from middle housing requirements, except
for critical aquifer recharge areas where a single family house is an allowed use, provided requirements to
maintain aquifer recharge are met. Any lot created through lot splitting, is also not subject to middle housing.
Commerce to update guidance, revisions to be addressed at the local level as middle housing is adopted.
1 RCW 36.70A.030(25)
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 175
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
3
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Reducing parking cost
SB 6015 provides a new section to the Growth Management Act with some very detailed parking rules in the
interest of reducing development cost for all cities and counties planning under the GMA. Parking minimums
may be met by enclosed or unenclosed parking, in tandem, on gravel, or grass pavers, and new parking must
be at least eight feet by 20 feet. Existing and nonconforming parking may be used, up to a maximum of six
parking spaces. For GMA counties and GMA cities over 6,000 in population, they may not require off-street
parking as a condition of permitting a residential project if compliance with tree retention would otherwise
make a proposed residential development or redevelopment infeasible. This is to be addressed with the
periodic update.
Other laws
HB 2375 amends RCW 84.36.383 adds the definition for ADU and allows that single family home, for the
purposes of a senior citizen tax exemption may include an ADU.
SB 6175 amends RCW 84.14 and add a new section to Title 82 RCW. It authorizes cities offer a sales and use
tax deferral for an investment project within the city in areas with underutilized commercial property and a lack
of affordable housing. If a conditional recipient maintains the property for qualifying purposes for at least 10
years, deferred sales and use taxes need not be repaid.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 176
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
4
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
2023 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law
Middle housing must be allowed in certain cities
HB 1110 amended RCW 36.70A to require that certain cities allow middle housing, which means homes that fall between
detached single-family houses and large multifamily complexes, such as duplexes or town homes. HB 1110 requires that
cities that meet certain population and contiguous UGA criteria allow middle housing according to the chart below.
BASE NUMBER OF DWELLING
UNITS (du) of middle housing
that must be allowed per lot.
NEAR A MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP: within ¼ mile of
transit
WITH AFFORDABLE
HOUSING: if affordable
units provided Sec.
3(2)(a)
TIER ONE: Cities with
population of at least
75,000 HB 1110, Sec.
3(1)(b)
Four du/lot on all lots zoned
predominantly residential,
unless zoning permits higher
densities
Six du/ lot within 1/4 mile
walking distance of a
major transit stop, unless
zoning permits higher
densities
Six du/lot if two units
are affordable, unless
zoning permits higher
densities
TIER TWO: Cities with
population between 25,000
and 75,000 HB 1110, Sec.
3(1)(a)
Two du/lot on all lots zoned
predominantly residential,
unless zoning permits higher
densities
Four du/lot within 1/4 mile
walking distance of a
major transit stop, unless
zoning permits higher
densities
Four du/lot on all lots
predominantly
residential if one unit is
affordable
TIER THREE: Cities with
population under 25,000
that are contiguous with
the largest city in a county
with a population over
275,000 HB 1110, Sec.
3(1)(c)
Two du/lot on all lots zoned
predominantly residential,
unless zoning permits higher
densities
Cities and counties must implement this requirement six months after their next GMA periodic update.
Commerce provides the following types of assistance.2
Continuing guidance: Commerce has developed a web page on middle housing, which includes tools
such as PowerPoint presentations, photos, posters, example objective design standards and a
proforma calculator that local governments can use to communicate about middle housing.
Model ordinance: Commerce developed a model ordinance
Grant program: Commerce will offer a statewide competitive grant program in the 2023-2025 biennium
to help jurisdictions implement the bill’s requirements. Recipients must expend grant funds by June 30,
2025.
Additional guidance will include criteria to adopt “substantially similar” regulations, content of parking
studies, and areas exempted from or included in the regulations, and what circumstances warrant an
extension of an exemption.
2 Resources posted at www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/planning-for-middle-housing/
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 177
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
5
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Resources posted at www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-
management-topics/planning-formiddle-housing/
Two accessory dwelling units on each lot in urban growth areas
HB 1337 amended RCW 36.70A to change how jurisdictions that fully plan under the GMA regulate accessory
dwelling units (ADUs). Cities and counties must allow two ADUs per lot within urban growth areas. The ADUs
may be attached, detached, or a combination of both, or may be conversions of existing structures. Cities and
counties may apply public health, safety, building code and environmental permitting requirements to an ADU
that would be applicable to the principal unit, including regulations to protect ground and surface waters from
on-site wastewater. Cities and counties are not required to authorize the construction of an ADU where
development is restricted as a result of physical proximity to on-site sewage system infrastructure, critical
areas or other unsuitable physical characteristics of a property.
In addition, cities and counties:
May not require the owner to occupy the property, and may not prohibit sale as independent units, but may
restrict the use of ADUs as short term rentals;
Must allow an ADU of at least 1,000 square feet and must adjust zoning to be consistent with the bill for
things such as heights, setbacks and other regulations;
Must set consistent parking requirements based on distance from transit and lot size; and
May not charge more than 50% of the impact fees charged for the principal unit.
If a city or county does not adopt rules consistent with the law, then state law will "supersede, preempt and
invalidate” any conflicting local development regulations.
Cities and counties must implement this new requirement six months after their next GMA periodic update.
Actions taken by a city or county to comply with the requirements are not subject to legal challenge under GMA
or SEPA. The bill also addresses restrictive covenants and deed restrictions and protects local governments
from civil liability when issuing a permit for an ADU on a lot with a covenant restricting an ADU.
Streamlining housing development
HB 1293 adds to RCW 36.70A and amends RCW 36.70B to streamline local design review processes, requiring
“clear and objective” standards that don’t reduce development capacity otherwise allowed. Any design review
process must be conducted concurrently, or otherwise logically integrated, with the consolidated review and
decision process for project permits set forth in RCW 36.70B.120(3). No design review process may include
more than one public meeting. A county or city must comply with these requirements beginning six months
after its next periodic update required under RCW 36.70A.130. Local governments are encouraged to expedite
permits that include affordable housing, as defined in the bill, which provides additional flexibility in defining
affordability. The provisions do not apply to regulations specific to designated landmarks or historic districts
established under a local preservation ordinance.
SB 5290 makes changes to local government procedures for new housing permit processing. It amends RCW
36.70B, to improve clarity on the timelines around complete permit applications. For applications received
after January 1, 2025, Section 7 amends RCW 36.70B and sets out time periods and application fee portions
for different types of permit processing. This section updates the reporting requirements for permit
processing, and requires Commerce to develop a reporting template. Section 8 encourages cities and counties
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 178
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
6
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
take additional measures to enable timely permit processing, with additional direction to improve permitting
over time.
2SSB 5412 amends RCW 43.21C.229 to exempt middle housing developments within urban growth areas from
State Environmental Policy Act review if:
The development complies with all development regulations that implement the comprehensive plan; and
The city or county has prepared environmental analysis that considers the proposed use or density and
intensity of use in the area proposed for exemption and analyzes multimodal transportation impacts. This
includes impacts to neighboring jurisdictions, transit facilities and the state transportation system.
2SSB 5412 also requires consultation with WSDOT and outreach to affected tribes, other state agencies and
jurisdictions.
SB 5258 (section 10) amends RCW 82.02.060 to require local governments to publish a schedule of impact
fees which reflects the proportionate impact of new housing units. This includes multifamily and condo units,
based on square footage, number of bedrooms or trips generated, to produce a proportionally lower impact fee
for smaller housing units. Local governments must adopt this schedule with six months after the periodic
update due date.
Section 11 amends RCW 58.17.060 to require all cities and towns to adopt procedures for unit lot subdivisions
to allow division of a parent lot into separately owned unit lots, or owned in common by the owners of the lots.
This is required with the next periodic update.
Making it easier for multi-unit housing development.
HB 1042 adds a new section to RCW 35A.21 and RCW 35.21 and loosens restrictions on adding housing within
existing multifamily buildings by exempting the added units from density limits, parking and other regulatory
requirements. This must be in effect within six months after the periodic update due date.
SB 5058 amends RCW 64.55.010 to exempt buildings with 12 or fewer units and no more than two stories
from the definition of “multi-unit residential building,” which eliminates building enclosure design and
inspection requirements that add cost to small scale-condo developments.
HB 1181 makes a broad set of changes to the Growth Management Act to address climate change, including a
provision for local governments to increase housing supply, density and variety within urban growth areas and
to address climate change and resiliency in their comprehensive plans.
New tools for affordable housing
SB 1326 amends RCW 35.92 and expands the authorization for utility charge delays or waivers on the behalf of
a nonprofit organization, public development authority, housing authority or local agency that provides
emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing or affordable housing. The bill requires
connection charges waived under this chapter to be funded using general funds, grant dollars, or other
identified revenue stream.
HB 1695 amends RCW 39.33.015, and clarifies the definitions of affordable housing that qualify as a “public
benefit” to authorize governments and public agencies to sell publicly-owned surplus property at discounted
prices for affordable housing development. ”Public benefit” means rental housing where the rent and utilities
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 179
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
7
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
are no more than 30% of a household’s income, or permanently affordable housing where housing costs are
38% of a household’s income.
SB 5045 authorized a pilot program in King County to expand the existing property tax exemption for
accessory dwelling units for as long as the unit is occupied by a non-family member under 60% AMI or a
senior.
2022 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law
Appeal protections for legislative actions to increase housing
SEPA appeal protection: SSB 5818 amended RCW 36.70A.600, a list of potential housing actions, by removing
the April 2023 deadline, by which cities that are “fully planning under the GMA” must adopt ordinances,
regulations, and other non-project actions to increase housing supply that would be exempt from SEPA
appeals. Thus, the specified local actions, whenever adopted, are exempt from SEPA appeal indefinitely.
In the same bill, RCW 36.70A.070 (2) was amended to expand the SEPA exemption to include ordinances,
development regulations, and other non-project actions that implement new requirements for the housing
elements of comprehensive plans, provided that such actions do not have a probable significant adverse
impact on fish habitat. RCW 43.21C.495 was similarly amended to reflect these exemptions.
Such actions are protected from appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Boards through April 1, 2023.
Development projects may be protected from SEPA appeal on
transportation and other impacts
SSB 5818 also amended RCW 43.21C.501 by providing an option to protect SEPA decisions from appeal
regarding impacts to transportation elements of the environment when the city or town is fully planning under
the GMA and the approved residential, multifamily, or mixed-use project is:
Consistent with the locally adopted transportation plan or transportation element of the comprehensive
plan, and;
Subject to locally adopted impact fees and/or traffic and parking impacts that are expressly mitigated
under another ordinance, and;
Determined by WSDOT to not present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned transportation
system.3
This provision is intended to encourage development within central infill areas within easy reach of services,
and which reduce dependence on private vehicle use. To use the exemption, the local SEPA responsible
official or developer must consult with WSDOT regional Development Services offices and obtain its
determination of whether the project would present significant adverse impacts to the state-owned
3 https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/planning-guidance/land-use-transportation-planning
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 180
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
8
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
transportation system. Contact the WSDOT Development Services4 office for your region to request project
reviews.
In addition, amendments to RCW 43.21C.5015 also protect project actions from appeal under SEPA for
impacts that relate to aesthetics or light and glare, if the project is subject to design review at the local level.
Design review is defined as "a formally adopted local government process by which projects are reviewed for
compliance with design standards for the type of use adopted though local ordinance."
SEPA categorical exemptions expanded
SSB 5818 (Laws of 2022, section 5) requires the Washington State Department of Ecology to update SEPA
rules relating to categorical exemptions for residential development (WAC 197-11-800). The current exemption
for four detached single single-family residential units is expanded to include four attached units (WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i));
Ecology is also directed to modify the rules to include the following flexible exemption levels that local
governments may choose to adopt:
- A new exemption level for single-family residential project types with a total square footage of fewer
than 1,500 square feet in incorporated urban growth areas of at least 100 units (WAC 197-11-
800(1)(d)); and
- An increase in the existing exemption level for multifamily residential project types in incorporated
urban growth areas from 60 units to 200 units (WAC 197-11-800(1)(d)).
Note that in adopting flexible thresholds, SEPA rules define a process that local governments must follow. This
process was amended to add a requirement that a jurisdiction must document the result of its outreach with
the Washington State Department of Transportation on impacts to state-owned transportation facilities,
including consideration of whether mitigation is necessary for impacts to state-owned transportation facilities.
Jurisdictions planning under the GMA must document this process, by contacting their WSDOT regional
Development Services office to coordinate with WSDOT at: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/highway-
access-requests-training/development-services.
Finally, section 6 of SB 5818 (laws of 2022) adds a new section to SEPA to clarify that any applicant whose
project qualifies as exempt or categorically exempt under either SEPA or Ecology's SEPA rules is not required
to file an environmental checklist if other information is available to establish that a project qualifies for an
exemption.
Due dates for GMA periodic review extended
ESSHB 1241 amended RCW 36.70A.130 by extending the GMA periodic review due dates for King, Kitsap,
Pierce, and Snohomish counties and the cities within them by six months (from June 30, 2024 to December 31,
2024). In addition, the cycle of periodic review due dates was extended from eight years to ten years for all
jurisdictions. The new ten-year cycle begins with the next due date established under the GMA for each county
and the cities within them. See: Growth Management Periodic Updates - Washington State Department of
Commerce.
4 https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/highway-access-requests-training/development-services
5 SB 5818 (Laws of 2022, Section 4)
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 181
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
9
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
SSHB 1241 also added a 5-year implementation progress report to RCW 36.70A.130 (9), requiring cities of
greater than 6,000 people in larger and fast-growing counties to report on:
The implementation of previously adopted changes to the housing element and any effect those
changes have had on housing affordability and availability within the jurisdiction;
Permit processing timelines; and
Progress toward implementing any actions required to achieve reductions to meet greenhouse gas and
vehicle miles traveled requirements as provided for in any element of the comprehensive plan.
Tax increment financing expanded
Under ESHB 1189 (which amended Chapter 84.55 RCW and added a new title to Title 39 RCW), local
governments may designate up to two Tax Increment Financing (TIF) areas and use resulting tax allocation
revenues to pay for public improvement costs. To do so, the local government must adopt an ordinance
designating a specific increment area and specify public improvements that are to be financed with the use of
TIF. The assessed value limit within a TIF area (or the combined total value if two TIF areas are designated) is
$200 million or not more than 20% of the jurisdiction’s total assessed value, whichever is less. Certain criteria
and procedures apply to the process.
The local government designating the increment area is entitled to receive an additional amount of property
tax receipts to reflect the increment of valuation increase that will be achieved by the public improvements.
The additional amount must be spent only to finance the cost of specific public improvements for the TIF area.
Limited areas of more intense development (LAMIRDs)
SB 5275 modified RCW 36.70A.070 regarding the rural element of a county comprehensive plan. It provided
that any development or redevelopment of building size, scale, use, or intensity may be permitted within a
LAMIRD, subject to all existing providers of public facilities and services having confirmed that the existing
service capacity is sufficient to meet any additional demand from the new development or redevelopment.
Changes in use are allowed, so long as the new use is consistent with the local character.
Any commercial development or redevelopment within a mixed-use area must be principally designed to serve
the existing and projected rural population and must meet the following requirements: (1) Any included retail or
food service space must not exceed the footprint of previously occupied space or 5,000 square feet, whichever
is greater, for the same or similar use; and (2) Any included retail or food service space must not exceed 2,500
square feet for a new use.
Urban growth area revisions allowed
SB 5593, which amended RCW 36.70A.130, adds a new factor that counties must consider when reviewing
urban growth areas under the GMA. The added factor is: patterns of development within urban growth areas.
During its review, if the county finds that revision of the urban growth boundary is not necessary to
accommodate growth for the subsequent 20-year period, but does determine that patterns of development
have created pressure in areas that exceed the capacity of available lands within the urban growth area(s), the
urban growth area or areas may be revised to accommodate identified patterns of development and likely
future development pressure for the succeeding 20-year period if all the following requirements are met:
The revised UGA does not result in an increase in the total surface area of the UGA(s);
The areas added to the UGA are not or have not been designated as natural resource lands of long-term
significance;
Less than 15 percent of the areas added to the UGA are critical areas;
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 182
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
10
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
The areas added to the UGA are suitable for urban growth;
The transportation element and capital facilities plan element have identified the transportation
facilities and public facilities and services needed to serve the UGA and the funding to provide these
facilities and services;
The UGA is not larger than needed to accommodate planned growth for the succeeding 20-year period;
The areas removed from the UGA do not include urban growth or urban densities; and
The revised UGA is contiguous, does not include holes or gaps, and will not increase pressures to
urbanize rural or natural resource lands.
REET exemption for affordable housing
ESHB 1643, which amends RCW 82.45.010, provided an exemption to the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) for
real property sold to public entities or nonprofits for affordable housing. The entity must use the property
exclusively for low-income housing for at least the next 10 years. A covenant on the property must be recorded
to that effect.
"Tiny home communities" added to RCW 36.70A.540
SHB 2001, which amends RCW 36.70A.540, added “tiny home communities” to the list of housing incentive
programs that local governments fully planning under the GMA may use in their development regulations and
other means to expand opportunities for low-income housing units.
"Permanently affordable housing” added to CRF Act
HB 2061, which amends RCW 39.89.020, added “permanently affordable housing” to the definition of “public
improvements” under the Community Revitalization Financing Act (CRF Act). The CRF Act was originally
created in 2001, authorizing cities, towns, counties, and port districts to create a tax increment area and
finance public improvements within the area by using increased revenues from local property taxes generated
within the area. The legislation clarified that public improvements under the CRF Act may include permanently
affordable housing.
Sales and use taxes for affordable housing
E2SSB 5755, which Title 82 RCW, authorized a limited deferral of sales and use taxes to encourage amends
redevelopment of underdeveloped land for affordable housing in targeted urban areas. Qualifying cities must
have a population of at least 135,000 and not more than 250,000. (This includes Spokane, Tacoma, and
Vancouver.) To use the deferral program, a city must adopt a resolution and follow a public process.
Underdeveloped property is defined as land used as a surface vehicle parking lot that is open to the public
without charge. An owner of such property may seek a sales and use tax deferral for an investment project
that provides affordable housing.
SB 5868, which amends RCW 82.14.370, expands the ability of rural counties (those that have a population
less than 100 persons per square mile or that comprise less than 225 square miles in total area) to use a
locally adopted sales and use tax of up to 0.09%, which is credited against the state collection of such taxes
and distributed back to the county. Previously, the funds could only be used for public facilities that benefitted
economic development. Under the amended law, funds may also be used for affordable workforce housing
infrastructure or facilities.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 183
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
11
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Condo-conversion tenant-to-homeowner program
ESSB 5758, which amends several state laws, provides a condo-conversion tenant-to-homeowner program for
first-time home buyers. The program must provide homeownership information and resources to tenants in
multifamily buildings that are being converted to condos. For example, the state’s Housing Finance
Commission must refer tenants to its payment funding assistance programs and to available education
seminars. Meanwhile, the state’s Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) is expanded by one member
representing a condo association (or other similar organization). AHAB must review issues, seek input, and
provide a report on condo conversion issues to the Legislature by December 1, 2022.
2021 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law
GMA housing goal strengthened
In the 2021 legislative session, HB 1220 substantially amended the housing-related provisions of the Growth
Management Act (GMA). These updates strengthened the GMA housing goal from “Encourage the availability
of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population” to “Plan for and accommodate housing
affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state.” The remaining objectives to “promote a
variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage the preservation of existing housing stock”
did not change. Local governments should review local comprehensive plan policies and countywide planning
policies to be consistent with the updated goal.
Commerce to provide need projections for housing elements
The housing needs analysis must now take a more detailed look at housing needs for all economic segments
of the population and examine need for different housing types, such as permanent supportive housing and
shelters. To implement HB 1220, Commerce must supply more detailed projections of housing need, including:
Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households; and
Emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing.
By mid-2022, Commerce plans to provide countywide housing need projections for each income band, along
with projections of need for emergency housing, shelters and permanent supportive housing, aligned with the
population projections from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). In this way, each
county can de-aggregate the needs at a countywide level, as is currently done for population projections.
Commerce will also provide recommendations on how to do this.6 For more detail, see Commerce’s Updating
GMA Housing Elements web page.
Updated housing elements must include moderate density housing policies
The goals and policies of the housing element must now include more specific items. In addition to goals,
policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement and development of housing,
housing elements must include, within an urban growth area (UGA) boundary, moderate-density housing
6 Counties that have identified housing targets at the jurisdiction level need to ensure the total countywide population projection falls
within the range provided by OFM, and review how local zoning allows the development of a sufficient number of housing units of the
types that may be needed to accommodate households at each income level.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 184
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
12
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
options, including but not limited to, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. This means that for cities and the
urban growth area portion of counties, there must be policies supporting moderate density housing options
such as “middle housing”.7 This list may also include cottage housing, four- and six-unit multi-plexes, row
houses, and courtyard apartments, with the goal of providing additional housing units at a lower cost than
traditional single-family housing. The expectation is to develop and implement development regulations in the
near future. Review of ‘adequate provisions’ for all segments of the community HB 1220 added specific work
items to RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d) regarding “adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.” These include:
Incorporating consideration for low, very low, extremely low, and moderate-income households;
Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability including gaps in local funding,
barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations;
Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment locations; and
Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs.
See HB 1220 Web Page for more information.
Communities must examine racially disparate impacts, displacement and
exclusion
Communities must now review past discriminative land use practices and take steps to address and prevent
future displacement. A new component for RCW 36.70A.070(2)(e) is to identify local housing “policies and
regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion.” [Commerce has developed
guidance on racially disparate impacts and related topics. See HB 1220 Web Page.] Policies and regulations
to examine include consideration of the following:
Zoning that may have a discriminatory effect: Are there areas that were subject to historic redlining or
racially exclusive deed restrictions? Have you reviewed the racial distribution of residents in your
community and region to review how policies may have affected the overall racial distribution? Are
there zoning districts with restrictions that have resulted in the area being racially or economically
exclusive? In these areas, can you expand moderate density housing uses that may be more affordable,
such as allowing duplexes, townhouses, detached ADUs, etc.?8
Disinvestment: Are there areas that may have been lower priority for public investment? Consider a
strategy to focus on areas most in need of public investment with subarea plans, incentives for
development, infrastructure prioritization, or other tools to increase opportunity. Consider adding parks,
transit services, schools, sidewalks, bike facilities or public buildings in these areas to balance
investment across the community.
Infrastructure availability: Are there residential areas within urban growth areas (UGAs) that are not
adequately served by public utilities or multimodal transportation options? Could such services
7 Middle Housing is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family
homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.
8 Review guidance at https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/planning-for-housing/updating-gma-housing-elements/
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 185
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
13
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
increase opportunities there for attainable housing or jobs? If an area is difficult to serve due to
geographic constraints, should it be re-designated to a more appropriate use?
The housing needs assessment should also provide a statement of observations for each of the above
categories. After identifying such housing policies and regulations, part (f) of the legislation requires
communities to identify and implement “policies and regulations to address and begin to undo racially
disparate impacts, displacement, and exclusion in housing caused by local policies, plans, and actions.”
The housing element should also identify “areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces
that occur with changes to zoning development regulations and capital investments” under 36.70A.070(2)(g).
As you consider changes in zoning, consider developing strategies to address preservation of existing housing
units and/or replacing affordable units as new development occurs.9 Your updated housing element should
include anti-displacement policies, which consider:
(h)Preservation of historical and cultural communities as well as investments in low, very low, extremely low,
and moderate income housing; equitable development initiatives; inclusionary zoning; community planning
requirements; tenant protections; land disposition policies; and consideration of land that may be used for
affordable housing.
Commerce has been developing more detailed guidance to address this section, including methodologies to
identify places with racially disparate impacts and displacement risk and examples of anti-displacement
policies.10 See HB 1220 Web Page.
Another bill from the 2021 legislative session, HB 1335, provides funding to universities to research recorded
documents with potential racial restrictions, such as deeds. Any such provisions are declared void by RCW
49.60.224, RCW 49.60.227 provides ways to legally address such statements on a deed or title. See Racial
Restrictive Covenants Project - Washington and Restrictive Covenants Database (washington.edu).
For ‘buildable lands’ jurisdictions
A last change to the housing element occurs within the section related to the seven counties and associated
cities and towns that are required to complete a “buildable lands” assessment under RCW 36.70A.215. [Growth
Management Buildable Lands - Washington State Department of Commerce.] These counties should also
demonstrate how the housing element links “jurisdictional goals with overall county goals to ensure that the
housing element goals are met.” In this case, the housing needs assessment should demonstrate how the
local housing element is consistent with countywide planning policies and multicounty planning policies, if
applicable. For those within the central Puget Sound region (area of Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap
counties), this could include a statement of consistency. As local governments develop their buildable lands
report, they should take the opportunity to gather data needed to meet new housing element requirements.
For more details, see HB 1220 Web Page.
9 See WAC 365-196-835 relocation assistance for low income tenants
10 Commerce has gathered some example displacement policies from local Housing Action Plans at this link. Cities have taken a
variety of approaches to analyzing the risk of displacement. Examples include Walla Walla, Shoreline (see page 6-9), Burien (see page
51-53 and 92), Lynnwood (see page 57, Appendix E: Displacement Memo), Everett (see page G-12 in Appendix E), and Spokane Valley
(see page 23). The Puget Sound Regional Council’s anti-displacement risk mapping project can be found here and technical
documentation here. Communities might also review “Dismantling Poverty in Washington State.” The resources section has kits for
cities already doing this work.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 186
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
14
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Transitional housing, permanent supportive housing and indoor emergency
shelters
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of HB 1220 provide specific requirements related to permanent supportive housing,
transitional housing and emergency housing. Compliance with this requirement is due by September 30, 2021.
The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) has posted guidance at MRSC - Changing Your Zoning
Code to Accommodate Housing and Shelters for the Homeless. Commerce suggests that jurisdictions
approach this requirement broadly to take advantage of funding for permanent supportive housing, the
opportunity to convert hotels to shelters and to other forms of housing, and to respond to pandemic-related
housing impacts. With the periodic update, jurisdictions will establish local targets for these types of housing
and this ordinance can be revisited then.
New definitions for your code
Section 6 of HB 1220 includes new definitions for the housing types mentioned above within RCW 36.70A.030.
During the update, local governments should include the following definitions in their code, or equivalent, as
specific by HB 1220:
(9) Emergency housing means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are
homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to address the basic health, food,
clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. Emergency housing may or may not require
occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement.
(10) Emergency shelter means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are
currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy
agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming centers that do not provide overnight
accommodations. Emergency shelters include overnight shelters which provide safe and dry conditions which
save lives.
(18) Moderate-income household means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose
adjusted income is at or below 120 percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for
the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban
development. This definition is added to the existing definitions in RCW 36.70A.030 for low-income household,
very low-income household, and extremely low-income household. Other housing definitions added to RCW
36.70A.030 in the recent legislative sessions include:
(2) Affordable housing means, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, residential housing whose
monthly costs, including utilities other than telephone, do not exceed thirty percent of the monthly income of a
household whose income is:
(a) For rental housing, sixty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the
county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban
development; or
(b) For owner-occupied housing, eighty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size,
for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and
urban development.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 187
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
15
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
(11) Extremely low-income household means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together
whose adjusted income is at or below thirty percent of the median household income adjusted for household
size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing
and urban development.
(16) Low-income household means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose
adjusted income is at or below eighty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size,
for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and
urban development.
(19) Permanent supportive housing means subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that
prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions
practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized
rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent
supportive housing is paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person living with
a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing homelessness or
was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing and be a successful
tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the resident of the housing
with community-based health care, treatment, or employment services. Permanent supportive housing is
subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW.
(30) Very low-income household means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose
adjusted income is at or below fifty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for
the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban
development.
Accessory dwelling units - Updates
Section 7 of HB 1220 provided that cities and counties “should consider” policies to encourage the
construction of ADUs. This section was vetoed Gov. Jay Inslee because it did not specifically limit the
policies to lands within urban growth areas. Commerce recognizes the significant work of the Legislature in
recommending these policies and encourages jurisdictions to review them as options in managing ADUs
within urban growth areas, where they are most appropriate.11 Policies for consideration (only within UGAs)
include the following from HB 1220 Section 7:
Not requiring owner occupancy;
Not allowing an accessory dwelling unit to be used for short-term rentals;
Excluding residents of accessory dwelling units against existing limits on the number of unrelated
residents on a lot;
Reducing minimum gross floor area requirement for accessory dwelling units to that at or below the
state building code;
Making the same allowances for accessory dwelling units' roof decks, balconies, and porches to
encroach on setbacks as are allowed for the principal unit;
Applying abutting lot setbacks to accessory dwelling units on lots abutting zones with lower setback
requirements;
11 7 ADUs in rural areas require more considerations due to the potential to increase densities beyond those that may be supported by
rural levels of services, and hearings board cases have addressed this issue. Commerce plans to develop guidance to address ADUs;
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 188
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
16
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Establishing an amnesty program to help owners of unpermitted accessory dwelling units to obtain a
permit;
Permitting accessory dwelling units in structures detached from the principal unit on any lot that meets
the minimum lot size and permitting attached accessory dwelling units on any lot, even if non-
conforming;
Allowing accessory dwelling units to be converted from existing structures, even if they violate current
code requirements for setbacks or lot coverage;
Reducing or eliminating public street improvement requirements as a condition of permitting accessory
dwelling units; and
Not requiring a separate utility connection from an ADU, and if needed, fees should be eliminated, or
made proportional to impact.
SB 5235 amended RCW 36.70A.696, pertaining to accessory dwelling units. Gov. Inslee vetoed several
components of this bill, while sections 2, 5, 6 and 7 were signed into law. Section 2 added two new definitions
that could be useful to local governments:
(8) Owner means any person who has at least 50 percent ownership in a property on which an accessory
dwelling unit is located.
(9) Short-term rental means a lodging use, that is not a hotel or motel or bed and breakfast, in which a
dwelling unit, or portion thereof, is offered or provided to a guest by a short-term rental operator for a fee for
fewer than 30 consecutive nights.
For more information and guidance, see: Affordable Housing Planning Resources (wa.gov).
Occupants in a dwelling unit: jurisdictions may not limit number
Sections 5, 6, and 7 of ESSB 5235 added the following to chapter 35.21 RCW (cities and towns), 35A.21 (code
cities), and 36.01 (counties), limiting the ability of cities to regulate the number of people within a dwelling unit:
Except for occupant limits on group living arrangements regulated under state law (such as assisted
living, group homes or adult family homes) or on short-term rentals as defined in RCW 64.37.010 and
any lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or generally applicable health and safety provisions
as established by applicable building code or city ordinance, a city or town, a code city, or a county may
not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit.
Jurisdictions should review their code for definitions of “family” or other definitions that may limit the number
of unrelated persons living within a single dwelling unit. See also MRSC - Group Homes and the sample
definitions of “family.”
Multifamily tax exemption program - major changes with SB 5287:
The Legislature passed major revisions to the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program in SB 5287, which
will open the program to all Washington cities and counties. The legislation requires Commerce to develop
guidance, develop and implement an auditing program and conduct a legislative study. In addition, the
legislation removed the “high-cost” provision of the program. Any projects already under construction should
be completed under their original agreements, but no new certificates should be issued with high-cost
provisions. Other provisions, such as offering a 20-year tax exemption for “permanently affordable” housing or
extending property tax exemptions, are local options, and Commerce is to develop a template for a deed
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 189
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
17
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
restriction that can be used for projects such as community land trusts. [See: Multi-Family Housing Property
Tax Exemption Program - Washington State Department of Commerce.]
Tax increment financing - HB 1189
After many years of consideration, HB 1189 authorized tax increment financing in Washington state, which
took effect July 25, 2021. This allows any city, town, county, port district or combination thereof to allocate a
portion of local property tax increases to repay local bonds issued to finance infrastructure improvements
within designated areas. Each local government may have up to two increment areas and must pass an
ordinance designating them as such. Increment areas must sunset after no more than 25 years. MRSC intends
to update its TIF web page at MRSC - Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in Washington.
Preventing foreclosures by reducing interest rate
HB 1410 changes the way that counties may assess property tax interest and penalties, making it more
difficult to foreclose on units of fewer than four dwelling units. Beginning in January 2023, the interest rate on
unpaid taxes for “all residential real property with four or fewer units per taxable parcel, including
manufactured/mobile homes” is lowered, and no penalties may be assessed on such property.
Condominiums - encouraging construction - SB 5024:
SB 5024 intends to reduce barriers to condominium construction through minor changes related to financing
them. Changes that make it easier to buy an ownership unit in a multifamily building are good for the state’s
housing goals. Condos often provide the benefits of home ownership (housing stability and wealth building),
with the option to purchase a more affordable unit than most single-family homes. The “leaky condo crisis,”
resulting from problems with design and construction in a wetter climate, has led builders (and their insurers)
to shy away from this product.
Tax revenue for local affordable housing - HB 1070
HB 1070 amended RCW 82.14.530 and 67.28.180. This legislation modifies the activities toward which the
0.1% sales-and-use tax for affordable housing and the state-shared lodging-tax revenues can be allocated. It
now specifically authorizes that sales-and-use tax revenues can be used for:
Constructing or acquiring affordable housing or land for the purpose of emergency, transitional or
supportive housing.
Constructing or acquiring behavioral health-related facilities, or land for these purposes In addition,
housing and facilities for youth who are experiencing homelessness are now allowable uses for state-
shared lodging-tax revenues.
Healthy Environmental for All Act - SB 5141
The purpose of SB 5141, also known as the HEAL Act, is to reduce environmental and health disparities in
Washington state and improve the health of all residents. It implements the recommendations of the
Environmental Justice Task Force report titled “Recommendations for Prioritizing EJ in Washington State
Government” (October 2020). The legislation conveys key findings from the task force report: “Washington
state studies and national studies found that people of color and low income people continue to be
disproportionately exposed to environmental harms in their communities. As a result, there is a higher risk of
adverse health outcomes for those communities. This risk is amplified when overlaid on communities with
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 190
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
18
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
preexisting social and economic barriers and environmental risks, and creates cumulative environmental
health impacts, which this act seeks to prevent and mitigate.”
The act defines environmental justice to mean:
“The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, rules, and
policies. Environmental justice includes addressing disproportionate environmental and health impacts in all
laws, rules, and policies with environmental impacts by prioritizing vulnerable populations and overburdened
communities, the equitable distribution of resources and benefits, and eliminating harm.”
The bill requires state agencies to consider environmental justice in their work, such as inclusive engagement
processes and consideration of the Washington State Environmental Health Disparities Map. This tool is an
interactive map that compares communities across our state for environmental health disparities, such as
pollution (diesel emissions and ozone), proximity to hazardous waste sites, poverty, and other concerns. The
map provides insights into where public investments can be prioritized to overcome disparities. These
resources can help local governments understand and address environmental justice within their
communities.
2020 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law
Accessory dwelling units: 3-year property tax exemption for
2SSB 6231 (Chapter 204, Laws of 2020) expanded existing three-year property tax exemption for any
improvements to a single-family dwelling in RCW 84.36.400 to include the construction of accessory dwelling
units. The dwelling unit may be either attached to or within the single-family dwelling or a detached unit
located on the same real property. 12
Accessory dwelling units: parking near high capacity transit
ESSB 6617 (Chapter 217, Laws of 2020) added more new definitions and requirements related to accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) parking.
"Accessory dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family housing unit,
duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit.
"Attached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit located within or attached to a single-
family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit.
"City" means any city, code city, and town located in a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040.
“Detached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit that consists partly or entirely of a
building that is separate and detached from a single-family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other
housing unit.
12 Washington State Department of Revenue, https://dor.wa.gov/find-taxes-rates/property-tax/property-tax-exemptions-and-deferrals
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 191
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
19
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
"Dwelling unit" means a residential living unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or
more persons, and that includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.
"Major transit stop" means:
A stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or expanded under the provisions of Chapter
81.104 RCW;
Commuter rail stops;
Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including transitways;
Stops on bus rapid transit routes or routes that run on high occupancy vehicle lanes;
Stops for a bus or other transit mode providing fixed-route service at intervals of at least fifteen
minutes during the peak hours of operation.
Stops for a bus or other transit mode providing fixed-route service at intervals of at least fifteen
minutes during the peak hours of operation.
Parking for Accessory Dwelling Units
By July 1, 2021, GMA cities may not require off-street parking for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within one
quarter (¼) mile of a major transit stop (as defined above) unless the city has determined that the ADU is in an
area with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space impediments or other reasons supported
by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for the accessory dwelling unit. Beginning July 1,
2021, these requirements apply and take effect in any GMA city that has not adopted or amended ordinances,
regulations, or other official controls, and supersede, preempt, and invalidate any local development
regulations that conflict with this provisions. A city that has adopted or substantively amended accessory
dwelling unit regulations within the four years before the effective date of this section is not subject to the
requirements.13
Parking maximums near high quality transit service14
RCW 36.70A.62015 limits the amount of parking local governments may require for low-income, senior,
disabled, and market-rate housing units located near high-quality transit service. In counties and cities
planning under RCW 36.70A.040, minimum residential parking requirements mandated by municipal zoning
ordinances for housing units constructed after July 1, 2019, are subject to the following requirements:
For housing units that are affordable to very low-income or extremely low-income individuals, located
within 1/4 mile of a transit stop that receives transit service at least two times per hour for twelve or
more hours per day, minimum residential parking requirements may be no greater than one parking
space per bedroom or .75 space per unit. A city may require a developer to record a covenant that
prohibits the rental of a unit subject to this parking restriction for any purpose other than providing for
housing for very low-income or extremely low-income individuals. The covenant must address price
restrictions and household income limits and policies if the property is converted to a use other than
for low-income housing. A city may establish a requirement for the provision of more than one parking
space per bedroom or .75 space per unit if the jurisdiction has determined a particular housing unit to
be in an area with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space impediments, or other
13 ESSB 6617 (Chapter xx, Laws of 2020)
14Added by E2SHB 1923, Section 5 and codified in RCW 36.70A.620.
15 Amended by SHB 2343 (laws of 2020) to add market rate housing and decrease the transit service requirements to two times per
hour for housing for very low or extremely low individuals.
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 192
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
20
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for the unit.16 This applies
to all units constructed after July 1, 2019.
For housing units that are specifically for seniors or people with disabilities, that are located within 1/4
mile of a transit stop that receives transit service at least four times per hour for twelve or more hours
per day, a city may not impose minimum residential parking requirements for the residents of such
housing units, subject to the exceptions provided in this subsection. A city may establish parking
requirements for staff and visitors to such housing units. A city may establish a requirement for the
provision of one or more parking spaces per bedroom if the jurisdiction has determined a particular
housing unit to be in an area with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space
impediments, or other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for
the unit. A city may require a developer to record a covenant that prohibits the rental of a unit subject to
this parking restriction for any purpose other than providing for housing for seniors or people with
disabilities.17 This applies to all units constructed after July 1, 2019.
For market-rate multifamily housing units that are located within 1/4 mile of a transit stop that receives
transit service from at least one route that provides service at least four times per hour for twelve or
more hours per day, minimum residential parking requirements may be no greater than one parking
space per bedroom or .75 space per unit. A city or county may establish a requirement for the provision
of more than one parking space per bedroom or .75 space per unit if the jurisdiction has determined a
particular housing unit to be in an area with a lack of access to street parking capacity, physical space
impediments, or other reasons supported by evidence that would make on-street parking infeasible for
the unit.18 This applies to all units constructed after July 1, 2019.
Commerce reads RCW 36.70A.620 to mean that local governments may require up to one parking space
per bedroom for market-rate multifamily housing and housing affordable to very low- and extremely low-
income households. A city may choose to require less parking than the upper limit outlined in RCW
36.70A.620, such as 0.75 spaces per unit, or not require parking at all. A developer may choose to build
more parking unless the jurisdiction has set a maximum.
In case of housing specifically for seniors or people with disabilities, RCW 36.70A.620(2) states that a
jurisdiction may not require parking for residents but may require for staff and visitors. However, if the
jurisdiction has determined a particular housing unit to be in an area with a lack of access to street
parking, physical space impediments or other reasons that would make street parking infeasible for the
unit, a city may require resident parking. Senior and disabled parking is not defined in the legislation, but
because this section references staff parking, we assume that this refers to multifamily senior housing,
which may include assisted living and/or independent living units. A local government may require a
parking study based on the expected needs of facility users and the availability of suitable street parking.
If the study shows that available street parking is infeasible for the development or particular units, the
local government could require parking. The jurisdiction can encourage developers to rent or sell parking
spaces separately from housing units.
New Provisions for Regulating Hosts of the Homeless
ESHB 1754 (laws of 2020) provides a framework for local governments to regulate hosting the homeless in
facilities such as outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary small
16 Added by HB 1923 (laws of 2019) and amended by HB 2343 (laws of 2020)
17 Added by HB 1923 (laws of 2019)
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 193
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
21
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. The bill sets out requirements for
protecting the public health and safety of the homeless residents and surrounding community RCW 36.01.290
(counties), RCW 35.21.915 (towns and cities), and RCW 35A.21.360 (code cities).
New Funding Options for Affordable Housing
HB 2497 (Chapter 280, Laws of 2020) added development of permanently affordable housing to the allowable
uses of community revitalization financing (RCW 39.89.020), the local infrastructure financing tool (RCW
39.102.020), and local revitalization financing (RCW 39.104.020).
SB 6212 (Chapter 253, Laws of 2020) expands the use of the affordable housing property tax levy (RCW
84.52.105) to include affordable homeownership, owner-occupied home repair, and foreclosure prevention
programs for low-income households within incomes at or below 80% AMI. (Effective Oct. 1, 2020)
SEPA Infill exemptions clarified
SHB 2673 (Chapter 87, Laws of 2020) amended RCW 43.21C.229 to clarify that development that is “roughly
equal or” lower than called for in the comprehensive plan is categorically exempt. It does not exempt
development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or would clearly exceed the development levels
of the comprehensive plan. RCW 43.21C.229 was adopted in 2003 to improve the development approval
process and enhance economic development. It categorically exempts new residential or mixed-use
development proposed to “fill in” an urban growth area where the current density and intensity of use is lower
than called for in the comprehensive plan. The local government must have considered the specific probably
adverse environmental impacts and determined they were adequately addressed by development regulations,
other plans, or other local, state, or federal rules.
2019 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law
Definitions Added to the Growth Management Act (GMA)
E2SHB 1923 (Chapter 348, Laws of 2019)19 added the following definitions to GMA. Jurisdictions should
ensure these definitions are included in their codes for reference in any tool they use to address affordable
housing that does not also have their own definitions in state law.
New Definitions Under Chapter 36.70A RCW: Growth Management
RCW 36.70A.030 (2) "Affordable housing" means unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, residential
housing for which monthly costs, including utilities other than telephone, do not exceed thirty percent of the
monthly income of a household whose income is:
For rental housing, sixty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the
county where the household is located, as reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
19 E2SHB 1923 (2019) Section 2
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 194
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
22
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
For owner-occupied housing, eighty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size,
for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
RCW 36.70A.030 (14) "Low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living
together whose adjusted income is at or below eighty percent of the median household income adjusted for
household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
RCW 36.70A.030 (27) "Very low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living
together whose adjusted income is at or below fifty percent of the median household income adjusted for
household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
RCW 36.70A.030 (9) "Extremely low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons
living together whose adjusted income is at or below thirty percent of the median household income adjusted
for household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
RCW 36.70A.030 (16) "Permanent supportive housing" is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on the
length of stay, that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes
admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or
unsubsidized rental housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors.
Permanent supportive housing is paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person
living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing
homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing
and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and connect the
resident of the housing with community-based health care, treatment, or employment services. Permanent
supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in Chapter 59.18 RCW.20
E2SHB 1923 (Chapter 348, Laws of 2019) also added RCW 35.21.689 and RCW 35A.21.305, which state that a
city may not prohibit permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted.
Data from the Washington Center for Real Estate Research
The Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER) at the University of Washington is to produce a
series of reports that compiles housing supply and affordability metrics for each GMA city with a population of
10,000 or more.21 An initial report, to be completed by Oct. 15, 2020, will be a compilation of objective criteria
relating to income, employment, housing and rental prices, housing affordability by housing tenure, and other
metrics relevant to assessing housing supply and affordability for all income segments, including the
percentage of cost-burdened households. The report may also include city-specific median income data for
those cities implementing the multifamily tax exemption program under Chapter 84.14 RCW. A 2021 report is
to include private rental market data and information on subsidized units. The 2022 report will also include
data relating to actions taken by cities under E2SHB 1923. The 2024 report will also include relevant data
relating to buildable lands reports prepared under RCW 36.70A.215, where applicable, and updates to Growth
20 Amended by HB 2343 (laws of 2020)
21 RCW 36.70A.610
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 195
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
23
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Management Act comprehensive plans. Reports are to be produced every two years after that. For more
information about WCRER, visit http://realestate.washington.edu/research/wcrer/.
HAP grants to increase residential building capacity
Codified as RCW 36.70A.600, E2SHB 1923 (laws of 2019) encouraged all cities planning under the GMA to
adopt actions to increase residential building capacity or streamline development processes. Cities were
especially encouraged to increase residential capacity in areas that have supportive transportation and utility
infrastructure and are served with frequent transit service. Cities were also encouraged to prioritize the
creation of affordable, inclusive neighborhoods and to consider the risk of residential displacement,
particularly in neighborhoods with communities at high risk of displacement. E2SHB 1923 provided grants and
other incentives to encourage the adoption of actions to increase housing affordability.22 HB 2343 (Chapter
173, Laws of 2020) made changes to appeal protection timelines and the list of eligible activities. SB 5818 (
Laws of 2022) made further changes to this statute, limiting appeal of those legislative actions.
Appeals of Certain Actions Limited
Ordinances amending development regulations to implement actions listed in RCW 36.70A.600 (1) are not
subject to administrative or judicial appeal under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).23 This excludes
RCW 36.70A.600 (1)(f), the adoption of a sub-area plan adopted under RCW 43.21C.420.
Any action taken by a city before April 1, 2023, to amend its comprehensive plan, or adopt or amend
ordinances or development regulations to enact any of the actions listed in RCW 36.70A.600(1) is not subject
to appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Boards.24
Any actions to amend a comprehensive plan or adopt of amend ordinances, or development regulations, and
amendments to such regulations and other non-project actions taken by a city planning under the GMA to
increase housing capacity and affordability, and mitigate displacement (as required in RCW 36.70A.070(2)(e-h)
are not subject to appeal under SEPA, unless the action has a probably significant adverse impact on fish
habitat.25
SEPA exemptions
Optional Comprehensive Plan Element or Subarea Plan
E2SHB 1923 extended SEPA appeal protections for certain projects to July 1, 2029.26 RCW 43.21C.420 was
adopted in 2010 with the intent to encourage high-density, compact, infill development and redevelopment
within existing urban areas to further the goals of the GMA, promote the use of public transit, encourage
further investment in transit systems, and to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The
statute provides that local governments planning under the GMA may adopt an optional comprehensive plan
element or sub-area plan and implement development regulations if evaluated by an environmental impact
statement (EIS). A proposed development is exempt from appeals under SEPA until July 1, 2029, if it:
22 Funding comes from a $2.50 addition to document recording fees, until June of 2024, after which, the funds are to be used for
maintenance and operation costs of permanent supportive housing and affordable housing for very low-income and extremely low-
income households. See RCW 36.22.240. Any jurisdiction taking action under these provisions is eligible to receive this funding.
23 RCW 36.70A.600(3) amended by HB 2343(2020)
24 RCW 36.70A.600 (4) amended by SHB 2343 (Sections 1 and 2), which extended appeal protections to April 1, 2023.
25 Amendments to RCW 36.70A.070 by SB 5818, Sections 2 and 3.
26 E2SHB 1923, Section 7
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 196
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
24
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
Is consistent with an optional plan element or subarea plan, and development regulations, and
Is submitted within locally adopted time frames adopted under RCW 43.21C.420(5), and
Sets aside at least 10 percent of the units for low-income households under RCW 43.21C.420 (5)(b)(ii).
Tiny Homes and Tiny Home Communities
ESSB 5383 (Chapter 352, Laws of 2019) allows for the regulation of tiny houses with wheels. It allows that
cities and towns may regulate tiny home communities and added new definitions to RCW 35.21.686.
ESSB 5383 amended the Subdivision Act (RCW 58.17.040(5)) to add tiny houses, or tiny houses with wheels, to
the exemption from subdivision requirements. The provisions of the chapter do not apply to a division for the
purpose of a lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes, tiny houses or tiny houses with
wheels as defined in RCW 35.21.686 or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land when the city,
town, or county has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local regulations.
The definitions from RCW 35.21.686 are:
A "tiny house" and "tiny house with wheels" means a dwelling to be used as permanent housing with
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation built in accordance with the
state building code.
"Tiny house communities" means real property rented or held out for rent to others for the placement
of tiny houses with wheels or tiny houses utilizing the binding site plan process in RCW 58.17.035
ESSB 5383 also amended RCW 35.21.684 to add tiny homes to manufactured home communities. A city or
town may not prevent entry or require the removal of a recreational vehicle or a tiny house with wheels used as
a primary residence in manufactured/mobile home communities, except for regulations related to fire, safety,
or other regulations related to recreation vehicles, or requires utility hookups to meet state or federal building
code standards. If a tiny house with wheels does not have an internal toilet and shower, the manufactured
home community must provide toilets and showers.
The landowner of the tiny home community shall make reasonable accommodation of utility hookups for
water, power, and sewerage services and comply with all other duties of Chapter 59.20 RCW. Tenants of tiny
house communities are entitled to all rights and subject to all duties and penalties required under Chapter
59.20 RCW. The Washington State Building Code Council must adopt specific standards for tiny houses.
International Code Council in 2018 issued tiny house building code standards in Appendix Q of the
International Residential Code, which provide a basis for the standards.
Bonus Density for Affordable Housing on Religious Organizations’ Land
Under SHB 1377(laws of 2019), a city planning under Chapter 35.63 RCW, Chapter 35A.63 RCW or Chapter
36.70A RCW must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local needs for any affordable housing
development of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a
religious organization27 provided that:
The new or rehabilitated affordable housing development is set aside for or occupied exclusively by
low-income households
The development is to be used exclusively for affordable housing purposes for at least fifty years,
27 SHB 1377(laws of 2019), codified as RCW 36.70A.545, RCW 35.63.280, RCW 35A.63.300
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 197
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
25
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
The development does not discriminate against any person based on factors listed in statute.
The development is located within an urban growth area defined under RCW 36.70A.110.
If applicable, the developer should work with the local transit agency to ensure appropriate transit
services are provided to the development.
The religious organization developing the affordable housing development must pay all fees, mitigation
costs, and other charges required through the development of the affordable housing development.
For purposes of this section:
"Affordable housing development" means a proposed or existing structure in which one hundred
percent of all single-family or multifamily residential dwelling units within the development are set
aside for or are occupied by low-income households at a sales price or rent amount that may not
exceed thirty percent of the income limit for the low-income housing unit;
"Low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose
adjusted income is less than eighty percent of the median family income, adjusted for household size,
for the county where the affordable housing development is located; and
"Religious organization" has the same meaning as in RCW 35.21.915.
A city may develop policies to implement this section if it receives a request from a religious organization for
an increased density bonus for an affordable housing development. There is no specificity on what would be
considered an “increased density bonus consistent with local needs for any affordable housing development.”
Commerce recommends the permitting jurisdiction consider existing bonus densities and the demonstrated
need, for example, in a housing needs assessment, for the type of housing being proposed. Decisions on how
much to increase density can be based on the need for the type of housing being proposed, and the ability of
the site and infrastructure to handle increased units. An ordinance authorizing the bonus density should
include a reference to the statute, and possibly RCW 36.70A.540, and should ensure that regulations meet the
specifications of the statute.
New Funding Options for Affordable Housing
EHB 1219 (Chapter 73, Laws of 2019) amended RCW 82.46.035. This statute allows cities and counties to
charge up to a 0.25% Real Estate Excise Tax (REET 1) to pay for capital facilities. It was amended to renew
recent authorization for a city or county required to plan under the GMA to charge a second 0.25% (REET 2) to
be used for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or
improvement of facilities for those experiencing homelessness and affordable housing projects.28
SHB 1406 (Chapter 338, Laws of 2019) added RCW 82.14.540 authorizing city and county legislative bodies to
implement a local sales and use tax for affordable and supportive housing, proportionally reducing the state
sales tax. To impose the tax, a county or city legislative authority must have adopted a resolution of intent by
Jan. 28, 2020, and adopt an ordinance by July 28, 2020. HB 1590 (laws of 2020) amended RCW 82.14.530
authorizing county or city legislative authorities to impose the local sales and use tax for housing and related
services by councilmanic action as an alternative to a vote. For more information, visit
https://wacities.org/data-resources/implementing-hb-1406.
28 HB 1219(2020)
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 198
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
26
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2024
State Contacts
Department of Commerce
Growth Management Services
For technical assistance on planning for housing, contact:
Anne Fritzel, Housing Programs Manager anne.fritzel@commerce.wa.gov 360-259-5216
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-
topics/planning-for-housing/
Washington State Department of Transportation
Development Review
For technical assistance to determine if there are or not probable significant adverse impacts to the state
transportation system, contact the WSDOT Development Services office for your region via the WSDOT
Development Services website: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/highway-access-requests-
training/development-services
See the WSDOT Design Manual Chapter 1130 Development Services for information about WSDOT's review
program and threshold criteria used by WSDOT to test for impacts to the state system.
Department of Ecology
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Assistance
Brendan McFarland
360.407-6976
bmcf461@ecy.wa.gov
Fran Sant, environmental planner
360.407.6004
fsan461@ecy.wa.gov
https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/SEPA/Environmental-review/SEPA-guidance
Washington Department of Labor and Industries
For information on inspection and approval of construction of tiny homes on wheels:
www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/FAS/default.asp
Building Code Council
https://apps.des.wa.gov/SBCC/
9.1.a
Packet Pg. 199
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
l
a
w
s
o
f
2
0
2
1
9
-
2
0
2
4
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
2
5
)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/7/2025
Potential Action on Interim Ordinances for Neighborhood Centers and Hubs
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning & Development
Preparer: Heather Lakefish
Background/History
In 2021, the state legislature passed House Bill 1220 (later codified as RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a) and
36.70.070(2)(b), which included a requirement for cities and counties to plan for and accommodate the
number of housing units needed for very low to moderate income households, consistent with analysis
and guidance from the state Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). For Edmonds, about 2400 more
housing units, especially multifamily housing, would be needed beyond the existing capacity. To
accommodate this number, the City’s strategy was to designate neighborhood centers and hubs that
could accommodate new multifamily housing and commercial uses. At the same time, such
neighborhood places could provide additional commercial uses and amenities that would help the
neighborhoods be more vibrant and walkable.
Edmonds adopted its Comprehensive Plan update on December 17, 2024, including to designate
neighborhood centers and hubs to accommodate multifamily housing and commercial uses. Now the
development code needs to be updated to match.
The development code for accommodating the additional housing was actually due by the end of 2024,
but because it could not feasibly be done before the Comprehensive Plan update, an interim (temporary)
ordinance is proposed for City Council action at the first subsequent meeting available. While slightly
later than the due date, prompt Council action on January 7 will likely keep the City from being
considered non-compliant and ineligible for grants and loans.
Staff Recommendation
· Move to adopt the Interim Ordinance for Neighborhood Centers and Hubs
· Move to make any amendments to the proposed regulations (Optional)
· Vote to adopt the Interim Ordinance (as amended)
Narrative
To implement the Comprehensive Plan’s provisions for Neighborhood Centers and Neighborhood Hubs, a
new development code chapter is proposed: Chapter 16.120 ECDC.
What are the purposes of this code update?
· Comply with state requirements for accommodating the number of housing units needed for
very low- to moderate-income levels;
· Provide more multifamily housing choices for people; and
9.2
Packet Pg. 200
· Increase opportunities for neighborhood commercial.
Why update the code now?
· For our region, accommodating needed housing units is required by state law in both
comprehensive plans and development regulations by December 31, 2024.
· Edmonds updated its comprehensive plan for the additional housing units by the due date but
now it needs to adopt a cope update to implement the plan as close as possible to December 31,
2024;
· January 7 is only about one week behind the due date so adopting at least a temporary (interim)
ordinance will help Edmonds quickly get back in GMA compliance and be eligible for a variety of
grants and loans.
What is an interim ordinance and why do it?
· An interim ordinance is a temporary way to adopt regulations to meet a time-sensitive goal. In
this case, it is the quickest way to comply with state requirements for accommodating needed
housing.
· An interim ordinance may be in effect no more than six months unless the City Council adopts an
extension.
· Within 60 days of adopting an interim ordinance, the City Council must hold a public hearing for
comments on the ordinance.
· At the end of six months (or sooner, depending on Council action), the interim ordinance
expires.
· The Council may adopt a more permanent ordinance (with any changes from the interim
version) prior to the date the interim ordinance expires.
What about public input?
· Public input does not need to be considered before adopting an interim ordinance because, per
state law, it is just meant to be temporary to address a time-sensitive situation while more
consideration is given to a longer-term solution.
· Public input will be considered as part of the next process to consider a more permanent action-
including through:
o A public hearing within 60 days of adopting the interim ordinance;
o Planning Board recommendation during the interim period;
o Community input and public hearing before the adoption of a final ordinance to replace
the interim ordinance.
Is the proposed code update consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
· Yes, the interim ordinance is consistent with and implements the Comprehensive Plan, especially
through:
o Goal LU-3. Promote development within the centers and hubs as the focus for growth in
a way that enhances a sense of place and provides a good qualify of life for all residents.
o Policy LU-3.1. Encourage multi-family residential development alongside a diverse mix of
retail and commercial spaces with centers and hubs.
o Policy LU-3.2. Establish Centers and Hubs as focal points for residents’ needs, services,
jobs, housing with mobility options and recreational opportunities.
o Policy LU-3.3. Incentivize development that provides signature pedestrian facilities and
9.2
Packet Pg. 201
public space, supports local business, and incorporates affordable housing..
o Policy LU-4.4 Promote pedestrian-friendly ground floor activities and street-facing
storefronts and commercial spaces that create opportunities for community
engagement in all mixed-use areas.
What are the designated neighborhood centers and hubs in Edmonds? (See attached maps from Figure
2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan.)
Neighborhood centers: Five Corners, Westgate, Firdale, and Medical District Expansion-as
illustrated in Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Neighborhood hubs: North Bowl, Maplewood, East Sea View, West Edmonds Way, and South
Ballinger, as illustrated in Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan.
What are key features of the proposed code update for designated neighborhood centers and hubs?
· Allows multifamily residential and commercial uses, along with existing single-family housing
· Requires height limits consistent with Comprehensive Plan maps for each center and hub (i.e., 3,
4, or 5-story maximum)
· To qualify for an incentive (bonus) floor, developer needs to provide community amenity, such as
a plaza, pocket park, or open space. (Note: In a final ordinance later, more options for an
incentive floor may be considered.)
· Assigns maximum number of feet for each incentive story (10 feet)
· Requires minimum number of off-street parking spaces
· Sets design standards for development (not applicable to existing single-family houses)
Why aren’t the proposed regulations different for each neighborhood center and hub?
· The proposed regulations are basic and make sense to apply to all neighborhood centers and
hubs for now.
· Different requirements and options can be considered for individual centers and hubs as part of
developing a longer-term ordinance.
· During the next six months, staff will reach out to each of the affected neighborhoods and see
where or how different requirements and options might apply to individual areas.
Next Steps
1. Council may adopt interim ordinance on January 7.
2. Public hearing on interim ordinance will be held January 28.
3. More public input will be sought.
4. Staff will bring longer-term replacement ordinance for Council consideration before interim
ordinance expires.
Attachments:
16.120.ECDC.Draft-12-21-24.bs_sh.Rvsd.Fnl
2024-12-30 interim ordinance for centers and hubs
Centers and Hubs Maps
9.2
Packet Pg. 202
Chapter 16.120
Neighborhood Centers and Hubs
Sections:
16.120.000 Purpose
16.120.010 Effect and applicability
16.120.020 Deflnitions
16.120.030 Subdistricts
16.120.040 Uses
16.120.050 Site development standards
16.120.060 Community beneflt for an incentive fioor
16.120.070 Multifamily building types
16.120.080 Design standards
16.120.090 Signage
16.120.100 Motor vehicle parking
16.120.110 Bicycle parking facilities
16.120.120 Electric vehicle charging
16.120.000 Purpose.
The Neighborhood Centers and Hubs (NCH) Zone is established to promote the development of
neighborhood centers and neighborhood hubs as focal points within the city. Neighborhood
centers and hubs bring a mix of neighborhood retail, amenities, and services in proximity to
residents. They also help ensure capacity for multifamily housing to meet the city’s
forecasted need to accommodate a broad range of income levels, consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Development in a neighborhood center or hub is intended to
be at a scale not much greater than what is possible around it and to encourage walkability
and an attractive environment that includes trees and open spaces.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 203
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
16.120.010 Effect and applicability.
A. This chapter applies to the neighborhood centers and hubs as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
B. Neighborhood centers are the areas of Westgate, Five Corners, Medical District
Expansion, and Firdale Village, as shown in Figure 2.5 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
C. Neighborhood hubs are the areas of North Bowl, East Seaview, South Lake Ballinger,
West Edmonds Way, and Maplewood, as shown in Figure 2.5 of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan.
D. In the centers and hubs, single-family houses and their accessory or secondary uses
shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.20 ECDC for single-family residential
uses.
E. Where this chapter confiicts with any other, this chapter shall prevail for the designated
centers and hubs.
16.20.020 Deflnitions. In implementing this chapter, the following deflnitions apply.
A. “Community services” mean services provided by a nonproflt or religious to aid people in
obtaining housing, food, or medical treatment.
B. “Incentive fioor” means the extra or bonus story allowed in a Mixed-Use 4 or Mixed-Use 5
subdistrict if the conditions in ECD 16.120.060 are met.
C.” Indoor gathering space” mean an indoor spaces, such as a lobby, shared common
space, and meeting room, for permitted primary uses.
D. “Multifamily housing ” means housing of at least four units attached to each other in
some combination or attached to commercial uses or community facilities.
E. “Pedestrian zone” means the area between the primary street and the exterior of a
building, excluding single-family houses and their accessory or secondary buildings, that is
less than twenty feet from a primary street.
F. “Pocket park” means a small outdoor area that provides dedicated space for passive or
active recreation, open to the public.
G. “Portable sign” means an A-frame sign that stands no taller than 36 inches or a
stanchion sign that stands no taller than 42 inches.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 204
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
G. “Primary street” means the public street right-of-way that a building faces or when a
property borders two or more streets, the street that typically has the most traffic “Retail”
means the direct sale of goods to the public for use or consumption.
H. “Right-of-way-related uses” means bus stops, utilities, bicycle paths, pedestrian
access, landscape, and other uses for public beneflt, as typically allowed within or
adjacent to a public right of way.
I. “Voluntary housing” means assisted living, retirement homes, senior housing, adult
family homes, and other housing where residents may voluntarily live.
16.20.030 Subdistricts. The NCH zone has the following subdistricts:
A. Mixed-Use 3, which provides for an allowed land use or mix of land uses where the
maximum standard height of buildings is no more than three stories and no additional
incentive fioor is allowed;
B. Mixed-Use 4, which provides for an allowed land use or mix of land uses where the
maximum standard height of buildings is three stories without an incentive fioor and where
four stories are allowed with an incentive fioor;
C. “Mixed-Use 5”, which provides for an allowed land use or mix of land uses where the
maximum standard height of buildings is no more than four stories without an incentive
fioor and where flve stories are allowed with an incentive fioor.
16.120.040 Uses.
A. Permitted primary uses are one or more of the following: multiple dwellings, single-
family dwellings built or permitted prior to January 1, 2025 and on the same building
footprint, other forms of voluntary housing, bed-and-breakfasts, commercial uses,
community facilities, community services, offices, open space, open air markets, pocket
parks, plazas, right-of-way-related uses, and community services.
B. Permitted accessory and secondary uses are one or more of the following: accessory
dwellings, home occupations, daycare, garages, workshops, mechanical equipment,
storage facilities, recreation, art, meeting rooms, commuter parking lots containing less
than ten designated spaces in association with a permitted primary use, private parking of
vehicles, indoor gathering spaces, and other uses that do not create a nuisance.
C. Prohibited uses are as follows: sexually oriented businesses, recreational marijuana,
half-way houses, hospitals, and hotels.
D. Any development may have a mix of permitted uses.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 205
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
E. Multifamily housing that is developed with more than twenty units shall provide ground
fioor commercial space that is equal to at least ten percent of the ground fioor footprint.
F. Grocery and convenience stores must sell fresh produce and dairy or dairy-substitute
products. Less than half of the shelf and case space must be for the sale of alcoholic
beverages and packaged snack foods.
G. Outdoor dining is allowed, provided that, when within ten feet of a property in single-
family use, it is screened with a combination of plantings and fencing at six feet or more in
height. The provisions of EDC 17.70.040 do not apply to this district.
16.120.050 Site development standards.
A. Height.
1. The height of detached single-family houses and their accessory/secondary uses
is subject to ECDC 16.20.030 and 16.20.050, respectively.
2. Maximum number of stories for buildings in a center or hub, excluding detached
single-family houses and their accessory or secondary uses, shall be consistent
with Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan. Maximum standard height is identifled
in this subsection, provided that exceptions may apply, pursuant to ECDC
16.120.050.A.3 and ECDC 16.120.060.
a. For Mixed-Use 3 subdistricts, buildings may be three stories tall and the
standard maximum building height is 30 feet, provided that it may be 33 feet
when the flrst-fioor height is 12 feet.
b. For Mixed-Use 4 subdistricts, buildings may be either three stories tall,
with a standard maximum building height of 30 feet (or 33 feet when the flrst-
fioor height is 12 feet) and not including an incentive fioor, or four stories tall,
with a maximum height of 42 feet that includes one incentive fioor.
d. For Mixed-Use 5 subdistricts, buildings may be four stories tall, with a
standard maximum building height of 40 feet (or 42 feet if the flrst-fioor
height is 12 feet) and no incentive fioor, or flve stories tall, with a maximum
height of 50 feet (or 52 feet if the flrst-fioor height is 12 feet) that includes one
incentive fioor.
3. Exceptions for additional building height may apply only to the extent that one of
the conditions in this subsection is met. Exceptions are not additive; no more than
one of the exceptions shall apply to any building.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 206
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
a. For buildings achieving green building certiflcation pursuant to ECDC
16.45.040 and that have commercial uses comprising at least 50% of the ground
fioor area, up to flve feet higher than the standard maximum height in that
location;
b. For areas of centers and hubs that are eligible for an incentive or bonus fioor,
as identifled in Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, and that meet the criteria
for community beneflt, pursuant to ECDC 16.120.060, an additional fioor up to
10 feet in height is allowed.
c. For areas of centers and hubs that are eligible for an incentive or bonus fioor,
as identifled in Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, and that meet the criteria
for community beneflt, pursuant to ECDC 16.120.050, an additional fioor up to
10 feet in height is allowed.
B. Setbacks. For single-family houses and their accessory or secondary uses, the minimum
street setback is as stated in Chapter 16.20 ECDC. For other buildings: Minimum street
setback is15 ft, except that the minimum street setback for a retail facility on a corner lot is
a minimum of 10 ft; Minimum side setback is 10 ft; Minimum rear setback is15 ft.
C. Lot coverage. Maximum coverage of a lot is 45%, provided that maximum lot coverage
for a single-family house is 35%.
D. Building location. At least one building on a site containing a primary use must have a
street-facing façade, of which two-thirds or more of the ground fioor is located no further
than twenty feet from the primary street, provided that for a detached single-family and its
accessory or secondary uses, the setback requirements of Chapter 16.20 ECDC apply.
E. Landscaping and lighting.
1. Any site not covered by an allowed use, such as a building or paved area, must be
landscaped. Up to 10% of the landscaping may be comprised of hardscape
materials, such as boulders and rockeries. Small wooded areas and areas planned
for environmental conservation may remain in a more natural state, as approved in
the site plan.
2. Outdoor lighting must be provided at all external building entries and stairways
and to illuminate the site’s address.
16.120.060 Community beneflt for an incentive fioor. An incentive or bonus fioor at a
height up to 10 feet above the standard maximum height for its location will be permitted
when a development provides an approved plaza, pocket park, accessible open space, or
outdoor recreational site of at least 800 square feet for public use. The space must include
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 207
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
seating, landscaping, pedestrian access, and other amenities as part of a master plan that
has considered neighborhood input and been approved by the director or director’s
designee. The space must be maintained consistent with the approved master plan or a
revised master plan that has had public input and approval by the director or director’s
designee.
16.20.070 Multifamily building types. Multifamily building types may include apartments,
condominiums, townhomes, and mixed-use buildings that have at least four housing units.
16.120.080 Design Standards. Design standards are intended to encourage a pedestrian-
friendly appearance and avoid blank or unarticulated walls facing the street. The design
standards of this section do not apply to detached single-family houses and their
accessory or secondary uses. Design review will be conducted under ECDC 20.12.030.
A. The street-facing façade of a building must have one or more windows on the ground
fioor with transparent glazing totaling at least flfty square feet for each thirty linear feet of
wall. Each fioor above the ground fioor must have one or more windows with transparent
glazing totaling at least twenty-flve square feet for every thirty linear feet of wall.
B. At the ground fioor, a garage shall not comprise more than 50% of the façade of a
building, including any townhome, that faces a primary street.
C. The street-facing façade of a building shall have at least two of the following:
1. Articulated walls that have 18 or more inches of plane change every 30 feet
2. Covered pedestrian entry, provided that the cover is: (a) at least one foot above
the pedestrian entry door: (b) a minimum of seven feet in width and two feet in
depth; and (c) attached to the building.
3. Masonry base that extends at least three feet high from ground level
4. Windows that result in 50% more transparent glazing area than the minimum
required in 16.120.080.A.
5. Landscaped courtyard that is at least one/third of the building width and at least
ten feet deep.
6. One balcony per unit above the ground fioor that shares a common wall with the
street-facing facade. Such balconies must be a minimum of two feet in depth and
four feet in width and accessible from an interior room.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 208
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
D. Buildings shall have either a pitched roof of at least 3:12 pitch visible to the primary
street or a roofiine visible to the primary street that has a parapet or fascia to deflne its
edge.
E. Any off-street parking must be provided at the side or rear of a building that fronts and is
within twenty feet of a primary street.
F. The pedestrian zone shall include pedestrian and ADA access to the building entry. The
remaining area must be fllled by any combination of landscaping, planting containers,
seating, dining tables, receptacles for trash or recycling, artwork, bicycle or scooter
parking, rain gardens, paved pedestrian space (which may include pervious paving), other
approved pedestrian amenities, a maximum of one portable sign per twenty linear feet,
signage attached to the building, and as required, utility equipment and flre apparatus,
16.20.090 Signage. Only signage attached to a building and not supported from the ground
is permitted pursuant to requirements of Chapter 20.60 ECDC, provided that portable signs
are allowed within the pedestrian zone, up to one portable sign per twenty linear feet. Wall
signs, window signs, and projecting signs are subject respectively to ECDC 20.60.030,
20.60.035, and 20.60.040.
16.120.100 Motor vehicle parking. Motor vehicle parking, other than for electric bicycles
or electric scooters, is not allowed within the pedestrian zone.
A. For single-family houses, two off-street parking spaces are required. For accessory
dwellings, the parking requirements of ECDC 16.20.050 apply.
B. For a multiple dwelling, off-street parking is required at a ratio of:
1. At least 1.0 parking space per unit with less than 800 square feet living space;
2. At least 1.25 parking spaces per unit with 800-1200 square feet of living space;
3. At least 1.75 parking spaces per unit with more than 1200 square feet of living
space.
C. For commercial uses in a building, off-street parking is required at a ratio of:
1. One space for 800 square feet of commercial use when street parking is available
in front of the building (measured from the nearest property line or within 60 feet of
it.
2. One space per 400 square feet if street parking is not available in front of the
building (measured from the nearest property line) or within 60 feet of it.
3. Bed and breakfasts must have one off-street parking space per guest unit.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 209
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
4. A commercial or mixed-use building that has less than 400 square feet of
commercial space is not required to have off-street parking if street parking is
available in front of the building (measured from the nearest property line) or within
60 feet of it.
D. For community facilities, off-street parking spaces are required pursuant to ECDC
17.50.020.C.
16.120.110 Bicycle parking facilities. Short-term and long-term bicycle parking is required
with development, pursuant to Chapter 17.20 ECDC.
16.120.120. Electric vehicle charging. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure is required
per ECDC 17.115.040.
9.2.a
Packet Pg. 210
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
1
6
.
1
2
0
.
E
C
D
C
.
D
r
a
f
t
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
2
4
.
b
s
_
s
h
.
R
v
s
d
.
F
n
l
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS AND
HUBS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
WHEREAS, the state legislature passed House Bill 1220 in 2021 (later codified as RCW
36.70A/070(2)(a) and 36.70A/070(2)()b)), which included a requirement for cities and counties
to plan for and accommodate the number of housing units needed for very low to moderate
income households, based on analysis and guidance from the state Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”); and
WHEREAS, HB 1220 and the Snohomish County Countywide Policies, require Edmonds
to plan for about 2400 housing units beyond its existing capacity; and
WHEREAS, the City’s strategy for compliance with the above planning requirements
was to designate neighborhood centers and hubs that could accommodate new multifamily
housing and commercial uses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds adopted its periodic Comprehensive Plan update on
December 17, 2024 to address the requirements for accommodating more housing, which
includes providing 20-year capacity for multifamily housing units in new neighborhood centers
and hubs; and
WHEREAS, the city’s development code needs to be updated to implement and be
consistent with the recently adopted comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted
without first holding a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, implementing development regulations were actually required to be adopted
by the end of 2024; and
WHEREAS, the city council intends to follow this ordinance with a permanent set of
regulations that implement the comprehensive plan; and
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
3
0
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
h
u
b
s
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
WHEREAS, neighborhood hubs and centers also will provide new neighborhood
opportunities for amenities and convenient commercial uses; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new chapter 16.120, entitled “Neighborhood Centers and Hubs,” is hereby
added to read as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set
forth in full.
Section 2. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the
effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after
which point it shall have no further effect.
Section 3. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW
35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within sixty
(60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on January 28, 2025 unless the
city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date.
Section 4. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts the “whereas” clauses,
above, as the findings of fact justifying this action, as required by RCW 36.70A.390.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE ROSEN
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
3
0
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
h
u
b
s
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
3
0
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
h
u
b
s
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s
4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2024, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING __________.
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2024.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
9.2.b
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
2
0
2
4
-
1
2
-
3
0
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
h
u
b
s
(
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
C
e
n
t
e
r
s