Loading...
2025-01-07 Council PacketAgenda Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JANUARY 7, 2025, 7:00 PM 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) S. 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 1 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 Edmonds City Council Agenda January 7, 2025 Page 2 4.1 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. Packet Pg. 3 7.1 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 Packet Pg. 4 7.1.a 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 Packet Pg. 5 7.1.a 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 Packet Pg. 6 7.1.a 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! Packet Pg. 7 8.1 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 Packet Pg. 8 8.1.a 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 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn 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)(1) 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 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 8.1.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 8.1.a 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 la: Quitclaim Deed for Station 16 (packet page 48) • Exhibit lb: 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 to those terms. For example, if there is an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 11 8.1.a 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 1 a, 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. l.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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 12 8.1.a 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 payment 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 13 8.1.a 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 very 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 14 8.1.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 15 8.1.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 16 8.1.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 17 8.1.a 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 $1.5011000 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 18 8.2 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 Packet Pg. 19 8.2.a 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 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 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 20 8.2.a CONSIDER THE BEVY OF AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS 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 does 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 6' 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 21 8.2.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 22 8.2.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 23 8.2.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 24 8.2.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 25 8.2.a 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 not 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 26 8.2.a 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: tdmoncis 1 ransnortation Vision "Edmonds is a charming and welcoming Pedestrians city offering outstanding quality of life with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, Bicycles safe streets, parks, and a thriving arts'qpHigoh Public Transit scene shaped in a way to promote Commercial/Freight healthier lifestyles, climate resiliency, andaccess to the natural beauty of our OccupancyVehicle community." gle ccupancy Vehicle Mr. Sharman reviewed • Roadway & Intersection Projects Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 27 8.2.a 0 LEGEND A o Intersection Improvements • Intersection Prgacl =RoepweyPq ■ Traffic signal RailweY E­ Cft ■ Mini roundabout Mid -block crossings Additional travel lanes %■ _.... o Corridor improvements �u Signal adaptive systems ■ Revitalization projects ® ■ Access management t tv) a ... o .1 1 Active 1 rans ortation Froects LEGEND A o Active Transportation Network Pr,J,d Type e MUN Uae PaN ■ Segments from 2015 plan e slaewaix lLopgl siaewa,xsno, Alignment with land use growth SO" 1k ana a,xe alternatives °a,xaa�a — EOmonaaCityLimits ■ Improvements needed for Active ;D , _ Transportation LOS `green' a'(� o A few routes will require additional study � Ot1,! given geometric constraints (OVD & 196th St SW) 3 • Total Project Costs Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 28 8.2.a , Percent of 0 87 Projects ImprovernentType ' ' ' ' ■ 51 sidewalk Transportation Capital ProjectsZ ■ 11 Roadway Roadway $ 291,850,000 47% M9 Multiuse paths • 8 bike lanes Multi Use Path $ 111,070,000 18% ■ 8 intersections Intersection $ 24,710,000 4% Sidewalk - Long $ 106,980,000 17% o SR 99 Revitalization project stages total $243M — 39% of entire capital Sidewalk - Short $ 8,500,000 1% costs Bike Lanes $ 18,120,000 3% Pavement Preservation $ 56,000,000 9% Subtotal Capital Projects $ 617,230,000 100% Transportation Maintenance & Operations (M & O) Programs General Maintenance $47,800,000 100% Subtotal M & 0 Programs $47,800,000 100% Total Costs $680,660,000 • Estimated Funding Capacity (2025-2044) Forecast o g estimates based on 2022, 2023 FundinRevenue Source Revenue revenue and spending as well as 2024 budget Transportation Capital Revenues Grant Funds $103,960,000 66% Assumes continued TBD collection GMA Fees/(TIF) $8,050,000 5% at $40/vehicle through plan State Gas Tax $2,860,000 2% o All costs in 2024 dollars General Fund $2,860,000 2% REET (Fund 125 & 126) $36,760,000 23% Other (Stormwater, sewer, $2,720,000 2% water, etc.) Subtotal Capital Revenue $157,210,000 100% Transportation Maintenance & Operations (M & O) Revenue Transportation Benefit $25,600,000 54.0% District Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $12,880,000 27.2% General Funds $8,160,000 17.2% Other $800,000 1.7% Subtotal M & 0 Revenue $47,440,000 100% Total Revenue $204,650,000 • Estimated Funding Shortfall Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 29 8.2.a o Transportation Capital Costs greatly exceed forecast revenues. oportation Capital Revenues $157,210,000 o >50% of capital shortfall Occurs on Capital Project costs $617,230,000 State Routes (SR 99 & 104) Capital Estimated Shortfall ($460,020,000) More likely to secure Funding cportation M&O Revenues $47,440,000 through future State appropriation ;portation M&O Costs $47,800,000 o How to prioritize capital projects? M & O Estimated Shortfall ($360,000) Total Estimated Shortfall ($460,380,000) ect Prioritization Proximity to Proximity to transit stops, Up to 45 points Policy 2.3 / 2.4 Activity Centers & growth hubs, parks, Other Key schools, public buildings, Locations hospitals, and commercial areas Safety Project addresses safety Up to 20 points Goal 3 issue in one of the top 10 areas of safety concern in the city Equity Project within area of low Up to 20 points Policy 3.1 opportunity index area as defined by PSRC Capacity Project improves capacity Up to 15 points Policy 6.2 along concurrency corridor TOTAL Up to 100 points • High Priority Projects High Priority Project Costs by Type - $248 million Pavement Preservation, $56,000,000 , Roadway, 23% $72,360,000 , A,AML 29% Bike Lanes, $9,840,000 , 4% Sidewalk, $10,840,000 , 4% Multi Use Path, $99,420,000 , 40% Mr. Hauss reviewed: • Schedule Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 11 Packet Pg. 30 8.2.a SCHEDULE Multimodal Level of Service Program Environmental Impact Statement Develop Draft Project List Draft Transportation Element Updated Land Use / Modeling Finalize Project List and Transportation Element 2024 June I duly I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec Outreach • 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 200t `, a street parallel to 88ffi 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 6th. 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 9'h 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 12 Packet Pg. 31 8.2.a 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 50150 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 13 Packet Pg. 32 8.2.a 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: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 14 Packet Pg. 33 8.2.a ■ 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 o Appendices (for background info) ■ Introduction ■ Methodology for land use capacity ■ Land use element ■ analysis ■ Housing Element ■ Growth targets methodology ■ Climate Element (a start toward fuller ■ Growth alternatives explanation update required in 2029) ■ Community engagement summary ■ Economic Element ■ Potential actions to consider as ■ Culture, History & Urban Design recommended by Planning Board Element ■ Potential action items (full list) ■ Capital Facilities Element ■ Utilities Element 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 thm 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 15 Packet Pg. 34 8.2.a 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 0 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 9"' Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 16 Packet Pg. 35 8.2.a 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 99 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. Some 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 17 Packet Pg. 36 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 additional 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 18 Packet Pg. 37 8.2.a 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 21/2-3 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 REP. 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 19 Packet Pg. 38 8.2.a 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. 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: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 20 Packet Pg. 39 8.2.a 70.000.000 60,000.000 50.000.000 40.000.000 30.000.000 20.000.000 10.000.000 GENERAL FUND ACTUAL2018-2023 REVENUES AND EXPENSES FUND BALANCE 201BACT 2019ACT 2020AC1 1i1:IAcT .I. ACC cAST .L. I -i'c I, ,i26 PROPOSED ASAMENDED ASAMENDED �REVEN LIES EXPENSES -ENDING FUND BALANCE 18,000,000 16.000,000 14,000,000 12.000.000 10.000,000 8.000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2.000,000 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 council'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. Fund Balance Amendment Effect Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 21 Packet Pg. 40 8.2.a 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: OVERALL CHANGE TO FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BALANCE • In 2025 we reduced revenue by $1,985,000 • $1,500,000 is the loan • In 2025 we reduced expenditures by $1,808,042 • Therefore in 2025 we DECREASED fund balance by $176,958 • In 2026 we have not changed proposed revenue • In 2026 we reduced expenses by $273,360 • Therefore in 2026 we INCREASED fund balance by $273,360 • For the biennium we have increased 2026 ending fund balance by$96,402 2025 203 REVENUE (1,985,000) EXPENDITURES (1,808,042) (273,360) END FUND BAL CHANGE (176,958) 273,360 BIENNIUM TOTAL END FUND BAL CHANGE 96,401 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-Lightgram - 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 tern 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 22 Packet Pg. 41 8.2.a 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 TW 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 23 Packet Pg. 42 8.2.a 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 the 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 24 Packet Pg. 43 8.2.a 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, staffs recommendation #18 has a net impact on the budget of $615,000 and additional amendments councilmembers propose tonight will also Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 25 Packet Pg. 44 8.2.a 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; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 26 Packet Pg. 45 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 time, 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 LEOFF 1 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 miscellaneous 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 27 Packet Pg. 46 8.2.a 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 ECI., 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 28 Packet Pg. 47 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 2O26. 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 29 Packet Pg. 48 8.2.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 30 Packet Pg. 49 8.2.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 31 Packet Pg. 50 8.2.a 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. Councilmember 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 32 Packet Pg. 51 8.2.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 33 Packet Pg. 52 8.2.a 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 motion 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 34 Packet Pg. 53 8.2.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 35 Packet Pg. 54 8.3 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 Packet Pg. 55 8.3.a 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 COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING STAFF PRESENT Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 56 8.3.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 57 8.3.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 58 8.3.a 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 BD 1 and 2 zones that are subject to parking permits and had been paying $ 1 0/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 (34), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND ECK VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO MAKE THE VISITOR PASS $60. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 59 8.3.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 60 8.3.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 61 8.3.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 62 8.3.a 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 first 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 63 8.3.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 64 8.3.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 65 8.3.a 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' cafes, 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 11 Packet Pg. 66 8.4 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 Packet Pg. 67 8.4.a 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 1. CALL TO ORDER 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 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 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 68 8.4.a Recommends reasonable alternatives for accomplishing proposal Identifies potential mitigation for impacts Types of EIS o There are two types of EIS: SEPA Project EIS Purpose Analyzes potential impacts and alternatives to a proposal Actions Proposals that are likely to have Covered a significant adverse environmental impact Project New construction; facility operation Types changes; environmental cleanup projects; demolitions; and purchases, sales, leases, transfers, or exchanges of natural resources. • EIS Process Steps SEPA Non- Project EIS Provides a basis for future project decisions Plans, policies, programs, or regulations that control the use of the environment Comprehensive plans, watershed management plans, shoreline master programs, and development regulations. Aug, 2023 Early step in preparing the EIS: publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. Aug4-Sept 10, Determines the scope of issues to be considered within the DEIS 2023 document. Interested parties may submit comments. Sep 30, 2024 DEIS identifies the project's goals and objectives, assesses the environmental impacts of each alternative, proposes measures to mitigate any identified adverse effects. Sep 30-Oct 29, DEIS undergoes an extensive public and agency review. Avirtual 2024 (30-days) meeting will be held 15 days after publishing the DEIS to provide an overview and seek comments. Dec 9, 2024 Includes analyzing and responding to comments received on the draft EIS. To be published no later than 60 days after the close of the comment period. 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 30 days - DEIS F- F- Review and Public Final Plan CommentD FEIS Issued D refinement of D Hearing D Adoption Period 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 69 8.4.a 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, 1'/z 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 196'i' & 88'i' 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, stonnwater, etc., and those individual Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 70 8.4.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 71 8.4.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 72 8.4.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 73 8.5 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 Packet Pg. 74 8.5.a 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 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 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 75 8.5.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 76 8.5.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 77 8.5.a 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 defending 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 78 8.5.a 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 their 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 types of extra expenditures. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 79 8.5.a 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 BD 1 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 BD 1 and until that zone is removed, not put it on the consent agenda for approval. i�;7xyDI\V/DI110191:A011a1► 0 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 80 8.5.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 81 8.5.a March, 2025: ASPEN GROVE Denver, CA ADA compliant sculptural playground and shade structure influenced by organic forms, commissioned for the redevelopment of the mile -long 16th Street pedestrian promenade. November, 2024: GRASS DOME Norfolk, VA Immersive sculptural Gateway commissioned by NORFOLK ARTS and the Five Points Park Planning Commission. 2020-24: KILROY STARS Austin T7(, Seattle WA, Long Beach CA, an Diego CA A series of four programmable light sculptures commissioned to unite cities in the American West during the pandemic. Now permanently installed in the public realm, adjacent to Kilroy Realty holdings. 2019: GERTIE'S GHOST/ TACOMA GATEWAY Tacoma, WA 100' diameter work depicts a mythical beast of the Tacoma Narrows, with riveted steel echoing nearby truss railroad bridges. 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 82 8.5.a * 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 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 83 8.5.a "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 Aril - 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 84 8.5.a 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 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT • Periodic Update Requirements Under the GMA, OFM projects 20-year population growth at the county level. Vision 2050 sets direction for managing growth to counties through policies, and regional growth strategies. • Snohomish County distributes growth and provides guidance through Buildable Lands Report and CPPs (countywide planning policies) • Local jurisdictions plan for the county -adopted 2044 targets. Cities must comply with HB 1110, 1337 & 1220, along with other state, regional and countywide requirements. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 11 Packet Pg. 85 8.5.a 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. • Land Use • Housing • Capital Facilities Plan • Utilities • Rural Development (counties only) • Transportation • Climate Change and Resiliency' • Ports (mandatory for cities with annual maritime port revenues exceeding $60 million, RCW 36.70A.085) • Economic Development" • Parks and Recreation" • Conservation (RCW 36.70A.080) • Solar Energy (RCW 36.70A08o) • Recreation (RCW 36 70A.080) • Subarea Plans (neighborhoods, rural villages, urban growth areas. tribal areas, etc.) • Ports (optional for cities with annual maritime port revenues of $20 million to $60 million, RCW 36.70A.085) • 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 • Increases middle housing in single family residential areas • At least two homes per lot • Four per lot if located within a quarter -mile walking distance of a major transit stop (Like SWIFT BRT Stop or Amtrak station in Edmonds) Four per lot if one home meets affordability requirements • 2044 Meeting growth targets • Requires allowing 2 accessory dwelling units in all single- family zoning districts Requires cities to: Differentiate between housing types and tie these types to affordability levels • Have sufficient capacity for each housing type (The capacity target by housing types is provided by Snohomish County Housing Requirements Report as per Dept. of Commerce guidance) Housing Units Edmonds is projected to grow by 13,000 people over ;nnoa the next twenty years ---, 4,000 Edmonds currently has capacity for 2,500 jobs. r----� i Capacity for jobs must be added 20000 i 5,000 i —' L----� Edmonds has 19,000 housing units and cap ts000 5,000 more. It must increase unit capacit by ,000 for a total of 9,000 i0000 WO 0 Existing Units Current Required Capacity Capacity Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 12 Packet Pg. 86 8.5.a • City's Housing Requirement Edmonds must plan for: 6,814 units at the Low 0-80%AMI Income level - Low -Rise or Mid -Rise Multi -family. E.g. walk-up apartment buildings - this is the largest category of need in Edmonds. 2,129 units at the Moderate <80-120%AMI Income level - these may be ADUs. 126 units at the High -Income level - these may be Moderate Density (duplex, quad, triplex) • Achieving Capacity Edmonds currently has existing capacity of 4,946 units that can be counted towards the growth targets - 4862 units that are multi family, senior apartments Le low rise or mid rise • 84unitsthat are 'middle housing" City also has an existing capacity of 201 single family residential units. But these cannot be counted towards the growth targets as they do not satisfy HB 1220. 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 30ci z0c, loci Per staff assumptions, • 197, 0 • 500+ Middle housing units can be achieved but all of these cannot be counted towards the targets per HB 1220. Only 42 can be counted to fill the Middle Housing category requirement 6,814 2,129 126 Must be low-rise, or mid- ADUs or low-rise, mid- Middle housing or any rise apartments/condos rise apartments/condos othertype 1 sat I I 1,98] 1411 977 A� 1F 14x 1zs 030% 0%-30 1 30%-50% 50%-80% 80,- 001 1001 .220% No -i Data source: The Housing Characlenstics and Needs in Snohomish County HO-5 low-rise, or mid -rise ADUs or low-rise, or mid. Middle Housing or apartments/condos rise apartments/condos any other Total M Toni Total Lr o11 HER Required to meet 1 Achieved by HB1110 Targets Step 3: Capacity we need to plan for after To Summarize considering existing plus capacity achieved Step 1: Growth Target City needs to plan for by the enabling house bills Step 2: Counting the existing capacity I AA Achiev d Capa7 Achieved Capacity • • • 4,946 4,946 2,019 County adopted Nomplies— � Target Existing Existing HousingCa aci Ca aci city to Plan Per BLR Per BLR l ai County adopted housing units 9,069 - 4,946 - 4,123 • target (including existing capacity 300 units approx. in Highway 99 area) Lou of units In UNOCAL Edmonds currently has capacity for5148 Reclul red housing types for the total units, but only 4,948 units can be counted 4,123 2,400 units towards growth targets. Cly to find plbnt4l growth loutlons feasible to • 4862 units that are multi family, senior 1952 - low-rise or mid -rise multi- wwrinmodatethis additional housing apartments Le low rise or mid rise family apartment category. • 84 units that are middle housing 2129 ADUs or low-rise or mid - Capacity for ADUs has not previously been rise multi -family apartment category. evaluated 42 units that are middle housing low- • 201 units that are single family (Not rise or mid -rise multi -family counted as they do not satisfy HB 1220) apartment category • Community Outreach Overview Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 13 Packet Pg. 87 8.5.a l� Equitable Engagement b g Framework c Nov'22 June'2 ig'23 Draft Vision Statement Equitable Engagement Community Kickoff Community fair @ PORCHFEST 2022 Framework @ Civic Park Opening @ Woodway High School 20�2 2023 Aug — Sept'22 — — Sept'23 Sept'23 Six -week themed focus on key '�� Six -week EIS scoping Lal PORCHFEST topics found in the r 9 r "Meet a planner" 4' Wednesdays Comprehensive Plan , "Popsicles in the Park" • Week 1: Identity 8 Thursdays v �' • Week 2: Quality of Life • Week 3: Economic Growth • Week 4: Environment • Week 5: Culture • Week 6: Livability&Land Use 8,500 comments collected ?^ Coil ' •:1 i i Dec '23 Neighborhood Meetings May '24 June Draft Goals & Policies Waterfront Charette 2023 Conditions 2024M Mar'24 Mar'24 Oct'24 Online Open House Citywide Forum Draft EIS+ Draft Plan Growth Alternatives Webinar Open House Comment period o n ma,o rampm: como.�nM.n<m,"um.-I..<.� 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 14 Packet Pg. 88 8.5.a Perrinville,-, North Bowl Maplewood East Seaview Downtown/ Downtown/ Waterfront Waterfront Activity Activity Ce r Center Five Corners sl Me ica District /Hu,gl.hway 99 area Westgate t' west Edrno Way Highway 99 Subarea -- Firdale No llinger Firdale Villager; ---- Alternative A: Focused Growth Total Capacity Enabled in ALT A - 3,860 UawrII— WMerf—I Activity Car t North Bowl Medical Distrlct F eC r nem tt Higi'ay 99 —. Subarea Alternative B: Distributed Growth Total Capacity Enabled in ALT B - 4,285 Doa,MOwn/ Waterfront Actively Center, 7 Firdale North I' l Perrinville North Bowl Map/ a' East Seawew ,. ...+P:... .. Medical Dismct i Evpanslon Five Corners W;sS. a- aaoaa Highway 99 Subarea F1101ile Vlvlllage }w-{.-� .y � — \ Fladaleson Illage �}, • Key areas of change based on Council's preferred Alternative (11/4/24) South Lake r Bellinger U Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 15 Packet Pg. 89 8.5.a 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 T,an,a R— comtectlnR the Censors and H Bu, Stop High Capaclty SAT Rpna t North Bowl Maplewood' East Seavlew Downtown Waterhont / Medical District Activity Center/ Expansion Five Canis Myes.._—. F• r .N. < I EE i :...n,� 3 'Highway 99 Subarea West Edmonds Way South L, Fodole NRa9a �� rev t Ms. Hope reviewed Centers and Hubs from Revised Draft Comprehensive Plan (Based on "Preferred Alternative from November 4, 2024): • Future Land Use Changes: Westgate ff� P . 6 Ey Comprehensive Plan 2020 - Community Commercial 45'max Single Family Urban 1 25' • Future Land Use Changes: Five Corners Comprehensive Plan 2024 Low Densly Residential t Low Dmvty Res rhal 2 7_ MOOerale Dmslly R.W.Ma1 L9.ed-Uw3 4 Floors. Bonus Floor 1.eud-Use4 height incentive allowed = "i-d-Use5 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 16 Packet Pg. 90 8.5.a Comprehensive Plan 2020 Neighborhood Commercial 25' Single Family Urban 1 25' - Multi Family Medium Density 25'-30' uture Land Use Changes: Medic Medical/Hwy 99 Activity nter \ - 7 \, Mixed Use Commercial 25'— 75' Single Family Urban 1 25' - Mufti Family Medium Density 25-30' • Future Land Use Changes: Firdale Draft Comprehensive Plan 2024 Low Denvty Revd -al 1 Low D.I q R.,.ntiel 2 RIOtlNale DMllry REaitlEn4a1 M-d-Use 4 - .-d-Use 5 Ll District Expansion Comprehensive Plan 2020 Neighborhood Commercial FVMU - Up to 52' BN- 25' Single Family Urban 1 25' - Multi Family High Density 25-30' • Future Land Use Changes: North Bowl Draft Comprehensive Plan 2024 Lon DEnvry Residential I Law Densely Revd —,.I 2 _ Moderate D—Ity R-da,4al M,.ed-Us 3 3, 4 Floors, M,.ed-Use4 Bonus Floor height incentive Mued-U.5 allowed on some parcels. Draft Comprehensive Plan 2024 Low DenSRy Res,de,,, low Densely Res,ce, _ Moderate Density Res�..erl�al M,xed-Use 3 - M-d-Use 4 4 Floars, Bonus Floor _ MI.ed-Use 5 height incentive allowed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 17 Packet Pg. 91 8.5.a i L e e e �• �� ess Comprehensive Plan 2020 Neighborhood Commercial 25 Single Family Urban 3 25 • Future Land Use Changes: Perrinville Comprehensive Plan 2020 Neighborhood Commercial 25 Single Family Urban 1 25 Single Family Urban 3 25 Multi Family Medium Density 25-30 • Future Land Use Changes: East Seaview R � .91. 1 se 19drR sr sw £ . , — 195TH ST SW rTr 196TM Pl sVT- Comprehensive Plan 2020 Single Family Urban 1 25 Multi Family Medium Density 25-30 - Multi Family High Density 25-30 • Future Land Use Changes: South Lake Ballinger Draft Comprehensive Plan 2024 Lo. Denvry Residenbat 1 Law Denvty Re1men11el2 Modtrett Da+sby ftC3Mtnlial Maed-Use3 3Floors Maed-UM4 Bonus Floor height incentive for few parcels Drat Comprehensive Plan 2024 Low DenM9y Resldenbel 9 Low Del" Residential 2 — Moderate 0—ty ReLd rmi Maed-use 3 3 Floors, ANaed-Uae4 Bonus Floor height - Mixed -use 5 incentive Comprehensive Plan 2024 Low Density Reslde W 9 Low 0-1, R—In- 2 _ Moderole Densely Resldenbal M—d-use 3 3 Floors _ M—d-Uu4 Bonus Floor height _Mixed-Uu5 incentive for few parcels Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 18 Packet Pg. 92 8.5.a Comprehensive Plan 2020 Single Family Urban 1 25 Single Family Urban 1 25 ® Corridor Development 25-30 • Future Land Use Changes: W Edmonds Way V. FDM �S LERNER Is s I!' u w '�OII�II�II�I�,x Comprehensive Plan 2020 ® Planned Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan 2024 Low Density ReslEenllal 1 La x Denny Res -el 2 Moderele Density Resklenbel nn.ed-U. a 3 Floors _ slued-Use4 - Mixed -Use 5 Drnft Comprehensive Plan 2024 25-30 Low Deny Residential t Low Density Resioentnl 2 _ Moderate Density Residents %// Mixed -Uses 3Roors - Mned-Use4 - Maed-Use 5 • Future Land Use Changes: Maplewood i 1967R n 5w SR 524 r Comprehensive Plan 2020 Single Family Urban 1 2S Multi Family Medium Density 2S-30 Single Family Urban 3 2S • Housing Capacity in Hubs & Centers Draft Comprehensive Plan 2024 E t V W Low Density Residential s Lax Density Residential 2 Q _ Moderate Density Residental Mored-Usea 3 Floors rpeed-Use 4 - Mixed•Ux 5 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 19 Packet Pg. 93 8.5.a 9069 1152 1185 461 294 216 219 116 33 70 203 3949 1973 42 4226 10190 `. City of Edmonds �.� Future Land Use Map Faroe fond Use Designs orn and Uescriptiom eW 0.eN,s ae... � �MA, a.r�rWaa.u�icr dL �—... e-• ; / ... 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. 9WaFf VISION STATEMENT EDM� o General Structure of each element Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 20 Packet Pg. 94 8.5.a Introduction/ Provides an overview of the element's purpose and significance. Includes history, Background Narrative past planning, legal requirements, community needs, and relationship to the city's long-term development. A snapshot of the city's current conditions —demographic, economic, Edmonds Today environmental, and built environment. Edmonds 2044 I Describes the long-term goals for the citys growth and evolution. Table /graphs of Key Support the plan with evidence, illustrating trends and projections. data Goals & Policies I Define specific objectives and provide policies to guide land use decisions, infrastructure investment, and city regulations. Potential Action items Translating policies into specific initiatives, programs, or projects that the city may choose to implement. These could be short-term actions or long-term 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 21 Packet Pg. 95 8.5.a ■ Integrate place making considering Social, elements. economic, environmental, and cultural ■ 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 proj ects. 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 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 1!I1hEDM0NDS carrtu irvpovereMr moaner 2025-2030 PROPOSED CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM f 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 Transportation Element ■ Sets a framework to plan and prioritize a transportation network for Edmonds, and provides metrics for measuring progress. ■ Includes Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 22 Packet Pg. 96 8.5.a (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 Roadwaylntersection Traffic Modeling PedestriaN&cycle 9,;480._ PR OJ F CT LIST Transit Freight © Financing Strategies 0 Transportation Element 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 cty'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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 23 Packet Pg. 97 8.5.a - 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 24 Packet Pg. 98 8.5.a 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, nourish 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 community, 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 25 Packet Pg. 99 8.5.a additional housing is necessary; however she asked the council to do a deeper dive into how this comprehensive plan will truly effect the BD 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; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 26 Packet Pg. 100 8.5.a 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 %2 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 27 Packet Pg. 101 8.5.a 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 population 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 28 Packet Pg. 102 8.5.a 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 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 29 Packet Pg. 103 8.5.a some things in the comprehensive plan. The green building incentives do allow heights in BD 1 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 BDI-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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 30 Packet Pg. 104 8.5.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 31 Packet Pg. 105 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 32 Packet Pg. 106 8.5.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 33 Packet Pg. 107 8.5.a 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/l/25 to 6/30/26 o The contract structure is consistent with previous agreements Comparing Rates Year Over Year 0 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 Attorney/Month Invest/SW/Month Admin/Month Month Total 2025 Attorney/Month Invest/SW/Month Admin/Month Month Total 2026 $31,808 $10,985 $7,154 $49,947 $34,179 $1 1,386 $7,308 Attorney/Month $37,062 Invest/SW/Month $12,403 Admin/Month $7,890 Month Total $57,355 • 2024 November Point in Time — Attorney Workloads o Number of Cases Open Per Attorney Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 34 Packet Pg. 108 8.5.a Attorney 3 53 Attorney 2 Attorney 1 62 67 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, LEOFF 1 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 LEOFFI 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 35 Packet Pg. 109 8.5.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 36 Packet Pg. 110 8.5.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 10, 2024 Page 37 Packet Pg. 111 8.6 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 Packet Pg. 112 8.6.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 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 1. CALL TO ORDER DRAFT MINUTES December 17, 2024 STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 5:29 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5tn 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 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 113 8.6.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 114 8.6.a 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 to 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 115 8.6.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 116 8.7 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 Packet Pg. 117 8.7.a 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 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 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 Lb 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 1 Packet Pg. 118 8.7.a 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 will 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 2 Packet Pg. 119 8.7.a 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: 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 3 Packet Pg. 120 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 4 Packet Pg. 121 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 5 Packet Pg. 122 8.7.a Housing Target 9,069 Medical District Expansion 1,152 Westgate 1,185 5 Corners 461 Firdale Village 294 North Bowl 216 East Seaview 219 Perrinville 116 West Edmonds Way 33 South Lake Ballinger 70 Maplewood 203 Low Rise/Mid Rise Apartments (new) 3,949 ADUs 1,973 Middle Housing 42 Existing Capacity 4,226 � O • Explanation of Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Correction o Existing comprehensive plan designates a large area as master plan development (light pink hatched re ©� � � �-i -iii - -i ice• .it-� - rti•.-�;:ii - 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 6 Packet Pg. 123 8.7.a City of Edmonds 0 ��� 'q* Future Land Use Map ....:....: / Edmonds Marsh /. .::::::... ----��J > i ......... IOMf—nNosir-� — D • FLUM as amended above City of Edmonds Future Land Use Map Futve Leed Ule 4 DeAr.th—and DesriiptioEs: ` L ale= use EYl— L-d Use Os4�/IYrtof,tlyfiler P ss�w_a_wrr _ 1 WA -wR ry_Eo ne.a..s_INc�VEur ' t . Laneuage for Dotential amendments by tonic for council consideration on December 17 The following amendment ideas are shown in three groups: La Recommendations already included in Council's agenda packet Lb 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 7 Packet Pg. 124 8.7.a I.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 LA 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 8 Packet Pg. 125 8.7.a 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. l.b. Supplement to l.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 Lb included items that some planning board members thought were missed in the packet. However, as staff reviewed the amendments in La, all had been included so council can skip the amendments in Lb. 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 anew 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." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 9 Packet Pg. 126 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 10 Packet Pg. 127 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 11 Packet Pg. 128 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 12 Packet Pg. 129 8.7.a 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: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 13 Packet Pg. 130 8.7.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 14 Packet Pg. 131 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 15 Packet Pg. 132 8.7.a 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: North Bowl 3 Floors. Bonus floor height incentive allowed 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 16 Packet Pg. 133 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 17 Packet Pg. 134 8.7.a 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 4Ta 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 4t' 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 18 Packet Pg. 135 8.7.a 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 1N ALL PLACES NECESSARY 1N THE COMPREHENSWE PLAN TO LIMIT BUILDING TYPES 3A4T-HIN THE NORTH B05ALL HUB To THOSE THAT - ONLY SUPPORT RESWENT-LkL USES AND HAALE NO GREATER HEIGHT THAN ALLOWED ON ALL PREVIOUS RS ZONED LOTS THAT- ARE EFFHER! 1) SOUTH OF PUGET DPHIRIE 0 2) WEST OF OLYMPIC VIEW DPHIRIE AND DO NOT DIRECTLY ABUT EXIST 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 19 Packet Pg. 136 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 20 Packet Pg. 137 8.7.a 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 (34), 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 21 Packet Pg. 138 8.7.a 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 Lb 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." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 22 Packet Pg. 139 8.7.a 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: Five Corners 3 Roors 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 23 Packet Pg. 140 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 24 Packet Pg. 141 8.7.a ➢ 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 U' ➢ 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 25 Packet Pg. 142 8.7.a 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. Lc 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 26 Packet Pg. 143 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 27 Packet Pg. 144 8.7.a 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 28 Packet Pg. 145 8.7.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 29 Packet Pg. 146 8.7.a 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. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 17, 2404 Page 30 Packet Pg. 147 8.8 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 Packet Pg. 148 �CE8.8.a CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Please take note that Aa Co n K I e'— ►l W I 4— , who currently resides at , mailing address DEC 16 2024 ate lalm Forrn Received by City home phone # f e I, work phone # and who resided at 0 at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is _ is claiming damages against C in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: �1 ��1 %�� TIME: I I _O (AYy) LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 761-h AVe h)X Igor- k -F M CY Ar"of, �l DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the condu. I and circumstance that brought about the injury or amage. Also describe the injury or e k.r k; J4 (-)n 7-1,h A v(- -r/, �a f- be i r 1 P m OeA S�-� --I- L e Nro' i, ri i C l W (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: _ Yes X No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: a� ca ❑ L 0 E .2 U vi c 0 0 L 0 0 t t v d ca E CU 0 4- E 2 U c d E t v r Q Form Revised 04/09/2021 P Packet Pg. 149 8.8.a This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Claimant Date and place (residential address, city and county) Or Signature of Representative Date and place (residential address, city and county) Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable) Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. a� E CU 0 L 0 E U Form Revised 04/09/2021 P Packet Pg. 150 8.8.b CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that Eunhye Mm ,who currently resides at mailing address home phone # work phone # and who resided at at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages >tevor Mitsui City o monA0 1404 404.00 again In We sum of $ , arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 10/31/2024 TIME: 6:19pm h C 212th Street Southwest In Edmonds, Snohomisoun , Washington LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE; �' ton � c>s DESCRIPTION: ns L 1 DQscribe the cond t and circpmstagce that bro,,2 i�gb A ,e injury or damage. /�Iso describe khe injury o� damage. ,o Ms. Eun lye im was the restrained Driver o a Lu Aucu 83, traveling per family, stoppeCl eastbou'i at the traffic light on 212th Street Southwest in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, when a 2023 For M Explorer driven by Mr. Trevor Mitsui failed to stop, striking the rear of Ms. Kim's vehicle v Injuries: neck pain, left shoulder pain, soreness, and headaches. c (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 0 L 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? J Yes No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: Form Ravised 04 09,2021 Page I of 2 Packet Pg. 151 8.8.b This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct, KA , Signature of Claimant Or Signature of Representative 12/17/2024 Puyallup, WA Date and place (residential address, city and county) Date and place (residential address, city and county) Print Name of Representative Bar Number (if applicable) Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 511 Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4,30 p.m. Form Raviyxd 114 09M121 Page 2 of 2 E 2 U Packet Pg. 152 8.9 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 Packet Pg. 153 8.9.a Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,162 - 12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 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 Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 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 Grand Totals: 851,215.56 0.00 12/19/2024 Packet Pg. 154 8.9.b Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,162 (12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 42.75 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 48.00 0.00 113 ABSENT Unpaid ADA hours 40.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 904.09 48,880.37 122 VACATION VACATION 969.16 49,630.47 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 209.50 10,455.31 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 63.50 3,335.14 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 154.00 8,620.35 128 HOLIDAY Holidav Bank WWTP 64.00 3,008.50 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 10.00 587.31 132 JURY DUTY JURY DUTY 35.50 1,780.84 134 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE -UNPAID 16.00 0.00 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LE/ 1.50 58.91 138 REGULAR HOURS Commanders Leave Usaqe 10.00 1,191.25 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 24.00 1,087.65 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Day Used 124.00 6,586.15 154 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK 1.00 37.60 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 21.50 1,301.37 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 2.80 105.29 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 1.78 66.94 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 124.00 11,016.49 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,121.00 1,004,023.10 194 SICK Emerqencv Sick Leave 39.25 2,109.11 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 70.00 4,111.19 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 8.00 370.54 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 2,430.94 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 5.00 674.41 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 135.50 12,598.32 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 24.00 2,457.63 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 7,493.56 404 MISCELLANEOUS Medical Opt Out 0.00 600.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 1,015.12 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 2,760.17 12/19/2024 Packet Pg. 155 8.9.b Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,162 (12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 2,873.01 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 41.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 75.50 0.00 609 COMP HOURS Commander Standv Accrual 10.00 0.00 902 MISCELLANEOUS BOOT ALLOWANCE 0.00 66.11 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 322.98 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 261.56 anc REGULAR HOURS Ancilary Duty Pay 0.00 264.19 anc2 REGULAR HOURS Ancilary Duty Pay 0.00 1,494.73 anc3 REGULAR HOURS Ancilary Duty Pay 0.00 1,774.84 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 237.66 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 226.78 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 118.83 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 200.00 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 1,301.62 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 928.36 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 849.10 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 12,125.26 evap VACATION Exempt Vacation Premium 13.00 932.75 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 60.00 3,828.37 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 163.00 9,526.56 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 Assiqnment 0.00 414.20 Ian MISCELLANEOUS LANGUAGE PAY 0.00 600.00 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,213.71 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 949.93 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 3,750.14 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,210.41 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,158.46 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 166.92 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 289.83 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1% 0.00 1,141.66 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 3,918.37 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 28.35 12/19/2024 Packet Pg. 156 8.9.b Hour Type Hour Class Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,162 (12/01/2024 to 12/15/2024) Description Hours Amount Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 639.02 pfmp ABSENT Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup 193.00 0.00 pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 32.50 1,960.40 pfmv VACATION Paid Familv Medical Vacation 7.00 286.13 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,904.56 str MISCELLANEOUS PSET Serqeant 0.00 246.44 tac MISCELLANEOUS TAC Officer 0.00 207.10 to MISCELLANEOUS Traininq Officer 0.00 207.10 traf MISCELLANEOUS Traffic Officer - Car 0.00 414.20 vap VACATION Vacation Premium 13.50 677.51 20,914.83 $1,248,111.18 Total Net Pay: $851,907.99 y as U rr d a� c 0 0 a 0 0 L Q a 12/19/2024 Packet Pg. 157 8.10 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 Packet Pg. 158 8.10.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 12/11/2024 3:04:11PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 265345 12/11/2024 3,310.30 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 265346 12/11/2024 227.64 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 265347 12/11/2024 304.32 079537 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC 265348 12/11/2024 23,750.00 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 265349 12/11/2024 8,514.47 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 265350 12/11/2024 1,749.36 079382 ATWELL LLC 265351 12/11/2024 7,368.75 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 265352 12/11/2024 333.75 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 265353 12/11/2024 1,006.00 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 265354 12/11/2024 1,260.00 076930 BLACKFIN TECHNOLOGIES NW INC 265355 12/11/2024 1,000.00 079747 BLUE COAST ENGINEERING LLC 265356 12/11/2024 23,013.75 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265357 12/11/2024 783.86 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 265358 12/11/2024 661.59 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 265359 12/11/2024 301.21 075860 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO 265360 12/11/2024 4,472.77 070415 CRESSY DOOR CO INC 265361 12/11/2024 392.28 072786 CTS LANGUAGE LINK 265362 12/11/2024 333.50 060914 CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE 265363 12/11/2024 1,211.88 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 265364 12/11/2024 25,201.42 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 265365 12/11/2024 2,400.00 065739 DTG RECYCLE 265366 12/11/2024 1,242.00 079749 E TYPIST INC 265367 12/11/2024 2,367.00 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265368 12/11/2024 118.91 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265369 12/11/2024 198.17 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265370 12/11/2024 1,031.70 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265371 12/11/2024 199.52 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 265372 12/11/2024 488.81 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 265373 12/11/2024 2,935.26 069567 FOSSIL INDUSTRIES INC 265374 12/11/2024 1,197.00 072634 GCP WW HOLDCO LLC 265375 12/11/2024 168.14 079775 GEBREYES, ELSABET 265376 12/11/2024 500.00 076932 GIRARD RESOURCES & RECYCLING 265377 12/11/2024 735.00 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 265378 12/11/2024 2,131.26 012199 GRAINGER 265379 12/11/2024 115.33 076333 HASA INC 265380 12/11/2024 10,042.00 079717 HEALING ENERGY & MASSAGE PLLC 265381 12/11/2024 72.00 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265382 12/11/2024 859.64 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 265383 12/11/2024 3,567.67 078923 HKA GLOBAL INC 265384 12/11/2024 19,442.50 076240 HM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC 265385 12/11/2024 917.60 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265386 12/11/2024 1,116.04 061013 HONEY BUCKET 265387 12/11/2024 290.95 079771 HOPE, SHANE 265388 12/11/2024 10,000.00 076540 I MSA 265389 12/11/2024 200.00 069366 ISSAQUAH HONDAKUBOTA 265390 12/11/2024 1,456.27 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 265391 12/11/2024 6,246.05 079227 JAMTOWN LLC 265392 12/11/2024 462.00 079573 JUVVAL TECH LLC 265393 12/11/2024 200.00 079524 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 265394 12/11/2024 4,616.00 079069 KISHA POST 265395 12/11/2024 525.00 067568 KPG PSOMAS INC 265396 12/11/2024 5,516.00 079769 LAW OFFICE SAM SOMMERMAN PLLC 265397 12/11/2024 1,770.00 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 159 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 12/11/2024 3:04:11PM City of Edmonds 8:10.a Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 265398 12/11/2024 585.00 079732 LIZ LOOMIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS 265399 12/11/2024 8,000.00 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 265400 12/11/2024 880.99 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 265401 12/11/2024 91.59 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265402 12/11/2024 1,309.19 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS 265403 12/11/2024 38,907.07 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 265404 12/11/2024 6,184.13 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 265405 12/11/2024 619.91 078285 NPDESPRO LLC 265406 12/11/2024 6,902.94 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 265410 12/11/2024 30.83 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 265407 12/11/2024 56.75 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 265408 12/11/2024 203.33 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 265409 12/11/2024 1,984.50 079774 PACIFC COAST CARBON 265411 12/11/2024 11,602.50 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 265412 12/11/2024 4,026.19 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS INC 265413 12/11/2024 5,496.30 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 265414 12/11/2024 3,135.00 074793 PETDATA INC 265415 12/11/2024 1,549.80 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 265416 12/11/2024 207.66 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES 265417 12/11/2024 240.00 064167 POLLARD WATER 265418 12/11/2024 727.29 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 265419 12/11/2024 6,564.00 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 265420 12/11/2024 3,326.06 077429 PURE WATER AQUATICS 265421 12/11/2024 12,123.36 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 265422 12/11/2024 3,554.60 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 265423 12/11/2024 1,857.04 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 265424 12/11/2024 940.30 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 265425 12/11/2024 304.80 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 265426 12/11/2024 7,000.00 075590 SMARSH INC 265427 12/11/2024 152.55 066748 SNO CO DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 265428 12/11/2024 1,260.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265429 12/11/2024 21,510.64 072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 265430 12/11/2024 540.00 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 265431 12/11/2024 82,827.93 075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 265432 12/11/2024 1,274.00 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 265433 12/11/2024 3,162.07 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 265434 12/11/2024 278.02 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 265435 12/11/2024 326.20 075025 THE BRANDING IRON LLC 265436 12/11/2024 4,408.95 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 265437 12/11/2024 552.62 079359 THE WALLS LAW FIRM INC 265438 12/11/2024 25,000.00 038315 TK ELEVATOR CORPORATION 265439 12/11/2024 551.75 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 265440 12/11/2024 2,304.92 069751 VESTIS 265441 12/11/2024 277.64 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 265442 12/11/2024 172.25 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 265443 12/11/2024 9,889.75 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 265444 12/11/2024 161.44 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 265445 12/11/2024 157.11 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN LLC 265446 12/11/2024 832.62 078389 ZENNER USA 265447 12/11/2024 5,668.97 079700 ZORO TOOLS INC 265448 12/11/2024 88.45 GrandTotal: 478,133.68 Total count: 104 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 160 8.10.b apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 12/18/2024 12:27:47PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 265449 12/18/2024 778.89 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 265450 12/18/2024 56.22 075836 AKTIVOV LLC 265451 12/18/2024 19,077.83 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 265452 12/18/2024 132,540.19 001528 AM TEST INC 265453 12/18/2024 495.00 073573 ANIXTER 265454 12/18/2024 1,344.66 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 265455 12/18/2024 2,372.36 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 265456 12/18/2024 1,006.00 075263 AVR PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC 265457 12/18/2024 2,450.00 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY C 265458 12/18/2024 260.00 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 265459 12/18/2024 125.00 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 265460 12/18/2024 2,927.15 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 265461 12/18/2024 268.32 079782 BKS DEVELOPMENT 265462 12/18/2024 900.00 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 265463 12/18/2024 1,026.73 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 265464 12/18/2024 63.71 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 265465 12/18/2024 88.40 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 265466 12/18/2024 818.40 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 265467 12/18/2024 884.96 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 265468 12/18/2024 3,900.00 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 265469 12/18/2024 1,371.70 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265470 12/18/2024 312.92 071358 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES 265471 12/18/2024 210.72 079643 CHILDREN FOR THE FUTURE INC 265472 12/18/2024 1,875.00 079781 CHUUKESE NATIVE LANGUAGE SOL 265473 12/18/2024 220.00 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 265474 12/18/2024 177.00 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 265475 12/18/2024 496.80 076914 CM DESIGN GROUP LLC 265476 12/18/2024 23,747.75 079772 COCHRAN, RYAN 265477 12/18/2024 433.50 060914 CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE 265478 12/18/2024 326.05 079679 CUSIMANO, JINA 265479 12/18/2024 38.86 073823 DAVID EVANS &ASSOC INC 265480 12/18/2024 1,667.94 076172 DK SYSTEMS 265481 12/18/2024 3,817.19 007253 DUNN LUMBER 265482 12/18/2024 832.07 074674 ECOLUBE RECOVERY LLC 265483 12/18/2024 286.50 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265484 12/18/2024 38.85 062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT 265485 12/18/2024 80.00 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 265486 12/18/2024 409.80 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265487 12/18/2024 5,770.28 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 265488 12/18/2024 130.00 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265489 12/18/2024 86.86 079517 ELECTRONIC MOBILE SOLUTIONS 265490 12/18/2024 5,779.70 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 265491 12/18/2024 21,397.50 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265492 12/18/2024 103.20 075673 FARMER, MARIA 265493 12/18/2024 130.00 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 265494 12/18/2024 292.83 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 265496 12/18/2024 2,728.00 079735 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC 265495 12/18/2024 2,076.25 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 265497 12/18/2024 318.12 012199 GRAINGER 265498 12/18/2024 193.85 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 265499 12/18/2024 69.53 079140 HAAS, ROSE 265500 12/18/2024 305.00 012560 HACH COMPANY 265501 12/18/2024 1,667.62 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 161 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 12/18/2024 12:27:47PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 079012 HARLOWE & FALK LLP 265502 12/18/2024 80.00 066575 HERC RENTALS INC 265503 12/18/2024 1,314.27 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265504 12/18/2024 2,400.00 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265505 12/18/2024 632.32 062899 HUFF, ARIELE 265506 12/18/2024 165.00 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 265507 12/18/2024 3,641.63 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 265508 12/18/2024 52.38 078250 KAUFER DMC LLC 265509 12/18/2024 300.00 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW 265510 12/18/2024 405.00 079776 M3 DESIGN BUILD LLC 265511 12/18/2024 900.00 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265512 12/18/2024 349.10 076895 MOREHEAD, LOUISE 265513 12/18/2024 130.00 018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 265514 12/18/2024 67.60 079722 NIELSON, LEAH CLAIRE 265515 12/18/2024 395.88 079780 NOEL DESIGN LLC 265516 12/18/2024 4,265.00 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 265517 12/18/2024 7,728.14 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 265520 12/18/2024 88.41 070306 OBERG, WILLIAM 265518 12/18/2024 250.00 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER 265519 12/18/2024 13,689.08 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 265521 12/18/2024 618.66 079464 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC 265522 12/18/2024 8,400.00 070160 POETS & WRITERS INC 265523 12/18/2024 450.00 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 265524 12/18/2024 4,567.65 079020 PRECISION LANGUAGE SERVICES 265525 12/18/2024 260.00 079680 PRIBULA, JESSICA 265526 12/18/2024 106.20 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 265527 12/18/2024 2,647.76 079653 ROCK PROJECT MGMT SERVICES LLC 265528 12/18/2024 15,405.00 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 265529 12/18/2024 470.53 079523 RUSTED ELEMENT DESIGN 265530 12/18/2024 396.00 079174 SAVANNAH POWERS 265531 12/18/2024 514.50 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 265532 12/18/2024 131.73 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 265533 12/18/2024 147.23 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 265534 12/18/2024 210.83 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO 265535 12/18/2024 408,598.09 036955 SKY NURSERY 265536 12/18/2024 144.26 066748 SNO CO DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 265537 12/18/2024 4,095.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265538 12/18/2024 3,459.69 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 265539 12/18/2024 41,952.27 072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE 265542 12/18/2024 2,483.91 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 265540 12/18/2024 714.00 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 265541 12/18/2024 189.80 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE 265543 12/18/2024 54,563.70 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 265544 12/18/2024 1,500.00 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 265545 12/18/2024 2,823.17 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 265546 12/18/2024 2,250.00 068141 TRANSPO GROUP 265547 12/18/2024 370.11 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 265548 12/18/2024 256.08 075496 VALERIE INC 265549 12/18/2024 5,833.00 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 265550 12/18/2024 27.63 079783 VESSEY, ZACHARY 265551 12/18/2024 3,600.00 069751 VESTIS 265552 12/18/2024 238.48 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 265553 12/18/2024 1,806.12 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 265554 12/18/2024 138.41 071467 WEST COAST PET MEMORIAL 265555 12/18/2024 22.00 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 162 apPosPay 12/18/2024 12:27:47 P M Positive Pay Listing City of Edmonds U0E Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 079778 WHITED, PETER MILO 265556 12/18/2024 1,772.24 079684 WILLIAMS, PHIL 265557 12/18/2024 100,000.00 078389 ZENNER USA 265558 12/18/2024 63.94 GrandTotal: 956,857.01 Total count: 110 W c m E Q. d L �3 c U d t V E V O O L Q Q Q Q O Q N 00 T7 N T" N U E M U c d E t v w Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 163 8.10.c apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 12/31/2024 2:18:24PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 265559 12/31/2024 355.82 079673 ACCORD CONTRACTORS LLC 265560 12/31/2024 75,653.40 008835 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC 265561 12/31/2024 1,429.87 079536 AMANDA HOUGH 265562 12/31/2024 1,400.00 079786 ANNA PERRONE DESIGNS 265563 12/31/2024 42.50 076820 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATOR CONSLT 265564 12/31/2024 3,600.00 079351 ATCO 265565 12/31/2024 316.80 079382 ATWELL LLC 265566 12/31/2024 22,042.50 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 265567 12/31/2024 1,006.00 074815 BERESFORD BOOTH PLLC 265568 12/31/2024 170.00 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 265569 12/31/2024 137.90 079787 BRIDGE LATINO LLC 265570 12/31/2024 500.00 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 265571 12/31/2024 916.72 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 265572 12/31/2024 7,234.15 079483 BUKOWSKI, AUGUSTUS 265573 12/31/2024 977.50 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 265574 12/31/2024 777.89 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 265575 12/31/2024 1,371.70 064592 CASCADE COLUMBIA DISTRIBUTION 265576 12/31/2024 1,585.12 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265577 12/31/2024 542.96 079643 CHILDREN FOR THE FUTURE INC 265578 12/31/2024 510.00 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 265579 12/31/2024 177.00 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 265580 12/31/2024 42,307.00 079151 CM AIR PROS LLC 265581 12/31/2024 34.00 079062 COMCAST 265582 12/31/2024 1,008.00 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 265583 12/31/2024 115.60 071417 CORE & MAIN LP 265584 12/31/2024 643.35 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 265585 12/31/2024 259.65 070415 CRESSY DOOR CO INC 265586 12/31/2024 479.29 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 265587 12/31/2024 7,375.53 075820 DELL MARKETING LP 265588 12/31/2024 5,947.10 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 265589 12/31/2024 1,276.00 076172 DK SYSTEMS 265590 12/31/2024 19,273.28 079756 DRT HOLDINGS LLC 265591 12/31/2024 281.25 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265592 12/31/2024 152.54 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 265593 12/31/2024 2,018.74 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 265594 12/31/2024 17,184.00 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265595 12/31/2024 4,034.72 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265596 12/31/2024 479.92 078919 EMERALD CITY FLOORBALL 265597 12/31/2024 2,047.50 079779 ENGINEERED ARTWORKS LLC 265598 12/31/2024 1,950.00 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265599 12/31/2024 218.44 064088 EVERON LLC 265600 12/31/2024 233.34 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 265601 12/31/2024 690.63 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 265602 12/31/2024 1,210.13 079784 FULTON, JAY 265603 12/31/2024 40.00 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 265604 12/31/2024 687.00 012199 GRAINGER 265605 12/31/2024 327.85 079785 HARBOR MARINE MAINT & SUPPLY 265606 12/31/2024 114.94 024001 HARNISH LOCKBOX LB1208 265607 12/31/2024 35,379.05 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 265608 12/31/2024 680.96 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 265609 12/31/2024 200.00 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265610 12/31/2024 3,000.00 076240 HM PACIFIC NORTHWEST INC 265611 12/31/2024 786.66 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 164 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 12/31/2024 2:18:24PM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265612 12/31/2024 561.50 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 265613 12/31/2024 557.58 061013 HONEY BUCKET 265614 12/31/2024 1,614.25 079715 HOPPER, DAREN 265615 12/31/2024 1,032.50 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 265616 12/31/2024 7,308.74 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 265617 12/31/2024 600.00 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC 265618 12/31/2024 3,136.21 065980 INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS 265619 12/31/2024 20,017.08 072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC 265620 12/31/2024 537.50 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 265621 12/31/2024 25,367.18 079227 JAMTOWN LLC 265622 12/31/2024 184.00 078946 KITCHENS, KYLEE 265623 12/31/2024 824.07 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 265624 12/31/2024 633.17 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 265625 12/31/2024 1,655.25 067475 LANDSVERK QUALITY HOMES INC 265626 12/31/2024 998.75 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 265627 12/31/2024 16,607.19 076177 MCKINSTRY LOCKBOX 265628 12/31/2024 92,500.00 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 265629 12/31/2024 690.21 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 265630 12/31/2024 205.20 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265631 12/31/2024 433.64 079223 MOORE, ANGELA 265632 12/31/2024 613.20 018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 265633 12/31/2024 167.35 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 265634 12/31/2024 39.78 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 265635 12/31/2024 382.83 024302 NELSON-REISNER 265636 12/31/2024 354.37 075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 265637 12/31/2024 123.87 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 265638 12/31/2024 1,142.57 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 265641 12/31/2024 7.62 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 265639 12/31/2024 52.84 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC 265640 12/31/2024 2,963.25 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS INC 265642 12/31/2024 708.00 008475 PETTY CASH 265643 12/31/2024 291.73 079708 PIPELINING NORTHWEST 265644 12/31/2024 132.00 072384 PLAY-WELLTEKNOLOGIES 265645 12/31/2024 540.00 078800 POPA & ASSOCIATES 265646 12/31/2024 600.00 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 265647 12/31/2024 908.00 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 265648 12/31/2024 13,509.57 079448 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 265649 12/31/2024 252.00 030455 PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 265650 12/31/2024 20,167.00 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 265651 12/31/2024 168.27 079019 ROOT AND LIMB YOGA 265652 12/31/2024 411.00 079618 IRS AMERICAS INC 265653 12/31/2024 501.05 079634 RYNER HOMES LLC 265654 12/31/2024 135.00 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE 265655 12/31/2024 69,874.58 073993 SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES 265656 12/31/2024 4,648.00 075387 SELECT HOMES 265657 12/31/2024 1,983.75 079492 SKYCORP LTD 265658 12/31/2024 4,353.47 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 265659 12/31/2024 49,947.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265661 12/31/2024 48,568.86 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265662 12/31/2024 302.40 075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 265663 12/31/2024 1,274.00 074506 SUNBELT RENTALS 265664 12/31/2024 4,160.05 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI 265665 12/31/2024 2,894.40 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 265666 12/31/2024 232.05 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 165 apPosPay 12/31/2024 2:18:24PM Positive Pay Listing City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name 079790 TODD CLOUTIER & LARA PRADO 069751 VESTIS 074321 VMG: VELOCITY MADE GOOD 065568 WATER SERVICES NW INC 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 063008 WSDOT 071634 ZAYO GROUP LLC 011900 ZIPLY FIBER Check # Check Date Amount 265667 12/31 /2024 281.90 265668 12/31 /2024 751.75 265669 12/31 /2024 1,800.00 265670 12/31 /2024 88.34 265671 12/31 /2024 14,851.20 265672 12/31 /2024 40.58 265673 12/31 /2024 2,187.24 265674 12/31 /2024 3,728.01 GrandTotal: 702,787.20 Total count: 115 y c m E Q. d L �3 c U d t V E V O O L Q Q Q Q O 0 Q N M N N U E M U c d E t v w Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 166 8.11 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 Packet Pg. 167 it CITY OF EDMONDS 1u15 b i A i t LtA.ASLATIVE 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, an( 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 program 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. M a 4) R d J LO N O N Packet Pg. 168 8.11.a 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. • $40M for stream$ow 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. raL.nt:L ry. 1d9 8.11.a Q Packet Pg. 170 8.12 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. Packet Pg. 171 9.1 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). Packet Pg. 172 9.1 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 Packet Pg. 173 Washington State Housing Laws of 2019 through 2024 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 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS OF 2019 THROUGH 2024 2.2 Packet Pg. 174 9.1.a 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 'i4 housing unit for density calculations, or 1/2 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 'r2 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"' 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. ' RCW 36.70A.030(25) N O N L �0 a� a as M 0 U a� E a 0 m a� 0 4- 0 3 m WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 2 Packet Pg. 175 9.1.a 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 N HB 2375 amends RCW 84.36.383 adds the definition for ADU and allows that single family home, for the 0 L purposes of a senior citizen tax exemption may include an ADU. '0 a� SIB 6175 amends RCW 84.14 and add a new section to Title 82 RCW. It authorizes cities offer a sales and use r Cu tax deferral for an investment project within the city in areas with underutilized commercial property and a lack 0_ of affordable housing. If a conditional recipient maintains the property for qualifying purposes for at least 10 0 years, deferred sales and use taxes need not be repaid. v c a� E 0_ 0 m a� 0 0 3 as a� WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 Packet Pg. 176 9.1.a 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. TIER ONE: Cities with population of at least 75,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(b) TIER TWO: Cities with population between 25,000 and 75,000 HB 1110, Sec. 3(1)(a) 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) Four du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities Two du/lot on all lots zoned predominantly residential, unless zoning permits higher densities Two 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 Four 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 Four du/lot on all lots predominantly residential if one unit is affordable 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/ a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 Packet Pg. 177 9.1.a 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 36.7013 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 36.7013.120(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. SIB 5290 makes changes to local government procedures for new housing permit processing. It amends RCW 36.7013, to improve clarity on the timelines around complete permit applications. For applications received after January 1, 2025, Section 7 amends RCW 36.7013 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 N 0 N �° m a a as O U as E a O m m 0 4- 0 a� N 0 N CD N O N 4- 0 Ch 3 Im 3 O x _ am E a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 5 Packet Pg. 178 9.1.a take additional measures to enable timely permit processing, with additional direction to improve permitting over time. 2SSB 5412 amends RCW 43.21 C.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 N jurisdictions. N SIB 5258 (section 10) amends RCW 82.02.060 to require local governments to publish a schedule of impact L O a 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 E to allow division of a parent lot into separately owned unit lots, or owned in common by the owners of the lots. c This is required with the next periodic update. > m 0 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 3 °' existing multifamily buildings by exempting the added units from density limits, parking and other regulatory W requirements. This must be in effect within six months after the periodic update due date. SIB 5058 amends RCW 64.55.010 to exempt buildings with 12 or fewer units and no more than two stories N O N from the definition of "multi -unit residential building," which eliminates building enclosure design and N inspection requirements that add cost to small scale -condo developments. N O HB 1181 makes a broad set of changes to the Growth Management Act to address climate change, including a 3 provision for local governments to increase housing supply, density and variety within urban growth areas andIm to address climate change and resiliency in their comprehensive plans. U) 3 O New tools for affordable housing SIB 1326 amends RCW 35.92 and expands the authorization for utility charge delays or waivers on the behalf of E 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 w connection charges waived under this chapter to be funded using general funds, grant dollars, or other a 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 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 6 Packet Pg. 179 9.1.a 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 N SEPA appeal protection: SSB 5818 amended RCW 36.70A.600, a list of potential housing actions, by removing o 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 CU 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, a� 0 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 43.21 C.495 was similarly amended to reflect these exemptions. o Such actions are protected from appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Boards through April 1, 2023. a� o 0 Development projects may be protected from SEPA appeal on transportation and other impacts SSB 5818 also amended RCW 43.21 C.501 by providing an option to protect SEPA decisions from appeal N regarding impacts to transportation elements of the environment when the city or town is fully planning under N the GMA and the approved residential, multifamily, or mixed -use project is: C� • Consistent with the locally adopted transportation plan or transportation element of the comprehensive N N plan, and; 0 • 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 0 system.3 0 x 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 E 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 a 3 https://wsdot.wa.gov/engineering-standards/planning-guidance/land-use-transportation-planning WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 Packet Pg. 180 9.1.a transportation system. Contact the WSDOT Development Services4 office for your region to request project reviews. In addition, amendments to RCW 43.21 C.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 i for four detached single single-family residential units is expanded to include four attached units (WAC 197-11- o 800(1)(b)(i)); N ,° Ecology is also directed to modify the rules to include the following flexible exemption levels that local 2 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- v 800(1)(d)); and • - An increase in the existing exemption level for multifamily residential project types in incorporated E urban growth areas from 60 units to 200 units (WAC 197-11-800(1)(d)). o Note that in adopting flexible thresholds, SEPA rules define a process that local governments must follow. This 0 o process was amended to add a requirement that a jurisdiction must document the result of its outreach with o the Washington State Department of Transportation on impacts to state-owned transportation facilities, 3 including consideration of whether mitigation is necessary for impacts to state-owned transportation facilities. a� 5 Jurisdictions planning Under the GIVIA must document this process, by contacting their WSDOT regional P Development Services office to coordinate with WSDOT at: https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/highway- N access-requests-training/development-services. N Finally, section 6 of SB 5818 (laws of 2022) adds a new section to SEPA to clarify that any applicant whose o project qualifies as exempt or categorically exempt under either SEPA or Ecology's SEPA rules is not required N to file an environmental checklist if other information is available to establish that a project qualifies for an y exemption. Due dates for GMA periodic review extended N O 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, E 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 a Commerce. 4 https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/highway-access-requests-training/development-services 5 SB 5818 (Laws of 2022, Section 4) WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 Packet Pg. 181 9.1.a 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; WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 9 Packet Pg. 182 9.1.a • 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. SIB 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. 0 N 0 N L �0 a� CL M 0 U as E a 0 0 4- 0 3 a� m N O N N 0 N 4- 0 3 �a IM M 0 x a� M w a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 10 Packet Pg. 183 9.1.a 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 0 Units for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households; and 0 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.' 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. N O N 0 CL as 0 U _ as E a 0 a� m 0 4- 0 m N O N N 0 N 4- 0 N 3 0 x a� E a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 11 Packet Pg. 184 9.1.a 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".' 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: O Incorporating consideration for low, very low, extremely low, and moderate -income households; O Documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability including gaps in local funding, barriers such as development regulations, and other limitations; o O Consideration of housing locations in relation to employment locations; and O Consideration of the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs. 00 m See HB 1220 Web Page for more information. a as 0 Communities must examine racially disparate impacts, displacement and U exclusion 00. 0 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 o regulations that result in racially disparate impacts, displacement and exclusion." [Commerce has developed c 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 c racially exclusive deed restrictions? Have you reviewed the racial distribution of residents in your N 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 N exclusive? In these areas, can you expand moderate density housing uses that may be more affordable, o such as allowing duplexes, townhouses, detached ADUs, etc.?8 3 • Disinvestment: Are there areas that may have been lower priority for public investment? Consider a 2 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, c 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 E adequately served by public utilities or multimodal transportation options? Could such services w a 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/ WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 12 Packet Pg. 185 9.1.a 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. LO N O N L 0 a� �a a as 0 U as E a 0 am m 0 4- 0 3 a� a� N O N CD N O N 4- 0 Ch Im 3 0 x _ am E w a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 13 Packet Pg. 186 9.1.a 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 N O 0 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:CL (9) Emergency housing means temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are as c U 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 E occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. c (10) Emergency shelter means a facility that provides a temporary shelter for individuals or families who are a� o currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy o 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 >0 save lives. (18) Moderate -income household means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose N N adjusted income is at or below 120 percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for C� the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban T" c 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: 3 (2) Affordable housing means, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, residential housing whose U) monthly costs, including utilities other than telephone, do not exceed thirty percent of the monthly income of a x° household whose income is: (a) For rental housing, sixty percent of the median household income adjusted for household size, for the a� county where the household is located, as reported by the United States department of housing and urban 2 development; or a (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. WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 14 Packet Pg. 187 9.1.a (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." 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; LO N O N L 0 a� a a a� 0 U a� E 0. 0 am m 0 4- 0 3 a� m WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 15 Packet Pg. 188 9.1.a • 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. SIB 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 SIB 5287: The Legislature passed major revisions to the Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program in SIB 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 Ln N O N L O m a a a� O U as E a 0 am a� 0 4- 0 3 a� N O N CD N 0 N 4- 0 Ch 3 Im 3 O 2 _ am E a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 16 Packet Pg. 189 9.1.a 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. Ln N Preventing foreclosures by reducing interest rate CD HB 1410 changes the way that counties may assess property tax interest and penalties, making it more 0 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 a manufactured/mobile homes" is lowered, and no penalties may be assessed on such property. as M 0 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 c 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," o resulting from problems with design and construction in a wetter climate, has led builders (and their insurers) o to shy away from this product. a� 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 c 0.1 % sales -and -use tax for affordable housing and the state -shared lodging -tax revenues can be allocated. It N 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 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 17 Packet Pg. 190 9.1.a 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 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 18 Packet Pg. 191 9.1.a "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 (1/4) 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. LO N 0 N 0 m �a a as 0 U a� E a 0 a� m 0 0 3 a� m WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 19 Packet Pg. 192 9.1.a 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 —,n this parking restriction for any purpose other than providing for housing for seniors or people with N disabilities." This applies to all units constructed after July 1, 2019. o 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 a more hours per day, minimum residential parking requirements may be no greater than one parking C 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 0 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 E the unit." This applies to all units constructed after July 1, 2019. c Commerce reads RCW 36.70A.620 to mean that local governments may require up to one parking space a� o per bedroom for market -rate multifamily housing and housing affordable to very low- and extremely low- c 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 .5 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) WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 20 Packet Pg. 193 9.1.a 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 i programs for low-income households within incomes at or below 80% AMI. (Effective Oct. 1, 2020) N SEPA Infill exemptions clarifiedCU L 0 N r SHB 2673 (Chapter 87, Laws of 2020) amended RCW 43.21 C.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 43.21 C.229 was adopted in 2003 to improve the development approval 0 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 E 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. o 3 as a� 2019 Legislative Changes to Washington State Law N Definitions Added to the Growth Management Act (GMA) N E2SHB 1923 (Chapter 348, Laws of 2019)19 added the following definitions to GMA. Jurisdictions should 0 ensure these definitions are included in their codes for reference in any tool they use to address affordable y housing that does not also have their own definitions in state law. New Definitions Under Chapter 36.70A RCW: Growth Management N 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: O 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 a Development (HUD). 19 E2SHB 1923 (2019) Section 2 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 Packet Pg. 194 9.1.a 0 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 N Housing and Urban Development (HUD). N RCW 36.70A.030 (9) "Extremely low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons L 0 a living together whose adjusted income is at or below thirty percent of the median household income adjusted a for household size, for the county where the household is located, as reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 0 U 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 E admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or o 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 o living with a complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing 0 homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their housing 2 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 0 N E2SHB 1923 (Chapter 348. Laws of 2019) also added RCW 35.21.689 and RCW 35A.21.305, which state that a 0' city may not prohibit permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted. N 0 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 S 10,000 or more.21 An initial report, to be completed by Oct. 15, 2020, will be a compilation of objective criteria c 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 w to include private rental market data and information on subsidized units. The 2022 report will also include a 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 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 22 Packet Pg. 195 9.1.a Management Act comprehensive plans. Reports are to be produced every two years after that. For more information about WCRER, visit http://realestate.washinciton.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 43.21 C.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.za 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.2s SEPA exemptions Optional Comprehensive Plan Element or Subarea Plan E2SHB 1923 extended SEPA appeal protections for certain projects to July 1, 2029.26 RCW 43.21 C.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 Ln N 0 N L .° a� �a a a� O U _ E a O m m 0 4- 0 3 a� m N O N N O N O 3 CU 3 O x a� E w a WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 23 Packet Pg. 196 9.1.a • Is consistent with an optional plan element or subarea plan, and development regulations, and • Is submitted within locally adopted time frames adopted under RCW 43.21 C.420(5), and • Sets aside at least 10 percent of the units for low-income households under RCW 43.21 C.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 Ln purpose of a lease when no residential structure other than mobile homes, tiny houses or tiny houses with N wheels as defined in RCW 35.21.686 or travel trailers are permitted to be placed upon the land when the city, o town, or county has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local regulations. U) The definitions from RCW 35.21.686 are: a • 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 o 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 c ESSB 5383 also amended RCW 35.21.684 to add tiny homes to manufactured home communities. A city or a� o town may not prevent entry or require the removal of a recreational vehicle or a tiny house with wheels used as c a primary residence in manufactured/mobile home communities, except for regulations related to fire, safety, 3 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 W home community must provide toilets and showers. N 0 N 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 N house communities are entitled to all rights and subject to all duties and penalties required under Chapter N 59.20 RCW. The Washington State Building Code Council must adopt specific standards for tiny houses. 0 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: a • 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 WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 24 Packet Pg. 197 9.1.a • 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; o • "Low-income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose o 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 a • "Religious organization" has the same meaning as in RCW 35.21.915. a as A city may develop policies to implement this section if it receives a request from a religious organization for U 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." E Commerce recommends the permitting jurisdiction consider existing bonus densities and the demonstrated 2 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 o the site and infrastructure to handle increased units. An ordinance authorizing the bonus density should 3 include a reference to the statute, and possibly RCW 36.70A.5401 and should ensure that regulations meet the specifications of the statute. New Funding Options for Affordable Housing N 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 c recent authorization for a city or county required to plan under the GMA to charge a second 0.25% (REET 2) to N be used for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or 4- ° CA 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 IM N implement a local sales and use tax for affordable and supportive housing, proportionally reducing the state o 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 a 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. a 28 HB 1219(2020) WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 25 Packet Pg. 198 9.1.a 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.Ini.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/FAS/default.asp Building Code Council https://apps.des.wa.gov/SBCC/ WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LAWS 2019 THROUGH 2O24 Packet Pg. 199 9.2 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 Packet Pg. 200 9.2 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 Packet Pg. 201 9.2 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 Packet Pg. 202 9.2.a Chapter 16.120 Neighborhood Centers and Hubs Sections: 16.120.000 Purpose 16.120.010 Effect and applicability 16.120.020 Definitions 16.120.030 Subdistricts 16.120.040 Uses 16.120.050 Site development standards 16.120.060 Community benefit for an incentive floor 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. c i y v N N N CU 0 tU 0 U W 0 N CD c as E a Packet Pg. 203 9.2.a 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 conflicts with any other, this chapter shall prevail for the designated centers and hubs. 16.20.020 Definitions. In implementing this chapter, the following definitions apply. A. "Community services" mean services provided by a nonprofit or religious to aid people in obtaining housing, food, or medical treatment. B. "Incentive floor" 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. Packet Pg. 204 9.2.a 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 benefit, 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 floor 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 floor and where four stories are allowed with an incentive floor; 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 floor and where five stories are allowed with an incentive floor. 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. Packet Pg. 205 9.2.a E. Multifamily housing that is developed with more than twenty units shall provide ground floor commercial space that is equal to at least ten percent of the ground floor 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 identified 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 first -floor 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 first - floor height is 12 feet) and not including an incentive floor, or four stories tall, with a maximum height of 42 feet that includes one incentive floor. 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 first -floor height is 12 feet) and no incentive floor, or five stories tall, with a maximum height of 50 feet (or 52 feet if the first -floor height is 12 feet) that includes one incentive floor. 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. Packet Pg. 206 9.2.a a. For buildings achieving green building certification pursuant to ECDC 16.45.040 and that have commercial uses comprising at least 50% of the ground floor area, up to five 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 floor, as identified in Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, and that meet the criteria for community benefit, pursuant to ECDC 16.120.060, an additional floor up to 10 feet in height is allowed. c. For areas of centers and hubs that are eligible for an incentive or bonus floor, as identified in Figure 2.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, and that meet the criteria for community benefit, pursuant to ECDC 16.120.050, an additional floor 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 isl5 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 fagade, of which two-thirds or more of the ground floor 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 benefit for an incentive floor. An incentive or bonus floor 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 Packet Pg. 207 9.2.a 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 fagade of a building must have one or more windows on the ground floor with transparent glazing totaling at least fifty square feet for each thirty linear feet of wall. Each floor above the ground floor must have one or more windows with transparent glazing totaling at least twenty-five square feet for every thirty linear feet of wall. B. At the ground floor, a garage shall not comprise more than 50% of the fagade of a building, including any townhome, that faces a primary street. C. The street -facing fagade 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 floor 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. Packet Pg. 208 9.2.a D. Buildings shall have either a pitched roof of at least 3:12 pitch visible to the primary street or a roofline visible to the primary street that has a parapet or fascia to define 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 filled 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 fire 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. Packet Pg. 209 9.2.a 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. a Packet Pg. 210 9.2.b 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 Packet Pg. 211 9.2.b 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 Packet Pg. 212 9.2.b ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 213 9.2.b 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. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 M CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 214 9.2.c Through the Neighborhood Centers and Hubs, the City's growth strategy focuses on fostering compact, walkable neighborhoods where people can live, work, and play. This approach aims to enhance quality of life, promote equity, and support sustainable growth. Initially, two alternative approaches were studied to evaluate growth impacts and mitigation measures. Ultimately, the Council approved a final growth scenario that designates four centers —Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, and the Medical District Expansion —and five hubs: West Edmonds Way, South Lake Ballinger, East Sea View, North Bowl, and Maplewood. Figure 2.5 Detailed figures of each neighborhood center and hub locations showing the area boundaries and proposed building heights for each location Westgate 3 Floors, Bonus floor height incentive allowed Five Corners 3 Floors Map Key: Plan Overlays ® Activity Center L _ _ Corridor Development Hi -Rise Node ® Planned Action Area Street Front .......... Edmonds City Limits Low Density Residential 1 Low Density Residential 2 - Moderate Density Residential ® Mixed -Use 3 - Mixed -Use 4 - Mixed -Use 5 ® Highway 99 Mixed -Use ® Planned -Neighborhood Edmonds Way Corridor Hospital / Medical ® Public - Park / Open Space Medical District Expansion 3, 4 Floors, Bonus floor height incentive allowed on few parcels 46 CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12024 Packet Pg. 215 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/7/2025 Interim Ordinance for STEP Housing (File AMD2024-0006) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Preparer: Michael Clugston Background/History In 2021, Washington state passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and municipal code requirements for housing. The law requires local governments like Edmonds to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels, which includes demonstrating sufficient land capacity for housing at all income levels to meet future housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing. Local governments must also identify local barriers to production of affordable housing and take actions to remove those barriers. Housing targets were established for Edmonds as part of the recent periodic Comprehensive Plan update, which are summarized in Attachment 4. As a high -cost community, Edmonds must plan for 6,814 units of permanent supportive and low-income housing (0-80% of Area Median Income) over the next 20 years. Consistent with HB 1220, these targets informed the development of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding Supportive Housing: Goal H-9. Encourage stable housing and wraparound services to individuals experiencing housing insecurity or at risk of becoming unhoused. Policy H-9.1 Support county and nonprofit efforts to provide stable housing to individuals experiencing housing insecurity or at risk of becoming unhoused. Policy H-9.2 Support development of low-income (subsidized), low -barrier, permanent supportive housing. Policy H-9.3 Explore opportunities for small scale housing types, such as micro -housing (shared kitchen and restrooms). Policy H-9.4 Work with faith -based organizations that are interested in adding single - person shelters, overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. Policy H-9.5 Allow transitional housing and permanent supportive housing in any zones that allow residential dwelling units or hotels (RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430). Policy H-9.6 Allow emergency shelters and emergency housing in any zones that allow hotels. Policy H-9.7 Allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted (RCW 35.21.689 and RCW 35A.21.305). Policy H-9.8 Exempt emergency housing from impact fees (RCW 82.02.090). Packet Pg. 217 9.3 Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed code would address the Supportive Housing Goal and Policies H-9.2, H-9.5, H-9.6, and H-9.7 by allowing: Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing as permitted uses in zones in which hotels are currently allowed in Edmonds: Commercial Waterfront (CW) Community Business (BD), Downtown Business (BD), and General Commercial (CG); Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing as permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Additional housing options could be considered by the Council for tiny houses and shelters, temporary pallet shelters, tent encampments, and safe parking areas. These options would address Policies H-9.3 and H-9.4, but these are non-standard types of housing that do not count toward the City's housing need allocation of 6,814 units of permanent supportive and low-income housing. Staff Recommendation Adopt the emergency interim ordinance in Attachment X. A public hearing on the interim ordinance will be scheduled within 60 days to obtain public input about the proposed code language. The interim language will be reconciled against existing related code language in ECDC 17.105 (Emergency Temporary Indoor Shelter), ECDC 17.20 (Temporary Homeless Encampment), and ECDC 17.100 (Community Facilities). The interim code and revisions will be reviewed by the Planning Board, who will make a recommendation on final STEP housing code. The final code must be adopted by Council within six months of adoption of the interim ordinance. Narrative HB 1220 requires changes to the City's development regulations to allow four specific housing types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing, and permanent supportive housing (STEP Housing): "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. "Transitional housing" means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. "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. "Permanent supportive housing" is 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 Packet Pg. 218 9.3 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. Attachments 1 - 3 are three documents produced by the Department of Commerce which provide additional background information about STEP housing and the critical need for it throughout the state. Attachments: Attachment 1 - STEP Housing Factsheet Attachment 2 - STEP Housing State of the Practice Attachment 3 - STEP Housing Model Ordinance and User Guide Attachment 4 - Comp Plan Housing Targets Summary draft ECDC Chapter 17.125 STEP Housing 2024-12-31 interim ordinance for supportive housing Packet Pg. 219 Planning for STEP Housing Types There is a critical demand for 1.1 million homes in Washington over the next two decades, according to projections from the Washington State Department of Commerce. Of that 1.1 million, more than 600,000 homes need to be affordable for individuals at the lowest income levels (i.e., less than or equal to 80 percent of the area median income). In addition, if we do not build more affordable housing, we will need about 91,000 emergency housing beds in 20 years. Some of the housing for very low-income segments can collectively be called "STEP." What is STEP? Future housing needs by area median income (AMI) group,, 0 ❑ ono ❑ �� o Apartments Mufti Alex Single family P��.�.d� �•�w can PSH narPSH 0-30%AM 0-30%mm 30-50y W 50-80%— 80-120%"' 120+%- 1.1 Million new homes will be needed in the next 20 year In addition, there will also need to be. 91,357 Emergency housing beds (temporary housing) Indoor emergency Shelter, Transitional housing, Emergency housing and Permanent supportive housing a facility that provides a temporary* shelter for individuals or families who are currently experiencing homelessness. This includes day and warming centers that do not provide overnight accommodations. (RCW 36.70A.030(15)) a project that provides housing and supportive services for up to two years (or longer) for individuals or families who are experiencing homelessness. The purpose of transitional housing is to facilitate the movement of people from homelessness to permanent housing. (RCW 84.36.043(3)(c)) temporary* indoor accommodation for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless. It is intended to address the basic health, food, clothing and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families. (RCW 36.70A.030(14)) subsidized, leased housing with no limits on length of stay. It is designed to support people who were experiencing homelessness or likely to experience homelessness before moving because of their complex and disabling behavioral health and physical health conditions. Residents are provided with support services, such as mental and physical health care and employment services, to help them stay housed. Permanent supportive housing often has less strict admissions criteria than other forms of housing, especially related to rental history, criminal history and personal behaviors. (See RCW 36.70A.030(31) for full definition) *Temporary refers to the duration of residence for individual participants rather than the physical structure itself or the duration of land use. STEP 101 FACTSHEET - JULY 2024 V3.1 Packet Pg. 220 9.3.a How should my jurisdiction plan for STEP? Cities and counties must plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all incomes in their 20-year comprehensive plans and development regulations. These housing needs are determined through a countywide process where each jurisdiction receives a share of the total countywide housing need. By their comprehensive periodic update deadline (see map), cities and counties must: Fw , Padit levers F, kh. G•Iwkt V. . YMurlw CohnMa n;r,vo Bwwn • Develop policies to plan for and f accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments, • Allow sufficient zoning capacity for these 2024G,»o.b,31- 02025meoe",ov31.2026wej,„e3o, ■2022L,,..i.. * Slued cashes ere p.1,0y p1--g —dn the G, Ih Men 9-1 Ari housing needs, including permanent supportive housing (PSH) and emergency housing, • Identify barriers to the development of affordable housing and an action plan to remove these barriers, and • Based on new state laws adopted in 2021, cities must not prohibit emergency housing and emergency shelters in all zones that allow hotels, and cities must allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing in all zones that allow hotels and residential development. Why Is STEP Such a Big Issue? From 2007 to 2013, as rent prices surged and vacancy rates decreased, Washington experienced a dramatic increase in people experiencing homelessness. In 2021, Washington made changes to its state planning framework to address the need for more housing, including STEP. Local jurisdictions are currently working to implement these changes in their local regulations and comprehensive plans. FROM 2007-2023, WASHINGTON EXPERIENCED A 19.9% RISE IN HOMELESSNESS According to federal estimates, to afford rent for a household must or an average a two -bedroom have an annual hourly, rate of home in income of Washington: � state _ minimum • • wage per hour RISING RENTS AND A LACK OF HOUSING SUPPLY ARE THE CORE CAUSES OF INCREASED HOMELESSNESS IN THE STATE STEP 101 FACTSHEET — JULY 2024 V3.1 Packet Pg. 221 9.3.a Benefits of STEP ® Reduces the number of people living and sleeping in unsafe conditions and public spaces Helps various populations, including people who are currently homeless or housing insecure, formerly homeless aging adults, families with child welfare involvement, individuals with chronic patterns of homelessness, people 0 involved with the justice system, and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. • eProvides tenancy support services to help vulnerable people maintain stable housing ®Connects participants to essential services such as health care, job opportunities and public benefit income Improves participants' mental and physical health through timely medical care ® Enhances participants' employment prospects and incomes and fosters social connections Reduces the likelihood of residents being incarcerated 0 Decreases the public cost burden on other services, such as hospitals and emergency response, and therefore costs the same amount or less than its alternatives Relevant Laws for Siting and Permitting STEP Growth Management Act: RCW 36.70A.070(2) RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 RCW 36.130.020 RCW 36.70A.545 RCW 35.21.915. RCW 35A.21.360. and RCW 36.01.290 Local governments fully planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) must plan for and accommodate housing that is affordable to all income levels. Each jurisdiction is required to allow sufficient capacity for STEP in accordance with their share of countywide housing needs and make adequate provisions for these needs. Cities must not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, and must allow permanent supportive and transitional housing in zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. The laws also limit the application of occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements for STEP. Local governments may not impose requirements on an affordable housing development that are different from the requirements imposed on housing developments generally. Affordable housing includes permanent supportive housing and other types of subsidized and leased housing. Local governments fully planning under the GMA must provide density bonuses for any affordable housing, including STEP types with leases, on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization. Local governments may not impose overly restrictive regulatory limits on encampments, safe parking, overnight shelters and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. Local governments fully planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) have the RCW 36.70A.540 authority to offer incentives in exchange for providing development for low-income households. STEP 101 FACTSHEET — JULY 2024 V3.1 I Packet Pg. 222 9.3.a Promising Practices for Planning for STEP Allow STEP outright as a permitted use in designated zones. In some areas of Washington state, STEP is still Streamlines permitting listed as a conditional use. This means STEP projects face Encourages STEP development additional regulations that typically involve a longer local Reduces work for local government staff government review process and may also include a public input process that could delay permitting. The purpose of this process is to more carefully assess the development's potential impacts on traffic, noise, safety and community character before granting approval To increase STEP, communities can allow these projects in certain zones without this additional process. Reduce and clarify requirements to streamline permitting steps and reduce barriers for STEP development. Many local ordinances and regulations are not consistent with state law since they include occupancy, spacing and intensity of use' requirements for STEP that are not explicitly linked to public health and safety. Additionally, many communities impose potentially burdensome development, operating, facility, reporting, service and other requirements for STEP that differ from those for other similar residential dwelling types. When developing local ordinances and regulations, jurisdictions can limit additional requirements for STEP to speed up permitting, limit discretionary approval processes, reduce work for local government staff, support developers and help increase affordable housing and STEP production. Provides quicker and more predictable Expedite permitting processes for STEP projects, thereby . reven ts cost increases caused by project providing quicker, more predictable timelines that help delays prevent cost increases caused by project delays. Expedited permitting processes require sufficient staff, so jurisdictions interested in this strategy can start by assessing whether they need to hire additional employees to expedite reviews more efficiently. Provide land use and financial incentives to encourage households more STEP production. Affordable housing and STEP Increases STEP production developments face numerous challenges before they can reach the construction phase, and a lack of project financing is often one of the most significant barriers. To help STEP projects overcome this challenge, jurisdictions can play an important role by providing support through density bonuses, reduced or waived fees, regulatory exemptions, free or discounted land, grants or loans, tax exemptions, or other support. Encourage STEP development in locations close to healthcare services, transportation, jobs and other amenities to promote economic mobility and access to services. STEP housing is best suited for urban growth areas and cities, but may be appropriate in select Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRDs) if enough support services, transportation and infrastructure services are available. 2 Intensity with respect to STEP can refer to the density of people or services needed by participants in a single location or facility. STEP 101 FACTSHEET — JULY 2024 V3.1 I Packet Pg. 223 MODEL ORDINANCE AND COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT FOR STEP E v3.5 Packet Pg. 224 9.3.b Acknowledgments Washington State Department of Commerce Laura Hodgson, Housing Planning and Data Manager, Growth Management Services (GMS) Anne Fritzel, AICP, Housing Section Manager, GMS Kirsten Jewell, Housing Policy Manager, Housing Division (HD) Melodie Pazolt, Managing Director of Apple Health and Homes Permanent Supportive Housing Unit, HD Kathy Kinard, Managing Director of Homelessness Assistance Unit, HD Abt Global Lindsey Elam, AICP, Senior Analyst Jill Khadduri, PhD, Principal Associate Katie Kitchin, Director, State and Local Housing and Asset Building Candace Baker, Associate Nam Ha, Associate Analyst Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, Associate Analyst Frances Walker, Research Assistant The Corporation for Supportive Housing Theresa Tanoury, MSW, Seattle -based Senior Program Manager Lori Gutierrez, MSW, Senior Program Manager Debbie Thiele, Western Region Managing Director Sharon Rapport, California State Policy Director Angela Brooks, FAICP, Illinois Program Director Department of Commerce P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 www.commerce.wa.gov For people with disabilities, this report is available on request in other formats. To submit a request, please call 7-1-1 and ask to be connected to 360-725-4000. Thank you to the: Advisory Committee: Alliance for Housing Affordability at Housing Authority of Snohomish County Association of Washington Cities (AWC) City of Bellingham City of Port Townsend City of Spokane City of Vancouver City of Wenatchee Dee Caputo, FAICP, Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services (Retired) Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC) Futurewise GS Consulting King County, Health through Housing Mercy Housing Northwest Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Local jurisdictions and organizations that participated in the state of the practice interviews: City of Federal Way City of Kenmore City of Kent City of Langley City of Olympia City of Spokane City of Vancouver City of Wenatchee GS Consulting King County Lewis County Plymouth Affordable Housing Development Snohomish County Washington State Department of Health STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 2 Packet Pg. 225 9.3.b Contents ExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................................................... 4 PromisingPractices..................................................................................................................................................4 Chapter1: Introduction................................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter2: Background................................................................................................................................ 9 Scale of Housing Needs in Washington State......................................................................................................... 9 Drivers of Homelessness in Washington State....................................................................................................... 9 Benefitsof STEP Development Types...................................................................................................................11 STEP Building Structure Types and Forms............................................................................................................12 Chapter 3: Relevant State and Federal Laws and Requirements.................................................................. 14 Definitions................................................................................................................................................................14 STEP Zoning and Development Regulation Laws.................................................................................................16 State Licensing and Operating Requirements.......................................................................................................21 Requirements Associated with State and Federal Funding................................................................................. 21 Chapter 4: Municipal Planning and Implementation.................................................................................... 25 PlanningRegionally for STEP................................................................................................................................. 25 Accommodating and Regulating STEP Locally Permitting STEP .................................................. Barriers to STEP Development .......................... Promising Practices ........................................... 27 29 32 33 Appendices............................................................................................................................................... 35 Other Potentially Relevant Laws and Definitions.................................................................................................. 35 Licensing Requirements for Transient Accommodations and Crisis Shelters...................................................36 RelatedCase Law....................................................................................................................................................36 STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 226 9.3.b Executive Summary Washington state passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) in 2021, amending the Growth Management Act and municipal code requirements (RCW 36.70A.070(2), RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683). The law requires local governments to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels and outlines specific zoning and development regulations for four different housing types. These housing types include indoor Emergency Shelter, Transitional housing, Emergency housing and Permanent supportive housing (STEP). Under the new municipal regulations, cities cannot prohibit emergency shelter and emergency housing in areas where hotels or motels are allowed, and permanent supportive housing and transitional housing must be allowed in any zones where residential dwellings and hotels are allowed. Additionally, local restrictions on these developments related to spacing, occupancy and intensity of use that differ from other residential development types must be linked to public health and safety and must allow for a sufficient number of housing units to accommodate each city's projected housing needs. Washington cities were required to update their regulations to be consistent with the municipal regulations by September 2021. However, some communities lacked the necessary resources to comply, some were waiting for Commerce to project housing needs for each county, and some implemented policies that created additional barriers for increasing STEP in Washington. Local governing bodies have the police power to set zoning and development rules, which is one way to lower barriers for affordable housing and STEP production To encourage STEP, jurisdictions should avoid adding burdensome regulations and requirements and adopt emerging best practices when developing their local ordinances. The Washington State Department of Commerce contracted with Abt Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing to create a model ordinance and additional resources that are available to localities throughout the state to regulate and encourage STEP development, comply with state and federal laws and address local housing needs. To ensure the effectiveness of these efforts, an advisory committee consisting of local jurisdictions, developers and non-profit organizations provided guidance and feedback. The development of these materials also considered public input and promising practices from communities in Washington and other parts of the country. These practices include reducing barriers to developing STEP by creating local zoning ordinances that allow STEP outright as permitted uses in certain areas, reducing regulations and requirements for STEP, expediting permitting processes for STEP, incentivizing STEP and encouraging STEP near existing infrastructure and services. Promising Practices o Allow STEP developments outright as a permitted use in designated zones to streamline permitting. In some areas of Washington state, STEP is still listed as a conditional use, so projects have additional regulations that typically involve a more lengthy local government review process, and may also include a public input process that may delay permitting projects. The purpose of the more involved conditional use process is to more carefully assess the development's potential impacts on traffic, noise, safety and community character before granting approval. To increase STEP production, communities can allow these projects in certain zones without this additional process. For instance, in California, the County of Los Angeles Homelessness Initiative encourages local jurisdictions to designate at least one area where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use outright, also referred to as allowed by -right.' ' The Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. Do's and Don'ts for Emergency Shelter Zoning. https://homeless.lacounty_gov/w - content/uploads/2017/1 1/SB-2-Dos-and-Donts.pdf STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 4 Packet Pg. 227 9.3.b O Reduce and clarify requirements to streamline permitting and decrease barriers for STEP development. Many initial STEP local ordinances and regulations are not consistent with state law by including occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements for STEP that are not explicitly linked to public health and safety in their ordinance. Additionally, many communities impose potentially burdensome development, operating, facility, reporting, service and other requirements for STEP that differ from those for other similar residential dwelling types. When developing local ordinances and regulations, jurisdictions can limit additional requirements for STEP to speed up permitting, limit discretionary approval processes, reduce work for local government staff, support developers and help increase affordable housing and STEP production. O Expedite permitting processes for STEP projects, thereby providing quicker, more predictable timelines that help prevent cost increases caused by project delays. For example, Seattle has implemented an expedited permitting process to encourage STEP production. Permanent supportive housing projects are now exempt from design reviews, which can help speed up their construction timelines and address issues of homelessness and housing insecurity more quickly. Another example includes the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, which worked closely together to expedite the permitting for a specific project that incorporates safe parking, a tiny house village and permanent supportive housing on the same piece of county -owned property. Expedited permitting processes requires sufficient staff, so jurisdictions interested in this strategy can start by assessing whether they need to hire additional employees to expedite reviews more efficiently. O Provide land use and financial incentives to encourage more STEP production. Affordable housing and STEP developments face numerous challenges before they can reach the construction phase, and a lack of project financing is often one of the most significant barriers. To help STEP projects overcome this challenge, jurisdictions can play an important role by providing support through density bonuses, reduced or waived fees, regulatory exemptions, free or discounted land, grants or loans, and more. A few cities with incentives for affordable housing and STEP include Anacortes, Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Marysville, Redmond, Sammamish and Seattle. King County established the Health through Housing (HTH) Initiative, which uses its affordable housing sales tax funds to collaborate with local cities to build up to 1,600 emergency housing and permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing or at risk of chronic homelessness.2 s O Encourage STEP development in locations close to healthcare services, transportation, job prospects and other amenities to promote economic mobility and access to services. To meet the growing demand for housing and other community needs, local affordable housing and STEP providers and developers agree that jurisdictions can support the development of successful STEP by being intentional about the location of STEP. Many communities throughout Washington state and the country encourage affordable housing and STEP development in areas where existing infrastructure and services exist to promote sustainability; inclusivity; accessible services, transportation and employment opportunities; and the overall wellbeing of residents. Therefore, STEP is best suited for urban growth areas and cities, but may be appropriate in 2 King County. Health through Housing A Regional Approach to Address Chronic Homelessness. https://kinacounty_aov/en/legacy/depts/community-human-services/initiatives/health-through- housing#:-:text=The%20Health%2OThrouah%2OHousinci%20%28HTH%29%201nitiative%20is%20an.people%20experiencinci%20or%20a t%20risk%20of%20chronic%20 homelessness. 3 HB 1590, laws of 2019, authorizes county or city legislative authorities to impose a local sales and use tax for housing and related services and eliminates the requirement that the tax be subject to the approval of a majority of county or city voters. For other local affordable housing funding tools, see Appendix B, Exhibit B5 (pages 120-121) of Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 228 9.3.b select Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRDs) if enough support services, transportation and infrastructure services are available. O Partner with local service providers to create STEP regulations that are responsive to their needs. Affordable housing developers and service providers understand what is involved with developing STEP and how STEP operates. These stakeholders can help a local jurisdiction identify places in code where the regulations may cause barriers to STEP development and identify ways to reduce or remove those barriers Communities can use these emerging best practices to encourage STEP production, accommodate local housing needs and support STEP developers, clients and staff. Implementing these practices can benefit some of Washington's most vulnerable populations, increase housing stability, promote community integration and contribute to larger initiatives to tackle homelessness and housing insecurity in the state. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 229 9.3.b Chapter 1: Introduction In 2021, Washington state passed House Bill 1220, which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and municipal code requirements-(RCW 36.70A.070(2), and RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683, respectively). The GMA requires cities and counties to develop comprehensive plans and development regulations for their communities. The new law mandates that county and local governments plan for and accommodate housing that is affordable for households of all income levels, including enough land capacity for all local housing needs. In addition, Sections 3-5 of the law outline specific zoning and development regulations for four different housing types: Emergency Shelter, Transitional housing, Emergency housing and Permanent supportive housing (STEP). Definitions for these types of housing and shelter are in the Growth Management Act and other statutes: 0 Emergency shelter means a facility that provides a temporary4 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. RCW 36.70A.030(15) 0 Transitional housing means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families for up to two years5 and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living. RCW 84.36.043(3)(c) 0 Emergency housing means temporary4 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. RCW 36.70A.030(14) 0 Permanent supportive housing is 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. RCW 36.70A.030(31) Most notably, state law says city codes cannot prohibit indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters in areas where hotels are allowed unless the city has already authorized such housing in more than 50% of their zones within one mile of transit. Areas zoned for hotels and all areas zoned for residential dwellings in cities must allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing. Additionally, any local restrictions on spacing, occupancy and intensity of use for these STEP developments that differ from other residential development types must be linked to public health and safety in a 4 Temporary applies to the person and how long they reside there, not the structure or length of time for the land use. 5 Although transitional housing is designed to move people into permanent housing in less than two years, some transitional housing programs do not limit the stay to two years. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 7 Packet Pg. 230 9.3.b community's local ordinance. These regulations must also not be so restrictive that they prevent the development of a sufficient number of housing units to meet the city's identified housing needs. O Occupancy: RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 state cities and counties may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons who may occupy a dwelling unit except as provided for in state law, for short-term rentals or by occupant load per square foot. O Spacing: Spacing can refer to the distance between similar uses or the proximity to services (e.g., transportation). Any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing required by RCWs 9.94A.030. 9.94A.703 and 9.94A.8445, which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. O Intensity. With respect to STEP, intensity can refer to the density of people, transportation and/or services needed by the participants who live in a single location or facility. Washington's jurisdictions were required to update their regulations consistent with the municipal regulation requirements by September 2021. However, many communities lacked the resources or ability to do so at that time, or were waiting for Commerce to project housing needs for their county. Furthermore, some of the jurisdictions that updated their regulations did not comply with state and federal laws, and they imposed new rules that hindered the development of STEP in Washington. To help address these challenges, the Washington State Department of Commerce contracted with AM Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing, as well as worked with an advisory committee comprised of local jurisdictions, developers and nonprofits to create resources to support local governments. These resources include this report, a model ordinance and other materials that localities across the state can use to help them encourage STEP development to comply with state and federal laws and address local housing needs. In addition to the advisory committee's feedback and public input, this State of the Practice Report informed Commerce's STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report and Communications Toolkit to further support local jurisdictions. STEP materials were also be coordinated with the state's Apple Health and Homes Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Communications Toolkit and the statutory definitions for STEP. The State of the Practice Report provides county and local governments with: • Background information on housing needs in Washington state. • Excerpts from relevant state and federal laws. • A summary of existing local ordinances and regulations. • Promising practices for addressing the siting and development of STEP STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 231 9.3.b Chapter 2: Background Washington does not have enough housing to meet demand, resulting in housing prices rising faster than local wages, a main driver of increasing homelessness.6 To meet immediate affordable housing needs, state and local governments must encourage a diverse set of housing options, including STEP, to adequately address the unique needs of individuals, families, unaccompanied youth, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and other subpopulations who are at the greatest risk of losing their housing in these market conditions. This chapter discusses: • The scale of housing needs in Washington, • Why there is so much need and the drivers of homelessness, and • What STEP looks like in Washington state. Scale of Housing Needs in Washington State Updates to RCW 36.70A.070(2) in 2021 revised how jurisdictions should plan for housing in their comprehensive plans. As part of this change, the Department of Commerce now provides projections of individual counties' future housing needs, including emergency housing and permanent supportive housing. Counties must work with their local jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate these needs. Commerce's final housing needs projections show a demand for 1.1 million homes over the next two decades Of that 1.1 million, more than 600,000 homes need to be affordable for individuals at the lowest income levels (i.e., less than or equal to 80% of the area median income). Census data and population forecasts underscore the necessity for more than 50,000 new housing units annually to match the current projection as well as expected population growth.'s Because of an insufficient housing supply that cannot meet the rising demand, rent prices in Washington have significantly increased, while wages have only grown modestly. As of March 2024, there is a shortage of 171,981 rental homes that are affordable to renters with extremely low -incomes.' In order to afford rent for a two -bedroom home at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) fair market rent, an annual household income of $75,556 or $36.33 per hour is required, which is much higher than the state minimum wage of $16.28 per hour.10, 11 To address the issue, many localities will need to plan for high and medium -density housing such as apartments, condominiums, multiplexes and accessory dwelling units, which are generally more affordable. Drivers of Homelessness in Washington State Based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress for 2023, Washington is one of 25 states that have had a significant increase in 6 Washington State Department of Commerce. Drivers of Homelessness in Washington State. 2018. www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8NUHqpPf-U ' Washington Department of Commerce. Washington state will need more than 1 million homes in the next 20 years. State of Washington. 2023. www.commerce.wa.aov/news/washington-state-will-need-more-than-1-million-homes-in-next-20-years/ 8 For projections broken down by county, see Washington Department of Commerce's Planning for Housing in Washington (2023) 9 National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2024 Washington Housing Profile. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/SHP_WA.pdf 10 National Low Income Housing Coalition. How much do you need to earn to afford a modest apartment in your state? 2023. https://nlihc.ora/oor 11 Washington Department of Labor & Industries. Minimum Wage. 2024. www.Ini.wa.aov/workers-rights/wages/minimum-wage/ STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 9 Packet Pg. 232 9.3.b homelessness, with a 19.9% rise from 2007 to 2023.12 This trend is driven mainly by rising rental costs, w is force individuals living on the edge into homelessness. Since 2012, rental prices in the state have increased significantly, particularly in urban centers such as King County. Low vacancy rates have worsened the situation, making it difficult for people to find housing even with adequate income or rental assistance. Despite an increase in income in the state, rents have risen at a faster rate, particularly for middle and lower -income households. Increases in homelessness driven by increasing rent prices have overshadowed the increased investments and effectiveness of homeless housing systems since 2012. o While events such as losing a job, experiencing family instability or drug or alcohol addiction can put individuals and families at greater risk of homelessness in a tight housing market, evidence suggests that these factors are not responsible for Washington's trend of increasing unsheltered homelessness. In the same period that homelessness in Washington significantly increased, the state experienced: • Growth in workforce participation • Declines in teenage pregnancy and divorce • Drug overdose deaths increasing slower than they were nationally • Gross Domestic Product and wage growth • Sharp increases in rental prices This evidence shows that rising rents, combined with lagging income growth and a lack of housing supply, are the core causes of increased homelessness in the state. Additional investments and system improvements at both state and local levels are needed to address this issue. Tackling the root causes of rent increases is crucial for effectively reducing homelessness.13 People of color in Washington state are disproportionately affected by homelessness. As of July 2023, the demographic composition of the homeless or unstably housed population in Washington reflects a diverse range of backgrounds and significant disparities in who is experiencing homelessness. Among more than 202,000 homeless people recorded, approximately 13.2% identify as Native American or Alaska Native, contrasting to the 2% representation in Washington state's total population. Similarly, 19.8% of the homeless population are African American or Black, a demographic distinctly higher than the 4.6% representation in the state's overall population. Additionally, 5.5% of the homeless population identify as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, compared to 0.8% representation in Washington state's total population (see Chart 1). According to the 2023 Homelessness in Washington report by Commerce, over 13,000 young people aged 12 to 24 face homelessness, often without parental support, termed "unaccompanied homelessness." This issue stems from complex factors, such as family dysfunction, system failures (like foster care exits) and societal challenges like economic instability and racism. Notably, 15% of youth experience homelessness within a year of leaving public systems and structural racism contributes to disproportionate rates among Black and Native youth, who make up at least 50% of homeless youth. LGBTQ+ youth facing family rejection are also at heightened risk, comprising up to 40% of the homeless youth population. Additionally, lack of education significantly increases the likelihood of homelessness; a national survey found that youth who did not complete high school were 4.5 times more likely to experience 12 de Sousa, et al. AHAR Report. 2023. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar.htm1 13 Washington State Department of Commerce. Drivers of Homelessness in Washington State. 2018. www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8NUHqpPf-U STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 10 Packet Pg. 233 9.3.b homelessness than those who completed high school.14 This forms a concerning cycle of instability for vulnerable youth, highlighting the urgent need for comprehensive support systems. These figures indicate the significance of addressing homelessness across various racial and ethnic communities and highlight the need for targeted support and resources to address the unique challenges faced by each group within the homeless population. Chart 1: Racial Disparities in Homelessness in Washington state 08% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Black or African American Native American or Alaska Native 61111111111111111111 Asian Em Hispanic or Latino White ■ % of Washington state total Population ■ % of Washington state Homeless Population Benefits of STEP Development Types STEP can help various populations, including formerly homeless aging adults, families with child welfare involvement, individuals with chronic patterns of homelessness, people involved with the justice system and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. STEP, like emergency shelters, emergency housing and transitional housing, may help individuals and families experiencing homelessness meet their basic needs while they wait for affordable permanent housing to become available. By offering an alternative, STEP can reduce the number of people living and sleeping in unsafe conditions and divert people from living in public spaces. Benefits of STEP include the following: o Provides support services aiding participants in maintaining stable housing. o Connects individuals to essential services such as physical and mental health care, employment opportunities and public benefit income.15 14 Chapin Hall. Missed Opportunities: Education Among Youth Experiencing Homelessness in America. University of Chicago. 2019. https://nn4youth.org/wp-content/uploads/ChapinH all_VoYC_Education-Brief.pdf 11 Public benefit income is Income that is received from public sources such as Medicare, social security, disability, SNAP, Housing and Essential Needs (HEN), etc. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 11 Packet Pg. 234 9.3.b O Improves participants' mental and physical health through timely medical care, access to mental hea care and preventive care. O Enhances participants' employment prospects and incomes, fostering social connections. O Reduces the likelihood of participants being incarcerated. O Permanent supportive housing decreases the public cost burden on other services, such as hospitals and emergency shelters; therefore, it costs the same amount or less than its alternatives.16 _ STEP Building Structure Types and Forms The term STEP, as used in this report and the state's model ordinance, refers to developments that adhere to the International Residential Building Code (IRBC), which includes rules for a permanent foundation, safe plumbing and electrical practices, insulation, weather tightness, energy efficiency and safety (smoke alarms and egress). With regard to emergency housing and emergency shelter, RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 state that jurisdictions must not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in all zones in which hotels are allowed. "Indoor," as used in the definitions of indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelter (RCW 36.70A.030) is interpreted in this report and the state's model ordinance as a subset of all of the possible building forms in which shelters can be provided, as indicated in Table 1. "Indoor" implies buildings that are affixed to the ground and have indoor plumbing, and therefore would exclude housing forms that are on wheels or that lack internal sanitation and/or cooking facilities. Therefore, cities are not required to allow non -building code compliant structures as STEP, but the Department of Commerce encourages local governments to allow non-standard types of STEP as an alternative to sleeping outside to provide safer places for people experiencing homelessness. These non-standard housing types could include, for example, safe parking, pallet shelters and other non-standard projects that offer occupants sanitation services, connections to community services and support in finding permanent housing. Some local jurisdictions have observed that many organizations are proposing non -building code compliant structures or structures that may not have indoor plumbing, especially for emergency shelter, such as temporary pallet shelters, tent encampments and safe parking areas. This sometimes presents challenges for local jurisdictions because their codes may limit these types of structures. An additional challenge observed is that there are no adopted statewide standards for safe human habitation in temporary emergency shelters, but building codes for these shelters should be available by July 2026.11 Additionally, tiny homes and park model homes18 may also face barriers because their size and dimensions may not conform to standard building codes. STEP can be provided through a variety of building, facility and shelter types and forms, including but not limited to those listed in Table 1. Permanent supportive housing requires a lease, while emergency and transitional housing may or may not require one.19 16 Corporation for Supportive Housing. FAQ's about Supportive Housing Research: Is Supportive Housing Cost Effective? 2018. www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Cost-Effectiveness-FAQ. pdf 17 The Washington Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5553 in 2023 that directs the state building code council to adopt standards for temporary emergency shelters and make them available for local adoption. This may assist local governments with these building code questions for unique shelter accommodations. 18 Park model homes, as defined in RCW 59.20.030(20), means a recreational vehicle intended for permanent or semi -permanent installation and is used as a primary residence. Essentially, they are a cross between manufactured homes and recreational vehicles (RVs). 19 Some of the forms listed in Table 1, such as tiny homes, can also be used for other housing types that are not related to STEP. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 12 Packet Pg. 235 9.3.b Table 1 - STEP Building Structure Types and Forms Single -site Congregate Living Y Y Y Scattered -site Apartments Y Y Y Y Tiny Homes* as defined in RCW 35.21.686 Y Y Y Y or Small Cottages** Tiny Homes on Wheels, as defined in RCW Y Y Y Y 35.21.686 Tiny Shelters,*** including Prefabricated Y Y Shelter and Containers (e.g., pallet shelters) Park Model Homes as defined in RCW Y Y Y Y 59.20.030(20) Manufactured Home as defined in RCW Y Y Y Y 59.20.030(9) Tent Encampments Y Safe Parking (cars or RVs)**** Y Single-family homes Y Y Y Y Hotel/ Motel Units Y Y Y Y Crisis Shelters Y Rental Units with Leases Y Y Y No Leases Typically Y Y *See RCW 35.21.686: 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. **Small Cottages, as defined in the forthcoming Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Handbook: Single dwelling units smaller than 400 square feet, built on a foundation that provides complete living facilities such as living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. To be eligible for HTF capital funding, these must be built to Washington State Building Code, defined within Appendix Q of the Washington Residential Building Code revised 2021. ***Tiny Shelters, as defined in the forthcoming Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Handbook: Temporary shelters that do not have the amenities of a single dwelling unit, and rely on shared facilities for dining, laundry and bathrooms. Structure may or may not be on a foundation. For HTF funding, Washington State Building Code will be required when supplemental standards are adopted. ****RVs are not intended for long-term living except in manufactured home parks, where they must be allowed, and local governments may designate other areas where they may be allowed (RCW 35.21.684). Although it is recognized that RVs are used for long-term housing in many places. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 236 9.3.b Chapter 3: Relevant State and Federal Laws and Requirements Various state and federal laws, definitions and other requirements contribute to the siting and development of STEP in the state of Washington. This chapter discusses: • Definitions for important undefined or related terms in the Growth Management Act, RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21, and other existing laws; • Excerpts from current standards, rules, ordinances and legal precedents; • Summaries of state licensing and operating requirements; and • Explanations of federal and state funding requirements. Definitions The additional definitions provided below are from legislation relevant to the siting and development of STEP in Washington state. These definitions provide additional information for interpreting the laws, guiding development, and promoting consistency and adherence to state requirements: Affordable housing means, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, residential housing whose monthly costs, including utilities other than telephone, do not exceed 30% of the monthly income of a household whose income is: For rental housing, 60%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 For owner -occupied housing, 80% 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. RCW 36.70A.030 Affordable housing development, at a minimum in the context of RCW 36.130, means a housing development in which at least 25% of the dwelling units within the Related Terms Crisis shelter is defined as a transient accommodation, at a permanent physical location, providing emergency or planned lodging services to a specific population, for periods of less than thirty days. A crisis shelter may or may not be reimbursed for services in the form of rental fee or labor, WAC 246-360- 010. A crisis shelter could be categorized under emergency housing or shelter, and there is potential overlap with transitional housing. Efforts are underway to update transient accommodations rules to address these challenges with support from the Department of Commerce, the State Board of Health, and the state legislature. Shelter can also be defined as temporary lodging with supportive services, offered by community -based domestic violence programs to victims of domestic violence and their children. RCW 70.123.020 Transient accommodation is defined as any facility that offers three or more lodging units to guests for periods of less than 30 days, consistent with WAC 246-360. development are set aside for or are occupied by low-income households at a sales price or rent amount that is considered affordable by a federal, state or local government housing program, (RCW 36.130.010). Indoor emergency housing or transitional housing that is administered through a lease and permanent supportive housing are determined to be affordable housing under RCW 36.130.020.20 20 Draft Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Changes - 365-196-Part 4 - March 2024 STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 14 Packet Pg. 237 9.3.b Emergency housing is defined in two distinct ways in state code. The Department of Revenue uses the definition in RCW 84.36.043(3)(b) to assess the tax-exempt status of organizations operating emergency shelters. The definition diverges from the Department of Commerce's definition of emergency shelter in the Introduction section. Emergency housing, in the context of RCW 84.36.043, refers to a project that offers housing and supportive services to homeless individuals or families for a duration of up to sixty days. Homeless Management Information System is a generic term for an electronic record system that enables information -gathering about and continuous case management of people experiencing homelessness across agencies in a particular jurisdiction (city, county and/or state). Homeless service providers collect information about their clients and input it into HMIS so that it can be matched with information from other providers in the state to get accurate counts of clients and the services they need. In order to be eligible for federal homeless assistance funding, agencies must participate in an HMIS that allows them to collect and report on the specific data elements outlined in the HMIS Data and Technical Standards. Homeless, homeless individual and homeless person, as defined by federal law and HUD, means— (1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence; (2) an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport or camping ground; (3) an individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including hotels and motels paid for by Federal, State or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, congregate shelters and transitional housing); (4) an individual who resided in a shelter or place not meant for human habitation and who is exiting an institution where he or she temporarily resided; (5) an individual or family who — (A) will imminently lose their housing, including housing they own, rent or live in without paying rent, are sharing with others, and rooms in hotels or motels not paid for by Federal, State or local government programs for low-income individuals or by charitable organizations, as evidenced by— (i) a court order resulting from an eviction action that notifies the individual or family that they must leave within 14 days; (ii) the individual or family having a primary nighttime residence that is a room in a hotel or motel and where they lack the resources necessary to reside there for more than 14 days; or (iii) credible evidence indicating that the owner or renter of the housing will not allow the individual or family to stay for more than 14 days, and any oral statement from an individual or family seeking homeless assistance that is found to be credible shall be considered credible evidence for purposes of this clause; (B) has no subsequent residence identified; and (C) lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing; and STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 15 Packet Pg. 238 9.3.b (6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal statutes who — (A) have experienced a long term period without living independently in permanent housing, (B) have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over such period, and (C) can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time because of chronic disabilities, chronic physical health or mental health conditions, substance addiction, histories of domestic violence or childhood abuse, the presence of a child or youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to employment. The federal government provides further criteria and reporting requirements for defining homelessness. Reasonable, for the purposes of RCW 35A.21.43O and RCW 35.21.683 and this report, includes only those requirements imposed to protect public health and safety. Requirements that prevent the siting of a sufficient number indoor STEP are not reasonable. In addition, reasonable requirements must comply with any applicable civil rights protections provided by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Fair Housing Act, and the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable requirements can vary with geographic size and population of the jurisdiction and the current siting of these housing types. Any occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements should be justified by reference to building code, fire code or other citations within an ordinance. Reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), are changes that allow individuals with disabilities to access, use and enjoy housing, including dwelling units, public and common areas, laundry rooms and parking. A reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification has to be connected to your disability. The Americans with Disability Act often refers to these types of accommodations as "modifications." Religious organization means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls real property defined in RCW 36.O1.29O(6)(c). State laws allow religious organizations more flexibility than other developers or providers hosting emergency housing and shelters. The definition provided in the model ordinance applies to counties and "hosting the homeless." It is likely that a local government may need to use a broader definition than just one that owns or controls property in other contexts. This definition is just for the purpose of RCW 36.01.290, hosting the homeless by religious organizations, and RCW 36.70A.545, increased density bonus for affordable housing located on property owned by a religious organization. It is not required to be used more broadly. Sufficient in the context of RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 refers to the availability of adequate permanent supportive housing and indoor emergency housing or shelter within a jurisdiction. Specifically, "sufficient" means enough permanent supportive housing and indoor emergency housing or shelter could be built under current local regulations or is available to meet local housing needs based on the jurisdiction's share of the countywide housing need by income level in its comprehensive plan. STEP Zoning and Development Regulation Laws A number of state and federal laws relate to zoning and development regulations that apply to STEP. These laws are described below and summarized in the quick reference chart provided in Table 2. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 239 9.3.b Washington state laws that specifically apply to STEP O The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 require local governments to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels as provided by the Department of Commerce. Documentation of land use capacity for emergency housing and permanent supportive housing needs is required for both counties and cities (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)). Countywide housing needs are determined based on a selected population target from the state -provided population projection range, using Commerce's Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT) to identify projected housing needs by income level. These countywide housing needs are to be allocated to each jurisdiction in a county. Each jurisdiction should document its share of the countywide housing need by income level in its comprehensive plan's housing element and show that it has sufficient land capacity for these needs in a land capacity analysis. O The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 establish minimum requirements to meet state law for STEP. Cities may only impose reasonable occupancy, spacing and intensity of use limits on permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelters to protect public health and safety (RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430). Any such limits must not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of STEP units and beds necessary to accommodate projected needs as required for the community's housing element. O Consistent with RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430, city code must allow permanent supportive and transitional housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. This requirement includes traditional single-family detached housing zones. O Consistent with RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430, city code shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, except in such cities that have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one -mile proximity to transit. Even if a jurisdiction does not allow hotels in any zone, they must allow the siting of a sufficient number of indoor emergency shelter beds and/or emergency housing units to meet their allocation. O City code must allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted under RCW 35.21.689. State laws for land use regulation O Fully planning local governments are required to document how they have sufficient land use capacity for all future housing needs by income level (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)). To determine whether jurisdictions have the land capacity for STEP, local governments can refer to Guidance for Updating your Housing Element Book 2 for specific steps, starting on page 41 for emergency housing, and starting on approximately page 31 for permanent supportive housing. O Fully planning counties are required to have countywide planning policies that consider the need for housing for all economic segments and the parameters for its distribution (RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e)). O A city, county or other local governmental entity or agency may not adopt, impose or enforce requirements on an affordable housing development that are different than the requirements imposed on housing developments generally (RCW 36.130.020). However, this law does not prohibit any city, county or other local governmental entity or agency from extending preferential treatment to affordable housing developments, including, but not limited to a reduction or waiver of fees, changes in applicable requirements, or other treatment that reduces or is likely to reduce the development or operating costs of an affordable housing development.21 21 A local government may also impose and enforce requirements on affordable housing developments as conditions of loans, grants or affordable housing incentives (RCW 36.130.020(3)). However, regulations must be consistent to all affordable housing that receives STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 17 Packet Pg. 240 n 0 0 X U 0 0 C47 0 9.3.b City and county regulations may not limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a househola or dwelling unit except for lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or building code limits (RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227). Jurisdictions looking for assistance should consult their building official/applicable building codes. City and county development regulations must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local needs for any affordable housing development (including permanent supportive housing and STEP with leases) of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a c religious organization (RCW 36.70A.545). Communities may choose to increase zoning on those properties or determine a certain bonus density should they apply for a development. o Regulatory limits on outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary o small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization must be consistent with RCW a 35.21.915 and RCW 36.01.290, which are very rigorous lists of potential items. For example, any religious 2 organization hosting the homeless with a publicly funded managing agency must utilize the Homeless Management Information System (RCW 35.21.915(5)). S A city, county or other local governmental entity or agency may impose and enforce requirements on c affordable housing developments as conditions of loans, grants, financial support, tax benefits, subsidy = funds or sale or lease of public property; or as conditions to eligibility for any affordable housing incentive program under RCW 36.70A.540 or any other program involving bonus density, transfer of development T rights, waiver of development regulations or fees or other development incentives. L w State law establishes an 880-foot community protection zone around public and private schools, which regulates where level two and three sex offenders may not live (RCW 9.94A.020(6)). It is not necessary or advised to add local regulations to create a community protection zone. Public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to ordinances or J development regulations adopted by a city that prohibit building permit applications for or the construction .r- of transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or c hotels are allowed or prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed (RCW 36.70A.390). Restrictions and requirements imposed on the siting, development and operations of STEP must not violate civil rights protections provided by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, as well as the 0 federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, in RCW 49.60.222 specifically (1)(f) and r (2)(a), (b) and (c). Individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness are disproportionately 4- 0 members of several protected classes under state and federal laws. These classes include but are not 2 limited to people with disabilities and people of color. To comply with these regulations, policymakers U), must ensure equitable access to supportive services and housing opportunities for all individuals. N Permanent supportive housing and other types of housing that require leases must adhere to the c Washington State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act, which include laws such as landlords must give tenants a at least 2 days' written notice before entering a rental to make repairs or inspect the place and landlords must have good cause for evicting a tenant (e.g., not paying rent, missing a payment under an installment N plan, not following the rental agreement or drug -related or gang -related activity). w Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires all branches of government in the state to examine their laws, regulations and policies to assess their environmental impacts to ensure environmental values are part of state and local decision -making. r benefit, and proportional and connected to benefit. For example - if a jurisdiction allowed parking waivers for developments, they could require a parking management plan, or if the jurisdiction provided a grant or funding for affordable housing, the jurisdiction could require that audits be performed to ensure units are available to residents meeting income requirements. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 18 Packet Pg. 241 9.3.b Federal laws O According to the Fair Housing Act, city and county codes must not discriminate against the siting of housing for people with disabilities or any reasonable accommodations associated with the housing. The Fair Housing Act prohibits jurisdictions from making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or discriminate against people with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act also prohibits enforcing a "neutral" rule or policy that has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class unless there is a valid business reason for the rule or policy and the housing provider can show that there is no less discriminatory means of achieving the same result. Federal fair housing protected classes are race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status and disability. O The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provides enforceable standards to address discrimination, including accessible design standards for newly constructed and renovated state and federal facilities, public accommodations and commercial buildings. O The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act states, "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (a) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The federal and state laws described above apply to certain STEP types, as set forth in the reference Table 2. Table 2 - STEP Types and Applicable Laws The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 require local governments to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels. RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 states that cities shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Cities must also allow permanent supportive and transitional housing in zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. They may limit occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements to protect public health and safety so long as such limits allow the siting of a sufficient number of units/beds to accommodate each city's projected housing needs. RCW 35.21.689 and RCW 35A.21.305 require cities to allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted. RCW 36.130.020 prohibits any local government from having requirements on an affordable housing development that are different from the requirements imposed on housing developments generally. RCW 35.21.682. RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 prohibit any local government from having requirements related to unrelated persons that may occupy a unit. Y* Y* Y Y I Y I Y RCW 36.70A.545 requires fully planning cities and counties to allow increased density I I Y* bonuses for any affordable housing on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization. Y* RCW 35.21.915, RCW 35A.21.360 and RCW 36.01.290 any local government regulatory I Y I I Y limits on encampments, safe parking, overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. RCW 36.70A.540 gives authority to local governments to offer incentives in exchange for I I Y* I Y* providing development for low-income housing units. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 242 9.3.b RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c) requires fully planning local governments to document how they I Y** I I Y I Y have sufficient land use capacity for all future housing needs by income level. RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e) requires fully planning counties to have countywide planning Y Y Y Y policies that consider the need for housing for all economic segments and the parameters for its distribution. Y Y Y Y RCW 9.94A.020(6) regulates where level two and three sex offenders may not live. RCW 36.70A.390 states public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning Y Y Y Y control are not applicable to regulations that prohibit building permit applications for transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwellings or hotels are allowed or prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits requirements imposed on STEP that Y Y Y Y violate civil rights protections. I I Y* I Y* I Y Washinaton State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act includes laws landlords must follow. Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires all branches of government in the Y Y Y Y state to examine their laws' environmental impacts. At the local level, this requires an assessment of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and project permits unless specifically exempted by the act. i Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with Y Y Y Y disabilities and provides enforceable standards to address discrimination. Fair Housing Act prohibits "neutral" policy that has a disproportionately adverse effect on Y Y Y Y a protected class. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prevents the implementation of land Y Y Y Y use regulations that impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person. *Only applicable when the housing has a lease. **Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 243 9.3.b State Licensing and Operating Requirements In Washington state, not all STEP have licensing and operating requirements under state law. Temporary Accommodations The Department of Health (DOH) has the authority to license some shelters under transient accommodation rules, consistent with WAC 246-360. A transient accommodation is any facility that offers three or more lodging units to guests for periods of less than 30 days. Shelters are required to be licensed through DOH if they offer three or more lodging units for periods of less than thirty days. Most shelters operate without licenses, and many are unaware of the requirement. If DOH receives a complaint about shelter conditions, they may inspect the facility to determine if it should be licensed as a transient accommodation. If the shelter meets the requirement and is not licensed, DOH will inform them of the requirement and assist in the licensing process. STEP for youth populationS22 (chapter 100-145 WAC) and other specific housing programs may have additional licensing requirements. Permanent Supportive Housing Permanent supportive housing requires leases and must adhere to the state landlord -tenant laws under Chapter 59.18 RCW. The Department of Commerce strives to align permanent supportive housing with the guidance and best practices of both the federal and state governments; these include the evidence -based best practice model and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) that emphasize choice, safety and integration into the community. Similar best practices have been established by the Washington Health Care Authorit and the Department of Social and Health Services. The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) and Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) DOH and Residential Care Services within DSHS are the two main licensing bodies in the state relevant to residential facilities. DOH licenses residential treatment facilities, which are sometimes confused with STEP. Residential treatment facilities are defined as establishments in which twenty-four hour on -site care is provided for the evaluation, stabilization or treatment of residents for substance use, mental health, co-occurring disorders, or for drug exposed infants. A few examples of these facilities in Washington state are Pioneer Human Services, offering residential treatment programs for substance abuse recovery, and Navos, providing residential treatment options in addition to comprehensive mental health and addiction recovery services. Washington State Health Care Authority reimburses the services within residential treatment facilities through Managed Care Organizations and Behavioral Health Administrative Service Organizations. DSHS is responsible for the licensing and oversight of adult family homes, assisted living facilities, nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and certified community residential services and supports. These settings are also sometimes confused with STEP. Requirements Associated with State and Federal Funding Developing and operating STEP usually requires some form of financial assistance from the public sector, financial institutions, private investors or non-profit organizations.23 Often a combination of these funding sources is needed, each with its own unique requirements. When creating local ordinances and regulations for STEP, jurisdictions can consider the complex funding sources and their existing requirements that these types 22See definition of "youth" in WAC 100-145-1305. Generally "youth" means a person who is under 18 years old, except for a few circumstances when "youth" can be up to 21 or 25 years old. 23 For more funding sources, see page 16 of the Health & Housing Partnership Toolkit for Washington State (2023). STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 21 Packet Pg. 244 9.3.b of projects are already required to meet. This consideration is important to ensure that local requirements an processes do not become overly burdensome when combined with others, as this can make it even more difficult to develop STEP. In Washington state, some of the typical funding sources for STEP include: Apple Health and Homes In 2022, Washington allocated $60 million in capital funding to support the acquisition and construction of homes exclusively for eligible participants in the Apple Health and Homes (AHAH) initiative. AHAH integrates healthcare services with housing by providing capital financing and operating assistance paired with supportive housing and employment services. Eligible participants must be Foundational Community Supports Medicaid beneficiaries with medical risk factors such as chronic patterns of homelessness, behavioral health needs, disabilities or long-term care needs. Consolidated Homeless Grant The Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG) is an important resource for the state's homeless crisis response system. It comprises four separate funds allocated to grantees such as county governments and nonprofits: CHG Standard, Permanent Supportive Housing for Chronically Homeless Families (PSH CHF), Eviction Prevention and Housing and Essential Needs (HEN). These grant programs fund various types of assistance, including homelessness prevention, street outreach, emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid re -housing and permanent supportive housing. Each fund has its own guidelines and grant management requirements, such as documentation needed for clients, reporting requirements, staff training requirements, operational expenses, administrative cost requirements and service delivery requirements. Each county must maintain a Coordinated Entry process and follow the Washing State Coordinated Entry Guidelines to keep a record of intake, assessment and referral that gets households in a housing crisis connected to available resources in the community. To qualify for CHG- funded support, households must meet both housing status and income requirements. The Department of Commerce's Housing Division publicly tracks CHG outcome measures for each county online, offering transparency about grantees' performance and adding an additional layer of accountability. Lead/subgrantees providing direct service must enter client data into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for all temporary and permanent housing interventions regardless of funding source, according to the most updated HMIS Data Standards. As mandated by the Homelessness Housing and Assistance Act, the Washington Department of Commerce is responsible for maintaining a statewide HMIS data warehouse. Commerce is responsible for operating a HMIS for counties that are part of the Balance of State Continuum of Care (CoC), while the five Washington counties with the largest populations have their own CoCs and separate HMIS. The Department of Commerce's Housing Division uses HMIS to analyze aggregate data and publish counties' homeless system performance and the state of equity in homeless systems, providing transparency about how counties are performing and information on CHG outcome measures. Both the Department of Commerce and the other CoCs report system performance measures to HUD. Emergency Solutions Grants The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program utilizes federal funding from HUD's Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transitions to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act). All Commerce grantees and subgrantees must follow all applicable sections of the program regulations, as outlined in the HUD ESG Interim Rule. The ESG grant aids communities in providing street outreach, emergency shelter, rental assistance and related services to adults and families with children facing or at risk of homelessness. Its main goals are to prevent homelessness among households at risk and rapidly re -house individuals experiencing homelessness. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 22 Packet Pg. 245 9.3.b In addition to the HUD Interim Rule, the Washington State Department of Commerce also has its own guidelines and grant management requirements for the ESG fund, such as documentation needed for clients and requirements for reporting, staff training, operational expenses, administrative costs and service delivery. To qualify for ESG-funded support, households must meet both housing status and income requirements. Similar to other grants, lead/subgrantees providing direct service must enter client data into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) for all temporary and permanent housing interventions regardless of .. funding source, according to the most updated HMIS Data Standards. o System Demonstration Grant The System Demonstration Grant (SDG) combines state homeless resources into a single grant opportunity for county governments under the administration of the Department of Commerce. It comprises four separate funds allocated to grantees such as county governments and nonprofits: SDG Standard, Permanent Supportive Housing for Chronically Homeless Families (PSH CHF), Eviction Prevention and Housing and Essential Needs (HEN). These grant programs fund various types of assistance, including homelessness prevention, street outreach, emergency shelters, transitional housing, rapid re -housing and permanent supportive housing." Each fund has its own guidelines and grant management requirements, such as documentation needed for clients and requirements for reporting, staff training, operational expenses, administrative costs and service delivery. To qualify for SDG-funded support, households must meet both housing status and income requirements. SDG counties should adhere to the HUD CoC Program Coordinated Entry requirements and guidelines as outlined in the Coordinated Entry Core Elements. Washington State Housing Finance Commission - Tax Credits The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, established under the 1986 Tax Reform Act, helps develop low-income rental housing by providing tax credits to qualified owners, including permanent supportive housing. The Washington State Housing Finance Commission administers these credits for residential rental properties in the state. The LIHTC program operates under a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), Rules and Policies, which outline preferences, criteria and procedures for credit allocation and compliance monitoring. The policies guide project evaluation and eligibility criteria, emphasizing values such as racial equity and resource efficiency. Commission staff interpret and administer the policies to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Washington State Housing Trust Fund Washington state's Housing Trust Fund can also provide capital for developing and preserving permanent supportive housing. Loans are provided for projects that serve households with less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), but most properties are for properties targeted to households with incomes less than 30% of AM[, including people experiencing homelessness and people needing supportive housing. Local Funding Sources In addition to state and federal resources, county and city governments can support funding STEP housing, facilities and service models. For example, the City of Seattle passed an unprecedented levy in 2023 to support affordable housing development, including units for people experiencing homelessness, and to provide short- 24 More details on SDG are available in the Department of Commerce's Guidelines for the System Demonstration Grant, Version 2, Updated June 10, 2024. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 23 Packet Pg. 246 9.3.b term rent assistance and housing stability services to prevent homelessness.25, 26 Each county also funds Rs own homeless services through locally retained document recording fees, as outlined in RCW 36.22.250. Other local option tools for addressing affordable housing funding gaps include:21 O Housing and related services sales tax (RCW 82.14.530) O Affordable housing property tax levy (RCW 84.52.105) O REET 2 (RCW 82.46.035) - GMA jurisdictions only and only available through 2025 O Lodging Tax (RCW 67.28.150 and RCW 67.28.160) to repay general obligation bonds or revenue bonds O Mental Illness and Drug Dependency Tax (RCW 82.14.460) - jurisdictions with a population over 30,000 O Donating surplus public lands for affordable housing projects (RCW 39.33.015) O Impact fee waivers for affordable housing projects (RCW 82.02.060) O Application fee waivers or other benefits for affordable housing projects (RCW 36.70A.540) Other Funding Sources Additionally, public housing authorities can use HUD Project Based Vouchers (PBVs) to support projects. PBVs are an integral part of a public housing authority's Housing Choice Voucher program aimed at providing affordable housing options. Public housing authorities utilize existing tenant -based voucher funding from the federal government to allocate PBV units to specific projects selected either through competitive or non- competitive processes. Up to 20% of authorized voucher units can be used for PBV assistance in projects where owners agree to affordable housing rehabilitation, construction or unit set -asides. In certain cases, an additional 10% of authorized voucher units may be used for PBVs. Private fundraising, philanthropic organizations and non -profits can also be funding sources for STEP development and operation. Examples in Washington state include the Amazon Housing Equity Fund, Evergreen Impact Housing Fund, Tulalip Foundation and the Washington Community Reinvestment Association. Community development financial institutions can also help finance STEP. For example: O Corporation for Supportive Housing offers predevelopment and acquisition financing for permanent supportive housing projects. O Impact Capital offers predevelopment and acquisition financing for any community facility (including emergency shelters) and any affordable housing (including transitional, emergency and permanent supportive housing). O Washington Community Reinvestment Association offers multifamily permanent loans for affordable housing projects and economic development loans for any community facility; this is not specifically for STEP, but if a permanent loan is required, WCRA could be an option. 21 Seattle Office of Housing. Mayor Bruce Harrell celebrates voters' historic passage of $970 million housing levy. The City of Seattle. 2023. https://housing.seattle.gov/mayor-bruce-harrell-celebrates-voters-historic-passage-of-970-million-housing4 vyL 26 Seattle Office of Housing. City of Seattle celebrates affordable housing investments and anti -displacement achievements. The City of Seattle. 2024. https://housina.seattle.gov/2023-housing-investments/ 27 Some tools may be unavailable for certain jurisdictions. For example, only GMA jurisdictions can use REET 2, or the surrounding county may have already implemented the housing and related services sales tax. See MRSC's summary of Affordable Housina Funding Sources for more details and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC)/MRSC booklet on Homelessness & housing toolkit for cities (2022). STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 24 Packet Pg. 247 9.3.b Chapter 4: Municipal Planning and Implementation This chapter provides an overview of the current situation in Washington state regarding regional and local planning for STEP. It covers how counties coordinate the allocation of housing needs to local jurisdictions and discusses how local governments are addressing the siting and permitting of STEP to help meet those housing needs. Planning Regionally for STEP Revisions to RCW 36.70A.070(2) in 2021 updated requirements for how fully planning jurisdictions must plan for housing in their comprehensive plans. To support local planning, the Department of Commerce provides projections of individual counties' housing needs by income level, including emergency housing and permanent supportive housing. Each county must decide collectively with its cities and towns how to allocate these projections among its local jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction must then document its share of countywide housing needs by income level and their plan to accommodate that share of housing needs in its comprehensive plan.28 The Department of Commerce's Housing for All Planning Tool provides countywide projected housing needs for all income levels. The income levels are 0-30% of area median income (AMI) non -permanent supportive housing, 0-30% AMI permanent supportive housing, 30-50% AMI, 50-80% AMI, 80-100% AMI, 100-120% AMI, and 120% AMI and above, as well as emergency housing needs. Commerce collaborated with stakeholders to develop the projection methodology.29 Each county that is fully planning under the Growth Management Act may have countywide planning policies and processes for allocating these needs to local jurisdictions. Many communities are still in the process of receiving their allocations, as the requirement deadlines to update comprehensive plans varies based on the individual county.31 Homelessness and housing affordability is a challenge that affects entire counties and requires solutions that often go beyond the resources of one city or town government. Therefore, many planning and implementation efforts take place at the county level in Washington. Typically, city and county governments collaborate with nonprofits and housing authorities to build and operate facilities and administer programs for people experiencing homelessness. Building a regional network of partners and stakeholders can be important for a successful plan to address homelessness. Tedd Kelleher, Housing Policy Director for the Washington State Department of Commerce, stresses the importance of using available data sources to understand existing housing conditions, including existing housing stock, household incomes, homeless populations and housing risk factors.31 28 Resources for projected housing needs are in Book 1 of Commerce's Housing Element Guidance. Projecting housing needs by income level begins on page 34. Information on how to allocate the countywide housing needs from the countywide projections to individual jurisdictions begins on page 60. 29 To view the Department of Commerce's methodology for projecting housing needs, see Book 1 of Commerce's Housing Element Guidance, starting on page 28. 30 The deadline for completing each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan is available on Commerce's Periodic Update webpage. 31 Counties should examine local data to understand their community demographics and the disparities in their homeless and unstably housed populations. See the Department of Commerce's Snapshot of Homelessness in Washington State for January 2021 for information about each county's homeless and unstably housed population. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 25 Packet Pg. 248 9.3.b Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.070(2) mandates that jurisdictions address several topics as they update the housing elements of their comprehensive plans. The plans must: • Identify existing and future housing needs, including their portion of projected countywide housing needs provided by Commerce. • Set goals and policies for moderate -density housing within urban growth areas. • Identify sufficient land available to meet housing needs across all income levels, including emergency housing and permanent supportive housing. • Document barriers to housing availability and actions to remove these barriers. • Identify racially disparate impacts and risks of displacement from housing policies. • Establish anti -displacement measures and policies to begin to undo racially disparate impacts.32 Dave Andersen, the Managing Director of the Growth Management Services unit, says successful communities revise their housing planning strategies to focus on inclusivity and equity to accommodate residents across all income levels. This work entails a shift towards planning for diverse housing options such as apartments, condominiums, missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units, as well as deeply affordable housing types such as permanent supportive housing and emergency housing. Counties' Policies and Approaches for Allocating Housing Needs Counties have employed various approaches to allocating housing needs among local jurisdictions. Allocating housing needs by income level to jurisdictions within the county involves several steps, most notably determining the amount of overall population and housing that goes to each jurisdiction and then the allocation of housing needs by income level. As counties decide where overall population and housing should be directed, most communities use data on employment locations, transportation accessibility, service availability, infrastructure and land capacity to determine the appropriate percentage of housing growth to plan for in each area. These percentages are then integrated into the Department of Commerce's Housing for All Planning Tool to determine an allocation of housing needs by income level to each jurisdiction or to inform a local -designed method of allocating housing needs. Many counties have policies about where overall growth should be directed within the county that can assist with this work. Commerce also recommends that counties develop countywide policies about where more affordable housing should be planned for to support the allocation of housing needs. In King County, the county developed countywide planning policies to guide where growth would be directed within the county and principles to determine the allocation of housing needs by income level to jurisdictions. These principles included increasing housing choices for low- and moderate -income households in areas with fewer affordable housing options currently and promoting a more equitable allocation of housing choices across all jurisdictions. After significant stakeholder coordination, they decided on a framework where more affordable housing would be directed to places with fewer affordable housing options, fewer income -restricted housing options, and a greater imbalance of low -wage workers to low -wage jobs. Some counties have special circumstances to consider for allocating their housing needs. For example, local tourism plays a vital role in driving the economy of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, and the area needs affordable housing for tourism workers to live in throughout the year. The region witnesses an increase in the number of visitors during the summer, and there is also a growing trend of vacation homes that remain vacant sz Washington State Department of Commerce. Guidance and Data for Updating Housing Elements. Webinar. May 2023. https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/j3fq kx8x7brlstds3yv4gh7p9zwpure6 STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 26 Packet Pg. 249 9.3.b for a significant part of the year. Furthermore, short-term vacation rentals such as Air BnBs are becoming a dominant segment of the housing supply, which limits housing availability for other residents. This situation is particularly severe for lower -income residents. As they move away, the county loses its working-class population, which can have severe consequences for the local economy. Jefferson County will be considering this local trend as they complete their housing need allocations in 2024. Accommodating and Regulating STEP Locally Based on a review of recently implemented local STEP regulations and state of the practice interviews, some local regulations and processes to permit STEP conflict with the state and federal laws noted in Chapter 3, while others incentivize the production of STEP to help address their county's housing needs. In general, local regulations have the potential to provide more flexibility and greater opportunities for establishing STEP. Where to Allow STEP 0 In some cases, local ordinances permit the construction of STEP in mixed -use and commercial areas, which is consistent with state law. Some jurisdictions have multifamily zoning overlays that allow for permanent supportive housing in single-family residential zones, which is also consistent. However, some communities still limit STEP in these areas, and others do not address certain types of STEP (e.g., emergency shelter and emergency housing) in their ordinances, which is inconsistent with state law. 0 In certain communities, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing are permitted in residential areas based on special criteria (e.g., limits on total units or total residents, distance from other STEP types and transit and total staff on -site). These regulations may be inconsistent with RCW 36.130.020 when other residential housing types do not have these same restrictions or criteria. Similar local regulations are commonly applied to emergency shelter and emergency housing in commercial zones. 0 Generally, local regulations encourage STEP development in areas that already have access to services, such as transit, which is a best practice. However, some communities require such projects to be within a certain distance of transit facilities, which can create a barrier for STEP development and may be inconsistent with state law if this restriction is not clearly linked to public health and safety purposes. Occupancy, Spacing and Intensity Rules Local regulations for STEP also often include rules related to occupancy, spacing, density, parking, environmental standards and other development and operational requirements. Typical restrictions on the spacing, occupancy and intensity of use of STEP in local jurisdictions include limits on the number of people a project can serve by placing limits on total units and/or occupancy, the number of staff and the distance between STEP projects. These restrictions can be inconsistent with state law if these restrictions are not tied to public health and safety (e.g., reference to local building code) or limit a sufficient number of STEP housing to accommodate a jurisdiction's local projected housing need. Some communities have distance restrictions that prohibit the construction of emergency shelters or emergency housing within one-half mile of another existing or proposed shelter or emergency housing project Variations of this requirement are common in Washington's jurisdictions. Other less common restrictions include limits on how many STEP projects can exist in a community and limits on how close STEP projects can be to schools. In most cases, jurisdictions have not included findings on how these regulations are linked to public health and safety, which may be in conflict with state law, and possibly federal Fair Housing laws. Most of these jurisdictions have also not identified that these restrictions still permit a sufficient number of STEP housing to accommodate local housing needs. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 27 Packet Pg. 250 9.3.b Most jurisdictions also do not have special provisions regarding density bonuses for STEP sponsored by religious organizations, which prevents them from allowing increased densities consistent with RCW 36.70A.5451 and is therefore inconsistent with state law. Development and Operational Requirements Other development regulations and operating requirements have been incorporated in recent local ordinances regarding STEP that differ from requirements for other residential dwelling types, and therefore are likely inconsistent with state law for permanent supportive housing and transitional housing (RCW 36.120.020) and may create barriers for all STEP, including: O Specific parking, setback and lot requirements O Required operations plans O Required coordination with local police and fire departments (e.g., developing safety plans) O Public noticing requirements O Required approaches for mitigating potential impacts on the project's surrounding neighborhood O Requirements for what services and amenities must be available on -site O Minimum stay and eligibility criteria for tenants O Regular performance reporting requirements O Subjecting projects to special inspections (e.g., mandatory annual inspections) Some local developers recommend that jurisdictions become more flexible regarding their requirements, especially parking minimums, when projects anticipate a high ratio of tenants who use public transportation or have alternate modes of transportation and do not need onsite parking. Operations Plans Many communities require STEP or certain STEP types, such as emergency shelters or emergency housing, to submit operations plans before they can be permitted. The required information varies by jurisdiction. However, common documentation requirements include: O Contact information for staff key and their roles and responsibilities O A facility management plan, including security policies and an emergency management plan O Site and facility maintenance policies O Occupancy policies O Staffing plans and outcome measures for human and social services plan and outcome measures O A community engagement plan O Documentation of record -keeping processes O A description of transportation either provided or accessible to residents While not common in Washington, some jurisdictions have additional requirements, like staff background checks, minimum codes of conduct for STEP tenants, good neighbor agreements and business licenses. In many cases in the state of the practice review, besides which zones they are permitted in, all STEP types must meet the same local development and operational requirements. However, in some communities, emergency shelters and emergency housing have additional requirements that permanent supportive housing and transitional housing do not (e.g., required operations plans, distance from schools, floor area ratios, occupancy standards and good neighbor agreements). To support specific types of STEP projects that support vulnerable populations, some communities offer exemptions to regulations, such as public notice requirements, for projects designed to be confidential locations —for example, shelters and housing for survivors of domestic violence. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 28 Packet Pg. 251 9.3.b Permitting STEP The local permitting process for STEP can vary depending on the jurisdiction and their permitting procedures. The approval process for a land use permit depends on whether the permit is classified as Type I, 11, III, or other permit. While the number of permit types and their terminology may vary by jurisdiction,33 in general, the more complex the project, the greater level of public notice and review is needed.sa, ss For example, simple building permits are administratively approved under a Type I permit, while permitting for projects requiring a higher c level of review such as conditional use permits commonly fall under Type III and higher. g Project permit decisions can involve different decision makers and different levels of public input. Project permits approved by local planning staff without public hearings are considered administratively approved. More complex projects may involve review by a hearings examiner, public hearings and may include discretion in permitting decisions. These permit types are called quasi-judicial because additional procedures are factored into the permitting decision. Generally speaking, quasi-judicial permitting proceedings provide for public notice, public testimony and decisions based on adopted criteria. Conditional use permits and variances heard and decided by a hearings examiner are common examples of quasi-judicial permits. Table 3 provides examples of processes for STEP based on the state of the practice review. Table 3 - Examples of Local Permit Processes Approval Process Administrative Type I projects commonly only require administrative approval without public notice. Some jurisdictions require only administrative approval for Description STEP in certain areas (i.e., they do not require approval at the level of hearing examiner or planning commission), which removes barriers to STEP production. Public Hearing No Administrative Discretionary In some jurisdictions, Type II projects can be approved administratively with public notice and extra land use regulations, while in others, they may require approval by a hearing examiner. Hearing examiners often approve conditional use permits, which require a higher level of approval than administrative. Some jurisdictions require a pre - application review and meeting for Type II projects and higher to help expedite the permitting process. No, unless on appeal Quasi -Judicial Type III projects often require public notice and a public hearing before a hearing examiner, or in rare cases the planning commission or city council, who makes the final decision. For example, in mixed -use and commercial districts, some jurisdictions require a public comment period and final approval from a hearing examiner for STEP projects, which can create barriers to increasing STEP. Yes 33 For more examples of local permit procedures, read MRSC's Streamlining Local Permit Review Procedures (2024). 34 For resources on local planning, project review, and permitting, read the relevant sections of the Department of Commerce's A Short Course On Local Planning Resource Guide Version 5.3 (2017). 31 The Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B) codified into state law a series of best practices for the local land use permit process to better enable citizens and developers to know what to expect and to provide for more timely and efficient permit issuance. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 29 Packet Pg. 252 9.3.b Type I decisions may be Type II decisions are generally Type III decisions are generally Appeal appealable depending on local appealed to court under the Land project processes. appealable to a hearings examiner. Use Petition Act (LUPA). Some jurisdictions in Washington state still require a conditional -use permit for all STEP regardless of their location, which is usually not consistent with state law for permanent supportive housing and transitional housing (RCW 36.130.020). As conditional use projects, these must meet certain criteria and go through a special approval process that can delay the project's timeline and increase the likelihood that the city council or the decision -making entity will not approve the project due to public opposition. One jurisdiction modified its land use regulations, broadening zoning codes to include permanent supportive housing in its definition of multifamily dwellings. This change means that permanent supportive housing is now automatically allowed without additional conditions, consistent with RCW 36.130.020. Some jurisdictions require a conditional -use permit for emergency housing and emergency shelter. This permit type has stricter requirements to ensure the project can be compatible with the neighborhood. During the project's application stage, administrative staff conduct a thorough review of the project to ensure compliance with all local requirements. Once the project is confirmed to be in compliance, a public hearing is held with a hearing examiner who will issue the final decision. Based on feedback and questions from local jurisdictions to the Department of Commerce, many communities are looking for solutions to reduce barriers for the siting and development of STEP. Based on a review of local examples, Commerce recommends local governments consider the following ways to reduce barriers to permitting STEP when developing their regulations: • Allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing to be permitted with the same process as housing development generally (RCW 36.130.020). • Use the lowest level permitting type for STEP possible. • To support classifying STEP as a permitted use outright with an administrative review, a jurisdiction can adopt clear conditions and criteria for review to aid judgment in making decisions. • Ensure when a conditional use process is required for STEP, the requirements to address compatibility and possible impacts are detailed clearly in code to allow a clear and objective permitting process. Permitted STEP Projects in Washington STEP projects of varying types and building forms are located throughout the state: An example of a permitted emergency shelter built in Washington is The HUB on Third (opened in 2017) in Walla Walla. This facility is adjacent to a local public high school and provides services for homeless and at -risk youth, including a six -bed emergency shelter, a medical clinic and day care for parenting youth. The project is co -located with a permanent supportive housing development. Several public STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 30 Packet Pg. 253 funding sources made The HUB possible, including the Washington State Housing Trust Fund, State Building Communities Fund and the City of Walla Walla's Community Development Block Grant funds." • An example of transitional housing in Washington is Tulalip Village of Hope (opened in 2022) on the Tulalip Reservation.37 This community has 17 tiny homes for Tulalip individuals and families, each with one to two bedrooms and full kitchens and bathrooms. A common building onsite has a shared computer lab, conference room, therapeutic room and community space. Residents have access to counseling and social work support, case management and programming focusing on topics such as personal finance and self- improvement.38 The site was formerly the Tulalip Homeless Shelter, but it was expanded to provide transitional housing when it became apparent that no affordable housing was available for people to move into. • An example of permanent supportive housing is Plymouth on First Hill (opened in 2017), a multi -story apartment building in Seattle with 80 furnished studio apartments.39 This building is strategically located near medical institutions and The HUB on Third in Walla Walla (co -located emergency shelter, health care and childcare services). Source: Blue Mountain Action Council Plymouth on First Hill in Seattle (permanent supportive housing), Source: Plymouth Housing provides medical and behavioral health care to residents on site. Residents also have access to community rooms and a computer lab, which is available for job searching. Another shelter example includes The Catalyst in Spokane (formerly a Quality Inn), which is operated by Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington and partially funded by the Washington State Department of Commerce Rights of Way Initiative / Encampment Resolution Program. The Catalyst (opened in 2022) provides 87 rooms and various services for people experiencing homelessness, such as meals, laundry, transportation, substance misuse programs, healthcare access and local benefit connections.40 36 GS Consulting. The HUB on Third, Walla Walla (Sept. 2017). https://gsaffordablehousing.com/past-projects/f/the-hub-on-third-walla- walla 37 Washington State Department of Commerce. The Tulalip Tribe Village of Hope: 17 tiny homes become permanent supportive housing. 2023. https://wastatecommerce.medium.com/the-tulalip-tribe-village-of-hope-17-tiny-homes-become-permanent-supportive- hous i ng-e4dcc62072d7 38 Tulalip Tribes. Village of Hope — Transitional Housing and Permanent Supportive Housing. www.tulaliptribes- nsn.gov/Dept/VillageOfHopee 39 Plymouth Housing. What's it like inside a Plymouth building?. https://pllymouthhousing.org/our-housing/tour-a-Plymouth-building/ 40 Catholic Charities Eastern Washington. www.cceasternwa.org/catalyst STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 254 9.3.b An example of permitted emergency housing is the SafePlace shelter in Olympia. This shelter allows adults and children fleeing from domestic violence to stay temporarily and receive social services. It has 10 bedrooms with 28 beds. People staying there have access to food and a kitchen, a telephone, computers and laundry. They also receive advocacy and crisis intervention services, support group meetings, child advocacy and safety planning support. Staff are always onsite.41 Barriers to STEP Development Local regulations and processes can have a significant impact on STEP production. These policies can either reduce red tape and bureaucracy or create obstacles for development, so it can be helpful for local governments to understand potential challenges to help address them effectively. A number of barriers exist for developing STEP and affordable housing in general, including but not limited to: O Rising costs of land, labor, materials and insurance O High permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees O Slow or limited capacity at local jurisdictions to process, permit and approve a proposed development O Lack of clear and accessible information on the permitting process O Limited developer and workforce capacity O NIMBY (Not -In -My -Backyard) attitudes O Neighborhood covenants and restrictions O Limited subsidized funding sources O Requirements to fund new infrastructure Some local regulations and requirements may also create barriers for STEP development, including, but not limited to: O Unclear development regulations and regulations inconsistent with state and federal laws (e.g., Fair Housing Laws) O Requirements for STEP that are different from those for general housing development O Conditional use permits, design review requirements and discretionary review processes O Spacing requirements (e.g., minimum distances from parks, schools or other facilities) O Limiting maximum densities or floor area ratios O Excessive off-street parking requirements, building height limits and ground -floor retail requirements O Facility, operating and reporting requirements O Requirements for coordination with local police and fire departments O Arbitrary limits on occupants or operation times O Restrictions on support spaces, such as office space, within a permanent supportive housing building in a residential zone O Requiring many additional plans, agreements or conditions (e.g., good neighbor agreements, background checks, or sobriety) Jurisdictions that want to implement regulations in line with state and federal laws and encourage STEP production can avoid adding unnecessary regulations and requirements. Instead, they can adopt the best 41 SafePlace. Residential Services SafePlace Shelter. https://www.safeplaceolympia.orci/a-safe-place-to-stay.html STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 255 9.3.b practices emerging from other Washington jurisdictions and communities across the country when developing their local ordinances. Promising Practices Communities in Washington state and across the country have implemented measures to remove barriers to STEP and encourage STEP production. The following are promising practices from some of those jurisdictions including allowing STEP outright as a permitted use in certain areas, reducing regulations and requirements for STEP, expediting permitting processes for STEP, incentivizing STEP and encouraging STEP near existing infrastructure and services. O Allow STEP developments outright as a permitted use in designated zones to streamline permitting. In some areas of Washington state, STEP is still listed as a conditional use, so projects have additional regulations that typically involve a local government review process, and may also include a public input process that may delay permitting projects. The purpose of this process is to more carefully assess the development's potential impacts on traffic, noise, safety and community character before granting approval. To increase STEP production, communities can allow these projects in certain zones without this additional process. For instance, in California, the County of Los Angeles Homelessness Initiative encourages local jurisdictions to designate at least one area where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use outright, also referred to as allowed by-right.42 O Reduce and clarify requirements to streamline permitting and decrease barriers for STEP development. Many initial STEP local ordinances and regulations are not consistent with state law by including occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements for STEP that are not explicitly linked to public health and safety in their ordinance. Additionally, many communities impose potentially burdensome development, operating, facility, reporting, service and other requirements for STEP that differ from those for other similar residential dwelling types. When developing local ordinances and regulations, jurisdictions can limit additional requirements for STEP to speed up permitting, limit discretionary approval processes, reduce work for local government staff, support developers and help increase affordable housing and STEP production. O Expedite permitting processes for STEP projects, thereby providing quicker, more predictable timelines that help prevent cost increases caused by project delays. For example, Seattle has implemented an expedited permitting process to encourage STEP production. Permanent supportive housing projects are now exempt from design reviews, which can help speed up their construction timelines and address issues of homelessness and housing insecurity more quickly. Another example includes the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County, which worked closely together to expedite the permitting for a specific project that incorporates safe parking, a tiny house village and permanent supportive housing on the same piece of county -owned property. Expedited permitting processes require sufficient staff, so jurisdictions interested in this strategy can start by assessing whether they need to hire additional employees to expedite reviews more efficiently. O Provide land use and financial incentives to encourage more STEP production. Affordable housing and STEP developments face numerous challenges before they can reach the construction phase, and a lack of project financing is often one of the most significant barriers. To help STEP projects overcome this challenge, jurisdictions can play an important role by providing support through grants or loans, density bonuses, reduced or waived fees, regulatory exemptions, free or discounted land, and more. A few cities with incentives for affordable housing and STEP include Anacortes, Bellevue, Bothell, Burien, Marysville, 42 The Los Angeles County Homeless Initiative. Do's and Don'ts for Emergency Shelter Zoning. https://homeless.lacounty_gov/w - content/uploads/2017/1 1/SB-2-Dos-and-Donts.pdf STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 33 Packet Pg. 256 9.3.b Redmond, Sammamish and Seattle. King County established the Health Through Housing Initiative, w 1c uses its affordable housing sales tax funds to collaborate with local cities to build up to 1,600 emergency housing and permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing or at risk of chronic homelessness.as,aa O Encourage STEP development in locations close to healthcare services, transportation, job and other amenities to promote economic mobility and access to services. To meet the growing demand for housing and other community needs, local affordable housing and STEP providers and developers agree that jurisdictions can support the development of successful STEP by being intentional about the location of STEP. Many communities throughout Washington state and the country encourage affordable housing and STEP development in areas where existing infrastructure and services exist to promote sustainability; inclusivity; accessible services, transportation and employment opportunities; and the overall wellbeing of residents. Therefore, STEP housing is best suited for urban growth areas and cities, but may be appropriate in select Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRDs) if enough support services, transportation and infrastructure services are available. O Partner with local service providers to create STEP regulations that are responsive to their needs. Affordable housing developers and service providers understand what is involved with developing STEP and how STEP operates. These stakeholders can help a local jurisdiction identify places in code where the regulations may cause barriers to STEP development and identify ways to reduce or remove those barriers. Communities can use these emerging best practices to encourage affordable housing production, meet local housing needs and support STEP developers, clients and staff. Implementing these practices can benefit some of Washington's most vulnerable populations, increase housing stability, promote community integration and contribute to larger initiatives to tackle homelessness and housing insecurity in the state. The Department of Commerce also highly encourages communities to adopt the state's model ordinance and other recommendations in the STEP Model Ordinance, Users Guide and Best Practices Report to increase STEP development in the state of Washington. To further support jurisdictions in the adoption and implementation of their ordinances related to STEP, Commerce is developing the STEP Communications Toolkit, including a sample staff report and other materials to help local planning staff, appointed and elected officials and others communicate the benefits, challenges and best practices associated with planning for STEP. These tools will be coordinated and consistent with the Department of Commerce Housing Division's Apple Health and Homes Permanent Supportive Housing Communications Toolkit. 43 King County. Health through Housing A Regional Approach to Address Chronic Homelessness. https://kinacounty_aov/en/legacy/depts/community-human-services/initiatives/health-through- housing#:-:text=The%20Health%2OThrouah%2OHousinci%20%28HTH%29%201nitiative%20is%20an.people%20experiencinci%20or%20a t%20risk%20of%20chronic%20 homelessness. 44 HB 1590, laws of 2019, authorizes county or city legislative authorities to impose a local sales and use tax for housing and related services and eliminates the requirement that the tax be subject to the approval of a majority of county or city voters. For other local funding affordable housing funding tools, see Appendix B, Exhibit B5 (pages 120-121) of Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 34 Packet Pg. 257 9.3.b Appendices Other Potentially Relevant Laws and Definitions It is important to note that not all definitions in this section are in the Growth Management Act (GMA), so they are not necessarily applicable or binding for the purposes of GMA planning, but are included because they provide some additional context on the terms when they are not defined in the GMA. For example, the definition of homelessness or homeless comes from the Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1981. Adult family home is a dwelling, licensed by the State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services, in which a person or persons provide personal care, special care, room and board to more than one but not more than six adults who are not related by blood or marriage to the person or persons providing the services. An existing adult family home may provide services to up to eight adults upon approval from the Department of Social and Health Services. Licensure requirements are covered under RCW 70.128.066 and in accordance with Section 903 of the Washington State Fire Code, which states that an adult family home with a capacity of seven or eight that serves residents who require assistance during an evacuation must install an automatic sprinkler system. Assisted living facility means any home or other institution, however named, which is advertised, announced or maintained for the express or implied purpose of providing housing, basic services, and assuming general responsibility for the safety and well-being of the residents, and may also provide domiciliary care, to seven or more residents after July 1, 2000. However, an assisted living facility that is licensed for three to six residents prior to or on July 1, 2000, may maintain its assisted living facility license as long as it is continually licensed as an assisted living facility. "Assisted living facility" shall not include any independent senior housing, independent living units in continuing care retirement communities, or other similar living situations including those subsidized by the department of housing and urban development. RCW 18.20.020 Crisis residential center is defined as an agency which is a temporary protective residential facility operated to perform the duties specified in chapter 13.32A RCW, in the manner provided in RCW 43.185C.295 through 43.185C.310. Experiencing homelessness is defined as lacking a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, including circumstances such as sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, fleeing domestic violence, or a similar reason as described in the federal McKinney-Vento homeless assistance act (Title 42 U.S.C., chapter 119, subchapter 1) as it existed on January 1, 2021. RCW 13.34.030(9) Group home means a residence that is licensed as either an assisted living facility or an adult family home by the Department of Social and Health Services under chapter 388-78A or 388-76 WAC. Group homes provide community residential instruction, supports and services to two or more clients who are unrelated to the provider. Group training home means a certified nonprofit residential facility that provides full-time care, treatment, training and maintenance for clients, as defined under RCW 71 A.22.020(2). Homelessness or Homeless is defined as a condition where an individual lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence and who has a primary nighttime residence that is: A supervised, publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations; a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings; or a private residence where STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 35 Packet Pg. 258 9.3.b the individual stays as a transient invite (RCW 9.94A.030(30)). This definition is not from the Growth Management Act but comes from the Sentencing Reform Act of 1981. Homeless person is defined as an individual living outside or in a building not meant for human habitation or in which they have no legal right to occupy, in an emergency shelter or in a temporary housing program that may include a transitional and supportive housing program if habitation time limits exist. This definition includes substance abusers, people with mental illness and sex offenders who are homeless (RCW 43.185C.010(12)). This definition is not from the Growth Management Act but is found in the homeless housing and assistance statutes. Residential treatment facility means an establishment in which twenty-four hour on -site care is provided for the evaluation, stabilization or treatment of residents for substance use, mental health, co-occurring disorders or for drug exposed infants. RCW 71.12.455(7) Supported living means instruction, supports and services provided by service providers to clients living in homes that are owned, rented or leased by the client or their legal representative. WAC 388-101-3000(49) RCW 9A.44.190 and RCW 9A.44.193 (re: sex offenders near children) state an owner, manager or operator may order a covered offender from the legal premises of a covered entity, defined as a public or private facility whose primary purpose is to provide for the education, care or recreation of a child or children, including but not limited to community and recreational centers, playgrounds, schools, swimming pools and state or municipal parks. To do this, the owner, manager or operator must provide the offender a written notice that informs them to leave the legal premises and not return without the written permission of the covered entity. Licensing Requirements for Transient Accommodations and Crisis Shelters Chapter 246-360 WAC outlines health and safety standards for transient accommodations in Washington state, covering establishments providing three or more lodging units for stays shorter than thirty days. This includes crisis shelters, though not all emergency shelters may fit the specific crisis shelter definition. Crisis shelters are required to obtain a valid license from the DOH, with renewal required annually. Licensing processes involve submitting applications, self -inspection reports and passing an on -site survey. Licensees must adhere to regulations outlined in Chapter 70.62 RCW and other relevant state and local laws, displaying their license prominently. Responsibilities include conducting self -inspections, responding to deficiencies issued by the DOH and ensuring premises maintenance. DOH regulates facility functions in transient accommodations to meet basic health and safety standards and enforces compliance when needed. Specific standards are outlined for amenities such as water supply, sewage disposal construction, heating and bedding. Compliance ensures adequate services for residents. RCW 43.185C.295 also outlines specific licensing and operating requirements for residential crisis shelters that specifically serve juveniles and youth facing homelessness or family instability. Related Case Law A number of related cases exist regarding the siting, development and operation of STEP. The following is a living list of cases that will be updated over time. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 36 Packet Pg. 259 9.3.b Olmstead v. L.C. In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision in the Olmstead v. L.C. case, which requires states to offer community services to individuals with mental disabilities so that they can live in community settings rather than in institutions. This decision creates greater opportunities for people with disabilities to choose where they want to live and helps address racial equity, as Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) are disproportionately represented in institutional care. STEP is one way to support people with disabilities in living and becoming integrated into the community.45 Homeward Bound in Puyallup v. City of Puyallup In 2018, the City of Puyallup adopted an ordinance related to the siting of day use centers and overnight shelters serving people experiencing homelessness. The ordinance only permitted these uses in the city's limited manufacturing district, subject to certain restrictions such as obtaining a conditional use permit. However, in 2019, the Growth Management Hearings Board found this law to be incompatible with the city's comprehensive plan policies. Consequently, Puyallup revised its ordinance, allowing these facilities to be established in commercial areas as well as limited manufacturing zones, which the Hearing Board found to be in compliance. Despite these changes, the city's amendments have continued to be challenged, with some claiming that Puyallup is violating the Growth Management Act and not doing enough to plan for and accommodate STEP, like in Homeward Bound in Puyallup v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board and the City of Puyallup. Martin v. City of Boise In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the City of Boise's petition regarding its Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances, which upheld the law that people experiencing homelessness in the 9th Circuit (covering nine states) cannot be punished for sleeping outside on public property if adequate alternatives are not provided. The ruling in Martin v. Boise encouraged local governments to plan for alternatives to homelessness. However, on June 28, 2024, in the case of Grant Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Martin v. Boise ruling. Johnson v. City of Grants Pass In 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in the Johnson v. City of Grants Pass case, upheld a ban on criminalizing people sleeping outside on public property. As in Martin v. Boise, the court determined that without adequate alternatives, people experiencing homelessness can sleep in tents, vehicles or use other forms of shelter without being subjected to civil or criminal prosecution or fines.46 However, on June 28, 2024, in the case of Grant Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that jurisdictions could criminalize camping and sleeping in public, overturning the Grant Pass case's previous decision.47 Catholic Community Services of Western Washington vs. City of Federal Way Community Development Department 41 Corporation Supportive Housing. Supportive Housing and Olmstead: State of the Conversation. February 2024. www.csh.org/w- content/uploads/2024/03/CSH-Supportive-Housing-and-Olmstead-2024.pdf 46 National Low Income Housing Coalition. Court Declares Civil and Criminal Punishments for Homelessness Are Cruel and Unusual 2022. https://nlihc.org/resource/court-declares-civil-and-criminal-punishments-homelessness-are-cruel-and-unusual 47 For information on combating the criminalization of homelessness, see the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance's toolkit. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 37 Packet Pg. 260 9.3.b In 2023, the City of Federal Way denied an application from Catholic Community Services for the change OT use of a motel to an emergency shelter. The city denied the application because it violated FWRC 19.220.105, which includes spacing requirements for emergency housing and shelters.48 Catholic Community Services filed an appeal challenging the city's method of measuring the distance between the shelters, as well as the validity of FWRC 19.220.105. The appeal also asserted that FWRC 19.220.105 does not comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA) or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The hearing examiner dismissed the appeal because the examiner had no jurisdiction "to address the validity of City c ordinances."49 Additionally, because FWRC 19.220.105 was not appealed to the Growth Management Hearings 9 board within 60 days of publication, the hearing examiner had no jurisdiction to decide on the code's o compliance with the GMA.50 0 Catholic Community Services also filed a land use petition in the Superior Court of Washington for King County regarding the city's use of spacing requirements to limit the siting of a sufficient number of emergency shelters and emergency housing.51 The superior court dismissed the case without trial, affirming the hearing examiner's earlier decision. 48 FWRC 19.220.105. Emergency Housing and Shelter. httos://www.codeDublishina.com/WA/FederalWav/htmI/FederalWavl 9/FederalWav19220.html#19.220.105 49 Administrative Appeal, Permit No. 22-105684-UP. July 31, 2023. HEX 23-004 Summary Judgment Order - Catholic Community Services (Dismissed)pdf (cityoffederalway.com) 50RCW 36.70A.290(21. 51 Case 23-2-15583-1 SEA. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington vs. City of Federal Way Community Development Department. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 261 MODEL ORDINANCE AND COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT FOR STEP r- c y 0 x a w cn Q v3.5 Packet Pg. 262 9.3.c Acknowledgments Washington State Department of Commerce Laura Hodgson, Housing Planning and Data Manager, Growth Management Services Unit (GMS), Local Government Division (LGD) Anne Fritzel, AICP, Housing Section Manager, GMS, LGD Kirsten Jewell, Housing Policy Manager, Housing Division (HD) Melodie Pazolt, Managing Director, Apple Health and Homes Permanent Supportive Housing Unit, HD Kathy Kinard, Managing Director, Homelessness Assistance Unit, HD Abt Global Lindsey Elam, AICP, Senior Analyst Jill Khadduri, PhD, Principal Associate Katie Kitchin, Director, State and Local Housing and Asset Building Candace Baker, Associate Nam Ha, Associate Analyst Georgia Rawhouser-Mylet, Associate Analyst Frances Walker, Research Assistant The Corporation for Supportive Housing Theresa Tanoury, MSW, Seattle -based Senior Program Manager Lori Gutierrez, MSW, Senior Program Manager Debbie Thiele, Western Region Managing Director Sharon Rapport, California State Policy Director Angela Brooks, FAICP, Illinois Program Director 1011 Plum St. SE P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 www.commerce.wa.gov For people with disabilities, this report is available on request in other formats. To submit a request, please call 360-725-4000 (TTY 360-586-0772). STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Advisory Committee: Alliance for Housing Affordability at Housing Authority of Snohomish County Association of Washington Cities (AWC) City of Bellingham City of Port Townsend City of Spokane City of Vancouver City of Wenatchee Dee Caputo, FAICP, Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services (Retired) Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC) Futurewise GS Consulting King County, Health through Housing Mercy Housing Northwest Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) Local jurisdictions and organizations that participated in the interviews that informed this report: City of Federal Way City of Kenmore City of Kent City of Langley City of Olympia City of Spokane City of Vancouver City of Wenatchee GS Consulting King County Lewis County Plymouth Affordable Housing Development Snohomish County Washington State Department of Health a w Cn ,° a� U c ca c 0 E �L a� Packet Pg. 263 9.3.c Table of Contents Chapter1: Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................4 Background............................................................................................................ Emerging Best Practices....................................................................................... 5 6 Chapter2: Background........................................................................................................................................................................................7 2021 Updates to the Growth Management Act......................................................................................................................................................................7 RelevantState and Federal Laws............................................................................................................................................................................................8 State of the Practice in Washi .............................................................................................................10 Chapter3: Planning for STEP 101......................................................................................................................................................................13 STEP Definitions ..................................... STEP Financing and Development Process ................ Supporting STEP Projects and Operations .................. 13 15 17 Chapter4: Comprehensive Planning for STEP....................................................................................................................................................18 Chapter5: Permitting STEP...............................................................................................................................................................................19 Chapter6: Model Ordinance...............................................................................................................................................................................22 Chapter7: Accommodating Enough STEP..........................................................................................................................................................31 Demonstrating Sufficient Land Capacity 31 ReducingDevelopment Barriers............................................................................................................................................................................................32 Addressing Potential Community Concerns........................................................................................................................................................................35 Chapter8: Adoption and Implementation...........................................................................................................................................................39 Appendix...........................................................................................................................................................................................................40 Methodology...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................40 STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 3 Packet Pg. 264 9.3.c Chapter 1: Introduction The Washington State Department of Commerce created the STEP User Guide and Best Practices Report to assist planning staff, elected and appointed officials, and other representatives of Washington's jurisdictions as they develop local ordinances and regulations pertaining to the siting and development of Emergency shelter, Transitional housing, Emergency housing and Permanent supportive housing (STEP) Definitions for these types of housing and shelter are in the Growth Management Act and other statutes. 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. RCW 36.70A.030(15) Transitional housing means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families for up to two years' and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living. RCW 84.36.043(3)(c) Emergency housing is temporary indoor accommodations for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless and is intended to address 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.3 RCW 36.70A.030(14) • Permanent supportive housing is subsidized, leased housing with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy. It utilizes admissions practices designed to use lower barriers to The HUB on Third in Walla Walla (co -located emergency shelter, health care and childcare services), Source: Blue Mountain Action Council (BMAC) The PAD House in Whatcom County (emergency housing), Source: Northwest Youth Services Gonzaga Family Haven in Spokane (permanent supportive housing), Source: Catholic Charities of Eastern Washington 1 For STEP, temporary applies to the person and how long they reside there, not the structure or length of time for the land use. However, when planning for STEP, it is best for communities not to limit lengths of stay because it could be inconsistent with a project's funding requirements. 2 Although transitional housing is designed to move people into permanent housing in less than two years, some transitional housing programs do not limit the stay to two years. 3 Any STEP project that requires a lease or occupancy agreement is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW (Landlord Tenant Law). a w U) w a� _ 0 E .L d w _ STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 4 Packet Pg. 265 9.3.c entry than typical for other subsidized or unsubsldlzed 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. RCW 36.70A.030(31) Background Washington experienced a significant 19.9% increase in homelessness from 2007 to 2023 a one of the main reasons for this is the state's lack of affordable housing, resulting in housing prices rising faster than the lowest incomes .5, 6 To address this crisis, state and local governments must encourage a variety of shelter and housing options, including STEP, to meet the unique needs of individuals, families, unaccompanied youth, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and other subpopulations who are at the greatest risk of losing their housing in these market conditions. Fully planning local governments are required to identify sufficient land capacity for future housing needs of all economic segments and must address barriers such as zoning and other rules that affect housing production (RCW 36.70A.070(2)). Cities are also required to allow STEP housing in certain zones (RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430). This report provides an overview of information local governments may need to plan for their local STEP housing needs, including: • Emerging best practices for planning for STEP, • Relevant state and federal laws for regulating STEP, • Information on STEP housing types, development processes, planning steps, and permitting processes for STEP, • A model ordinance for jurisdictions to use in developing their local STEP regulations, • Guidance for local governments as they develop their regulations for STEP, and • Strategies local governments can employ to encourage STEP development. Commerce contracted with Abt Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing to create this report that localities can use throughout Washington. To ensure the effectiveness of these efforts, an advisory committee consisting of local government representatives, developers and non-profit organizations provided guidance and feedback. The development of the report's contents also considered public input and emerging best practices from communities in Washington and other parts of the country. 4 de Sousa, et al. The Annual Homeless Assessment (AHAR) Report. 2023. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/ahar.html 5 TVW. Governor's Results Washington Initiative. Homelessness and Housing Crisis, March 2024. https://tvw.org/video/governors-results-washington-initiative- 2024031242/?eventlD=2024031242 6 Washington State Department of Commerce. Homelessness in Washington. March 2024. https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=CommerceReports2023_H D_Homelessness_in_Washington_24def55e-7087-43fc-adOc- 7894a56106ab.pdf a w U) w a� 0 E �L d c STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 5 Packet Pg. 266 9.3.c Emerging Best Practices Communities can use the following strategies to accommodate local housing needs, prevent perpetuating discriminatory practices that make it a LU difficult to site and develop STEP, encourage affordable housing production, and support STEP developers, residents and staff. Additionally, these strategies can benefit some of Washington's most vulnerable populations, increase housing stability, promote community integration and `� contribute to larger initiatives to tackle homelessness and housing insecurity in the state. a� • Allow STEP developments outright as a permitted use in designated zones • Encourage STEP development in locations close to healthcare services, transportation, jobs and other amenities to promote economic mobility 0 and access to services w • Reduce and clarify requirements to streamline permitting steps and reduce barriers for STEP development a� • Provide land use and financial incentives to encourage more STEP production • Expedite permitting processes for STEP projects, thereby providing quicker, more predictable timelines that help prevent cost increases caused by project delays • Encourage developers to have pre -development application meetings with local planning staff to ensure they are aware of all the local regulations and processes that apply to a project • Understand the development process and funding requirements for STEP • Partner with local service providers to create STEP regulations that are responsive to their needs and remove barriers to STEP development • Facilitate communication between developers, providers and community members • Use consistent definitions for STEP • Partner with neighboring jurisdictions to create consistent regulations for STEP STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 6 Packet Pg. 267 Chapter 2: Background The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities and counties to develop comprehensive plans and development regulations for their communities. This chapter provides an overview of recent changes to the GMA for STEP, relevant state and federal laws for STEP, and the state of the practice for regulating STEP in Washington as of 2024. 2021 Updates to the Growth Management Act In 2021, Washington state passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and municipal code requirements (RCW 36.70A.070(2). and RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683, respectively).' The law requires fully planning local governments$ to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels, which includes demonstrating sufficient land capacity for housing at all income levels to meet ■ 2024 Dw o.c«nb« 31- ■ 2025 Due December 31» 2026 Due jum 3o" ■ 2027 Due June 3o * Started counties am pertielty piarw*V under the Growth Managernont Act future housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing.' Local governments must also identify local barriers to production of affordable housing and take actions to remove those barriers. They must complete these plans and associated updates to zoning and development regulations based on the periodic update schedule identified by the state legislature (see above right). In addition, municipal code changes in 2021 required changes to specific zoning and development regulations in cities for four different housing types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing (STEP). These updates were required by September 2021.10 However, some cities were unable to address the requirement to permit STEP by the required deadline and others were waiting for their comprehensive plan periodic update to complete the work. Some lacked the necessary resources to implement the state laws, some were ' For more information on the Growth Management Act and other relevant state and federal laws pertaining to STEP, see the STEP State of the Practice Report. 8 Fully planning communities are all those jurisdictions in dark blue, light blue and green on the GMS Regional Variations map. 9 Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs and land capacity guidance. 10 Defer to local jurisdictions' ordinances to determine if your community has updated its regulations for STEP. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 7 Packet Pg. 268 9.3.c waiting for Commerce to project housing needs for each county, and some implemented policies that created additional barriers to increasing in Washington. In addition to the requirements about where STEP must be allowed in cities, state law was updated to state that any local restrictions on spacing, occupancy and intensity of use for these developments must be linked specifically to public health and safety reasons (e.g., reference emergency response times, building code, etc.) in their ordinance's findings section. Any such requirements on occupancy, spacing and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each city's projected need for such housing and shelter under RCW 36.70A.070(2)(a)(ii). Additional state laws and guidance for occupancy, spacing and intensity are as follows. Occupancy: Cities and counties may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons who may occupy a dwelling unit except as provided for in state law for short-term rentals or by occupant load per square foot, RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227. Spacing: Spacing can refer to the distance between similar uses or the proximity to services (e.g., transportation). Any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing required by RCWs 9.94A.030, 9.94A.703 and 9.94A.8445, which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. Intensity: With respect to STEP, intensity can refer to the density of people, transportation, and/or services needed by the participants who live in a single location or facility. Relevant State and Federal Laws In addition to the Growth Management Act, other state and federal laws apply to STEP; Table 1 provides law summaries and links. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 a w U) L Q U C f6 C 0 E Packet Pg. 269 9.3.c Table 1 - STEP Types and Applicable Laws STEP Types and Applicable LawsTransitional.Permanent - Housing ... a LU to The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 require fully planning local governments to plan for and accommodate Y Y Y Y L housing affordable to all income levels. 0) RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 requires cities to not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in Y Y Y Y c c zones where hotels are allowed. Cities must allow permanent supportive and transitional housing in zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. These regulations may limit occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements to protect 0 public health and safety so long as such limits allow the siting of a sufficient number of units/beds to accommodate each city's projected housing needs. •L m RCW 35.21.689 and RCW 35A.21.305 require cities to allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is Y = permitted. _- RCW 36.130.020 prohibits any local government from having requirements on an affordable housing development that are different Y* Y* Y m from those imposed on housing developments generally. RCW 35.21.682. RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 prohibit any local government from having requirements related to unrelated Y Y Y Y N persons that may occupy a unit. RCW 36.70A.545 requires fully planning cities and counties to allow increased density bonuses for any affordable housing on real Y* Y* Y c property owned or controlled by a religious organization. d c� RCW 35.21.915, RCW 35A.21.360. and RCW 36.01.290 prohibit any local government from regulatory limits on encampments, safe Y Y parking, overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. RCW 36.70A.540 gives authority to local governments to offer incentives in exchange for providing development for low-income Y* Y* Y housing units. RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c) requires fully planning local governments to document how they have sufficient land use capacity for all Y** Y Y future housing needs by income level. RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e) requires fully planning counties to have countywide planning policies that consider the need for housing for Y Y Y Y all economic segments and the parameters for its distribution. RCW 9.94A.030(6) regulates where level two and three sex offenders may not live. RCW 36.70A.390 states public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to regulations that prohibit building permit applications for transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwellings or hotels are allowed or prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits requirements imposed on STEP that violate civil rights protections. Y Y Y Y Washington State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act includes laws landlords must follow. Y. Y. Y Y Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires all branches of government in the state to examine their laws' environmental Y Y Y impacts. At the local level, this requires an assessment of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and project permits unless specifically exempted by the act. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 9 Packet Pg. 270 Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provides enforceable standards to Y Y Y address discrimination. Fair Housing Act prohibits "neutral" policy that has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class. Y Y Y Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prevents the implementation of land use regulations that impose a substantial Y Y Y burden on the religious exercise of a person. *Only applicable when the housing has a rental agreement, occupancy agreement or lease. A "rental agreement," "occupancy agreement" or "lease" establishes or modifies the terms, conditions, rules, regulations and other provisions concerning the use and occupancy of a dwelling unit. **Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs. State of the Practice in Washington Commerce spoke with a number of communities to learn how they developed and regulated STEP. This section reflects these findings. In Washington, many communities use local land use policies to influence the development of STEP. It is appropriate for local governments to apply land use and development regulations to these housing types, as with all other developments, by law. While some recently adopted STEP regulations are consistent with state and federal laws and encourage the production of STEP to meet their local housing needs, some existing local regulations and processes conflict with state and federal laws. In general, local regulations in Washington state could align better with state requirements, provide more flexibility and greater opportunities for establishing STEP, and remove barriers to this affordable housing need." The following are examples of observed regulatory and process barriers for STEP development in the state of Washington: Permit processes: Generally, local authorities permit STEP development in areas that already have access to services such as transit, which is a best practice. However, some jurisdictions still require a conditional use permit for all STEP, which is inconsistent with state laws for permanent supportive housing and STEP housing with leases (RCW 36.130.020), but also creates a barrier to siting any STEP project. Under this permitting process, these projects must meet certain criteria and go through a special approval process that can delay the project's timeline and increase the likelihood that a hearing examiner or the city council will not approve the project following public opposition. These additional conditions and delays result in significant costs to the project sponsors and public funders and may discourage a STEP developer from pursuing projects in their jurisdiction. • Occupancy, spacing and intensity requirements: Local regulations for STEP often include rules related to occupancy, spacing, intensity or density, parking, environmental standards and other development and operational requirements that could create barriers for STEP production >> All fully planning local governments are directed by RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d) to "make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community," STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 271 9.3.c Typical restrictions on the occupancy, spacing and intensity of use of STEP in local jurisdictions include limits on the number of clients a pro�ec can serve, the number of staff and the distance between STEP projects. Most jurisdictions also do not have special provisions regarding density bonuses for STEP sponsored by religious organizations (RCW 36.70A.545). Some communities have distance restrictions that prohibit the a w construction of emergency shelters or emergency housing within one-half mile of another existing or proposed shelter or emergency housing Cn projects. Variations of this requirement are common in Washington's jurisdictions. c In most cases, jurisdictions have not shown in their ordinances' findings how their spacing, occupancy and intensity of use regulations are linked to public health and safety (e.g., referencing local building and fire code), therefore they are not in compliance with state laws that require this demonstration and possibly in violation of federal fair housing laws. Their spacing requirements are also not consistent with the Department of Commerce's recommendations that any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing already required by RCWs 9.94A.0301 9.94A.703 and 9.94A.8445, which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. Jurisdictions with spacing and intensity requirements have also not identified how they will have sufficient capacity for their future housing needs at each income level in their 20-year comprehensive plans and development regulations, which is inconsistent with state law requiring this demonstration if communities adopt these types of regulations.12 A combination of density and spacing requirements for STEP can easily result in a community not having enough sites available with the capacity to meet local housing need allocations, impacting the jurisdiction's ability to make adequate provision for this type of housing and adhere to state law. Furthermore, RCW 36.70A.070(2)(d)(ii) states that jurisdictions must assess barriers, such as development regulations, gaps in local funding and other limitations, as part of documenting programs and actions needed to achieve housing availability in their comprehensive plans. Barrier assessment should consider factors that may negatively affect production for each type of housing allowed in the jurisdiction.13 Parking minimums: STEP projects are commonly required to meet similar parking minimums as other housing, mixed -use or other development types. Because STEP residents or clients may be less likely to own a car, especially in urban environments near transit, these requirements may limit or create barriers for STEP development. In some Washington communities, the planning director and/or city engineer determines STEP projects' parking requirements or approves a parking study for required parking; this process may support flexibility and reduce barriers for STEP projects.14 Other communities have parking minimums specific to STEP (e.g., one parking space for every two employees and every four beds). 12 RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 note these restrictions shall not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing, or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each [code] city's projected need for such housing and shelter. Additionally, fully planning cities and counties are required with their periodic update to show sufficient land capacity for housing needs at all income levels. (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)) 13 Strategies that jurisdictions can consider implementing to help STEP overcome development barriers are discussed staring on page 32. 14 Planning director and/or city engineer approval may also create ambiguity if there are not clear standards or examples that developers can reference. w STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 11 Packet Pg. 272 9.3.c Operations plans: Many communities also require STEP or certain STEP types, such as emergency shelters or emergency housing, to submi operations plans or agreements before they can be permitted. The required information for operations plans varies by jurisdiction. However, common documentation requirements include: a w • Contact information for key staff and their roles and responsibilities � w • A facility management plan, including security policies and an emergency management plan � • Site and facility maintenance policies • Occupancy policies • A staffing plan p • A community engagement plan E L • Documentation of record -keeping processes w • A description of transportation either provided or accessible to residents a� These requirements can create barriers to STEP production and are inconsistent with state law generally when required of permanent supportive housing, as well as transitional and emergency housing with leases, unless they are required of other housing generally because the L state considers these affordable housing (RCW 36.130.020). To encourage STEP, local developers said jurisdictions can be more flexible regarding their specific requirements, such as reducing or waiving parking minimums when projects anticipate a high ratio of tenants who use public transportation or have alternate modes of transportation and do not need onsite parking. Jurisdictions can also help by only requesting STEP projects provide operations plans when there is sufficient local government capacity and expertise to review the plans and only asking for necessary information that can be important for local government to have on file (e.g., emergency contact number and a safety plan). If a local government requires any of these additional plans or information, Commerce recommends that local governments require only basic information and that they provide examples of the plans for local developers to reference and understand what is required. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 12 Packet Pg. 273 9.3.c Chapter 3: Planning for STEP 101 Jurisdictions should use Washington state's definitions for STEP to ensure consistency across the state and encourage STEP development by a w making definitions and policies more straightforward for developers. When planning for STEP, it is also helpful to consider the various processes Cn involved in planning, siting, funding, permitting, building, licensing and operating STEP projects. w a� STEP Definitions Washington state uses specific terms and definitions for STEP that are used throughout this report; see Chapter 1: Introduction. For the purposes of o the state's model ordinance and this report, STEP refers to developments that meet the Washington State Residential Building Code based on the E 2021 International Residential Code, which includes rules for a permanent foundation, safe plumbing and electrical practices, insulation, weather tightness, energy efficiency and safety (smoke alarms and egress). With regard to emergency housing and emergency shelter, RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 state that jurisdictions must not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in all zones in which hotels are allowed. "Indoor," as used in the definition of indoor emergency housing (RCW 36.70A.030), and "indoor" with respect to indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelter in RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430, is interpreted in this report and the state's model ordinance as a subset of all of the possible building forms in which shelter can be provided. Indoor implies buildings that are affixed to the ground and have indoor plumbing, and therefore would exclude forms on wheels (e.g., recreational vehicles) or that lack internal sanitation and/or cooking facilities, such as tiny shelters or pallet shelters.15 Non-standard types: Local jurisdictions have observed many organizations proposing non -building code compliant structures or structures that may not have indoor plumbing, such as temporary pallet shelters, tent encampments and safe parking areas. This sometimes presents challenges for jurisdictions because their local codes may limit these types of structures. An additional challenge observed is that there are no adopted statewide standards for safe human habitation of these structures, but building codes for some temporary emergency shelters should be available by July 2026.16 Tiny homes and park model homes" may also face barriers because their size and dimensions may not conform to standard building codes, or local governments may limit where these homes are allowed as primary dwellings. Non-standard STEP types cannot be counted towards a jurisdiction's local housing need allocations, because they are more like sanctioned encampments than emergency shelters. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Washington State Department of Commerce's Homeless Assistance Unit currently do not fund these projects as "emergency shelters." Furthermore, depending on the shelter and 15 Therefore, cities are not required to allow non -building code compliant structures as STEP, but the Department of Commerce encourages local governments to allow non-standard types of STEP as an alternative to sleeping outside to provide safer places for people experiencing homelessness. 16 The Washington Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5553 in 2023, which directs the state building code council to adopt standards for temporary emergency shelters and make them available for local adoption. Adopting these state building code standards may assist local governments with their building code questions for unique shelter accommodations. 17 Park model homes are recreational vehicles intended for permanent or semi -permanent installation. They are used as a primary residence (RCW 59.20.030). STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 13 Packet Pg. 274 9.3.c services offered, occupants may still be considered "unsheltered" under federal definitions. For example, HUD considers someone living in their car as experiencing unsheltered homelessness.'$ However, the Department of Commerce encourages local governments to allow non-standard types of STEP as an alternative to sleeping outside to provide safer places for people experiencing homelessness. These non-standard housing types could include, for example, safe parking and other non-standard projects that offer occupants sanitation services, connections to community services and support in finding permanent housing.19 Local governments may consider making land available for non-traditional projects, taking into consideration other potential uses of public land.20 While there are currently no state or federal standards for non-standard shelter types, some existing federal, state and local laws apply to this issue, for example: • In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the City of Boise's petition regarding its Camping and Disorderly Conduct Ordinances, which upheld the law that people experiencing homelessness cannot be punished for sleeping outside on public property if adequate alternatives are not provided. The ruling in Martin v. Boise encouraged local governments to plan for alternatives to homelessness. However, on June 28, 2024, in the case of Grant Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that jurisdictions could criminalize camping and sleeping in public, overturning the Grant Pass case's previous decision and the Martin v. Boise ruling.21 • RCW 36.70A.540 states that local governments may use their development regulations and other means to expand opportunities for low- income housing units, including tiny home communities. • Some local jurisdictions have implemented regulations for these non-standard housing types. Thurston County recently finalized its interim homeless encampment facility regulations, and the City of Bellingham has regulated temporary shelters, including encampments, safe parking areas and tiny house shelters, since 2018. The City of Port Townsend created new regulations to support STEP, including wooden tent villages. Before adopting these code changes, Community Build, a nonprofit, built "wooden tents" (one -room structures serving as effective shelters that do not meet the legal definition of a dwelling unit) in Port Townsend. Permitting these tent encampments kept people sheltered and safer than the alternatives (e.g., sleeping outside). Port Townsend staff reported fewer conflicts than expected between wooden tent encampments and neighboring uses. However, the project did face several challenges. It needed to be approved through a temporary conditional use process, 18 HUD defines unsheltered homelessness as an individual or family with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport or camping ground. For more information, see Unsheltered Homelessness on the HUD Exchanoe. 19 Currently, there are no state or federal guidelines in place for the use of safe parking areas as permitted emergency shelter options. This absence leaves jurisdictions to determine their own policies for integrating safe parking into STEP planning. At least ten jurisdictions in Washington have established safe parking programs; for more information, see the National Vehicle Residency Collective's National Parking Program List. 20 The Portland State University's Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative for the Joint Office of Homeless Services found that tiny home villages only cost less to develop when land is free, compared to more traditional forms of STEP (motels and congregate shelter). It also found that operating costs for villages vary because of their staffing needs. Operating expenses for tiny home villages are higher than congregate shelters. However, this study found that alternative shelter types, like these villages, are more successful in transitioning people out of homelessness and meeting their needs than congregate shelters. The most appropriate shelter type for a community varies and can be based on a number of factors (e.g., client needs and preferences, land suitability, properties available for acquisition, and a project's lifespan). 21 For information on combating the criminalization of homelessness, see the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance's toolkit. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 14 Packet Pg. 275 9.3.c which required the project's managing agencies to extend the permit or move to a new location every six months. The city reported this was costly and inefficient. Housing vs. facilities: Some residential types are sometimes confused with STEP, particularly permanent supportive housing. Residents residing in a uJ permanent supportive housing are subject to all the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW, also known as the Washington State Cn L Residential Landlord -Tenant Act. A person residing in permanent supportive housing has full rights of tenancy through a lease with their landlord, w but this is not the case in licensed residential facilities, such as licensed adult family homes, group living homes for persons with intellectual or a� = developmental disabilities, or assisted living facilities for seniors where residents must pay towards the cost of their care." L Disaster Relief / Recovery Shelter: While STEP may be used in the event of a disaster (e.g., floods, wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes) to meet 0 immediate needs, disaster relief and recovery shelters established by FEMA, local governments or others in response to a disaster (before or after) is not considered STEP. Disaster relief/recovery shelters have different funding sources, managers, and operators and can trigger different c regulations and local processes. Local governments can consult their emergency preparedness plans and FEMA's Planning Considerations: Disaster Housing for more information on disaster shelter and housing planning. STEP Financing and Development Process STEP projects often face significant financial barriers and have complicated funding sources, each with its own requirements. When considering development regulations, jurisdictions should take these funding sources and their requirements into consideration and try to avoid creating potentially duplicative or overly burdensome standards that may overlap with the other requirements projects need to meet to obtain funding and be viable.23 Some common funding sources for STEP include: • Washington State's Apple Health and Homes Initiative, Housing Trust Fund and Consolidated Homeless Grant • Support from county and local governments, financial institutions and philanthropic organizations (e.g., tax -increment financing, grants, loans, reduced impact fees and system development charge waivers, free or reduced price land, cash and materials donations) • Low -Income Housing Tax Credits, Historic Tax Credits and New Markets Tax Credits • The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (e.g., Home Investment Partnership Program and Community Development Block Grants) and Rental income, Housing Choice Vouchers and Medicaid (for leased units)24, 25 22 For more information on STEP and other housing types, seethe Department of Commerce's STEP Housing Definitions Factsheet. 21 Small cities and counties who need assistance with STEP planning or regulations can reach out to the Department of Commerce or their Regional Planner as a resource. 24 The Urban Institute, in partnership with the National Housing Conference, developed an interactive tool that helps illustrate how affordable housing developments "pencil out" and discusses how these types of projects typically need some form of government support. 21 For more information on funding sources, see the Department of Commerce's STEP State of the Practice Report and STEP Operations Guide. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 15 Packet Pg. 276 STEP project sponsor or another partner identifies STEP project partners create a detailed development plan STEP project partners make any necessary revisions to community needs (e.g., reviewing existing community plans, studies and date and engaging (e.g., architectural drawings, engineering plans, and other the development plan after it is reviewed by local relevant documentation) and apply for a building permit. government departments, such as building, zoning and the local Continuum of Care lead agency and fire safety, to ensure compliance with all relevant public housing authority) and develops a design concept to help address those needs. regulations to receive permit approval. STEP project sponsor or another partner Identifies additional key partners (e.g., architect, attorney, development consultant, funders, tax credit syndicator if using Low Income Housing Tax Credits, general contractor and management company) and begins securing financial com mit mec" tw Maie" COO'MWAion STEP project partners identify an appropriate Location (e.g., where the project complies with zoning code, development regulations and funding requirements) and obtain site control. A project's funding can drive its site selection; for example, some funders' scoring criteria look at neighborhood demographics, amenities, transit options and other location characteristics. STEP project partners secure funding commitments. Developing and operating STEP projects requires some form of financial assistance from the public sector, financial institutions, private investors or non-profit organizations. Often, a combination of these funding sources is needed, each with its own unique requirements. STEP project partners conduct a site assessment, financial feasibility analysis and other predevelopment activities, like community engagement. In some jurisdictions, neighborhood responses to affordable housing can drive local siting and permitting decisions. Some developers may need to conduct early public outreach and engagement to foster community support for their project. •■I F!N STEP project obtains a certificate of occupancy and opens for operation. In Washington state, most STEP accomodations do not have licensing and operating requirements under state law. However, once STEP opens, operation involves numerous activities, such as developing operating procedures and policies, ordering furniture and supplies, hiring and training staff, marketing services, planning for move -ins, property management, service delivery and responding to fundersllenders reporting requirements. 9.3.c Supporting STEP Projects and Operations Consistent with state funding guidelines for a variety of funding sources,26 Commerce recommends that local governments support low -barrier projects consistent with the "Housing First" model. Low -barrier projects require minimal eligibility requirements and documentation.21 Households experiencing homelessness are not screened out based on the following criteria: having little or no income, poor credit or financial history, poor or lack of rental history, involvement with the criminal justice system, active or history of substance use, disability -related services support, lacking ID or proof of US residency or behaviors perceived as indicating a lack of "housing readiness," including resistance to receiving services. Low -barrier projects have realistic and clear expectations. Rules and policies are narrowly focused on maintaining a safe environment and avoiding exiting people back into homelessness. Low -barrier projects do not have work or service requirements. If the project requires households to pay a share of rent, they allow reasonable flexibility in payment. Emergency shelters may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Households in low -barrier programs are not terminated because they will not participate in supportive service programs. In addition, alcohol and/or substance use in and of itself is not considered a reason for termination. If a household is terminated from a low -barrier project due to violating rules focused on maintaining a safe environment, there must be a process in place for the household to be considered for re -enrollment if the household demonstrates unsafe behavior is unlikely to re -occur (i.e., engaged in new treatment plan, mental health services, medical care, etc.). Housing First is a philosophy and approach to housing and services that is often associated with permanent supportive housing, but it is applicable to all STEP types. Housing First revolves around several core tenets including entry that is not conditioned on sobriety, previous service participation, credit or evictions; housing is provided as quickly as possible; and the participant has a choice in housing selection within the bounds of available options. Housing First provides voluntary, tenant -driven supportive services to residents to help them comply with lease terms and to address behaviors that impact housing stability.28 Housing First is a trauma -informed practice that recognizes that an individual's life events or circumstances that they experience as physically or emotionally harmful have lasting adverse effects on that individual, mentally, physically, socially or emotionally.29 The design and operations of STEP projects should be trauma -informed, which includes an emphasis on safety in the physical environment, promoting self -efficacy and control over one's belongings and daily activities, and ongoing education of staff on trauma -related behaviors and trauma -informed practices. 26 For example, according to Guidelines for the Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG). Updated March 2024, "By July 1, 2025, no less than 80% of a county's CHG funded projects (programs and facilities) must be low barrier." 27 The description of low -barrier projects in this paragraph come from Commerce's Guidelines for the Consolidated Homeless Grant (CHG). Updated March 2024, pages 9 and 10 28 This "Introduction to Housing First" contains more of the basics of the "Housing First" principles. Additional resources on Housing First can be found on Commerce's Housing Division Grantee Training webpaae under "Housing First." 29 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA's Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma -Informed Approach. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2014. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/smal4-4884.pdf. a w U) L 0 w W _ 0 E �L d c STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 17 Packet Pg. 278 9.3.c Chapter 4: Comprehensive Planning for STEP Homelessness and housing affordability is a challenge that affects an entire county and requires solutions that often go beyond the resources of one city or town government. Therefore, many planning and implementation efforts start or take place at the county level in Washington.10 Revisions to RCW 36.70A.070(2) in 2021 updated requirements for how jurisdictions should plan for housing in their comprehensive plans. To implement the new law, the Department of Commerce provides projections of housing needs for each county, including emergency housing and permanent supportive housing .31 Each county must decide how to allocate these projections among its local jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction must then document its share of countywide housing needs by income level and plan for and accommodate that share of housing needs in its comprehensive plan.32 Each county that is fully planning under the Growth Management Act must have countywide planning policies and processes for allocating their countywide housing needs to local jurisdictions (RCW 36.70A.210(3)(e)).33 Many communities are still in the process of allocating countywide projections of need to local governments. Countywide collaboration in this process is vital to ensure a coordinated approach to planning for housing for all income levels. As counties decide where overall population and housing should be directed, most communities use data on employment locations, transportation accessibility, service availability, infrastructure and land capacity to determine the appropriate percentage of housing growth to plan for in each area. Local governments then use this information and the Department of Commerce's Housing for All Planning Tool to determine a distribution of housing needs by income level to each jurisdiction or to inform a local -designed method of allocating housing needs. Counties may use their countywide planning policies about where overall growth should be directed within the county to assist with this work or local data such as information about where existing support services are located or likely to locate, where existing affordable housing and STEP housing are located, and other local factors to inform their decisions. 30 In addition to comprehensive planning for housing of all income levels under the Growth Management Act, Washington state law (RCW 43.185C.050) requires that each county local homeless housing task force develop and recommend to its local government legislative authority a five-year homeless housing plan for its jurisdictional area. Each county's 5- year plan can be found on Commerce's website. 31 Emergency shelters are grouped with emergency housing needs in Commerce's projected housing needs. 32 Resources for projected housing needs are in Book 1 of Commerce's Housing Element Guidance. Projecting housing needs by income level begins on page 34. Information on how to allocate the countywide housing needs from the countywide projections to individual jurisdictions begins on page 60. 33 RCW 36.70A.210(3): A countywide planning policy shall, at a minimum, address policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution. a w U) L Q a� U 0 E �L _ STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 279 9.3.c Chapter 5: Permitting STEP a LU The local permitting process for STEP can vary depending on the jurisdiction and their permitting procedures. The approval process for a land use permit typically depends on whether the permit is classified as Type I, II, III or other permit. While the number of permit types and their terminology c may vary by jurisdiction, in general, the more complex the project, the greater the level of public notice and review is needed. sa. ss, sb For example, simple building permits are administratively approved under a Type I permit, while permitting for projects requiring a higher level of review such as = conditional use permits, commonly fall under Type III and higher. Project permit decisions can involve different decision makers and levels of public input. Projects permits approved b local planning staff without 0 1 P P P j P Pp Y P 9 E public hearings are considered administrative decisions. More complex projects may involve review by a hearings examiner, public hearings and may include discretion in permitting decisions. These permit types are called quasi-judicial because additional procedures are factored into the =_ permitting decision. Generally speaking, quasi-judicial permitting proceedings provide for public notice, public testimony and decisions based on a, adopted criteria. Conditional use permits and variances heard and decided by a hearings examiner are common examples of quasi-judicial permits. Table 2 provides recommendations for permitting processes related to STEP, including information on whether the level of permitting might be considered a permitted or conditional use in land use tables. 34 For more examples of local permit procedures, read MRSC's Streamlining Local Permit Review Procedures (2024). 35 For resources on local planning, project review, and permitting, read the Department of Commerce's A Short Course On Local Planning Resource Guide Version 5.3 (2017). 36 The Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B) codified into state law a series of best practices for the local land use permit process to better enable citizens and developers to know what to expect and to provide for more timely and efficient permit issuance. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 19 Packet Pg. 280 9.3.c Table 2 - Example of Local Permit Processes by Project Types Approval Process Recommended review process for STEP Type Permitting Table Administrative Emergency shelter and emergency housing that meet local development standards in areas zoned for hotels Transitional housing and permanent supportive housing that meet local development standards in areas zoned for other housing types and hotels Outdoor encampments, safe parking, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization Permitted Administrative Discretionary Emergency shelter, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing that require an exemption to local development regulations Affordable housing developments on property owned or controlled by a religious organization seeking an increased density bonus consistent with the community's housing needs allocation Permitted, sometimes with footnotes, OR Administrative Conditional Use (emergency housing and emergency shelter ONLY, not PSH or transitional housing)37 Quasi -Judicial Projects that do not meet the requirements for a Type 1 or Type II Permit. Conditional Use* * Commerce recommends allowing emergency housing and emergency shelter as permitted uses whenever possible, instead of conditional uses The permit type for STEP facilities is mainly determined when a jurisdiction amends its zoning regulations and determines whether STEP facilities are a permitted use, administratively approved use or a conditional use in particular zoning districts. Jurisdictions should give particular attention tc the code development process and make concerted efforts to notice and involve the public so that the public has been engaged on decisions on where STEP facilities may be located and their applicable permit process. To reduce barriers to siting STEP facilities, Commerce recommends local governments adopt development regulations as follows: 37 PSH and transitional housing should not be an administrative conditional use unless other housing generally is permitted as an administrative conditional use (RCW 36.130.020) STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 20 Packet Pg. 281 9.3.c • Allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing to be permitted using the same process as housing development genera y (RCW 36.130.020). • Use the lowest level permitting type for STEP (e.g. Type I permit process is preferred to Type III). a w • When a conditional use permit process is required for STEP, clearly specify the required standards STEP facilities must meet to address co compatibility and impacts. This will facilitate a STEP project's ability to meet the criteria for approving the permit. w When permitting projects, it is important for jurisdictions to effectively communicate to the public when they do and do not have influence over the a� = permit decision -making process. For example, communities can consider including this information in the messaging for public notices. If a jurisdiction plans to organize an informational meeting about a STEP project, jurisdictions should be careful with the wording of notices to explain 0 0 that these are informational community meetings to present the facts of a project and local feedback cannot affect the permitting decision. E L d r.+ C STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 21 Packet Pg. 282 9.3.c Chapter 6: Model Ordinance The model ordinance presented here supports jurisdictions in developing ordinances that are consistent with state and federal laws, implement their comprehensive plan, help address their county's allocations of housing needs and encourage STEP. The model ordinance provides sample regulatory language. The primary components of the ordinance are: • Section 1 General: Ordinance number and title, recitals or whereas clauses, enactment clause and statement of purpose. • Section 11 Definitions: Definitions of the terms used in the ordinance. • Section III Substantive Provisions: More detailed guidance on zoning and development regulations and a zoning matrix. • Section IV Concluding Sections: Effective date, corrections/repeals, savings and severability clauses. Table 3 outlines each section and its sub -sections. Jurisdictions can use the relevant language, fill in information specific to their community in the red text, and edit the ordinance further to fit local needs if necessary. Table 3 also includes additional information for jurisdictions to consider as they develop their regulations, including legal considerations, instructions on how to tailor the language to fit a variety of contexts across the state, and a discussion of strategies that help reduce regulatory barriers for STEP. Table 3 - Model Ordinance and Additional Considerations and Options L General i. Ordinance Number and Title AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SITING AND DEVELOPMENT OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. Nil AN ORDINANCE amending [chapter number amended] of the municipal code. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Ordinance Number and Title: The model ordinance provides sample language that local jurisdictions can use to develop their own ordinances for regulating STEP. For general guidance on developing local ordinances, including the Ordinance Number and Title section, jurisdictions can read MRSC's Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties (2015) In general, the model ordinance and its guidance are written with both counties and cities in mind. The model ordinance highlights areas in red where communities can customize the language. In most cases, guidance that applies to cities also applies to counties. a w Cn ,° a� U c ca c L 0 E •L a� Packet Pg. 283 ii. Recitals or Whereas Clauses Whereas, A) The Washington Growth Management Act requires fully planning local governments to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels. All cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act must update their comprehensive plans and development regulations according to the schedule in RCW 36.70A.130. B) RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430 require that cities shall not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Cities also shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, except in such cities that have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one -mile proximity to transit. Reasonable occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements may be imposed by ordinance on permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and indoor emergency shelters to protect public health and safety. Any such requirements on occupancy, spacing and intensity of use may not prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters necessary to accommodate each city's projected need for such housing and shelter. These regulations were effective September 30, 2021. C) Cities must allow permanent supportive housing in areas where multifamily housing is permitted. (RCW 35.21.689, RCW 35A.21.305) D) All fully planning jurisdictions must document sufficient land capacity for emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing. (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)) E) Public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to ordinances or development regulations adopted by a city that prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed or prohibit building permit applications for or the construction of indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. (RCW 36.70A.390) F) City and county regulations may not limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit except for lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or building code limits. (RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227) G) Any restrictions and requirements imposed on the siting and operations of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing must not violate civil rights protections provided by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Recitals or Whereas Clauses: Local recitals or whereas clauses in Washington state often include relevant state requirements, facts justifying the ordinance, references to the comprehensive plan and information on the process of developing the ordinance and regulations. The model ordinance provides excerpts from relevant state and federal laws. Jurisdictions could also cite relevant local data on housing needs regarding STEP (e.g., housing needs allocations from their county or the county's overall housing needs allocations), or housing policies from their comprehensive plan. Jurisdictions could also include statements summarizing the process of developing and approving the regulations, such as what information was considered when the ordinance was drafted, what the planning commission recommendations were, whether there was a public hearing(s), and when Washington State Environmental Policy Act requirements were considered if applicable. 23 Packet Pg. 284 H) A city or county is prohibited from imposing different requirements on affordable housing developments (e.g., permanent supportive housing, transitional housing or emergency housing with a lease) than those imposed on housing developments generally. However, exceptions are allowed for preferential treatment towards affordable housing developments aimed at specific groups such as individuals experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, persons with disabilities, seniors or low-income households. Preferential treatment may include fee reductions or waivers, adjustments to architectural or site development requirements, or other measures aimed at reducing development or operating costs. (RCW 36.130.020) 1) If a city, county or other local government entity is a funder of the project, the city can put regulations or restrictions on operators of affordable housing. J) Any city or county 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 organization. (RCW 36.70A.545) K) Regulatory limits on outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization must be consistent with RCW 35.21.915 and RCW 36.01.290. iii. Enactment Clause Therefore, the [approving entity, for example, City Council or Board of County Commissioners, and community name] does ordain as follows: iv. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to: A) Ensure compliance with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act and other laws. B) Support the implementation of [community name]'s comprehensive plan. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Enactment Clause: The enactment cause includes who adopted the ordinance. Statement of Purpose: A statement of purpose typically discusses the ordinance's goals, such as ensuring compliance with state and federal laws and the comprehensive plan. Goals might incorporate specific excerpts from laws and the comprehensive plan that the ordinance addresses. Specific goals will vary by jurisdiction but might include a goal related to ensuring STEP tenants and clients have access to 24 Packet Pg. 285 C) Encourage the development of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing consistent with best practices for these development types to help address local housing needs. D) Direct STEP development to areas with existing amenities, like jobs, services and transit, to ensure occupants have access to opportunities. E) Protect the health, safety and welfare of the individuals served by these development types and the broader community. ll. Definitions The following definitions shall be applied. Words in the singular number shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular. Statutory required definitions: 1) 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. (RCW 36.70A.030(14)) 2) 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. (RCW 36.70A.030(15)) 3) Permanent supportive housing is 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 transportation, jobs and other services, and a goal related to a supporting the broader community with the code. w H L 0 w a� c� c Definitions: Commerce intends for this model ordinance to support jurisdictions in following requirements established by the Growth Management Act and the state's definitions of STEP To ensure consistency across the state, jurisdictions should use Washington state's definitions included here under statutory required definitions; while the other definitions are optional.38 Jurisdictions may define housing and shelter types not defined by the state, so long as they are not inconsistent with state law. If there are questions, consult with your jurisdiction's attorney or with Commerce staff. For example, one county and city in Washington state made conscious efforts to align their language and processes to help reduce development barriers like unclear or inconsistent regulation language. Other jurisdictions worked with local housing providers to develop language for additional terms and definitions for temporary shelter and accommodations that the providers intended to develop. Jurisdictions should also avoid vagueness in their definitions and throughout their ordinance. 38 Cities and counties are not required to use the exact same terms as the state statutes. However, using different definitions than those in the state statutes may result in inconsistencies and noncompliance with the law. Therefore, Commerce recommends following the definitions included in the state statutes as this poses the least risk. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 25 E Packet Pg. 286 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. (RCW 36.70A.030(31�) 4) Religious organization means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls real property. (RCW 36.01.290(6)(c)) 5) Tiny houses, including tiny houses on wheels, are defined as dwellings to be used as permanent housing with permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation built in accordance with the state building code. (RCW 35.21.686) 6) Transitional housing means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. (RCW 84.36.043(3)(c). updated by Commerce) Statutory optional definitions: 7) 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: For rental housing, 60 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 For owner -occupied housing, 80 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. (RCW 36.70A.030(5)) STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Religious organization: The definition provided in the model ordinance applies to counties and "hosting the homeless." It is likely that a local government may need to use a broader definition than just one that owns or controls property in other contexts. This definition is just for the purpose of RCW 36.01.290 and RCW 36.70A.545. It is not required to be used more broadly. Temporary: The definition included in the model ordinance applies to the person and how long they reside there, not the structure or length of time for the land use. Affordable housing development, with respect to RCW 36.130.020, means a housing development in which at least twenty-five percent of the dwelling units within the development are set aside for or are occupied by low-income households at a sales price or rent amount that is considered affordable by a federal, state or local government housing program. (RCW 36.130.010) Indoor emergency housing or transitional housing that is administered through a lease or occupancy agreement and permanent supportive housing are determined to be affordable housing under RCW 36.130.020. (Draft WAC Changes - 365-196-Part 4 - March 2024) Tiny shelters: Because communities are seeing non-standard types of STEP being purposed, some may consider adding a definition for tiny shelters. Tiny shelters are temporary shelters that do not have the amenities of a single dwelling unit and rely on shared facilities for dining, laundry and bathrooms. The structure may or may not be on a foundation. 26 Packet Pg. 287 III. Substantive Provisions Locations for STEP: Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing are permitted in any zone in which hotels are allowed [relevant code section numbers]. [OR] Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing are permitted in [XX, XX, and XX zones], representing more than 50% of zones within one -mile proximity to transit [relevant code section numbers]. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing are permitted in any zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed [relevant code section numbers]. Zoning Matrix: Jurisdictions can use the zoning matrix to update their land use tables. Emergency Shelter P* Transitional housing P Emergency housing P* Permanent P supportive housing P = Permitted *Unless an ordinance has been adopted authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in over 50 percent of zones within one mile of transit. Same treatment: Transitional housing and emergency housing with a lease and permanent supportive housing should be treated the same as other housing types in local regulations. RCW 36.130.020 states a city, county or other local governmental entity or agency may not adopt, impose or enforce requirements on an affordable housing development that are different from the requirements imposed on housing developments generally. Therefore, the substantive provisions section may be most applicable to emergency shelter and emergency housing regulations. Preferential treatment: However, this law does not prohibit local governments from extending preferential treatment to affordable housing developments, including, but not limited to a reduction or waiver of fees, changes in applicable requirements, or other treatment that reduces or is likely to reduce the development or operating costs of a development. If a local government provides preferential treatment to affordable housing developments of any kind, they must also provide the same benefits and conditions to permanent supportive housing and transitional housing and emergency housing with leases. If a jurisdiction provides a benefit for these development types, it may include requirements proportional to that benefit. For example, if a project receives a Multi -Family Tax Exemption, it will need to meet the requirements of that program.39 If a project receives a parking waiver, a jurisdiction may request the project submit a parking management plan. These requirements must apply to all projects that receive the benefit (not just a subset). By right zoning and conditional use processes: To support STEP projects, jurisdictions can clearly outline the permitting process in their ordinances, including what approvals are required, who makes the decision and what the decision criteria and expected timeline are. Conditional use processes and public hearings for STEP permit applications can create uncertainty for applicants and add extra time and costs to projects. Therefore, if an application meets all the requirements, it is recommended it be subject to administrative review without a public hearing to avoid misleading community members. An emerging best practice is to designate STEP as a permitted use outright in the zones highlighted in the zoning matrix on the left. To support classifying STEP as a permitted use outright with an administrative review, a jurisdiction can adopt clear criteria for review to aid judgment in making decisions. Recognizing that communities may still utilize conditional use processes to address community concerns in some zones, the Department of Commerce recommends jurisdictions limit STEP permit applications to administrative review whenever possible. Additionally, jurisdictions' ordinances and regulations should be consistent with and implement local comprehensive plans, which must document sufficient land use capacity for STEP. (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c)) Occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements: Communities may only impose reasonable occupancy, spacing and intensity of use limits on STEP to protect public health and safety, and any such limits must allow the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing units and emergency housing beds necessary to accommodate se For more information, see the Department of Commerce's Multi -Family Housing Property Tax Exemption Program webpage. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 27 Packet Pg. 288 Additional Regulations: Indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and permanent supportive housing must meet the same development and operating regulations as permitted residential dwellings, including adhering to building and fire codes and American Disability Act requirements [relevant code section numbers], to ensure consistency in health and safety for all residents. Minimum parking requirements are waived for all indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing and permanent supportive housing [relevant code section numbers]. Exemptions: Exemptions to development regulations [relevant code section numbers], including but not limited to setback requirements, density limits, restrictions on support spaces inside buildings (e.g., office space for tenants) and public noticing requirements, for indoor emergency shelters, transitional housing, emergency housing and permanent supportive housing may be permitted with administrative approval by [approving administrative entity, e.g., the planning director or city engineer] to address [community name]'s housing needs allocation through shelter and housing forms that do not meet building codes or other requirements. These types may include, but are not limited to, pallet shelters and tiny shelters. Regardless of the form, the housing or shelter must be indoors and allow access to bathrooms and showers. Special Provision for Religious Organizations: Any affordable housing development [relevant code section numbers], including permanent supportive housing and transitional housing with a lease, of any single-family or multifamily residence located on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization is allowed an increased density bonus consistent with local housing needs allocation with administrative approval by [approving administrative entity, e.g., the planning director or city engineer]. projected needs. These requirements to protect public health and safety must be justified, for example, by including a a reference to the local building and fire codes in the ordinance's findings section, to be consistent with state law and w reduce litigation risk. Reasonable for the purposes of RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683 and this report, includes only those requirements 0 '~ imposed to protect public health and safety. Requirements that prevent the siting of a sufficient number of permanent supportive housing, transitional housing, indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters are not reasonable. ca In addition, reasonable requirements must comply with any applicable civil rights protections provided by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Fair Housing Act, and the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable O requirements can vary with geographic size and population of the jurisdiction and the current siting of these housing types. Any occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements should be justified by reference to building code, fire code or other citations within an ordinance w Occupancy: Commerce recommends occupancy for emergency shelters and emergency housing be established as required by the jurisdiction's adopted building, fire and safety codes for other similar uses. For example, if a jurisdiction does not have police and fire limitations for hotels, then it is not appropriate to require it of STEP types where residents stay for short periods. Also, RCW 35.21.682, RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 state cities and counties may not regulate or limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a dwelling unit except as provided for in state law. Spacing: Any spacing requirements must be directly tied to public health and safety and documented in the ordinance's findings. Any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing requirements in RCW 9.94A.030 and RCW 9.94A.7031 which create community protection zones of 880 feet to prevent sex offenders from living near schools. Intensity: With respect to STEP, intensity refers to the total number or density of people, transportation and/or services in a single location or facility. Commerce does not recommend any blanket intensity regulations for these use types. Standards adopted to encourage a scattered approach to the siting of these services to ensure they are not located in only one area of the jurisdiction should consider the accessibility of services for residents, be accompanied by documentation of sufficient land capacity and be consistent with state and local policies. Parking requirements: These requirements should be less extensive for STEP than typical housing, as most residents do not have vehicles. Parking should be considered for employees based on context (e.g., the development's proximity to transit). STEP near a transit stop would require very few off-street parking spaces. If parking is required in the municipal code, Commerce recommends that the jurisdiction accept parking studies from the applicant documenting the number of parking spaces that are needed by the land use. Jurisdictions should look at comparable STEP developments in similar contexts to determine projected parking needs. Required documentation and plans: These types of regulations are only acceptable for emergency shelter, emergency housing and transitional housing without leases under state law (RCW 36.130.020). Unless documentation and plans are required for other similar facilities and housing types (e.g., adult family homes, nursing homes, or multfiamily housing generally), Commerce discourages jurisdictions from adding these additional requirements for STEP and encourages them to defer to the project's funder and insurance requirements rather than asking for them in local code STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 28 Packet Pg. 289 Outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelter and temporary small houses [relevant code section numbers] are permitted on property owned or controlled by a religious organization and must adhere to state regulations in RCW 35.21.915 and RCW 36.01.290. If jurisdictions require specific documentation, like operations, safety, training plans or something else, Commerce a recommends that they provide a sample document to further support those applying to develop STEP. It should be w clear to the applicant what is needed and who will review these documents. The reviewer should be someone with j sufficient capacity and qualifications to understand the needs and challenges of STEP, and they should use objective c approval criteria. w a� Jurisdictions should also limit what they require in these plans to help streamline the permitting of STEP projects. For c=a example, an operations agreement may provide the following: O • One phone number for emergencies E • Operating funding information to inform local governments of existing requirements and support a project may have +r c • Services plan (i.e., a description of on -site services, identification of service providers, and staff -to -client ratios) Requirements to receive services: Because STEP funders already have project requirements for requirements to m receive services, Commerce recommends jurisdictions do not add additional requirements STEP participants need to 0 comply with to receive services or to access a project (e.g., IDs, documentation, income verification, etc.). m Exemptions/exclusions: Jurisdictions can review their existing regulations and any other STEP requirements to consider types of projects that might be suitable for an exemption. For example, some jurisdictions require public noticing requirements, but waive those for projects with confidential locations to prevent adverse effects on clients served by domestic violence shelters and housing. Special provision for religious organizations: Jurisdictions must allow an increased density bonus consistent with local housing needs for any affordable housing development on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. State law also limits jurisdictions' ability to regulate outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters and temporary tiny shelters on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. To be consistent with state law and allow more STEP to meet local housing needs, jurisdictions can ensure provisions are included for religious organizations and permitting processes are outlined in local ordinances. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 29 Packet Pg. 290 IV. Concluding Sections i. Effective Date [Insert code section number]. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect [insert month, date, year]. ii. Repeals [Insert code section number]. Repealer. The following are hereby repealed: [Insert a list of any ordinances being corrected/repealed] iii. Savings Clause [Insert code section number]. Savings Clause. [insert ordinance number being repealed], which is repealed by this ordinance, shall remain in force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. iv. Severability If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Concluding sections: These generic sections of the model ordinance can be used if applicable. Otherwise, they can be left out of a local ordinance. For general guidance on developing this section of local ordinances, jurisdictions can read MRSC's Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties (2015). 30 a W U) L Q U c ca c 0 E c Packet Pg. 291 9.3.c Chapter 7: Accommodating Enough STEP 0. W To accommodate enough STEP units to address local housing needs, jurisdictions must demonstrate they have sufficient land capacity and reduce c i development barriers to STEP. It is also recommended jurisdictions resist addressing all community concerns and potential project impacts with ,o their ordinances and regulations, and defer to funder requirements and clear communication processes with housing and service providers. Demonstrating Sufficient Land Capacity 0 One of the first steps for jurisdictions to accommodate enough STEP after permitting the uses is to review if they have sufficient land zoned for E these development types, as required by state law. Local comprehensive plans must identify "sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, [and] permanent supportive housing," RCW 36.70A.070(2)(c). Therefore, all fully planning jurisdictions must do a land capacity analysis to show land capacity for permanent supportive housing and emergency housing/shelters, not just those jurisdictions that have occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements.40 The land capacity for emergency housing can overlap with the land capacity information for other housing types .41 This assessment is also an opportunity for communities to examine the gap between their housing needs and existing inventory and consider if land suitable for STEP is in areas with sufficient infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and other services. To determine whether jurisdictions have the land capacity for STEP, local governments can refer to Guidance for Updating your Housing Element Book 2 for specific steps, starting on page 41 for emergency housing and emergency shelters, grouped together in emergency housing steps, and starting on approximately page 31 for permanent supportive housing. Approaches to determine land capacity for siting STEP can vary, but, in general, include reviewing existing housing supply; reviewing vacant and redevelopable land in areas with access to infrastructure, transportation, jobs and other services; and identifying if based on both intensity of STEP likely to be developed and restrictions, such as spacing or occupancy requirements, there is sufficient capacity for STEP. Examples of land capacity analyses are also available on Commerce's EZView website. 40 This updated standard for when a land capacity analysis is required for emergency housing will be updated in Guidance for Updating your Housing Element (Housing Element Book 2) by August 2024. 41 For example, if a jurisdiction has 2.5 acres of vacant land in the zones that allow emergency housing and emergency shelter, they can use that area in the land capacity analysis for permanent housing needs and the land capacity analysis for emergency housing. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - DRAFT (MAY 2024) 31 Packet Pg. 292 9.3.c Jurisdictions can also engage their local Continuum of Care (CoC)42 to understand specific STEP demands, constraints and opportunities within their communities. These groups can share where they think STEP is more likely to be developed and at what densities.43 Jurisdictions must document their findings of sufficient land capacity for emergency housing, which includes emergency shelters, and permanent supportive housing in their housing element, supported by more detailed analysis in supporting appendices. If jurisdictions have any occupancy, spacing or intensity of use requirements, they must demonstrate with a quantitative and spatial analysis that there is sufficient capacity for their housing needs allocation. Reducing Development Barriers Many barriers exist for developing STEP and affordable housing in general, including but not limited to: • Rising costs of land, labor, materials and insurance • High permit fees, impact fees and utility connection fees • Burdensome or unclear zoning and development regulations • Slow local permitting and approval processes • Lack of clear and accessible information on processes • Limited capacity at local jurisdictions to process applications quickly • Limited developer and workforce capacity • NIMBY (Not -In -My -Backyard) attitudes • Neighborhood covenants and restrictions • Limited subsidized funding sources • Requirements to fund new infrastructure While local jurisdictions do not set property prices, the number of construction hours needed to complete a development or the cost of building materials and insurance, they do control several aspects to development. Jurisdictions set permit costs, control internal approval processes that can add to development timelines, grant fee waivers, control publicly owned land and can provide public funding for affordable housing and STEP." 42 A CoC is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services for people experiencing homelessness. It consists of representatives from service providers, local governments and other organizations, and it is responsible for planning and allocating resources to address homelessness. (National Alliance to End Homelessness. What is a Continuum of Care?. 2010. https://endhomelessness.ora/resource/what-is-a-continuum-of-care/) 43 Visit HUD's Grantee Contact Information or the Department of Commerce's Continuum of Care webpage to find the right CoC contact. Commerce is the Collaborative Applicant for the Washington Balance of State Continuum of Care, consisting of 34 small and medium-sized counties. 44 The Homelessness & Housing Toolkit for Cities, produced by the Association of Washington Cities and Municipal Research and Services Center (2022), provides resources and case studies on various strategies to help communities address homelessness and affordable housing issues. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 32 Packet Pg. 293 9.3.c One of the most important powers of local governing bodies that can be used to lower barriers for STEP production is their ability to control loca zoning and development rules. To encourage more STEP development, jurisdictions can consider including regulatory or permitting incentives for STEP, such as reduced or waived parking minimums, impact fees, linkage fees45 and system development charges (i.e., tap fees). They can provide density bonuses, streamline and expedite permitting processes and help fund STEP (e.g., passing an affordable housing sales tax or property tax levy). They can also pay for site improvements and utility connections and donate land for STEP projects." Even more important than positive incentives is avoiding local requirements that hinder rather than promote STEP development. Table 4 provides examples of local regulations and requirements that can create barriers for STEP development and recommendations for what to do instead. Table 4 - Local Regulatory Barriers and Alternatives Unclear rules and requirements that are inconsistent with state and federal laws Regulations different from those for general housing development Spacing requirements (e.g., minimum distances from parks, schools or other facilities) Make it very clear where STEP uses are allowed and what process needs to be followed for permitting. Review the state's minimum requirements for STEP regulations to ensure they are incorporated into local ordinances. Jurisdictions are encouraged to use STEP definitions that are consistent with the state's definitions to make regulations more straightforward for STEP developers operating across the state. If specific requirements are adopted for STEP, avoid vagueness that may lead to arbitrary action or is too difficult for the average citizen to understand. Treat transitional housing and emergency housing with leases and permanent supportive housing the same as other affordable housing types, as required by law (RCW 36.130.020). Also, ensure any additional regulations for emergency shelter and emergency housing are limited to restrictions or requirements that are consistent with state and federal laws and have a legitimate purpose of protecting public health and safety. Do not include spacing requirements or minimum distances from public uses; instead, encourage STEP development in areas with access to these types of amenities, especially public transit when it is available Encouraging STEP development in locations near schools, healthcare services, transportation, job prospects and other amenities helps promote economic mobility and access to services. If jurisdictions 45 Impact fees and linkage fees are costs developers are required to pay to support shared infrastructure and services. Jurisdictions can reduce development costs for STEP and other affordable development projects by reducing or waiving these fees. RCW 82.02.060(3) authorizes cities, counties and towns to grant impact fee exemptions for affordable housing. RCW 35.92.380 authorizes a city or town to waive or delay collection of tap -in charges, connection fees or hookup fees for low-income persons connecting to water, sanitary or storm sewer service, electricity, gas and other means of power and heat, and RCW 36.70A.540 authorizes affordable housing incentive programs, including fee waivers or exemptions. 46 Jurisdictions offering these benefits should always consider tax loss information and possible repercussions on city taxes for the year. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 33 a w rn 0 w a� _ 0 E .L d r.+ Packet Pg. 294 9.3.c Limiting maximum densities or minimum have any restrictions on occupancy, spacing or intensity of use, they must demonstrate with a quantitative and spatial analysis that there is sufficient capacity for their housing needs allocation and include reasoning for how these requirements protect public health and safety in the findings of their ordinance. a w U) ,o Do not place restrictions on STEP that are not placed on other housing or shelter types, unless it is square footage specifically tied to public health and safety. For STEP projects owned and/or operated by religious c organizations, allow density bonuses that are consistent with local housing needs allocations and waive floor area ratio requirements for STEP projects with administrative approval from the local planning O director, city engineer or another local decisionmaker with sufficient capacity and expertise. E •L _ High off-street parking requirements and Waive or significantly reduce parking minimums for STEP projects because they serve individuals who often m ground -floor retail requirements lack a vehicle. Waive ground -floor retail requirements for STEP projects in mixed -use zones to help make projects easier to develop and allow them to serve more people. Limits on occupancy Do not limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or dwelling unit except for lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or building code limits. Jurisdictions looking for assistance should consult their building official/applicable building codes. If jurisdictions choose to have overall occupancy requirements, they must demonstrate with a quantitative and spatial analysis that there is sufficient capacity for their housing needs allocation and include reasoning for how these requirements protect public health and safety in the findings of their ordinance. Restrictions on support spaces, such as Waive restrictions on support spaces, which may be considered a non-residential use, within permanent office space, within a permanent supportive supportive housing properties in residential zones to provide its tenants with greater access to services and housing building in a residential zone amenities that can help them become self-sufficient and stably housed long term. Facility operating and reporting requirements Requirements for coordination with local police and fire departments Arbitrary limits on operation times or occupants (e.g., total occupants allowed or requirements for client background checks or sobriety) and/or requirements for additional Defer to projects' funding requirements and do not set requirements for STEP operations and reporting. Often, jurisdictions do not have the expertise on staff to thoughtfully review and evaluate whether plans for operating these types of housing and shelter are appropriate. Instead, it is recommended to defer to the projects' funders' requirements, which often include standards for client -staff ratios, staff training and certifications, services provided, progress reporting and more. Do not require new coordination plans with local police and fire departments; instead, defer to the preferred coordination plans of local police and fire departments. If such plans do not exist or STEP operators already have existing preferred operations regarding coordination with local police and fire departments, defer to these rather than requiring new plans developed specifically for each project to prevent adding a potentially duplicative, burdensome requirement for STEP. It is best to defer to projects' funding requirements instead of requiring operations plans or additional specific plans of the STEP project. Do not set arbitrary limits on STEP projects' operation times or occupants or include requirements for additional plans or agreements. Often, jurisdictions do not have the expertise on staff to thoughtfully determine operations requirements or plan details for these types of STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 34 Packet Pg. 295 9.3.c plans or agreements (e.g., operations plans or good neighbor agreements) Conditional use permits, design review requirements47 and discretionary review processes48 housing and shelter, so it is best to defer to the projects' funders' requirements, which often include client eligibility requirements and standards for these projects' operations and services. Allow STEP outright as a permitted use ("by -right" zoning) in designated zones, do not include requirements and permitting steps different from those for other affordable housing types, and expedite permitting processes for STEP projects when possible.49 To support classifying STEP as a permitted use outright with an administrative review, a jurisdiction can adopt clear criteria for review to aid judgment in making decisions. Addressing Potential Community Concerns As jurisdictions develop and implement their ordinances, community concerns related to perceived challenges of STEP may arise. To encourage STEP development, jurisdictions can use strategies outside of their local zoning and development regulations to address many of these concerns. Informational community meetings can be one way to identify community concerns in advance, connect housing providers and residents and raise public awareness about the benefits of STEP. Some community concerns are already addressed or can be without creating additional local regulatory or permitting requirements for STEP. For example: • A lack of outside oversight for STEP (e.g., requirements for financing, staff behaviors, client or resident codes of conduct, training and services): In Washington, most STEP projects do not have any state licensing or operating requirements, which has led to community concerns about the quality of their services, the behavior of their clients and a lack of oversight. However, STEP projects require some form of public subsidy or funding from sources that comes with specific eligibility requirements (e.g., requirements for client -staff ratios, staff training or 47 RCW 36.70A and RCW 36.70B were updated in 2023 to streamline local design review processes, requiring "clear and objective" standards that do not 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 36.7013.120(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 HB 1293 (2023), 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. 48 For a list of uses that require a public hearing, see Appendix C, page 31, of Local Ordinances For Washington Cities and Counties. 49 The City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County worked closely together to expedite the permitting for a specific project that incorporates safe parking, a tiny house village and permanent supportive housing on the same piece of county -owned property. Seattle also has implemented an expedited permitting process to encourage STEP production, including exempting permanent supportive housing projects from design review. For more information on how jurisdictions in Washington are helping reduce development barriers for STEP, see the Department of Commerce's STEP Case Studies. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 35 Packet Pg. 296 9.3.c certifications, documentation and reporting). The funders who make STEP projects possible often have their own service, client and staff standards, so additional local requirements can be duplicative and become burdensome for STEP projects. In most cases, it is not possible to build STEP projects without some form of public funding (e.g., a combination of state and LIHTC funding), and all public sources of funding w have regulatory requirements developers must meet.so Making support services optional: Some community members may be concerned about making support services optional for STEP clients. L 0 W However, support services should not be mandatory so that STEP projects do not unintentionally discriminate against clients for religious reasons or because they are hesitant to receive outside assistance. When these services are optional, tenants can drive the type, duration and initiation of services. Studies also show voluntary services are more effective at engaging people to participate in services than mandatory o services.51 Additionally, while services are optional for the participant in permanent supportive housing, they are a core component of it and thus 9 L not optional for the operator. • Unfair evictions: Washington residents are concerned about unfair evictions for renters in leased STEP projects. However, any rental requiring leases must adhere to laws established by Washington State's Residential -Landlord Tenant Act, so tenants are already protected under law." • Lack of behavioral health support: The shortage of healthcare professionals, such as clinicians, long-term care support and social workers, is not only affecting the homeless population in Washington but also everyone else. Instead of imposing difficult staffing or service requirements for STEP, defer to the requirements of the entity funding the project for specific requirements for providers and staffing because they understand the needs of residents, best practices and support and staff availability. • Unaddressed health and safety concerns of shelter and housing (e.g., unmaintained buildings and littered properties): All residential development projects, including STEP, should prioritize the safety and maintenance of their properties for the benefit of their clients, tenants and staff. To ensure that all Washington residents are equally protected, local code enforcement should enforce the same occupancy requirements (e.g., max persons per room) and minimum health and safety standards for all residential projects. • NIMBYism (i.e., Not -In -My -Backyard mentality): In Washington communities, some residents may be opposed to the development of affordable housing in their neighborhood, which can be a major obstacle for STEP in jurisdictions where public input has the power to influence or prevent a project from being built. To overcome this, local governments can reduce discretionary review processes53 for STEP permitting and allow STEP to be permitted administratively, and they can help educate the public about the importance of affordable housing and STEP. The so See "Requirements Associated with State and Federal Funding" in Chapter 3 of the STEP State of the Practice Report for more details on these requirements and links to specific program requirements. 51 For studies on the Housing First model that show voluntary services work, see Data Visualization: The Evidence on Housing First from the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 52 For more information, see the Benton -Franklin Rental Owners Association's Summary of the Residential Landlord -Tenant Act of 1973. 53 These processes leave permit approval up to a local decision -maker's discretion and may require a public hearing. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 36 Packet Pg. 297 9.3.c Department of Commerce's Housing Division developed the Permanent Supportive Housing Communications Toolkit, which includes the following helpful materials: a • Permanent Supportive Housing 101 FactsheetLU Cn Benefits of Permanent Supportive Housing Factsheet • L Building a Community of Support guidance a� • Common Community Concerns FAQ: Understand and Respond • Considerations for Rural and Urban Communities • Amplifying the Voices of People in Need of Permanent Supportive Housing Factsheet p • Lessons Learned Factsheet E L • The Importance of Messaging Factsheet • Understanding how Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Operates Factsheet =- Local authorities can help residents become open to unfamiliar housing types and encourage STEP developers and operators to become actively involved in the community by inviting them to attend local meetings and events. Regularly convening residents and STEP partners to discuss community needs and concerns can be an effective strategy to help address NIMBYism. It is important to control how large these meetings between residents and STEP partners are (e.g., max 15 people), who is invited (e.g., neighborhood leadership, local service providers and advisory groups) and what the format is (e.g., local planning staff serve as conveners and facilitate the meeting, serving as a mediator, if necessary, between residents and STEP partners). Lack of control over neighborhood character: In Washington, some residents may feel that they have no control over the development that takes place in their neighborhood. To address this concern, local jurisdictions can involve community members and STEP partners in discussions about local policies and regulations that guide future development. Jurisdictions should already include robust public engagement opportunities as part of their comprehensive planning processes to ensure that residents have a say in the future of their community. Local ordinances should align with jurisdictions' comprehensive plans and development of local ordinances usually includes an opportunity for community input, so these opportunities are a way residents can influence neighborhood regulations and character as well. It is important to note that local ordinances that mandate public outreach and engagement for affordable housing projects but not for other residential projects may violate fair housing laws and other state and federal regulations. The Department of Commerce encourages jurisdictions to plan for and raise awareness about the benefits of STEP in their housing planning processes. By taking this proactive approach, jurisdictions can reduce the need for engagement related to specific projects and streamline permitting processes for STEP. Assuming that a STEP project is to be administratively approved, local planning staff can also host a community meeting to help inform residents about a specific project in their neighborhood. A community meeting differs from an open record hearing/public hearing because community members cannot influence whether the STEP project moves forward, and the meeting is only for informational purposes. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 37 Packet Pg. 298 El When When STEP providers do not comply with funders' requirements: In situations where STEP service providers/property owners do not comp y with funder requirements or standards, a local government should first notify the property owner of the concerns to determine whether the issues could be rectified. If the owner's response is not sufficient, the local government may consult with the relevant state agency/funder to w understand whether state oversight or resources could be used to address the concerns. Lastly, if providers/property owners remain out of Cn compliance, a local government may utilize its code enforcement tools, as it would with any other nuisance property or landlord. w a� Sex offenders near children: Some local regulations in Washington currently impose potentially discriminatory distancing requirements for STEP related to parks, schools and daycare centers. Community protection zones for STEP projects are not needed because Washington state L law already establishes an 880-foot community protection zone around public and private schools to regulate the residency of level two and o three sex offenders (RCW9.94A.030(6)). Furthermore, policies that prevent STEP from being built near parks, schools or other public uses can E L unintentionally affect other populations experiencing homelessness such as children that need access to these services. Crime and substance abuse: STEP that is well managed can be a neighborhood asset that creates the conditions necessary for everyone to thrive and have access to support services. Many STEP developments also provide resources to the community regarding any concerns that may require immediate intervention. These developments employ staff with expertise in supporting people in transition from homelessness, including crisis intervention and security. Staff work with STEP clients and residents to comply with shelter and housing rules and are trained to de-escalate difficult situations before they become emergencies through onsite or mobile support. Staff serve as a point of contact for community members to discuss and address concerns as they emerge.54 Several studies on permanent supportive housing found no evidence that the development of these facilities leads to increased rates of crime." While sobriety is an important goal for many individuals, many studies56 have found that imposing strict sobriety requirements as a condition of housing can be counterproductive and exacerbate homelessness. By providing stable housing and other services, STEP projects can help individuals take the steps to improve their health and well-being, address the root causes of their substance use, and connect with counseling and other supportive services. Additionally, fair housing laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act protect people with criminal histories related to past substance abuse.57 54 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Permanent Supportive Housing: Evaluating the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes Among People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2018. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25133/permanent-supportive-housing-evaluating-the- evidence-for-improving-health-outcomes 55 San Mateo County Health System, Behavioral Health and Recovery Services. The Impact of Supportive Housing on Neighborhood Crime and Property Values. www.smchealth.ora/sites/main/files/file-attachments/impact_of_supportive_housing_on_neighborhood_crime_and_propery_v2.pdf?1468431099 56 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing First: A Review of the Evidence. 2023. www.huduser.00v/portal/periodicals/em/spring-summer- 23/highlight2.html 57 For more information, see The Americans With Disabilities Act. Addiction, and Recovery for State and Local Governments. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 38 Packet Pg. 299 9.3.c Chapter 8: Adoption and Implementation To encourage the development of STEP in the state of Washington, the adoption of Commerce's model ordinance and other recommendations in w this guide is highly encouraged. While the use of the model ordinance is voluntary, state laws require cities and counties planning under the Growth Cn Management Act to ensure their local regulations adhere to the minimum state requirements. c w a� General tips for adoption and implementation of STEP regulations include: Plan for adoption at the beginning: Preparing for adoption should begin with establishing how this work will fit into our jurisdiction's upcoming • p 9 9 P g p g g Y j p 9 p annual work plan or periodic update work plan. Establish a critical path and work backward from desired legislative action dates with the city E council, board of county commissioners or other approving entity. Allow for some cushion in case more time is needed to respond to public and decision -maker comments, as well as provide time to consider land capacity if spacing, occupancy or intensity of use restrictions are considered. Engage decision makers along the way: Addressing critical housing needs and defining regulations for STEP can raise concerns from a range of stakeholders, including elected and appointed officials. Engaging with decision -makers early and continuously will create a smoother path for the adoption process. Work with attorneys: Jurisdictions should work with an attorney or the Department of Commerce to ensure their local ordinances are consistent with state and federal law before adoption. After adoption, jurisdictions may still need to work with attorneys to deal with compliance issues in administering the ordinance. For example, an issue may arise requiring legal support to articulate a policy or procedure within the ordinance. Jurisdictions can ensure their permit requirements for STEP are as objective as possible to ensure their decisions are legally defensible. Raise awareness about the benefits of STEP: To further support jurisdictions in the adoption and implementation of their ordinances related to STEP, the Department of Commerce is developing the STEP Communications Toolkit, including a sample staff report and other materials to help local planning staff, appointed and elected officials and others communicate the benefits, challenges and best practices associated with planning for STEP. These tools will be coordinated and consistent with the Department of Commerce Housing Division's Permanent Supportive Housing Communications Toolkit. Commerce's STEP Communications Toolkit is available on the Updating GMA Housing Elements webpage. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 39 Packet Pg. 300 9.3.c Appendix Methodology LU Cn From February 2024 through July 2024, Commerce is working with Abt Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing (the project team) to ,o create a STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report and Communications Toolkit. The following includes the project team's Q methodology for drafting the STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report. Establish an Advisory Committee 0 To inform the model ordinance and its supplemental materials, the project team established an advisory committee including representatives from individual jurisdictions who have regulated types of STEP in their communities, STEP developers, and stakeholders who were involved in the v development of HB 1220 or overall housing policy development in Washington. The project team convened this committee three times throughout the process to gather information and guidance. Members include: 1. Adrian Smith, City of Port Townsend 2. Ali Brast, City of Spokane 3. Blake Lyon, City of Bellingham 4. Bryan Snodgrass, City of Vancouver 5. Bryce Yadon, Futurewise 6. Carl Schroeder, Association of Washington Cities 7. Chris Collier, Alliance for Housing Affordability at Housing Authority of Snohomish County 8. Colin Morgan -Cross, Mercy Housing 9. Curtis Steinhauer, Washington State Association of Counties 10. Dee Caputo, FAICP, Washington State Department of Commerce, Growth Management Services (Retired) 11. Glen DeVries, City of Wenatchee 12. Lauren Fay, Downtown Emergency Services Center (DESC) 13. Mario Williams -Sweet, King County 14. Mary May, GS Consulting Analyze the Existing State of the Practice To better understand the current environment and best practices regarding STEP, the project team cataloged relevant state and federal laws, reviewed other communities' model ordinances and analyzed local jurisdictions' existing regulations from February to April 2024. The project STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 40 Packet Pg. 301 9.3.c team's research included conducting virtual interviews and small groups with representatives from local planning departments and other STE stakeholders, including: • City of Federal Way • City of Kenmore • City of Kent • City of Langley • City of Olympia • GS Consulting, Affordable Housing Consultant • King County • Lewis County • Snohomish County • Plymouth Housing • Washington State Department of Health AM documented and synthesized the results of these information -gathering activities in a State of the Practice Report identifying best practices and local needs to guide the design of the model ordinance and its supplemental materials. Study Local Implementation Successes In March and April 2024, the project team studied the successful implementation of STEP ordinances and development in four different jurisdictions in Washington state, including the City of Spokane, the City of Vancouver, the City of Wenatchee and King County. The team selected localities of varying sizes and locations throughout the state to conduct interviews and gather information for case studies. The lessons learned from these studies informed the model ordinance and its supplemental materials and are compiled in the STEP Case Studies Report. Facilitate a 30-day Public Comment Period and Targeted Engagement The project team facilitated a 30-day public comment period before finalizing the STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report. To gather feedback during this time, Commerce broadly distributed the draft model ordinance to Washington's local governments, behavioral health providers and other interested parties to give them the opportunity to provide comments. The team also conducted an online webinar on May 14, 2024, and presented at existing meetings with targeted groups. The project team analyzed all the comments collected over the public comment period and used that feedback to inform the final model ordinance and its supplemental materials. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 a w U) 0 as U c ca c L 0 E •L a� Packet Pg. 302 9.3.d Edmonds Housing Targets Edmonds is committed to guiding growth in a manner that is equitable and sustainable. This will be done by increasing the quantity of housing stock and diversity of housing choices, including middle housing and accessory dwelling units (see Appendix A), and identifying and addressing racially disparate impacts of housing policy. As part of doing its part in addressing critical regional needs, Snohomish County's HO-5 Report (adopted May 2023) relates the City of Edmonds' housing targets. Edmonds has a future land supply established in 2021 of 5,148 (see Table 3.1). Pending 17 49 15 561 0 625 Vacant 44 115 7 422 31 575 Partially Used 21 62 0 0 0 62 Redevelopable 231 -24 63 3508 340 3887 City 313 201 84 4491 371 5148 Table 3.1 Edmonds future land supply (Source: The Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report 2023) In this planning cycle to accommodate population growth, the City must increase its unit capacity by 3,921, for a total of 9,069 housing units. These 9,069 units must be distributed according to the requirements and affordability levels designated in HB 1220. Edmonds' designation as a "high -cost community" impacts the required allocation for types of housing units. 0-30% AMI: Non- Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) 0-30% AMI: PSH >30-50% AMI >50-80% AMI Moderate <80-120% AMI Higher Income >120% AMI 1,883 977 2,479 1,475 6,814 2,129 126 0 84 1,952 2,129 42 9,069 4,946 4,123 Table 3.2 Required allocation of housing units as per affordability levels designated House Bill 1220 (Source: The Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report 2023) Note: According to Commerce guidance, Permanent Supportive Housing and Low -Income Housing (0-80% AMI) are grouped under the same affordability level and permitted housing categories for "high -cost community" such as City of Edmonds. See Appendix A for more details. 76 CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12024 Packet Pg. 303 9.3.d Edmonds must plan for: • 6,814 units at the Low 0-80% AMI Income level - Low -Rise or Mid -Rise Multi -family; e.g. walk-up apartments (2-3 floors), Apartments • 2,129 units at the Moderate <80-120% AMI Income level — these may be ADUs. • 126 units at the High Income level - these may be Moderate Density (duplex, quad, triplex) Edmonds current supply comprises of: • 5,148 units of which 201 units are single family detached, 84 units are Moderate Density (e.g. duplex, triplex, quad) and • 4,862 units are Low-rise or Mid -Rise Multi -family (walk up apartments) Low 0-80% AMI and Low -Rise or Mid -Rise Multi -family. Permanent Supportive (Like Walk-up apartment buildings Housing (2-3 floors), apartments) Moderate <80-120% ADUs or Low-rise/ Mid -rise Multi- AMI family Higher Income >120% Detached single family homes, AMI Middle Housing- Townhomes, Duplex, Triplex, Quadplex Table 3.3 Translating housing type to affordability level (for high cost communities) (Source: Department of Commerce Guidebook for Applying HB 1220) During the 2024 update cycle, the City of Edmonds must provide a net capacity change of the following: • A net increase of at least 1,952 units that are in the Low-rise or Mid -rise multi -family apartment category. • A net increase of at least 2,129 ADUs, or that are in the Low-rise or Mid -rise multi -family apartment category. • A net increase of at least 42 units that are Moderate density. By 2044, the unit mix for Edmonds is anticipated to be more diverse, providing a greater amount of housing choices, especially among housing types such as apartments and condominiums, which tend to be more affordable than others. Mobile home, Boat, ADUs, 0%_///— RV, van, etc., 1% 441 Multi Family and Middle Housing (2-4 units per lot), 36% Single Family, 63% 2020 Mobile home, Boat, ADUs, 7% RV, van, etc., 1% Multi Family and Single Family Middle Housing 43% (2-4 units per lot), 49% 2044 Figure 3.3 Existing Mix of housing types (Census 2020) and potential mix of housing types as per House Bills compliance (2044) EVERYONE'S EDMO Packet Pg. 304 9.3.d The two categories of land for which a net change in capacity is calculated: • Single-family residential land use areas • The multi -family and mixed -use land use areas. With the implementation of HB 1110 and HB 1337, capacity assumptions for single-family/low-density residential land use areas must be adjusted. These legislative changes effectively eliminate the State's allowance for one -family detached zoning. Consequently, Edmonds' single-family/low-density residential areas can now be assumed to have the potential for (re)development under any of the following density scenarios: • Two additional ADUs in attached or detached configurations • Two units in any configuration Four units in any configuration if one unit is affordable, i.e., rented or purchase price restricted and limited to lower income tenants or purchasers Applying the two House Bills, HB 1110 and HB 1337, capacity of ADUs and Middle Housing Units that may count towards the housing targets is calculated. Department of commerce has provided guidance on implementing the house bills. Based on this guidance, a set of methods and assumptions were created. Refer Appendix A for Method and Assumptions for calculating the new housing capacity. To accommodate the projected growth, i.e. housing and employment targets City has identified potential growth areas called Neighborhood Centers and Neighborhood Hubs to achieve sustainable, resilient, and equitable distribution of growth. They offer a variety of capacities to support housing and job growth, diverse housing types, and citywide infrastructure investments. Please see Land Use Element of this plan for more details. Refer to the Appendix C for a detailed summary of Growth alternatives. The Land Use element of this Plan details the areas of centers and hubs along with the capacities achieved. Table 3.4 gives the summary of housing units capacity enabled for the year 2044 based on the City's selected approach. Centers Medical District Expansion 1,150 Westgate 1,180 5 Corners 460 Firdale Village 290 Hubs North Bowl 110 East Seaview 220 Perrinville 110 West Edmonds Way 30 South Lake Ballinger 70 Maplewood 200 Low Rise/Mid Rise Apartments in Centers and Hubs 3,710 ADUs 1,972 Middle Housing 42 Existing Capacity 4,226 9,951 Table 3.4 Summary of housing units capacity Note: The housing capacity estimates are based on market feasibility analysis conducted in 2024. 78 CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12024 Packet Pg. 305 9.3.e Draft ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing Page 1 of 2 Chapter 17.125 Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing (STEP Housing) Sections: 17.125.000 Purpose. 17.125.010 Applicability. 17.125.020 Definitions. 17.125.030 Regulations. 17.125.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Ensure compliance with the State of Washington's Growth Management Act and other laws B. Support the implementation of Edmonds's comprehensive plan. C. Encourage the development of emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing and transitional housing consistent with best practices for these development types to help address local housing needs. D. Direct STEP development to areas with existing amenities, like jobs, services and transit, to ensure occupants have access to opportunities. E. Protect the health, safety and welfare of the individuals served by these development types and the broader community. 17.125.010 Applicability. A. Where this chapter conflicts with any other, this chapter prevails. 17.125.020 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter: A. "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. [RCW 36.70A.030(14)] Packet Pg. 306 9.3.e Draft ECDC Chapter 17.125, STEP Housing Page 2 of 2 B. "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. [RCW 36.70A.030(15)] C. "Permanent supportive housing" is 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. [RCW 36.70A.030(31)] D. "Religious organization" means the federally protected practice of a recognized religious assembly, school or institution that owns or controls real property. [RCW 36.01.290(6)(c)] E. "Temporary", as applied in this chapter, applies to the person and how long they reside in STEP housing, not the structure or length of time for the land use. F. "Transitional housing" means a project that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons or families and that has as its purpose facilitating the movement of homeless persons and families into independent living, generally in less than two years. [RCW 84.36.043(3)(c)] 17.125.030 Regulations. A. Permitted zones for STEP Housing. 1. Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing is permitted in zones in which hotels are allowed: Commercial Waterfront (CW) Community Business (BD), Downtown Business (BD), General Commercial (CG), Mixed -Use 3 (MU3), Mixed -Use 4 (MU4), and Mixed -Use 5 (MU5). 2. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing is permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Packet Pg. 307 9.3.f ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING, AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ("STEP" HOUSING). WHEREAS, the Washington state legislature passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220) in 2021, which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements for housing; and WHEREAS, the law requires local governments like Edmonds to plan for and accommodate housing affordable to all income levels, which includes demonstrating sufficient land capacity for housing at all income levels to meet future housing needs, including permanent supportive housing and emergency housing; and WHEREAS, local governments must also identify local barriers to production of affordable housing and take actions to remove those barriers; and WHEREAS, housing targets were established for Edmonds as part of the recent periodic Comprehensive Plan update; and WHEREAS, Edmonds, as a high -cost community, must plan for 6,814 units of permanent supportive and low-income housing (0-80% of Area Median Income) over the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, these targets informed the development of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding supportive housing; and WHEREAS, this ordinance addresses the supportive housing goal and policies H-9.2, H- 9.5, H-9.6, and H-9.7 by allowing: • Indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing as permitted uses in all zones where hotels are currently allowed in Edmonds: Commercial Waterfront (CW) Community Business (BD), Downtown Business (BD), and General Commercial (CG); • Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing as permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed; and Packet Pg. 308 9.3.f WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted without first holding a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the city council intends to follow this ordinance with a permanent set of regulations that implement HB 1220; and WHEREAS, the forthcoming permanent regulations and related public participation processes will give the city council an opportunity to consider additional housing options for tiny houses and shelters, temporary pallet shelters, tent encampments, and safe parking areas, which are not included in these interim regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 17.125, entitled "Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Emergency Housing, and Permanent Supportive Housing (STEP Housing)," 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. Packet Pg. 309 9.3.f 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 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: :• JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 310 9.3.f 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, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, EMERGENCY HOUSING, AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ("STEP" HOUSING). The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12024. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 M CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 311 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/7/2025 Resolution Calling for a Special Election Concerning Annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History On December 17, 2024 South County Fire Commissioners approved Resolution #12172024-31 amending the RFA Plan (Edmonds Annexation) and Pre -Annexation Agreement. Document attached is pending final signatures. On December 17, 2024 Edmonds City Council approved the amended RFA Plan (Edmonds Annexation) and Pre -Annexation Agreement and directed the City Attorney to draft a resolution placing the RFA Annexation on the April 2025 ballot. Minutes to this meeting are pending approval, and are included in this packet's consent agenda. Recommendation Approve the resolution calling for a special election concerning annexation into the South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue Regional Fire Authority. Narrative Resolution attached includes the proposition short ballot title, full ballot title, and explanatory statement, as prepared by the City Attorney. Attachments: 2025-01-02 resolution for ballot measure - final SCF Resolution 12172024-31 to Amend RFA Plan Edmonds Packet Pg. 312 9.4.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION CONCERNING U- ANNEXATION INTO THE SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE & 0 RESCUE REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY. 0 WHEREAS, SCF and its predecessor, Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, have provided fire x and EMS rescue services to the City of Edmonds through an Interlocal Agreement since January 1, 2010; and Q WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, SCF notified the City of its intent to terminate the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services effective December 31, 2025; and WHEREAS, on June 3, 2024, Fitch and Associates submitted their final report, entitled "City of Edmonds Emergency Services Analysis" providing comparisons of fire and EMS services options for the city to consider and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, following a public hearing of options on May 7, 2024 the city council adopted Resolution 1547, stating their preferred alternative for fire and emergency medical services was joining the RFA via annexation, and authorizing the mayor to pursue next steps regarding this alternative; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the city council adopted Resolution 1549, expressing the intent of the city to pursue annexation to SCF; and WHEREAS, the City is a fire protection jurisdiction as defined in RCW 52.26.020(3); and WHEREAS, Chapter 52.26 RCW authorizes two or more fire protection jurisdictions to participate in a regional fire services authority commonly known as a regional fire authority or "RFA"; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds ("the City") and the South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Authority ("SCF") share a contiguous border; and WHEREAS, RCW 52.26.300 sets forth the procedure for elections concerning the annexation of a city into a regional fire protection service authority; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the Governing Board of SCF adopted Resolution No. 12172024-31, amending its Regional Fire Authority ("RFA") Plan to provide for the annexation of the City of Edmonds subject to the approval by the voters of the City of Edmonds pursuant to RCW 52.26.300(3); and WHEREAS, the City and SCF believe that the public health and safety of the citizens they serve will benefit from City annexation into SCF; and Packet Pg. 313 9.4.a WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the stable funding source provided by annexation will allow SCF to be able to continue to deliver the current level of fire/EMS services over the long term to City taxpayers; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the Edmonds City Council adopted a motion 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 22, 2025 ballot; and WHEREAS, notification of intent to annex is being transmitted to the Snohomish County Auditor; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 52.26.300, the City of Edmonds requests that the Snohomish County Auditor place a proposition on the special election ballot to be held on April 22, 2025, for the voters in the City of Edmonds to approve or reject the annexation of the City of Edmonds to be part of the SCF effective June 1, 2025, substantially as follows: Name of Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds Proposition Number: Proposition 1 Short Title: Edmonds Seeks Voter Approval to Annex into South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Fire Authority Ballot Title: Shall the City of Edmonds be annexed into and be a part of the South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Fire Authority, effective June 1, 2025, per Edmonds City Council Resolution No. #####? Yes lat Section 2. A local voters' pamphlet is requested and language for the explanatory statement is attached as Exhibit 1. Section 3. The City Attorney is authorized to make such minor adjustments to the formatting and/or wording of the ballot measure and/or the explanatory statement as may be recommended or required by the Snohomish County Auditor, as long as the intent of the measure remains clear and consistent with the intent of this Resolution as approved by the City Council. The City Attorney is further authorized to update the resolution number in the ballot title and the URL in the explanatory statement. Packet Pg. 314 9.4.a Section 4. The City Clerk is authorized to file any necessary documents with the Snohomish County Auditor to fulfill the purposes of this Resolution. a U- Section 5. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures c hereon. _ 0 r �a RESOLVED this day of January, 2025. _ CITY OF EDMONDS a 0 r d w R MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN a ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 315 9.4.a Exhibit 1 Explanatory Statement Q U- This proposition seeks approval to annex the City of Edmonds into South County Fire ("SCF"), W 0 which currently provides Edmonds with fire/EMS services by contract. This contract terminates c December 31, 2025. Annexation provides a known stable funding source, allowing SCF to 0 continue delivering the current level of fire/EMS services within Edmonds. Alternatively, x contracting for services in 2026 would cost similar to SCF's revenue from Edmonds property owners if annexation is approved, but without the funding source. a If approved: • City's regular property tax levy will not be reduced; • City's EMS levy will be eliminated; • SCF's property tax levy and fire benefit charges will be paid directly to SCF by Edmonds property owners, providing a known stable funding source for fire/EMS services; • SCF will continue providing current level of service. If not approved: • City would not have a known stable funding source to contract for fire/EMS in 2026 and beyond; • No changes to property taxes or fire benefit charges would result from this election; • City would need to raise taxes and/or implement drastic reductions in City operations to pay for the fire/EMS contract; • City's ability to maintain current level of service is jeopardized. More information: www.edmondswa.gov/[url pending] Packet Pg. 316 9.4.b RESOLUTION NO. 12172024-31 a U- AMENDMENT OF SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE W 0 REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY (SCF) PLAN c WHEREAS, SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY ("SCF") was formed on October 1, 2017, pursuant to a voter approved plan X (hereinafter the "SCF Plan"), with the original participating jurisdictions consisting of the City of Lynnwood and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1; a WHEREAS, the purpose of creating SCF was to regionalize fire and emergency medical services in order to provide an enhanced level of service while reducing redundancies; WHEREAS, the City of Mill Creek (COMC) annexed into SCF on August 1, 2022; WHEREAS, the City of Brier annexed into SCF on August 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the City of Mountlake Terrace (MLT) annexed into SCF on August 1, 2023; WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds is within reasonable proximity to SCF and has, pursuant to RCW 52.26.300, requested to annex into SCF effective June 1, 2025; WHEREAS, the Governing Board of SCF believes regionalization is in the best interest of the citizens of SCF and the City of Edmonds; WHEREAS, SCF is willing to amend the Plan to provide for the annexation of the City of Edmonds, subject to approval by the voters of the City of Edmonds; WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds and SCF have negotiated revisions to the Plan to provide for the City of Edmonds to annex into SCF; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds intends to seek voter approval of the annexation and the amended RFA Plan at the April, 2025, special election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Fire Authority as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 52.26.300(3), the Governing Board for SCF hereby approves the amended RFA Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Such Plan would take effect on June 1, 2025, the effective date of the City of Edmonds annexation, provided that the voters of the City of Edmonds approve such ballot measure. If the voters of Edmonds do not approve the Plan and the annexation of the City of Edmonds into SCF, this amended RFA Plan shall be void and of no effect. Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon passage and signatures hereon. ADOPTED by the Board of Fire Commissioners of South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Fire Authority, at a regular open public meeting thereof this 17'" day of December 2024, of which notice was given in the manner provided by law, the following Commissioners being present and voting. Packet Pg. 317 9.4.b By: Jim Kenny Its: Commissioner, Chair By: Mark Laurence Its: Commissioner, Vice Chair By: Chris Teofilak Its: Commissioner By: David Chan Its: Commissioner By: Micah Rowland Its: Commissioner By: Ed Widdis Its: Commissioner By: Micheal Fearnehough Its: Commissioner By: Paula Swisher Its: Brier City Liaison By: Greg Kircher Its: Mountlake Terrace Liaison ATTEST: By: Melissa Blankenship Its: Executive Assistant a U- W 0 0 �a X a� _ El Packet Pg. 318 9.4.b CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, Executive Assistant of South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Fire Authority ("SCF"), hereby certify as follows: The attached copy of Resolution No. 12172024-31 (the "Resolution") is a full, true, and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Governing Board of South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue Regional Fire Authority held on December 17, 2024, as the Resolution appears on the minute books of SCF and the Resolution is now in full force and effect. 2. A quorum of the members of the Board was present throughout the meeting and a majority of those members on the Board present voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17 day of December, 2024 Melissa Blankenship, Executive Assistant LL W 0 c 0 0 x m c c El Packet Pg. 319