Loading...
2025-01-14 Council PacketAgenda Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JANUARY 14, 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 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. PRESENTATIONS Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Proclamation (5 min) Resolution of Appreciation for Service as Council President - Vlvian Olson (5 min) 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) Edmonds City Council Agenda January 14, 2025 Page 1 2. Council Affirmation of Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics (0 min) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes November 21, 2024 2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes November 25, 2024 3. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes November 26, 2024 4. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes November 26, 2024 5. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 6. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 7. Resolution of Appreciation for Service as Council President - Vlvian Olson 8. Adoption of Interim Ordinance for Neighborhood Centers and Hubs 9. Adoption of Interim Ordinance for STEP Housing 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Planning Board Update (20 min) 2. Ordinance to amend ECDC 18.00.050 and 18.00.060 (20 min) 3. Interfund Loan (15 min) 4. Ordinance Authorizing Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) (15 min) 5. Extension of Interim Finance Director Appointment (10 min) 6. Discussion of Proposed Changes to ECC 1.04 Council Meetings (45 min) 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) (30 MIN.) 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION ADJOURNMENT 10:00 PM Edmonds City Council Agenda January 14, 2025 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Proclamation Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History Staff Recommendation Narrative Mayor Rosen will read a proclamation in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr., Day. Attachments: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2025 Packet Pg. 3 O PrILIrlamattia" City of Edmonds •Office of the Mayor MARTIN LUTH ER KING, J R. DAY WHEREAS, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. devoted his life to advancing equality, social justice, and opportunity for all, and challenged all Americans to participate in the never-ending work of building a more perfect union; and WHEREAS, in 1964 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent resistance to racial prejudice in America; and WHEREAS, Rev. Dr. M. L. King, Jr. encouraged Americans to come together, regardless of age, race, or creed, to strengthen their communities, to alleviate poverty, and to value the dignity and respect inherent in all people; and WHEREAS, in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", he wrote, "I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.": and WHEREAS, we remember his legacy as an American hero and tireless social activist, who called upon our country to ensure equal justice under the law; and WHEREAS, the third Monday of January is designated a federal holiday honoring Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and WHEREAS, his teachings continue to guide and inspire us in addressing challenges in our communities; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mike Rosen, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, do hereby acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr., Day and call upon the people of Edmonds to reflect upon our individual attitudes and prejudices and to establish or renew our commitments to equal justice under the law and respect for our fellow human beings. Mike Rosen, Mayor — January 14, 2025 Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Resolution of Appreciation for Service as Council President - Vlvian Olson Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History It has been customary to adopt a resolution thanking the outgoing Council President for their service at the end of their term. Staff Recommendation Adopt a resolution thanking Councilmember Olson for her dedication and service. Narrative Councilmember Vivian Olson served as Council President from January to December 2024. Attachments: Resolution Thanking Council President Vivian Olson January 2025 Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL THANKING COUNCIL PRESIDENT VIVIAN OLSON FOR HER SERVICE TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Vivian Olson served as Council President from January to December 2024, while also serving as the liaison to Snohomish County Tomorrow, and member of the City of Edmonds Boards and Commission Task Force, the City of Edmonds Future of Fire, and the Anway Park public art selection committee; and WHEREAS, Council President Olson exhibited leadership with prompt response and respectful consideration to differing views of Council peers, city staff, and members of the Edmonds community; and WHEREAS, Council President Olson shepherded the development and adoption of the city's first Council Rules of Procedure, providing documented guidance for Council processes; and WHEREAS, she served with tenacious dedication to accuracy, precision, and detail of the process considering the city's future of Fire and Emergency Medical Services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Olson managed a challenging Council workload year, including the adoption of the 2025-2026 biennial budget with inaugural community prioritization methods, the update to our city's Comprehensive Plan, and financial policies and revenue initiatives related to the city's fiscal challenges; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Vivian Olson be commended and thanked for serving as Council President. RESOLVED this 14th day of January 2024. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 6 4.2.a FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 7 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 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. 8 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 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 January 1, 2025 and January 8, 2025. Attachments: Public Comment January 14, 2025 Packet Pg. 9 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —January 14, 2025 Online Form 2025-01-03 11:52 AM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/3/2025 1:52:13 PM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Ian LastName Higgins Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Law Enforcement r Comments Dear City Council, While I do not fully understand where this "budget crisis" is = Q coming from, or how much of a "crisis" it is, I understand it can be hard to generate revenue under E E or regressive tax structure. I fully support efforts to disband the Edmonds Police Force and contract v out services. While this is a complex topic; I encourage looking into alternatives to policing such as crisis response units, that would reduce the need for uniformed officers to respond to situations; 3 thus saving additional money. I think reducing the amount of traditional "policing" is a better way = forward then increasing the amount of traffic cameras, license plant scanners, and other "public w safety" surveillance systems; which the Edmonds Police Department as proposed to generate additional revenue. Thank you for all your hard work, Ian„ Online Form 2025-01-05 10:10 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1 /6/2025 12:10:16 AM (GMT- 07:00) US/Arizona FirstName Barrett LastName Speller Email CityOfResidence Edmonds, WA AgendaTopic Idea to Close Edmonds Police Department, Contract with King County Sherriff Instead - Due to Poor Budgeting Comments Speaking up to say this is the WORST city of Edmonds idea I've heard of, and can't believe it is even being considered. I've lived in Edmonds for 13 years, and grew up in nearby Lake Forest Park, where I visited Edmonds to see family or recreate with friends with some frequency. The Edmonds Police have been a real strength to this community for a long time, and are the backbone to everything else good we have. King County is terrible at policing, and are already overwhelmed. King County would not be able to police our community adequately, and you can expect an increase in crime if this change is made. Do you want that on your watch? We want a Bellevue style police regime. Not a Seattle one, or generic King County one. Sufficient policing is a PRIMARY purpose of citizen property tax dollars. Not secondary. Prioritize accordingly. Raise taxes if you must. But more importantly, please be wise about what you spend money on, how much, and how important that really is or is not in hard reality. Not based on perception, at a moment in time. Packet Pg. 10 7.1.a Edmonds City Council Public Comments —January 14, 2025 Is a more aesthetic highway 99 barrier more important than proper police? NO! If we had too many officers for our needs, we can look at reducing that number. But that does not justify eliminating the local city force entirely, and contracting with King County for policing instead. We strongly prefer a local force, with a high level of local accountability, and service focus. Avery clear job. So it can be well done. We don't really matter to King County. Especially if push comes to shove. This budget shortfall is essentially your fault. Not ours. Don't make us pay for it with lower levels of safety and security. That's your number 1 job. Please note, the Biden Administration has shifted from Defund the Police, to Fund the Police. Let's keep those lessons learned, and honor the personnel who have done such a standout job here in Edmonds. Not disband them. Mike Rosen was elected on the basis of keeping that Mayberry feel he expressed so much appreciation for. This is his time to shine, and make sure that promise is kept. Q E E Online Form 2025-01-08 04:41 PM(MST) was submitted by Guest on 1/8/2025 6:41:06 PM (GMT- 0 07:00) US/Arizona a FirstName Marjie w. LastName Fields w Email CityOfResidence Edmonds AgendaTopic Regulations Protecting our Critical Ares Comments Watching the progress of development in our city near to our streams and wetlands, I and many others have become increasingly concerned about city zoning codes for Critical Areas. With review of those codes coming up in 2025, 1 trust that city council and staff will quickly begin the urgently needed review of current related policies and practices. These include careful identification and mapping of critical areas, overview of SEPA reviews, and buffer requirements. Packet Pg. 11 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Council Affirmation of Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History Council approved Resolution 1562, adopting the Council Rules of Procedure on November 7, 2024. These Rules include the Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics which were adopted previously. Recommendation N/A Narrative Section 6.4 B. of the Council Rules of Procedure states: The Code of Conduct shall be reviewed and reaffirmed annually by the City Council. Attachments: Council Code of Conduct Affirmations January 2025 Resolution 1562 Packet Pg. 12 7.2.a CITY OFEDMONDS 121 5T"AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0248 - FAX425-771-0254 Websi[e: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uphold the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved by the Edmonds City Council. r Councilmember Date: / ` -7-,5,1 S Packet Pg. 13 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 57H AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0248 - FAX 425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uphold the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved by the Edmonds City Council. r Councilmember Date: Packet Pg. 14 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 57H AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0248 - FAX 425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uphold the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved by the Edmonds City Council. Councilmem Date: Packet Pg. 15 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 1215'HAVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS.WA98020 • 425-771-0248 • FAX425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uphold the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved by the Edmonds City Council. Councilmembe/r'_f1-164 Date: ) l 7-/ 20 ZS Packet Pg. 16 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 57H AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0248 - FAX425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uph.otd the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved bythe Edrn nds�t/ i�ty�Co111�u1 ncil. Councilmemb r Date: I i L Packet Pg. 17 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5n AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0248 • FAX 425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uphold the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved by the Edmonds City Council. Councilmember"�/ Date: Packet Pg. 18 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 57H AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0248 - FAX425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT AND CODE OF ETHICS Edmonds City Council 2025 I affirm that I will uphold the Council Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics, as previously approved by the Edmonds City Council. CouncilmemberX1ti Date: e_nvcih 7. �s Packet Pg. 19 7.2.b RESOLUTION NO. 1562 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Chapter 35A.12.120 RCW gives the City Council of each code city the power to set rules for conducting its business within the provisions of Title 35A RCW; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the City Council passed Resolution No. 1295, which adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority for the conduct of City Council meetings; and WHEREAS, in December 2013, the Council passed Resolution No. 1306 adopting a Code of Conduct and in June 2015, the Council approved a Code of Ethics by motion; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2021, the Council adopted a new Code of Conduct by motion; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1295 is limited to parliamentary procedure in the context of Council meetings, and such rules do not address many other processes and procedures in the conduct of City business; and WHEREAS, a more comprehensive set of rules, including a code of conduct, would provide greater understanding and transparency about the roles, rights, and responsibilities of councilmembers and facilitate the orderly conduct of City business; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and approved all sections of its draft Rules of Procedures during its committee and regular meetings in 2024; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that these rules of procedure be periodically reviewed as needed during odd -numbered years, as referenced in Section 14.2 of the Council Rules of Procedure. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Establishment of Rules of Procedure. The City Council hereby adopts the "Rules of Procedure" attached hereto as "Exhibit A." Section 2. Repealer. Resolution No. 1295 adopting Robert's Rules of Procedure is hereby repealed. 1 Packet Pg. 20 7.2.b RESOLVED this 12'' day of November, 2024. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CiTf CLERK, SCOT4-fASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. November 7, 2024 November 12, 2024 1562 Packet Pg. 21 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. AUTHORITY 1.1 Intent of Policies............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Effect/Waiver of Rules.................................................................................... 1 1.3 Footnotes and References............................................................................. 1 SECTION 2. COUNCIL ORGANIZATION 2.1 Oath of Office................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Election of Council President and Council President Pro Tern ....................... 1 2.3 Duties of Officers............................................................................................ 2 2.4 Appointments to Boards and Commissions.................................................... 2 2.5 Filling a Council Vacancy............................................................................... 2 SECTION 3. AGENDA PREPARATION 3.1 Role of City Clerk............................................................................................3 3.2 Placement of Items on the Agenda.................................................................3 3.3 Format for Agenda Memos..............................................................................4 3.4 Agenda Item Priority.......................................................................................4 3.5 Readings for Ordinances.................................................................................4 SECTION 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Establishment of Consent Agenda................................................................. 4 4.2 Adoption of Consent Agenda......................................................................... 4 4.3 Removal of Item from Consent Agenda......................................................... 4 SECTION 5. COUNCIL MEETINGS 5.1 Open Public Meetings................................................................................. 5 5.2 Meeting Cancellation....................................................................................5 5.3 Regular Meetings.........................................................................................5 5.4 Forms of Address.........................................................................................6 5.5 Seating Arrangement...................................................................................6 5.6 Quasi -Judicial Items.....................................................................................6 5.7 Council Committees.....................................................................................7 5.8 Executive Sessions..................................................................................... 8 5.9 Special Meetings......................................................................................... 8 5.10 Emergency Meetings................................................................................. 8 5.11 Meeting Place............................................................................................ 8 i Packet Pg. 22 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 5.12 Notice of Meetings, Public Hearings.......................................................... 8 5.13 Quorum...................................................................................................... 8 5.14 Attendance, Excused Absences..................................................................8 5.15 Remote Attendance.....................................................................................9 5.16 Role of Clerk................................................................................................9 SECTION 6. COUNCIL CONDUCT 6.1 General Conduct............................................................................................ 9 6.2 Conduct with City Staff, and the Council Legislative Assistant ..................... 10 6.3 Conduct with Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Outside Agencies .... 10 6.4 Implementation, Compliance, and Enforcement............................................11 SECTION 7. CODE OF ETHICS 7.1 Code of Ethics.............................................................................................. 11 SECTION 8. PUBLIC TESTIMONY 8.1 Public Hearings............................................................................................ 12 8.2 Audience Comments.................................................................................... 12 8.3 Group representation....................................................................................12 8.4 Quasi -Judicial Items......................................................................................12 8.5 Recognition by Chair.....................................................................................13 8.6 Decorum........................................................................................................13 8.7 Identification of Speakers..............................................................................13 8.8 Instructions for Speakers...............................................................................13 8.9 Donation of Speaking Time..........................................................................13 8.10 Campaigns and Elections...........................................................................13 SECTION 9. MOTIONS 9.1 Voice Votes...................................................................................................13 9.2 Motions that do not Receive or Require Seconds.........................................13 9.3 Tie Votes...................................................................................................... 13 9.4 Nature of Motion............................................................................................13 9.5 Request for Written Motions..........................................................................13 9.6 Discussion Following a Motion..................................................................... 13 9.7 Council Consensus...................................................................................... 14 9.8 Withdrawal of Motions.................................................................................. 14 9.9 Motion to Table..............................................................................................14 9.10 Motion to Postpone to a Time Certain........................................................ 14 9.11 Motion to Postpone Indefinitely...................................................................14 9.12 Motion to Call for the Question.................................................................. 14 9.13 Motion to Amend........................................................................................ 14 9.14 Repetition of the Motion Prior to Voting ..................................................... 14 9.15 Voting......................................................................................................... 14 9.16 Recusal...................................................................................................... 14 9.17 Silence and Abstention............................................................................... 15 ii Packet Pg. 23 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b 9.18 Prohibition of Voting by Proxy.................................................................... 15 9.19 Close of Discussion.................................................................................... 15 9.20 Motion to Reconsider................................................................................. 15 9.21 Questions of Interpretation......................................................................... 15 SECTION 10. ITEMS REQUIRING FOUR VOTES.............................................15 SECTION 11. ITEMS REQUIRING A UNANIMOUS VOTE................................15 SECTION 12. COUNCIL REPRESENTATION 12.1 Correspondence..........................................................................................15 12.2 Use of City Resources.................................................................................16 12.3 Controversial Communications................................................................... 16 SECTION 13. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 13.1 Authorized Expenses..................................................................................16 SECTION 14. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF RULES 14.1 Suspension of Rules...................................................................................16 14.2 Amendment of Rules...................................................................................16 Packet Pg. 24 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE Section 1. Authority. 1.1 These rules constitute the official rules of procedure for the Edmonds City Council. In all decisions arising from points of order, the Council shall be governed by the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order," a copy of which is maintained in the City Council Office. 1.2 These rules of procedure are adopted for the sole benefit of the members of the City Council to assist in the orderly conduct of Council business. These rules of procedure do not grant rights or privileges to members of the public or third parties. Failure of the City Council to adhere to these rules shall not result in any liability to the City, its officers, agents, and employees, nor shall failure to adhere to these rules result in invalidation of any Council act. 1.3 Any provision of these rules of procedure that is footnoted with a citation to the Revised Code of Washington, the Edmonds City Code, or other statute or ruling is included here for ease of reference only and is not intended to be adopted as a rule herein because it already constitutes governing law. Likewise, any conflict between such a provision and the law cited in the footnote shall be resolved in favor of the law cited in the footnote. Provisions herein that are not footnoted with a citation to the Revised Code of Washington or the Edmonds City Code have been adopted by City Council resolution as the Council's procedural rules and may be amended at any time by subsequent resolution. Section 2. Council Organization. 2.1 New Councilmembers shall be sworn in by one of the following persons: court commissioner, judicial officer, judge, clerk of the court, county auditor or deputy auditor, county commissioner or county councilmember, mayor of a code city, a town, or a second-class city, mayor pro tem of a second-class city, clerk of a code city, town clerk or deputy clerk. 2.2. The Council shall elect a Council President and Council President Pro Tern for a one-year term. The election of the Council President shall be conducted by the City Clerk. No one Councilmember may nominate more than one person for a given office until every member wishing to nominate a candidate has an opportunity to do so. Nominations do not require a second. The Clerk will repeat each nomination until all nominations have been made. When it appears that no one else wishes to make any further nominations, the Clerk will ask again for further nominations and if there are none, the Clerk will declare the nominations closed. A motion to close the nominations is not necessary. After nominations have been closed, voting for Council President takes place in the order nominations were made. Councilmembers will be asked to vote by a raise of hands. As soon as a nominee receives a majority vote (four votes), the Clerk will declare him/her elected. No votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. If Packet Pg. 25 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b none of the nominees receives a majority vote, the Clerk will call for nominations again and repeat the process until a single candidate receives a majority vote. The same process is conducted for the election of the Council President Pro Tem. 2.3 Duties of Officers A. The Mayor shall be the Presiding Officer at all Council Meetings except Council Committee Meetings. In the absence of the Mayor, the Council President shall become Mayor Pro Tem and act as the Presiding Officer, performing the duties and responsibilities regarding conduct of meetings and emergency business. In the absence of both the Mayor and the Council President, the Council President Pro Tem shall act as a temporary Presiding Officer. B. It shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to: 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Keep the meeting to its order of business. 3. Control discussion in an orderly manner. a. Give every Councilmember who wishes an opportunity to speak when recognized by the chair. b. Permit audience participation at the appropriate times. C. Require all speakers to speak to the question and to observe Robert's Rules of Order. 4. State each motion before it is discussed and before it is voted upon. 5. Put motions to a vote and announce the outcome. C. The Presiding Officer shall decide all questions of order, subject to the right of appeal to the Council by any member. 2.4 Appointments to Boards and Committees' The Council President shall appoint Councilmembers to Council committees and outside boards and committees that are not otherwise specified or governed by other rules. Prior to appointment, the Council President shall solicit interest from Councilmembers for their preferred appointments. The Council President shall then circulate the final appointment list to the Council at least seven (7) days prior to appointment. The Council President shall make his or her appointments as soon as practicable, following election of the Council President. 2.5 Filling a Council Vacancy ' ECC 1.02.031(B) 2 Packet Pg. 26 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b A. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Councilmember, the Council will follow the procedures outlined in the Revised Code of Washington2. To fill the vacancy with the most qualified person available until an election is held, the Council will widely distribute and publish a notice of the vacancy at least two weeks in advance, the procedure by which the vacancy will be filled, and an application form. B. The Council staff will draw up and Council will approve an application form to aid the Council's selection of the new Councilmember. C. Those candidates selected by the Council will be interviewed by the Council during a regular or special Council meeting open to the public. The order of the interviews will be determined by drawing the names. Applicants will be asked to answer questions posed by each Councilmember during the interview process. The interview process will be designed to be fair and consistent. Since this is not a campaign, comments about other applicants will not be allowed. D. The Council may recess into executive session to discuss the qualifications of all candidates. Nominations, voting and appointment of a person to fill the vacancy will be conducted during an open public meeting E. The term of an appointed Council position expires upon certification of the next election. Section 3. Agenda Preparation. 3.1 In an administrative capacity, the City Clerk receives agenda topics and preferred dates from the administration for council or council committee agendas. The same process applies to the extended council meeting agendas. The City Clerk provides these inputs to the Council President for agenda setting in advance of publishing the agenda for the next public meeting. The Council President is responsible for determining which items will be moved forward for council business or moved to a future date. In the same way, the president determines what section of the meeting an item will appear and in what order. The resulting agendas for Council committees and Council regular meetings will set forth a brief general description of each item to be considered by the Council and specify the time and place of the meeting. The agenda for the next council meeting and the extended agenda are published online by the City Clerk. 3.2 An item for a Council meeting may be placed on the agenda by one of the following methods: ' RCW 42.12.070 Packet Pg. 27 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE A Majority vote or consensus of the Council. B. By the Council President or Council President Pro Tern when acting in the absence of the Council President. The Council President will make every effort to place an item Council approved by consensus or majority vote on an agenda. If time is not available for the requested date, it shall be placed on the next available agenda. 3.3 Agenda memos shall be in a standard format. The Mayor shall determine the format. 3.4 Agenda items will generally be prioritized in the following order of importance: 1) joint meetings or presentations involving outside agencies; 2) items scheduled for statutory compliance; 3) advertised public hearings; 4) continued items from a prior meeting; and 5) items scheduled for convenience, such as those involving outside consultants. 3.5 Except when the Council President has authorized an exception for items of an emergency or unexpected nature requiring immediate action, ordinances scheduled for Council action will receive a minimum of two readings. Action by the Council (by the consent agenda, or council motion and vote) will always be one of the readings. Other reading(s) will be in the number the topic warrants, and could include any or all of the following- 1 . publication on the extended agenda 2. presentation of the topic by staff 3. discussion at council committee and/or meetings of the full council 4. public hearings (sometimes mandated by law) Section 4. Consent Agenda. 4.1 Upon approval of the Council President, the administration shall place matters on the Consent Agenda which: (a) have been previously discussed by the Council or council committee, or (b) based on the information delivered to members of the Council, by the administration, can be reviewed by a Councilmember without further explanation, or (c) are so minor or routine in nature that passage is likely. 4.2 The motion to adopt the Consent Agenda shall be non -debatable and have the effect of moving to adopt all items on the Consent Agenda. 4.3 Since adoption of any item on the Consent Agenda implies unanimous consent, any member of the Council shall have the right to remove any item from the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers are given an opportunity to remove items 4 Packet Pg. 28 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b from the Consent Agenda after the motion is made and seconded to Approve the Agenda. If any matter is withdrawn, the Presiding Officer shall place the item at an appropriate place on the agenda at the current or future Council meeting, subject to Council agreement. Section 5. Council Meetings. 5.1 All Council meetings shall comply with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act3. All Regular Meetings, Committee Meetings, and Special Meetings of the Council shall be open to the public. A Council meeting is defined as a properly noticed meeting in which a quorum of the Council transacts official City business as defined by the OPMA. Meetings under the OPMA require an agenda, public notice, and an official record in the form of meeting minutes. Meetings attended by Council members which do not involve the transaction of City business are not considered meetings under the Act. If a quorum of Council members attends such meetings, they are encouraged to sit separately, refrain from discussing City business, and only participate as passive observers. 5.2 Any Council meeting may be canceled by a majority vote or consensus of the Council. The Council President may cancel a Council meeting for lack of official business. 5.3 Regular Meetings4 of the City Council shall be held in accordance with the meeting schedule adopted in Edmonds City Code 1.04.010. Council meetings shall adjourn no later than 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Council as a whole plus one. Order of Business for Regular Meetings. The order of business shall generally be as follows: Regular Meeting (7:00 p.m.) 1. Call to Order, Flag Salute 2. Land Acknowledgment 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of the Agenda 5. Presentations 6. Public Comment 7. Approval of the Consent Agenda 8. Received for Filings s RCW 42.30 4 ECC 1.04.010(A) 5 Received for Filing is a method of providing information on an agenda that doesn't require council action. It includes but is not limited to: financial reports, program/project status updates, committee reports, claims for damages, public comments, and appointments to boards/commissions. Packet Pg. 29 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 9. Public Hearing(s) 10. Council Business: The following procedures shall be used: • Introduction of item by Presiding Officer • Presentation by staff • Council motion to adopt legislation • Council deliberation and potential action 11. Council Comments 12. Mayor's Comments 13. Adjournment (10:00 PM) 5.4. Meetings of the council shall be presided over by the mayor, if present, or otherwise by the mayor pro tempore (Council President or Council President Pro Tempore) or by a member of the council selected by a majority of the councilmembers at such meeting. Appointment of a councilmember to preside over the meeting shall not in any way abridge his or her right to vote on matters coming before the council at such meeting. 5.5. At all meetings, the Mayor shall be addressed as "Mayor (surname)." The Council President shall be addressed as "Council President (surname)." Members of the Council shall be addressed as "Councilmember (surname)." At all meetings, the Mayor shall sit in the Presiding Officer's seat, and the Council President shall sit at the right hand of the Mayor. Other Councilmembers are to be seated in a manner acceptable to Council. If there is a dispute, seating shall be in position order. 5.6 Prior to commencement of discussion of a quasi-judicial item, the Mayor will ask if any Councilmember has a conflict of interest or Appearance of Fairness Doctrine concern which could prohibit the Councilmember from participating in the decision -making process. If it is deemed by the Councilmember, in consultation with the City Attorney, that it is warranted, the Councilmember should step down and not participate in the Council discussion or vote on the matter. The Councilmember shall leave the Council Chambers while the matter is under consideration. 5.7 Council Committees. The City Council shall have the following Standing Committees: Finance ("FIN"); Parks and Public Works ("PPW"); Public Safety, Personnel, Human Services, and Planning ("PSPHSP"). Regular meetings of the City Council standing committees shall be held in accordance with the meeting schedule adopted in Edmonds City Code 1.04.010. The audio and/or video of Council Committee meetings shall be recorded and posted online. A. Business items considered by a City Council committee should only be forwarded to the City Council Consent Agenda with the unanimous consent of 6 ECC 1.04.010(B) 6 Packet Pg. 30 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE the committee members.' B. Committee business items that have not received unanimous support of the committee to be forwarded to the Consent Agenda may be discussed at a forthcoming committee meeting if additional committee work is likely to produce unanimity. Alternatively, the Council President may place the item on a future Council agenda for further deliberation and/or action by the City Council.$ C. The Council President shall be a nonvoting ex-officio member of all Council committees, except when a regular committee member is absent, in which case the Council President may vote. When a committee chair is absent, the other regular committee member shall serve as the committee chair.9 D. The Mayor and Council members from other committees may attend committee meetings of which they are not members and may join the discussion and ask questions about a committee business item if they have been present during the entire discussion of that business item; provided, that only committee members, or the Council President when substituting for an absent committee member, may vote on committee business. Presence of a quorum of the City Council at a committee meeting shall not change the character of the meeting from a committee meeting to a City Council meeting.10 5.8 The Council may hold Executive Sessions or Closed Sessions from which the public may be excluded, for those purposes set forth in the Revised Code of Washington". Before convening an Executive Session, the Presiding Officer shall announce the purpose of the Session and the anticipated time when the Session will be concluded. Should the Session require more time, a public announcement shall be made that the Session is being extended. Councilmembers should keep confidential all written materials and verbal information provided to them during Executive Sessions, to ensure that the City's interests are not compromised. Councilmembers should refrain from taking notes in Executive Session because such records may be subject to public disclosure, thereby compromising the confidential nature of the matters discussed. Confidentiality also includes information provided to Councilmembers outside of Executive Sessions when the information is exempt from disclosure under the Revised Code of Washington. If a Councilmember unintentionally discloses Executive Session discussion with another party, that Councilmember shall make full disclosure to the Mayor and/or the City Council in a timely manner as soon as the error is discovered. ECC 1.04.050(A) 8 ECC 1.04.050(B) 9 ECC 1.04.050(C) 10 ECC 1.04.050(D) 11 RCW 42.30.110 and RCW 42.30.140 7 Packet Pg. 31 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b 5.9 Special Meetings92 may be held by the Council subject to notice requirements prescribed by State law. Special Meetings may be called by the Council President, Mayor, or any four members of the City Council by written notice delivered to each member of the Council at least twenty-four hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. The notice of such Special Meetings shall state the subjects to be considered, and no subject other than those specified in the notice shall be considered. 5.10 An Emergency Meeting13 is a special Council meeting called without the 24- hour notice. It deals with an emergency involving injury or damage to persons or property or the likelihood of such injury or damage, when time requirements of a 24-hour notice would make notice impractical and increase the likelihood of such injury or damage. Emergency meetings may be called by the Mayor or the Council President with the consent of a majority of Councilmembers. The minutes will indicate the reason for the emergency. 5.11 Special Meetings and Emergency Meetings will beat a time and place as Council directs. 5.12 The City shall comply with the public notice provisions of the Revised Code of Washington14. Unless specified otherwise, the public shall receive notice of upcoming public hearings through publication of such notice in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 5.13 At all Council Meetings, a majority of the Council (four members) shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. In the absence of a quorum, the members present may adjourn that meeting to a later date. 5.14 Members of the Council may be excused from attending a City Council meeting by contacting the Council President prior to the meeting and stating the reason for his or her inability to attend. If the member is unable to contact the Council President, the member shall contact the Mayor, who shall convey the message to the Council President. Following roll call, the Presiding Officer shall inform the Council of the member's absence, state the reason for such absence, and inquire if there is a motion to excuse the member. This motion shall be nondebatable. Upon passage of such motion by a majority of members present, the absent member shall be considered excused and the Clerk will make an appropriate notation in the minutes. Councilmembers who do not follow the above process will be considered unexcused and it shall be so noted in the minutes. A motion to excuse a Councilmember may be made retroactively at the next meeting. Removal of a sitting Councilmember for three (3) consecutive unexcused absences is authorized by RCW 35A.12.060. 12 RCW 42.30 13 RCW 42.30 14 RCW 35A.12.160 8 Packet Pg. 32 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 5.15 Remote Attendance: Notification of the need to attend a meeting remotely shall be made to the City Clerk by noon of the meeting day. When attending a council meeting remotely, Councilmembers must have video and audio capabilities and enable them during the meeting whenever possible. Any attendee (Council, staff, or presenter) must enable their video and audio when speaking, unless technical difficulties do not allow. Attendees must attempt to contact the technology department to resolve any problems prior to the meeting. If the problem cannot be resolved, the attendee must inform the Council President and/or the Mayor prior to the meeting. 5.16 The City Clerk or an authorized Deputy City Clerk shall attend all Council meetings. If the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk are absent from any Council meeting, the Mayor shall appoint a Clerk Pro Tempore. The minutes of the proceedings of the Council shall be kept by the City Clerk and shall constitute the official record of the Council. Section 6. Council Conduct. The City Council finds that Councilmembers should seek to continually improve the quality of public service and ensure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective, transparent, and equitable operation. Councilmembers have a public stage and privileged platform to show how individuals with contrasting points of view can find common ground, demonstrate problem -solving approaches, and achieve solutions that benefit the community as a whole. Central to these principles is that civility and decorum shall apply to all Councilmember conduct in relation to city business. To this end, the following Code of Conduct for members of the Edmonds City Council is established. 6.1 General Conduct A. Councilmembers shall focus discussions and debates on vision, policies, and their implementation. B. No Councilmember shall dominate proceedings during Council or other public meetings. C. Personal, insulting, or intimidating language, body language and actions, are not allowed. Councilmembers may raise a point of order for ruling by the Chair or by the Body to address inappropriate remarks. D. Ensuring that all meeting participants feel welcome is a vital part of the democratic process. No signs of partiality, prejudice, or disrespect should be evident on the part of Councilmembers toward any individual participating in a public meeting. Every effort should be made to be respectful in listening to Council, staff and public testimony and 9 Packet Pg. 33 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE discussions. E. Technology allows words written or said to be distributed far and wide. Councilmember written notes, voicemail messages, texts, email, or other electronic communications, are public records and shall follow this code. 6.2 Conduct with City Staff, and the Council Legislative Assistant The community is best served when the abilities, experience, and knowledge of staff and contract employees work alongside councilmembers, and councilmembers will value these resources and relationships by: A. Using respectful language and avoiding aggressive tones. B. Whenever possible, provide questions ahead of public meetings and otherwise avoid surprises. C. Recognize that calls and emails may not be returned outside of business hours. D. Expressing concerns about performance only to the Mayor, in the case of staff, and the Council President, in the case of Council legislative aide. E. Understanding that Council, as a legislative body, directs City business via policy change initiated by majority Council vote only; councilmembers acting individually shall refrain from directing staff or otherwise intruding on the City's administrative functions. 6.3 Conduct with Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Outside Agencies A. The City maintains several boards and commissions as a means of encouraging and gathering community input. Residents who serve on boards and commissions are a valuable resource to the City's leadership and shall be treated with appreciation and respect. B. Councilmembers are appointed as non -voting members to serve as the primary two-way communication liaison between the Council and boards, commissions, and committees. Councilmembers are not to direct the activities or work of the board, commission, or committee. C. Councilmembers may attend any board or commission meeting to which they are not appointed but shall do so as a member of the public. Personal comments or positions, if given, will be identified as such and shall not be represented as the position of the City or Council. D. Councilmembers shall not contact a board or commission member to 10 Packet Pg. 34 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE lobby on behalf of an individual, business, or organization, with the exception of the hearing examiner or architectural design board. It is acceptable for Councilmembers to contact boards or commissions and their members, so long as all interactions are in line with the Edmonds Code of Ethics. E. When attending a non -city sponsored event, meeting, conference, or other activity, Councilmembers shall do so in an individual Councilmember capacity only. Likewise, a Councilmember may be authorized to represent the City only in compliance with RCW 35A.12.100. 6.4 ImDlementation. ComDliance. and Enforcement As an expression of the standards of conduct that best serve the City, the Code of Conduct is intended to be self -enforcing and is most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions. A. This Council Code of Conduct shall be included in the regular orientations for newly seated Councilmembers. Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the City of Edmonds Council Code of Conduct. B. The Code of Conduct shall be reviewed and reaffirmed annually by the City Council. C. When a breach of this code occurs, Councilmembers are encouraged to remind one another of the Code of Conduct terms. These communications may be documented with the subject line, "Code of Conduct Reminder." D. Repeated breaches, or egregious instances, may be dealt with according to the terms set out in the Council's adopted Robert's Rules of Order or other applicable laws and regulations. Section 7. Code of Ethics. 7.1 Code of Ethics. The purpose of a Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct of the City Council. To this end, the Council shall: 1. Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government. 2. Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and maintain a sense of social responsibility. 3. Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships. 4. Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to 11 Packet Pg. 35 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE serve the best interest of all the people. 5. Keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens. 6. Seek no favor; do not personally benefit or profit by confidential information or by misuse of public resources. 7. Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but also in appearance. Section 8. Public Testimon 8.1 Public Hearings: a. Individuals will be allowed three minutes to speak. b. The Presiding Officer may allow additional time for receipt of written testimony when needed. c. The Clerk shall be the timekeeper. d. Prior to closing the public hearing, the Presiding Officer shall inquire if there are any additional speakers other than those that have signed up and previously spoken, and if there are, they shall be allowed to testify. 8.2 Other Audience Comment at Regular Meetings Audience comments are offered at the beginning of regular meetings. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to any topic not listed as a public hearing or closed record review. A speaker sign-up form will be at the entry table. The procedures for the Public Hearing testimony in 8.1 A and C above are generally followed for audience comment; 8.1 D is followed for audience comment as time allows. 8.3 When large numbers of people are signed up to speak on the same topic, the Presiding Officer may request that the group(s) select a limited number of speakers to cover their view and then ask all those who agree with that position to stand at the conclusion of each presentation. 8.4 Public testimony authorized in Section 8.2 and 8.3 may not include comments or information on any quasi-judicial matter pending before the City Council, or on any topic for which Council has closed the public record. 12 Packet Pg. 36 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 8.5 No person shall be allowed to address the Council while it is in session without the recognition of the Presiding Officer. 8.6 It shall be unlawful for any person in the audience at a Council meeting to do any of the following: Engage in disorderly, disruptive, disturbing, delaying or boisterous conduct, such as, but not limited to, handclapping, stomping of feet, whistling, making noise, use of profane language or obscene gestures, yelling or similar demonstrations, which conduct substantially interrupts, delays, or disturbs the peace and good order of the proceedings of the Council.15 8.7 Persons testifying shall identify themselves for the record as to name, City of residence and any organization represented. 8.8 An instruction notice for speakers will be available at the meeting. Speakers will be advised by the Presiding Officer that their testimony is being recorded. 8.9 Time cannot be donated by one speaker to another. 8.10 No person may use audience comment to promote or oppose any candidate for public office. In election years, a campaign officially begins when a candidate files their candidacy with the elections office and continues through the election. Section 9. Motions. 9.1 Unless otherwise provided for by statute, ordinance, or resolution, all votes shall be taken by voice and hand raise, except that at the request of any Councilmember, a roll call vote shall be taken by the City Clerk. 9.2 A motion must precede deliberation of an action item. A Councilmember should make a motion, which is seconded by another Councilmember, on the topic under discussion. If the motion is not seconded, it dies. Some motions do not require a second: nominations, withdrawal of a motion, request for a roll call vote, and point of order. 9.3 In case of a tie vote on a motion, the motion shall be considered lost. If the motion is an item for which the Mayor may break the tie vote, the Mayor may vote on the motion. 9.4 Motions shall be clear and concise and not include arguments for the motion. 9.5 Motions shall be reduced to writing when required by the Presiding Officer or any member of the Council. All resolutions and ordinances shall be in writing. 9.6 After a motion has been made and seconded, Councilmembers may discuss is Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2013), Id., at 816 13 Packet Pg. 37 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b their opinions on the issue prior to the vote. If they wish to do so, they may state why they will vote for or against the motion. 9.7 When the Council concurs or agrees with an item that does not require a motion, the Mayor will summarize the Council's consensus at the conclusion of the discussion. 9.8 A motion may be withdrawn by the maker of the motion upon consent of the Council. 9.9 A motion to table is nondebatable. It requires a majority to pass. If the motion to table prevails, the matter may only be "taken from the table" at the same meeting or the next regular meeting. 9.10 A motion to postpone to a specific time is debatable, amendable, and may be reconsidered at the same meeting. It requires a majority to pass. The motion being postponed must be considered later in the same meeting or a specific future meeting. 9.11 A motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable, is not amendable, and may be reconsidered at the same meeting. It requires a majority to pass. The merits of the main motion may be debated. 9.12 A motion to call for the question shall close debate on the main motion and is nondebatable. This motion must receive a second and fails without a two-thirds (2/3) vote. Debate is reopened if the motion fails. 9.13 A motion to amend is defined as amending a motion that is on the floor and has been seconded, by inserting or adding, striking out, striking out and inserting, or substituting. 9.14 When the discussion is concluded, the motion maker, Mayor, or City Clerk, shall repeat the motion prior to voting. 9.15 The City Council votes on the motion as restated. If the vote is unanimous, the Mayor shall state that the motion has been passed unanimously according to the number of Councilmembers present, such as 7-0" or "6-0." If the vote is not unanimous, the Mayor shall state the number of Councilmembers voting in the affirmative and the number voting in the negative and whether the motion passes or fails. 9.16 Personal involvement in an issue coming before Council shall be a trigger to consult with the City Attorney regarding possible conflict of interest/need for recusal from that council business item. If such conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness question under state law16 is established, the 16 RCW 42.36 and RCW 42.23.020 14 Packet Pg. 38 Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 7.2.b Councilmember shall recuse themselves from the issue and shall leave the Council chambers during discussion and voting on the issue. That Councilmember shall be considered absent when voting occurs. 9.17 If a member of the Council is silent on a vote, it shall be recorded as an affirmative vote. If a member of the Council abstains, it shall be recorded as an abstention and not included in the vote tally. 9.18 No vote may be cast by proxy. 9.19 Once the vote has been taken, the discussion is closed. It is not necessary for Councilmembers to justify or explain their vote. If they wish to make their positions known, this should happen during the discussion preceding the vote. 9.20 After the question has been decided, any Councilmember who voted in the majority may move for a reconsideration of the motion. The motion for reconsideration must be made at the same or next regular meeting. 9.21 The City Attorney, in consultation with the City Clerk, shall decide all questions of interpretations of these policies and procedures and other questions of a parliamentary nature which may arise at a Council meeting. All cases not provided for in these policies and procedures shall be governed by the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order. In the event of a conflict, these Council rules of procedures shall prevail. Section 10. Items Requiring Four Votes. The passage of any ordinance, grant or revocation of franchise or license, any resolution for the payment of money or approval of warrants shall require the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the whole membership of the Council (4 votes)." Section 11. Items Requiring a Unanimous Vote. An ordinance must be adopted unanimously where both of the following conditions exist: 1) the ordinance is subject to referendum under RCW 35A.11.090, as limited by Leonard v. City of Bothell, 87 Wn.2d 847, 852-53, 557 P.2d 1306, 1310 (1976) ("If the grant of power is to the city as a corporate entity, direct legislation is permissible insofar as the statute is concerned. On the other hand, if the grant of power is to the legislative authority of the city, the initiative and referendum are prohibited."), and similar case law, and; 2) the ordinance is proposed to take immediate effect under RCW 35A.11.090(2). Section 12. Council Representation. 12.1 Once the City Council has taken a position on an issue, all official City correspondence regarding the issue will reflect the Council's adopted position. " RCW 35A.12.120 15 Packet Pg. 39 7.2.b Exhibit A COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 12.2 City letterhead, email and other city resources shall not be used for correspondence of Councilmembers representing a dissenting point of view from an official Council position. 12.3 As a matter of courtesy, letters to the editor, or other communication of a controversial nature, which do not express the majority opinion of the Council, shall be presented to the full Council prior to publication. Section 13. Reimbursement of Expenses. 13.1 Council adopted the City of Edmonds Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursements Policy'$ for application to Council as enumerated therein. In addition to the option of prior approval of training course -by -course as outlined in Section VI of the Policy, a Council President may also pre -authorize trainings relevant to the councilmember role up to a pre -authorized budget amount per councilmember annually. Section 14. Suspension and Amendment of Rules. 14.1 Any provision of these rules not governed by state law, City code, fundamental parliamentary principle, or other statute or rule may be temporarily suspended by a majority vote of the Council. 14.2 It is the intent of the City Council that the rules of procedure be periodically reviewed as needed or during odd -numbered years. These rules may be amended, or new rules adopted, by a majority vote of the Council, provided that the proposed amendments or new rules shall have been distributed to Council at least two weeks prior to such action. " Resolution 1516, November 1, 2022 ADOPTED BY: RESOLUTION NO. 1562 AMENDED BY: RESOLUTION NO. XXXX 16 Packet Pg. 40 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes November 21, 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: 2024-11-21 Council Special Minutes Packet Pg. 41 8.1.a X EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 21, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember (joined 6:04 p.m.) Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Will Chen, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Loi Dawkins, Assistant Police Chief Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 6 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmembers Chen and Councilmember Tibbott. (Councilmember Tibbott joined the meeting at 6:04 pm). 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. FLEX FUND CONTRACT AMENDMENT Assistant Police Chief Loi Dawkins explained for the last several years the police department has had a contract with Snohomish County that allows the department to apply for reimbursement of funds used to assist individuals with emergency needs. The funds have not used to the extent initially thought due to the availability of other funds and the period of time the department did not have a social worker, so Snohomish County is reducing the funding. For the past several years the amount was $5,000 which is being reduced to $1,000 via this amendment. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 42 The agreement has been reviewed by legal. Additional funds will be available if the need arises. The police department also has access to funds from the Edmonds Police Foundation and the social worker also utilizes assistance provided by St. Vincent de Paul and churches for housing needs or people who are already housed who need rent assistance. Staff recommends approval of the contract amendment. Councilmember Nand asked if the mayor or the police chief was the signatory to the contract amendment. Assistant Chief Loi answered the mayor was the signatory. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. UPDATED AXON CONTRACT Assistant Police Chief Loi Dawkins reported she has been in negotiations with Axon since July to change some of the services and in the interest of the police department staying under budget, renegotiating the contract. Staff requests council approval of 10-year contract that retains most of the services; a couple Axon programs were eliminated including the drone program, Redaction Assistant, a program that that provides a transcription which was not being utilized, and Axon Standards and Performance where Axon runs audits and evidence reports. Axon services were reduced to what the department really needs and uses and the contract was extended to 10 years. The negotiation also allowed the department to forfeit its 2024 payment of over $160,000 and extend that amount over the 10 year contract. Staff s recommendation is to approve the new contract with Axon. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF THE AXON CONTRACT FOR 10 YEARS AS PROPOSED IN THIS AGENDA ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING Mayor Rosen asked council for their indulgence to allow him to make a few comments, recalling at the last meeting the meeting ended before staff was able to provide comment. There has not been an opportunity during the budget process to acknowledge the world the council lives in. The council entered this year in a horrible financial reality that they did not wish upon themselves, they had to work with a new mayor, had changes in numerous directors, had to embrace a new budget process, and were given a mountain of information. Councilmembers have asked a lot of good questions throughout the process, submitted a lot very thoughtful amendments, and exhibited great empathy for what staff has gone through and the impact on the lives of the individuals who are also impacted. He thanked the council for those things, commenting being a councilmember was not intended to be a full-time job. Mayor Rosen also acknowledged the work of staff; they too inherited a very bad situation, a new mayor, a new system and change in directors and when asked to make deep cuts, they rose to the occasion. The goal was to find several million dollars to help get through 2024 which also mean fewer staff. Staff was then asked to find over $7M when creating the 2025/2026 budget which required digging deeper which was hard and it hurt. Mayor Rosen continued, remarking that bring us to now. Some of the intent he has sensed from the council was that there needs to be more cuts. As the City faces potentially going to public to ask for approval to annex into the RFA and potentially a levy lid lift, further cuts will also mean borrowing less and decreasing the amount of a levy lid lift. There were three very similar, large reductions proposed by three different councilmembers, a 10% staff reduction, a 35-hour work week, and a 32-hour work week which would have Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 43 an approximately $2.3M impact. He reached out to the directors, explaining that based on the council's conversations, there was some momentum behind those concepts and asking their preference if the council were to advance one of them. Without exception including his own preference, every director gravitated toward the 10% reduction and had very strong reactions to the two other approaches. Most directors preferred instead of a percentage, the council provide a target number they were trying to save, recognizing most of the amendments offered were related to savings. Mayor Rosen continued, if that is the direction the council would like to go, he suggested adopting a target number, for example $2.3M, and using that as a target and informed by the budgeting by priories (BBP) process, the administration would make deeper cuts, aiming for $2.3M. As identifying those cuts and implementing them will take time he suggested targeting March 31, 2025 as a delivery date for a plan that would be implemented immediately so the number would need to be prorated for 2025 and the full amount in 2026. He suggest the amendments the council has invested time in would become guidance that the administration could consider in reaching that amount. Mayor Rosen continued, if the council decides to ask the voters to annex into the RFA, the result of that election in April would absolutely potentially create the need for a course correction. Any new information or changes in conditions would cause a course correction. This would also provide council the opportunity to create the ordinance that gives spending authority; the council would approve a budget with spending authority and the administration would be charged with identifying those cuts. The budget book would then reflect that modified budget. Councilmember Nand thanked Mayor Rosen for providing his perspective and the directors' feedback. As one of seven councilmembers, she fully supports the $7.5M interfund loan to forestall layoffs. The City is already very understaffed serving a population of nearly 43,000. She was interested in the 32 or 35-hour work week or further furloughs to forestall layoffs. She did not want departments to have one hand tied behind their backs, attempting to provide essential services. She thought it was wildly optimistic to think the council could identifying further cuts and have a neatly tied up bow of a budget on November 26. Her goal is to try to preserve City functions and levels of services especially for essential departments such as public works and police and all the administrative services that support staff who are providing essential services to ensure the City is meeting its obligations to the community, constituents and taxpayers. She was not interested in further cuts to avoid an internal interfund loan. Councilmember Eck said she understood Councilmember Nand's concerns. She expressed appreciation for the simplicity of 10% in cuts for council, acknowledging it certainly would not be simple for directors to carry out. She recalled hearing from smaller departments who indicated there was not 10% in cuts to be made. For example, cutting one FTE in Mr. Tatum's department would be more than 10%. Mayor Rosen clarified the intent would be a target number, how the administration got there would first be programmatic using BBP; it would not be a 10% across the board reduction. Anecdotally the sense is the City would lose more people by a reduced hours approach and there is concern with recruiting for jobs that aren't full-time. Councilmember Eck recognized a 10% reduction could be accomplished in a few different ways. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for Mayor Rosen asking staff their preference; they are the ones who deliver the services and it helps the council understand what services and programs are making a difference. She was concerned that 10% of the General Fund was probably too high. She would be happier with 5% and maybe as low as 4% if the council decides to go this direction. There are challenges with both a wholesale percentage cut from General Fund which will mean layoffs and she worried that layoffs would include programs that provide direct services to people, not just mowing lawns, cleaning restrooms, etc. The budget is reaching a point where the council needs to pay attention to programs that serve people, one of her greatest concern. The cuts directors made were very program informed and the file transfer protocol (FTP) site the council was given was amazing to review as well as difficult to see what has been impacted. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 44 8.1.a She was glad the council did not need to make a decision tonight; there are options including a little this and a little that. If people get laid off, there will also have to be program cuts so not all the work shifts from one desk to another. She summarized she was not comfortable with a 10% cut, envisioning that was too high and was concerned with cutting programs that serve people in Edmonds. Council President Olson said she has also asked staff their preference and received the same feedback. None of these approaches are desirable, but they interestingly came close to same numbers. This seems preferable to the across the board reduction because she agreed a lot of people would end up choosing to leave. Choosing to look at a BBP approach this year at great staff time expense, the 32 and 35 work week does not honor those BBP priorities. It is a falsity to say that cuts won't affect level of service; the City cannot delivery on all things well with fewer hours. The 10% reduction is more true to a BBP approach. Council President Olson continued, with regard to the course correction that Mayor Rosen mentioned, there would not be a course correction if voters approve annexing into the RTA or from the 10% cut. The 10% cut would just barely make it possible to provide services, begin repaying the loan, repaying the reserves and getting to street projects that have been put off for a very long time. She was in favor of the 10% reduction approach and appreciated the administration volunteering to go back and make further cuts based on the BBP exercise that the community participated in. If the administration revisiting programs that ranked lower and finding additional cuts, that supports the system the council chose to embrace. The City has more priorities than it has money which is one of the things the community will have to adjust to or decide that they are willing to fund more priorities in the future. Councilmember Dotsch explained her thought with a 10% reduction was to provide the administration as much flexibility as possible. The concept was 10% of salaries and benefits, it doesn't have to be programs, it could be changes in the benefit structure that will allow the City to retain staff or other cuts. One piece that hasn't been discussed is the impact on citizens; between a levy lid lift and annexation into the RFA, it could be a 200% tax increase. That could also affect small businesses in Edmonds who may choose to close or move somewhere else because Edmonds is too expensive. She recognized there were impacts on staff, but the 10% structural imbalance still exists. To Council President Olson's comments, she agree 10% would just get the City there. One of the other reasons for the 10% cut was staff already went through and scored all the programs; the administration knows more about the community's priorities. She summarized the budget process is challenging for all involved, but it's important to consider the impacts that new funding sources will have on citizens and taxpayers. Councilmember Tibbott commented there would seem to be greater flexibility if the council aims for a target dollar amount such as $2M to be cut over 6-18 months instead of a percentage. He invited input from the mayor or staff regarding which would provide more flexibility. Mayor Rosen said a dollar amount would be preferable versus a percentage. Ms. Dunscombe relayed the proposed council amendment related to a 10% reduction estimated a $2.5M reduction, but was reduced to $2.3M excluding overtime and holiday buyback. The amendment description describes how the amount was determined. Councilmember Tibbott commented a dollar amount rather than a percentage provides the greatest level of creativity and flexibility in terms of identifying whether it's a program cut, a revenue increase, or a reorganization that allow for savings. With regard to timing, due to the possibility of annexation into the RFA, which won't be known until May, he suggested moving the presentation and implementation of the cuts to June or July. For example, if the proposal is a $2M budget reduction, it would be $1 M for the second half of the year. He asked the administration to weigh in on the timing. Mayor Rosen responded this is open to variables including the amount and the timing. Some of the things that impact it is the amount required for the loan; the earlier the cuts are made, the greater the savings which would also impact the levy lid lift request and messaging to the community, demonstrating to the community what has occurred before asking for a levy lid lift. Depending on the amount of reduction the council requests, it will take time to develop a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 45 8.1.a plan and implement those reductions. There are many ways for reductions to happen including benefits, furloughs, reorganization, etc. In some cases a 45-day notice is required. Timing is as much of a variable as the number and the method. Councilmember Tibbott asked if council chose to request the budget be reduced by $2.3M by March, how is that reflected in the budget book for 2025. Mayor Rosen answered if the council chose a $2.3M reduction by March 31, 2025, it would be prorated for the 9 remaining months and the ordinance would give spending authority for that number. Ms. Dunscombe answered there would need to be a process to bring forward staff recommendations and motions made to adjust the proposed budget so it is clear what programs were recommended for reduction or elimination. Each one would be detailed with FTE and non -labor expenses. It will be very clear how the targeted amount was achieved. Councilmember Tibbott asked if March would be enough time to make those calculations and for reorganization in some departments. Mayor Rosen said the suggestion was March 31, 2025. Councilmember Nand commented the City self -funds its unemployment insurance. She asked if it had been ascertained that laying off individuals would result in savings in 2025 since each layoff incurs an obligation for unemployment. Ms. Dunscome answered she increased the unemployment budget in 2025. Dept 39 also budgets for payouts which was also increased in the 2025 budget in anticipation of the potential layoffs that were included in the budget. With regard to a 32-hour workweek, 35-hour workweek and 10% reduction in salaries and benefits, Councilmember Nand referred to a previous councilmember's comment that it was a falsity to consider the 32 or 35 work week in the spirit of BBP. She did not see how a 10% reduction in salary or benefits honored BBP more than a 32 or 35 hour work week. In response to a previous councilmember's comment that taxes might be burdensome to Edmonds small businesses and cause them to close, she is a small business owner in Edmonds who started her business in South Lake Union and left Seattle to move her business to Edmonds. When she talks to small businesses who moved to Edmonds from Seattle and other large cities, they cite public cleanliness and public safety as reasons. For example, during an Edmonds Chamber of Commerce meeting, Sugarology said their workers felt unsafe going to/from their previous location in Ballard and decided to move to Edmonds. That is a reflection of the level of staffing of the Edmonds Police Department. Councilmember Nand continued, the more positions that are unfunded, the dirtier and more dangerous the city becomes for small businesses, their workers and their clients as well as for residents, the more the City harms their business model. Edmonds has charm and is a well maintained City which is a reflection of proper planning by the council and administration. If cuts have to be made, she preferred to wait until after the question about annexation into the RFA is answered. She relayed her support for Councilmember Paine's proposed budget amendment for a work force planning study so the City can be more data driven and strategic and not doing this hasty slash and burn within a couple weeks and telling people their service to the City after decades is no longer needed. Regarding a 10% reduction, Council President Olson clarified the intent was not 10% across the board; it might not be each department equally or each person taking a 10% cut in salary and benefits, but using the BBP approach, the administration would find another 10% in salaries and benefits or broadening that definition to a dollar amount such as $2.3M. With regard to the budget impact of annexing into the RFA, she reminded that was the only real revenue assumption that was included in the budget and it is a big assumption. If the council waits to see how that vote turns out, it could mean that more cuts are necessary, it will never mean less cuts because passage was already assumed in the budget. Council President Olson continued, in thinking about programs that could be eliminated or reduced, Mayor Rosen assembled a task force to consider boards and commissions because although they generate a lot of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 46 benefit, they cost the City about $500,000 annually. Consideration is being given to whether they are operated as efficiently as possible, if the City has the right boards and commissions, if some could be consolidated, or if there is a completely different approach for utilizing volunteers and residents who are interested in being involved. She suggested a two year pause in boards and commissions during this critical 2025/2026budget cycle. It may not be possible to save the $500,000 spent on boards and commissions, but a large percentage of that could be saved. Only 3 of the City's 20 boards are mandatory, the planning board, LEOFF Disability Board, and the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. She summarized that could address a large portion of the $2.3M. Councilmember Paine agreed the workforce planning study needed to be done. It would allow the City to determine the staff required for each program. No one on the council has the expertise to determine exactly what is needed for each program. She objected to the comments that the reduced work week is not a programmatic decision, explaining a reduced work week is a layer for all programs and there is plenty of airspace within that discussion. It happens after program driven decisions have been made and would not supplant them. She appreciated the proposal for a percentage reduction and Councilmember Tibbott's proposal for a specific dollar amount and not starting before the result of the annexation vote is known. As department directors reminded council on Tuesday, it will be helpful not to make rash or rushed decisions. The council needs to be very strategic with regard to how the workforce is treated, some of whom are in a very precarious position. Because the proposed changes affect the City's workforce, they need to be done with a lot of communication and emotional intelligence and not throw big numbers around without understanding the numbers and the process. Councilmember Eck asked if there was a 10% or an equivalent dollar amount reduction, if the same intra- fund transfer in the same amount would still be necessary. Ms. Dunscombe answered the same $7.5M will not be necessary; this reduction would be an offset to reduce the loan amount as well as the interest charge. Councilmember Eck observed the exact dollar amount of the 10% would come off the loan amount. Ms. Dunscombe answered that would probably be the administration's recommendation; council has the option to say no. She anticipated the administration's intent would be to bring forward a reduced staffing level to directly offset the amount of the interfund loan. Mayor Rosen thanked council for entertaining this discussion. Reinstate Funding for the Police Public Records Position — Amendment #C 17 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REINSTATE FUNDING FOR THE POLICE PUBLIC RECORDS POSITION. Councilmember Paine explained this position requires a lot of technical and legal expertise and decision - making along with an understanding of timelines and deadlines associated with records requests. There are specific legal requirements for processing records requests and she was worried about the legal risk and liability. Councilmember Nand asked about the volume of public records requests handled by this staff person and the liability risks if the department does not respond within the required time period if this position is cut and productivity is affected. Police Chief Bennett recalled this was addressed during their presentation on staff reductions. She explained it depends on the call volume. If there is a major critical incident, there could be 5-6 vehicles and 5-6 body cameras which could result in hours of public disclosure redaction of the bodycam and dashcam video; one case could be 70 hours. Even a traffic stop could require a couple hours of redaction. There are timelines in the RCW that have to be met; not meeting timelines and deadlines has resulted in liability for other agencies. Councilmember Nand referred to funding required to fund this position in 2025, $145,000, and the present political environment with first amendment auditors and other government skeptical individuals making Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 47 8.1.a large volume requests. She asked if eliminating this position in 2025 would result in the City paying more than $145,000 in potential liability if the department does not turn around requests quickly enough. Chief Bennett answered that is certainly a possibility. There are two public disclosure request personnel; when a request is received, they send out notification of receipt and dates when information can expect to be received. If dates were missed and there was a lawsuit and if the reporting party prevailed, it could obviously cost more. Councilmember Nand asked if litigation cost could be expected to exceed $145,000. Chief Bennett answered that would be a better question for City Attorney Jeff Taraday to answer. Mr. Taraday answered if the primary motivation to restore this funding was to avoid hypothetical legal liability, he preferred to get back to the council by their next meeting. Although he is not the public records expert at Lighthouse, his hunch would be this was not a concern the council should use to justify restoring this funding, but he would like to doublecheck that and get back to council with an answer. Council President Olson commented when the initial presentation was made, this was one of a couple positions she wondered if in the long run it would come out ahead financially. She had been satisfied that it would, although she was open to new/different information that this was something the department felt they could get by without. The City is in a getting -by mode so she was prepared to support staff s proposal with regard to what they thought was most in compliance with the BBP process and that level of funding. Councilmember Tibbott said he was inclined to support staff s recommendation to eliminate this position. He emphasized it was not about the person, but the position and the role. He asked if there was an enormous backlog that was required to be covered, could the City contract or outsource that workload to handle an unusual or excessive amount of requests. Chief Bennett answered it takes a great deal of specialized training to do public disclosure request redactions. Outsourcing might be a better question for Mr. Taraday. There are a lot of certifications and ongoing specialized training for staff in those position. Councilmember Tibbott appreciated that it was very specialized, however, many cities are doing this kind of work and outsourcing to another city that did not have the same workload might be a way to handle an unusual circumstance. Councilmember Eck commented from an operations standpoint, she felt the most vulnerability was having one person doing such an important function with a high volume workload. She asked who provided backup if this was reduced to one position. Chief Bennett answered that could be problematic. She would need to research outsourcing unless Mr. Taraday had other information as that was not something that had been done before. Councilmember Eck asked what would happen if the person was sick for an long period of time or they leave and a new person has to be hired or the person takes a vacation. With regard to outsourcing, Mr. Taraday said it may be worth looking into entering into an interlocal agreement with another city such as Lynnwood to provide backup capability, almost like mutual aid for public records. With mutual aid, when one police department is overwhelmed by a massive incident, other jurisdictions come in to help. He did not know if Chief Bennett had ever considered such a concept with regard to public records, and if not, it may be worth looking into. Chief Bennett pointed out the potential for unfair labor practice with outsourcing work, something she has encountered when outsourcing in the past. Councilmember Eck commented in the scenario where someone leaves suddenly or they are out for an extended period of time, it may be necessary to pull people from other positions to do that work. Chief Bennett answered those people would have to be trained to do that work; another consideration would be taking them away from their assigned duties. Some research would definitely needed to be done regarding whether outsourcing or someone taking over for the position in the event of an extended absence was even a possibility. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 48 8.1.a COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO POSTPONE THIS DECISION TO NOVEMBER 26, 2024. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Permitting Fees Study — Amendment #C 18 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO ADD UP TO $10,000 FOR A CONSULTANT STUDY TO EVALUATE CURRENT PERMITTING FEE SCHEDULE AND UPDATE THE PERMITTING FEE METHODOLOGY. Councilmember Dotsch explained this amendment replaces an one she withdrew previously and Councilmember Paine was very helpful in crafting this amendment. It would be an opportunity to update fees and have the amount factored into the fees. The City hasn't done a comprehensive fee study in some time and she anticipated a study would bring fees to a more accurate level and reimburse costs at 2025 rates. Councilmember Paine explained a permit fee study would provide an external review and comparison of Edmonds' permitting fees versus other cities, determine if there are gaps in our current permit fee schedule, reduce General Fund impacts based on an inadequate fee schedule, review permitting in other areas, particularly those which have experienced a recent burst of development, index the regional inflation rate used for construction during the years when there isn't a permitting fee rate study, and the cost of the study could be included in the calculation of the permitting fee. Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmembers Dotsch and Paine and Ms. Hope for developing this amendment. She was generally skeptical of adding more obligations to General Fund unless there was an offset, however, given the strong potential for revenue generation in the future, this $10,000 would be well spent. She expressed her strong support for the amendment. Councilmember Eck relayed her support for the amendment, commenting she put it in the category of a good grant writer who more than makes up for their salary. In this case, there would be an expenditure to generate significant revenue. Council President Olson asked if Ms. Hope or another staff person with expertise in the area of permit fees could estimate the return on investment, the number of years it would take to recover the $10,000 cost which she understood would covered by fees eventually. Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope responded the challenge is one doesn't know the amount of fees the City will collect, but chances are good it would be recovered within 1-2 years and maybe even more than the cost of the study. Council President Olson commented a study every five years wouldn't be too soon. Ms. Hope answered every five years would be good, often the cost can be recouped in less than 1-2 years, that is a conservative estimate. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Correction to Street Fund IF Services Charge - Staff Recommendations #10 Ms. Dunscombe explained this amendment is to reduce the interfund services line for the Street Fund. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO REDUCE THE STRET FUND INTERFUND SERVICES LINE ITEM BY $170,000 TO $3,247,230 IN EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM. Councilmember Dotsch asked whether the Street Fund was one of the funds where there were challenges. Ms. Dunscombe answered the Street Fund definitely struggles. The General Fund contributes $450,000 to the Street Fund every year and it continues to struggle. The TBD charge was increased from $20 to $40; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 49 8.1.a 2025 will be the first year the new $40 fee will be collected the entire year but the Street Fund will still struggle. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. As budget amendments was the only topic for the Saturday meeting, Council President Olson inquired about councilmembers' interest in cancelling Saturday's meeting. Council consensus to cancel the Saturday meeting. The next meeting is a special meeting on Monday, November 25 at 6 pm. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER CHEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday commented for future reference, there is no need to excuse councilmembers from a special meetings. The law that applies to councilmember absences applies only to regular meetings. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 7:06 pm. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 21, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 50 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes November 25, 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: 2024-11-25 Council Special Minutes Packet Pg. 51 8.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL 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 SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 25, 2024 STAFF PRESENT Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir Brad Shipley, Senior Planner 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 6 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, assumed most councilmembers had purchased a house in the past and assumed they did not purchase more than they could afford. He asked when buying a house, was it the hope or the plan to win the lottery to pay the mortgage. If they missed a payment, foreclosure was the result. The same is true for the city. By his analysis the city can only afford about $2 million in loan payments for 2025 and zero in 2026 to keep the city afloat. Otherwise the city will reach a tipping point in mid-2025 where fiscal recovery will be nearly impossible based on a plan of hope. Hoping the citizens will approve the RFA as well as a levy lift is just that — hope — it is not a plan. He encouraged the council to ask the city attorney what insolvency looks like for the city, what actually happens when it reached that point and at what point did the city have to begin selling assets such as buildings and land to pay off the $7.5 million loan in 2025 and $5 million in 2026. He feared the city was headed toward insolvency and reiterated hope is not a plan. He encouraged the council to provide a plan to retain the city that residents love and not just hope voters will approve something. The council has a long way to go; budget amendments have saved $7,000 so far. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 52 8.2.a 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARD/COMMISSION Councilmembers interviewed Megan Joplin for appointment to the arts commission (responses in italics): I've worked as a photographer in commercial and fine art capacity for the past 30 years. I started doing theater photography for local theater companies in Seattle and did various other things including solo art shows. I'm also an attorney and work in an environmental practice and see the two complimenting each other; being an attorney as well as practicing fine art both require creativity. Councilmember Eck asked what mark she hoped to leave as part of the arts commission. I'm interested in art that is joyful, fun andplayful and in moving into that area. There are great things in Edmonds already; Ilove that Edmonds has a Creative District, there is tons ofstuffalready happening. I'm interested in doing activities with kids. There's a program called Art Sunday in other cities where they bring in a professional artist to collaborate with children on apiece that is temporarily displayed in a storefront window. I'd love to have something like San Francisco's Peephole Cinema that has 24 hour silent movies. There is a vending machine called Art-o-mat where you pay $5 and get a piece of artwork. I'm interested in getting the community more involved and having artfor everyone. Councilmember Nand asked how she could use a position on the arts commission to support the small business community. I love the idea of having artist displays in storefront windows. I haven't thought about other ideas that would incorporate the business community. Beautiful artwork attracts people, the Art-o- Mat or something interesting and exciting for the community will increase foot trajj0c and support for businesses. Council President Olson said she enjoyed meeting her through her resume and today's interview. Her background is really diverse and interesting and she has lived a lot of places; she too has lived in Tempe and Brooklyn, New York. She was hopeful this was the tip of the iceberg with regard to her involvement with the city and that she finds lots of ways to contribute due to her rich perspective. 2. BOYS & GIRLS CLUB BUILDING DESIGN - SECOND REVIEW Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser explained the council was reviewing the design of the Boys & Girls Club (BGC) in Civic Park for the second time per the ground use agreement. The council reviewed the BGC design in July 2023, the packet includes responses to council questions, comments and suggestions along with additional building elevations from all perspectives. One change is a proposal for a set of concrete stairs inside the park property that would tie the front of the building to the park, a change staff is very supportive of. Details regarding the stairs will be worked out in the agreement prior to construction. She advised Bill Tsoukalas, Executive Director, Boys & Girls Club of Snohomish County, was present to answer questions. Adam Clark, Architect, representing Boys & Girls Club, explaining this is essentially the same design as was presented in July 2023. He displayed and reviewed views of the northwest and southwest corner in day and evening, identifying the gym on the north side of the lot and the 2-story club on the south side, high windows on three sides of the gym, and 2-story portion that provides views into the gym. In the club portion of the building, the main floor consists of the gym, a kitchen, a dining foyer, restrooms, control office for the BGC, a public area and flex space. The upper floor is dedicated to club use and two ECAP classrooms, areas for club use, restrooms, and views into the gym. The nighttime views were prepared at the request of the Architectural Design Board. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 53 8.2.a Mr. Clark reviewed the following schematic which shows aspects of the park such as the skatepark and the track. He identified the BGC's main entry, an angled sidewalk with stairs, power for the park and the building that comes in at the south edge. There are plans for a paved area that can be used as a plaza. Building materials include concrete masonry and wood or cement board panels to break up the facades. There is a lot of glass on the south and west sides. The east side toward the park is primarily the gym, kitchen, restrooms, electrical room and power transformer. SWTMEAST CORM - DAYTIME Mr. Clark displayed the west and south elevations (below), explaining the west elevation shows two garage doors off the sidewalk; he was uncertain those would be included. They were added as a result of a council suggestion, but there are some safety concerns; they will work with the ADB on the doors or another solution. The main entry doors are on the south elevation. 4 4 4 4 4 Q 4 TFIT _aa Y T A ATIOM O O O O moss ■ SON 1 ■ p ENOISOME mom 50VT ftEVATION EKTMIOR MAT RI&S MEN w ■ Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 54 Mr. Clark displayed and reviewed the east and north elevations, explaining the east side is the backside facing the park and contains high windows for the gym and mechanical spaces. The north elevation contains recessed areas where there is opportunity for artwork. The artwork cannot protrude out very far due to the fire lane. They will work with an artist on potential artwork. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■r■■ ■■ ■m EAST ELEVATION 4 T T 4 T 44 "N' N N ELEVATION Mr. Clai ie proposed stairs. Mr. Clark displayed and reviewed the site plan, explaining there is a conditional use permit and a design review process to go through. A gym 23' clear is required to make it regulation for volleyball. The allowed height in this zone is 25', but it needs to be increased to 30' to provide room for structure and roof slopes. The existing club is about 35' tall so the proposed building reduces the overall height and mass. There is also a 20' building setback required, they are working to eliminate that so the full extent of the 12,000 square foot pad can be utilized. If those issues are not approved, they will return to council. The next step, once approved by the city council is ADB review and approval and scheduling the CUP hearing. d'-O' N II'-o• NOTOH NFA BorS e 61RL5 CLUB WHIA.160 s F. JFFH2: 4•T93s'.•F- IWAL. 16.4q9 S.F Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 55 8.2.a Councilmember Eck commented this is a marvelous design and the stairs make perfect sense leading to the park. Both her girls went to the BGC so she is looking forward to the new building. She summarized there are tremendous opportunities with all amenities that were mentioned. Councilmember Paine referred to the ADA ramp and the stairs that abut the ramp, and asked if there had been any conversation with the DEIA commission about having stairs abutting the ramp. She did not object to the stairs but wanted to ensure they were compatible. Mr. Clark was unsure the stairs had been discussed with the DEIA commission, but he is very well versed in ADA requirements and assured access will not be impacted by the stairs. The ramp slope does not require handrails; the stairs will require a handrail, but they will be setback enough that they do not intrude onto the ramp. Councilmember Tibbott said he did not recall the previous presentation to council but could see that significant strides had been made in the architectural design. He was especially concerned with the north side of the building, but that has been broken up in this iteration of the design and the idea of art in that area is an exciting opportunity that could evolve over time. With regard to the west side, it was his understanding the sidewalk was reduced to move the building further west. Mr. Clark answered the building is at that the edge of the existing sidewalk. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a setback was required from the sidewalk. Mr. Clark answered no, there is a setback from the property line. Councilmember Tibbott recalled the council's suggestion for the rollup doors was to provide engagement with the walkway versus just a blank wall. He envisioned it would be an interesting feature for the community as well as the building users and would add ventilation. He was hopeful the design practicalities could be worked out. Mr. Clark answered that may be possible. He pointed out this will be LEED Silver building so it will include a lot of green building features; HVAC is a heavily weighted item in that process. Councilmember Tibbott commented the council recently considered green building incentives; he was unsure this building would qualify, but those incentives allows up to a 30' height with green building incentives. He suggested adding solar panels so the building could qualify. Mr. Clark said solar panels are included in the plans. Councilmember Chen recalled talking about the solar panels and the height increase to maximize uses in the building. He was excited to see this building come together and was hopeful funds could be raised to install solar panels. He was pleased there would be ADA access so the building will be fully accessible for all abilities. Councilmember Nand thanked the BGC team for their hard work, fundraising, and adding this incredible amenity that updates the downtown Edmonds skyline in such an attractive manner. Council President Olson thanked the BGC team for incorporating the council's feedback and for the detailed Q&A they provided which expedited the presentation and discussion. With regard to the art, she pointed out nearby residents will see that art every day from their homes. She was unsure whether that art, similar to the building design, would go through a public process to ensure the nearby residents are considered. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY ECK, THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE SECOND REVIEW OF THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB BUILDING AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. 2025 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Community, Culture and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum introduced State Lobbyist Debora Munguia. Ms. Mungua explained she has worked with the City since 2019. This year's legislative session will start January 13' and will be a long session, 105 days. The legislature needs to adopt biennial budgets including a 4-year balanced operating budget, a 2-year transportation budget and 2-year capital budget. The Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 56 8.2.a democrats increased their majorities in both the House and Senate by one seat in each chamber. There will be a recount in the senate seat in Clark county; Senator -elect Cortes is ahead by only about 350 votes so a mandatory recount will occur. She has heard from the senate about big changes due to people who have left the legislature or left their old position for a new position. Jamie Pedersen will be the new Senate Majority Leader since Andy Billig is leaving. Senator -elect Marcus Riccelli will be the Floor Leader. Senator Solomon will be the Chair of Local Governments. Senator -elect Bateman, who ran the middle housing bills when she was in the House, will be the chair of the Housing Committee. The Senate Ways and Means Committee, the budget committee, has some big changes; two of the moderate democrats who would often vote with republicans to stop certain proposals are gone from the legislature. Ways and Means has been restructured, giving democrats more seats and added the Chair, Senator Stanford as Vice Chair of Operating, Senator Trudeau as Vice Chair for Capital, and created a new Vice Chair of Finance. Ms. Munguia explained she was still waiting for information on House committee assignments as well as information from the Senate republican caucus. The legislature will be in Olympia the week of December 9 for assembly days. The governor's budget will also come out in December. This will be Governor Inslee's last budget proposal. By law he has to propose a balanced budget which is Book 1. Book 2 can assume different revenues. It is expected Book 2 will go to Governor -elect Ferguson who will decide how to move forward with it. Ms. Munguia continued, the governor asked state agencies to submit budget reduction proposals. It is estimated the operating budget will have a $10-1213 hole for the 4 years the legislature has to come up with a balanced operating budget. That does not include collective bargaining for state employees which is estimated to be $1B+. The hole is due to anticipated caseload increases for social workers, juvenile justice, child care, etc. and decreases in general revenues. The transportation budget also has a big hole due to decreasing revenues and increasing costs. The budget leaders for operating and transportation are talking with leadership about how to fill those holes. They are working collaboratively and developing various scenarios; the hope is they will identify one big thing that will backfill that or it make easier. For example, if they can do something in operating, the operating budget has many more levers than transportation, such as diverting sales tax to the transportation budget. The priorities for transportation are to finish what was started in Connecting Washington and Move Ahead packages that have been adopted, address the backlog of maintenance and preservation, and make key investments to keep the economy moving and traffic safety due to an historic loss of life due to traffic safety issues. Ms. Munguia continued prefiling of bills starts in December. In addition to the budget, there will be a lot of policy bills. There is a coalition of organizations including schools, labor, firefighters, etc. working together, led by AWC, to lift the 1% property tax cap. AWC is also looking at things to help cities with revenue such as more flexibility regarding REET such as increasing REET for higher value properties and lowering it on other properties, storage facility tax parity, a retail delivery service fee, increasing state shared revenues, creating more flexibility that would allow cities some revenue options, indigent defense standards, public safety, behavioral health services, housing, affordable housing and homelessness, juvenile justice, environmental priorities, the RAP Act, childcare, and many other important public policy issues. Mr. Tatum referred to the City's legislative agenda, explaining past legislative agendas have been 4-5 pages and included a great deal of cut and paste from other agencies' legislative agendas. The goal this year was to make the City's legislative agenda more concise. He reviewed the legislative agenda: • Hwy 99 Revitalization project o 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. • Key 2025-27 Legislative Priorities 1. City Revenue options: Support mechanisms to expand general revenue (e.g., lifting the 1% property tax cap, increasing REET share, and exploring state revenue -sharing) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 57 2. Behavioral Health and public safety: Support co -responder programs, increase resources to deal with domestic violence, and enhance behavioral health infrastructure (practitioners and beds) 3. Indigent Defense standards: Engage in discussions on defense standards, emphasizing state funding for any cost increases. 4. Increase Housing Supply: Back measures that support housing construction and explore new funding options for needs along the housing continuum, including home ownership and senior housing 5. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Support TIF's viability 6. Address the impacts of state environmental and housing legislation on cities: Promote the creation of funding and programs which help cities to plan for, adapt to, and fund 7. 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. Mr. Tatum referred to the additional legislative issues on the legislative agenda which includes items from other agencies' as well as councilmember requests related to other issues. The intent is to bring the legislative agenda to council on a future consent agenda reflecting any changes requested by council. Councilmember Paine asked if the legislature would be looking at a roadway usage tax due to diminishing gas tax. She pointed out it would be a swap, not a double taxation to replace a gas tax with a roadway usage tax based on miles traveled. Ms. Munguia answered Representative Fey, Chair of House Transportation, is planning to put a RUC bill forward this session. He has been holding stakeholder meetings across the state. She was unsure it would pass; Senator Liias recently talked about it in a transportation meeting and his view on implementing a RUC charge in the state was it was a long term thing, taking up to 8 years to fully implement. There is discussion about potentially introducing it in different categories such as starting with electric and hybrid vehicles. It is such as a big change for Washingtonians, he would rather do it in a way that is not so abrupt and potentially create opportunities to not be successful. Councilmember Paine said she will not suggest that as a priority for this session, but wanted to recognize that gas tax revenues have been decreasing. Councilmember Paine asked the status of the legislative intent for the purchase or transfer of the Edmonds Marsh to the City. There were provisos in past years, but she did not see that in the legislative agenda. Mr. Tatum answered there has been a legislative proviso giving the City first right of purchase for the Unocal property when it transfers to WSDOT. The thought with not including it in this legislative agenda was, 1) the memorandum of understanding in which they committed to giving the City first right of purchase and setting forth a process, and 2) the property won't change hands until two years of successful monitoring once Ecology deems the property to be in compliance which hasn't occurred yet. He did not envision Ecology deeming the property in compliance before June 30, so the City wouldn't be in a position to purchase the property in this biennia. Councilmember Paine requested human services housing support be added to the legislative agenda. The City's human services department spends a lot of time ensuring people have access to housing and are able to remain in housing. There are a lot of efforts to make housing more affordable, but this would be to ensure human services to keep people housed and access to housing options at the lowest income level and to help people on the verge of becoming unhoused. Mr. Tatum offered to look at the wording in partner organization's legislative agenda items and see what makes the most sense to include. He will share that with her between now and when it is placed on the consent agenda. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 58 8.2.a Councilmember Nand expressed appreciation for this year's bullet point format. With regard to the bullet points under public safety, she recalled in previous years the City supported proposals brought forward by the Edmonds Police Department related to police pursuits. There have been a rash of fatalities in Snohomish County during police pursuits and she asked if there was any movement in the legislature regarding reforms to decrease negative outcomes and if so, would it be appropriate for the City to support that. Ms. Munguia relayed Chair Goodman will be looking at that and will be introducing some legislation but she was unsure whether it would address vehicular pursuits. She envisioned that was an issue that will come before the legislature again; she was not hearing any plans to adjust that statue again, but will inform Mr. Tatum if she hears anything. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the new, more concise format. He referred to the indigenous defense standard, assuming that legislation would require a response by cities, and asked if that would be considered an unfunded mandate. Mr. Tatum answered it could be, if indigent defense standards are adopted, it would lower caseloads from 150 felonies/attorney/year to 47 by 2027, a significant reduction. Ms. Munguia said the court would change the caseload standards; even if the legislature adopts a change, the attorneys would follow the court's decision. The Association of Counties is working with AWC to introduce legislation that would assist Washington with its current standards; it would be a multitiered approach where the state would pay for half the existing costs and there is a formula where the counties doing a good job wouldn't be penalized and if the new standards are adopted by the court, the state would cover 100% of that. The state has a $10-12B deficit so she was unsure how that would play out. There is recognition that Washington State is woefully behind in helping local governments with costs. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his concern that the state continues to pass requirements that require cities to divert funding from things like sidewalks, streets, and parks. He wondered if there could be legislation that requires the state to estimate the cost to cities before they pass a mandate, something he was unsure had every been done before. Ms. Munguia relayed if the legislature passes something, it will be implemented by the Supreme Court, not necessarily the legislature. There have been hearings on this so the court knows it would be a huge financial issue. Even if the caseload standards were dropped, there isn't the workforce in place for public defenders or prosecutors or facilities so something like that couldn't be implemented right away. The court is thinking about how they could eventually roll something like that out; the expectation is they will do something. With regard to Councilmember Tibbott's concern about unfunded mandates, she recalled related to transit oriented development there was concern by cities related to costs so a proviso was included in the transportation budget last session that will look at Snohomish, King, Clark and Spokane Counties and a report will come to the legislature in June 2025. She summarized there have been examples of where the impacts have been studied. Mr. Tatum asked if the fiscal notes for bills include financial impacts to cities. Ms. Munguia answered the Department of Commerce is responsible for submitting local government fiscal notes on bills. The agencies submit their own and then Commerce submits theirs using information from AWC. Mr. Tatum said City representatives meet with delegates during the session; this legislative agenda and clear talking points about actual expenses and opportunities will be important. The legislation has asked a lot of cities; but the bottleneck is the lack of financial ability. He will prepare something related to the impacts and opportunities related to funding for use when City representatives meet with delegates. Councilmember Tibbott commented one of the unfunded mandates is related to public records requests. The City is considering laying off an employee that does that work; it would save money but also impact the ability to process public records. The legislature needs to know some of the actions the City is taking that will be detrimental to the effectiveness they envision. Councilmember Eck said she was happy to see senior housing mentioned in the legislative agenda. Edmonds has a lot of low income seniors and she was concerned with the increasing percentage of seniors who are part of the homeless population in Snohomish County. Due to the City's financial situation, she was also happy to see items related to funding, financing and revenue. She asked what proposals would Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 59 8.2.a look like to address exploring state revenue sharing. Ms. Munguia said one thing cities and counties are looking at is marijuana shared revenue; when the law was first put in place, the amount anticipated to go to local governments never materialized. There is interest in changing the statute so a set amount or percentage that is significantly more than the current amount would go to cities. Again, the state has a $10-12B deficit so a lot will depend on what the legislature does related to additional revenue or cuts that state agencies take. Councilmember Dotsch relayed she also likes the format of the legislative agenda. She seconded Councilmember Tibbott's comments, recalling the city council previously requested the legislature allow cities to retain local control over zoning and housing density. That also came with unfunded mandates to cities in terms of staffing, bandwidth, and gaps in infrastructure. Her goal would be to create no new laws that have unfunded mandates that increase the cost of city government without reasonable compensation. A one size fits all idea placed on cities like Edmonds is a mismatch. For example bills related to TOD could greatly impact downtown Edmonds. Ms. Munguia relayed she, Mr. Tatum and Ms. Hope recently met with Representative Reed regarding a TOD bill. During that meeting Ms. Hope described the unique things that would impact Edmonds and Representative Reed was open to considering things like sea level rise and ferry traffic and welcomed comments related to changes to the bill to avoid negative impacts on Edmonds. Good relationships have been established; the City has a wonderful delegation that understands the issues. Councilmember Dotsch referred to placemaking grants and asked for an example of a desired outcome of a placemaking grant for Edmonds. Mr. Tatum responded there is currently no clear grant category for something that is less than a park, an amount of public space that isn't multiple acres. There needs to be more flexible sources to connect smaller transit or trail networks, to improve sidewalk networks, to acquire smaller public spaces, etc., basically finding places in these categories to fill in the blanks in hubs and centers where private developers and retails don't provide things the City wants to make the space more attractive and appealing for residents and retailers. Councilmember Dotsch asked if the goal was to increase revenue and economic development. Mr. Tatum answered yes; having a funding source that does these things helps encourages retail to locate and flourish in mixed use developments. He has heard from the community and the council that they do not want just big boxes of housing; these spaces also enhance quality of life. Councilmember Chen was glad to hear AWC is championing efforts related to revenue, in particularly property tax. Edmonds is in a unique situation where a large percentage of the City's revenues is property tax and its sales tax is very limited compared to Lynnwood which has a large sales tax base due to the mall and other businesses. He asked if any bills had been introduced to repeal the 1% property tax cap. Ms. Munguia answered there have been conversations with Senator Pedersen who was the prime sponsor of the bill during the last session. He is now the majority leader in the Senate so there have been conversations about whether he would be willing to sponsor it again, and if not, if there is someone in his caucus who would champion it. There is no bill sponsor yet, but she anticipated there would be one soon. Councilmember Chen added the City's voice in support of that legislation, noting that is one of the things that put Edmonds into a budget imbalance and resulted in major challenges related to revenues. Mr. Tatum referred to a list of cities in support of changing this legislation that included Edmonds. Even prior to the session, Edmonds has been advocating for that issue and will continue to advocate for it during the session. Council President Olson referred to the key 2025-27 Legislative Priorities, in particular Increase Housing Supply, relaying she supports that effort, but it could mean a lot of different things. She did not support any additional density requirements from the state, noting there had been a lot of that in the past housing bills. She resented that being imposed on the City and did not want to invite more of that. The idea of funding options for needs along the housing continuum seemed like it addressed human services which a councilmember requested in her earlier comments. Ms. Munguia relayed some of the language is from AWC's legislative agenda related to permanent supportive housing, first time homeownership, homeownership for people below 80% AMI, workforce and senior housing, etc. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 60 8.2.a Council President Olson asked for clarification regarding a councilmember's earlier request to add human services housing support. Councilmember Paine responded she was interested in funding support for people who are living close to the edge, 0-50% AMI, and having financial resources to house people in motels, repair roofs, rent support via Commerce grants, etc. Families who are struggling will need that support. She acknowledged behavioral health funds associated with law enforcement; this is different, it is human services to ensure people do not lose their homes through economic eviction. She wanted to encourage the state to maintain some level of funding that cities can access via the Department of Commerce. Mr. Tatum answered the explanation addresses the housing as well as the tools to support people. Councilmember Nand relayed her support for this component of the legislative priorities. She was particularly excited by the clause "including home ownership and senior housing." There has been discussion for years about the difficulty of condominiumization due to insurance challenges with developers. Some realtors in Seattle's hyper -hot real estate market have been pursuing novel joint tenancies with new and existing construction to try to get as many equity owners into a property as possible. She would be supportive of whatever the legislature could do to increase those opportunities. Mr. Tatum commented there is a lot of agreement on that statement. Condominiumization and the laws surrounding that have been of particular interest among many cities and legislators and there may be an effort to convene developers to determine solutions. Councilmember Nand commented for most people in the working and middle class, their house is their intergenerational piggy bank so there needs to be opportunities for families to build intergenerational wealth for themselves and their future offspring. Mr. Tatum advised a legislative dinner between the council and the delegation is planned for January 7 at 5:30 pm in the Brackett Room prior to the council meeting. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. 4. UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope provided an introduction. • Process to date (2022-2024) o Initial research and preparation o Adoption of growth targets in Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies o Development of growth alternatives o Preparation and consideration of Draft EIS o Preparation and consideration of initial Draft Plan o Selection of preferred growth alternative o Consideration of comments and other information o Preparation and publication of revised draft plan o Community engagement included: ■ Visioning (Sept 2022) ■ Community events and activities (summer 2023) ■ EIS coping (August 2024) ■ Neighborhood meetings (Dec 2023) ■ Online open house and forum (March 2024( ■ Stakeholder interviews (April 2024) ■ Citywide meetings on goals & policies (May 2023) ■ Draft EIS public hearing (Oct 2024) ■ Draft Plan open house & webinar (Oct 2024) ■ Draft EIS comment period (Sept 29-Oct 29, 2024) ■ Draft Plan comment period (Oct 3-Nov 11, 2024) ■ Numerous city council meetings Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 61 8.2.a ■ Numerous planning board meetings • Process to Date — key reminder o On November 4, 2024, after considering a No Action Alternative and two Action Alternatives, along with public comments and planning board recommendation, council selected a Preferred Alternative for comprehensive plan's approach to growth and community quality of life o The preferred option ■ Combines components for Action Alternatives A and B; ■ Includes NO new components that were outside of Action Alternatives; ■ Results in housing unit numbers that are between Alts A & B for housing unit capacity Senior Planner Brad Shipley reviewed: • Development of Future Land Use Map based on Preferred Alternative for Growth o Reflects what we heard from planning City of Edmonds board and city council as it relates to Future Land Use Map neighborhood centers and hubs. i it Ms. Hope reviewed • Next Steps o Consideration of issues in revision Plan 1) What's been done to reflect council's selection of preferred alternative? ■ Actions Include - Housing capacity for hubs and centers recalculated - Discussion with Department of Commerce about proposed numbers - Growth choices for each hub and center included in revised draft Plan (consistent with council's preferred alternative) - Land Use element updated - Future land use map adjusted - Appendix added to draft Plan to explain original growth alternatives Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 11 Packet Pg. 62 8.2.a - Transportation projects recalculated (2+ week process) and included in new draft Transportation Element 2) Can new growth areas (e.g., new hubs and centers) be added to proposed comprehensive plan? ■ No, because additional growth areas were not considered in the Draft EIS ■ Also, not advisable because has the potential for being significant and would not have had time for public input during the regular process 3) Can overlay of critical areas be added to comprehensive plan? ■ Comprehensive plan already has a Critical area Map in the Land Use Element ■ Critical areas are specifically governed through critical area and development regulations ■ Could be considered later as part of a "zoning code overlay" but might be confusing since the map does not override the critical area regulations - but rather, the other way around. 4) What is the relationship of comprehensive plan to development regulations and other city actions? ■ Comprehensive plan covers many topics at a high level; it needs to be somewhat general for long-term, while providing useful policy direction ■ Under GMA, detailed implementation of Plan must occur through: - Development regulations (including but not limited to zoning) - City's budget - Other city plans and activities o Review of revised draft Plan (ongoing) o Council review of update process & future land use map (Nov 25, tonight) o Planning board discussion of revised draft Plan (Nov 25) o City council discussion of revised draft Plan (Dec 3) o Identification of corrections & clarifications to revised draft Plan (continuing) o Consideration of Final EIS (Dec 4) o Discussion of Final EIS (council special meeting Dec 10) o Public hearing on revised draft Plan (Dec 10) o City council adoption of Plan, with any changes (Dec 17) o Staff submittal of final Plan to state agencies Councilmember Eck commented the council has received a lot of comments about added protection for vulnerable environmental areas. The presentation spoke to an overlay and the reasons that would not be helpful. She asked staff to comment on added protections for those areas and why an overlay wasn't necessary. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding from comments she has heard is that most people want environmental sensitive, critical areas to be protected. That is an important part of the comprehensive plan and implementing regulations. The comprehensive plan includes a map of known critical areas and also addresses policies that are included in the critical area regulations. In addition, in 2025 Edmonds, like many other cities, is due to review and revise its critical area regulations as needed. The City will be entering into a really important effort in 2025 to update the critical area regulations which could include updating areas that have been mapped. Simply placing an overlay on a map does not protect critical areas any differently. Her understand of why some people wanted that was they thought it would be helpful when someone is considering a development project. Having it in the comprehensive plan wouldn't be very helpful because people usually look at the critical areas map and the development code. It is important to ensure the code protects critical area and that as much information is available as possible. The comprehensive plan is a policy direction document, but it is not a substitute for code. Councilmember Eck commented if a development is proposed in an area that includes a critical area, that is a different step entirely. Ms. Hope provided an example, a property includes 2-3 critical areas, a circle is drawn around the them and it is identified as a sensitive area, but the code only applies to the critical areas, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 12 Packet Pg. 63 8.2.a not the other areas inside the circle. Someone who wants to develop will look at the code, the critical area map and any field work that has been done; in areas with wetlands, often a wetland survey will be done in conjunction with development. Councilmember Eck summarized this is important information to share with the community with regard to protecting critical areas. Councilmember Nand commented because the council is involved in the budget, she was most interested in the public revenues portion of economic development on pages 101-105, specifically Goal ED-2, Revitalize and enhance the City's activity centers, neighborhood centers and hubs through integrated mixed use placemaking and destination development approaches and recognition of the needs of housing, commerce and economic development. She was happy to see the policy statements include a desire to retain existing businesses as much as possible and avoid displacement. She wondered if it would be appropriate when discussing community renewal to disavow an interest in using the condemnation tools. There is a lot of sensitivity, particularly in majority and minority neighborhoods, about the use of condemnation in neighboring locations such as Seattle where activity in the CID led to pushback on attempts to use land for transportation. She asked whether that would be appropriate to include at the policy level. Ms. Hope answered the community renewal that has been talked about in the Highway 99 area is not to grab land for city or state use. The concern has been what can be done to improve and help businesses and housing opportunities be successful as well as address problem sites where undesirable activities are occurring. She offered to confer with Mr. Tatum about including a note that describes community renewal planning. Councilmember Dotsch commented she was surprised to see what is before council, much of it she hasn't seen before. A lot of terms are used that no one knows what they mean, and there isn't an opportunity for the public to interact at this special meeting during Thanksgiving week. She attended most of the neighborhood meetings and none of these maps or terms were included. She expressed concern with the giant change that is coming to council this late in the game. She referred to questions about the EIS and the comprehensive plan, commenting it would be nice to see all the questions and answers and asked when that would be available. Ms. Hope commented as far as she knew, big changes haven't been made to the plan. The only change from the original draft was adding the hubs and centers which were part of the preferred alternative. There were no other sweeping changes. Ms. Hope continued, with regard to the comprehensive plan draft comments, that closed November 11. The comments were provided to council and a posted online in a summary form for each element. The raw data could be provided to council; staff grouped the comments together based on which element they related to. With regard to the draft EIS, all the comments were provided to council and posted online. The responses are only partial and staff is working to complete that. A more complete version will be provided in the final EIS. The final EIS includes all the comments and responses. With regard to comprehensive plan comments, there wasn't an intent to respond to each of the 179 comments separately. All the comments were provided along with responses to major themes in the comments. Staff is working to complete that and provide it to council and post it online in a couple days. Councilmember Dotsch recalled attending the online meeting where there were a lot of questions as well as questions in the chat feature. Attendees were told to put comments in the chat because there wasn't time to address them all. Councilmember Dotsch commented it feels like there is a lot of information including goals from Vision 2050 that aren't requirements, but there aren't community goals of Edmonds residents. That is something that seems to have been lost in this document and seems to take a backseat to some urbanization and development goals. With regard to the map, no one at the meeting can see it because it's so small. There are definitions of a residential walkable urban designation, residential low scale, moderate density residential, mixed use general, mixed use urban center, mixed use urban core; some include the BD which is no longer on map. With regard to the new term, residential walkable urban designation which is defined as primary residential uses, some small scale neighborhood retail and services are conditionally permitted. Typical buildings are a mixture of detached and attached housing and middle housing types. This is generally located within'/2 mile walkshed of designed neighborhood centers and hubs. There is no definition Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 13 Packet Pg. 64 of walkshed and having a different zoning within'/2 mile walk of neighborhood centers and hubs was never discussed with the community;, transition zones were supposed to be within centers and hubs not outside them which expands density further. Councilmember Dotsch continued, there are no definitions for low scale or medium scale or what it means to someone who owns a house in a neighborhood. She recalled at the community open house at the high school a lot of terms were used that community members were unfamiliar with. She was unsure what the community or she can comment on and there is precious little time remaining. She was trying to figure out what the goal is for rezoning all the single family neighborhoods in a manner that was not brought forward to the community. Ms. Hope responded perhaps the draft land use map needs to be revised. It is true and it has been discussed in the past that single family residential areas that cover the largest area of land in the City will no longer have for example 7200 square foot lots that are consistent with the zoning designation because they now can be divided and more units built on them and the 7200 square foot or 6 units/acre no longer applies. The intent was to find terms such as residential 1 and residential 2 to replace RS which will no longer apply in the same way once the state legislation is implemented. With regard to some of the other terms, she will take a harder look at those. With regard to HB 1110, Councilmember Dotsch said the council has not had that conversation yet; there was a presentation by the previous director using the high end of all the Department of Commerce options as potential, not the minimum. The community has a choice whether to do the minimum, there is no requirement that %2 mile from a center or hub has to have a different designation that the rest of the neighborhood. She recognized the requirement to allow two ADUs per lot and other things, but not every single lot will necessarily have to accommodate every type of housing. There doesn't seem to be very good definitions and planning terms are used to define neighborhoods in new ways without public input. The City has until next June to deal with HB 1110; other cities are not going this route. She feared there was a lot of missing information and community engagement and clarity. For example, including the transition zones within the centers and hubs make sense, but the planning department seems to be taking those further beyond the intent to create scalable centers and hubs. Ms. Hope offered to look at the map, assuring that was not the intent; the FLUM was not intended to change the zoning. Councilmember Dotsch commented someone included terms that have not been presented in the past. It may be a good idea but it has not been presented previously. She summarized the City has options, it can do the minimum, the centers and hubs exceed the required growth. Mr. Shipley explained the intent was to add clarity by being more specific with the titles. The lines have not changed and the density that has been discussed has not changed. The intent was to categorize it in a way that makes sense to the public. Everything the council has agreed to is in the document and nothing has changed with regard to where they're located. The only thing that has changed is more specificity about the designation for centers or mixed use. The intent is more providing more flexibility with the zoning code that would apply to each one; each one will have to have a zoning designation that applies to it. If the City pigeonholes itself by including zoning code in the comprehensive plan, the result will be a very rigid development code which is not where the City wants to go. It was his understanding the council wanted flexibility to have transition zones between the centers and hubs and the nearby residential areas. The height requirements are the same as have been discussed, it is just a way to categorize it to make more sense. Ms. Hope reiterated staff will look at it again. Councilmember Chen was glad to see that transition zones were being considered. He asked for more detail about Highway 99 development, recalling the original plan was not to touch that area, but there are transition zone issues. For example, a couple years ago a moratorium was passed related to a development, an example of the need for transitional zones between Highway 99 and single family. He inquired about transition zones between single family and hubs and centers that are incorporated into the comprehensive plan. Ms. Hope responded the Highway 99 area will be addressed in the zoning code, not the comprehensive plan. Mr. Shipley responded the development code may include a different zone on the edge of Westgate Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 14 Packet Pg. 65 8.2.a for example where a transition area is desired; that would be a different zoning designation. There needs to be some flexibility to allow transition zones. Councilmember Chen observed the comprehensive plan is at a higher level and specific land use will be in a separate document. Mr. Shipley answered zoning is more refined than the comprehensive plan. For example, there could be a different zone that limits height to 2.5 stories in a transition zone. That will be discussed with the development code. The comprehensive plan designations offer more flexibility going forward to create the Edmonds that everyone wants instead of pigeonholing the City into a specific uniform type that applies to everything. Councilmember Chen asked when the development code will be updated. Mr. Shipley answered it has to be adopted by July 1, 2025. In a perfect world the comprehensive plan and development code would have been developed together and he understands why this conversation continues; there is a desire for specificity but the process is not there yet. Council President Olson highlighted the July 1, 2025 deadline for the development code, recalling a resident asserted it needed to be done by December 31, 2025. Ms. Hope responded some parts of the code need to be updated by 2024, but those have already been accomplished related permitting timelines and ADUs. The other code updates such as including the state legislation regarding housing needs to be done by July 1, 2025. Council President Olson referred to the term, zoning crosswalk in Table 2.2, a term she and another councilmember had not heard before. She asked staff to provide that definition for the council and public. Mr. Shipley commented some of this is related to notes passed to the consultant and the consultant included more than was intended. His first step was to look at what has been discussed so far and have it make sense with regard to implementation. He offered to remove that, agreeing it was too specific at this level. With regard to residential 1 and 2, there is no distinction between those. It is a way to start to differentiate between what residential 1 and 2 might be, residential low scale and residential walkable urban. Those are just terms to start to think about how to implement a development code around a larger vision for the City. He assured the lines have not changed. The distinction between walkable urban and low scale would be the frontage improvements, maybe one would include sidewalks and not the other depending on the distance from an urban center or hub. The different colored yellows are a legacy of the old zoning code and may not be how it is how applied in the future. Ms. Hope agreed some notes were translated in too much detail. As Mr. Shipley mentioned, the lines on the map have not changed. There were some potential designation titles used that would be used in the upcoming zoning code update and recognizing existing zoning designations. Council President Olson relayed in the past, parcel sizes were the basis for the different zones. From what she was reading in the comprehensive plan, that will go away entirely. Ms. Hope agreed. Council President Olson commented that is a tectonic shift that she did not see coming. Ms. Hope said the zone can be called RS-6, but realistically it won't be 6 units/acre based on the zoning code changes that need to be made in the coming months because some people may want to develop their lots with at least 2 units and in some areas where there is a major transit stop, it could be four units or an ADU and an additional unit. The terms won't apply in the same way as they do now where there is a minimum 7200 square foot lot in a particular zone; if someone chooses to develop their property with additional units, there won't be that minimum lot size in the future. Council President Olson said she understood there would be an impact on density from the housing bills, she was trying to extrapolate what that meant in terms of subdivision, etc. Ms. Hope said that will be part of the development code update in the next six months such as allowing subdivisions to occur on what has been a traditional single family lot. Council President Olson asked if the community conversation would happen at that point. Ms. Hope answered yes. With regard to the proposed sensitive zone overlay, Council President Olson relayed her understanding of the motivation behind that idea was if the estimate of needed units is far in excess of what the City needs, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 15 Packet Pg. 66 8.2.a it would roll out slowly and construction wouldn't reach environmental sensitive areas until later on when it was determined the City needed to provide all the units. M s. Hope answered that is a different concept than an overlay; that would be prioritizing where development goes and trying to push growth into certain areas. Council President Olson clarified it would be to have growth in less environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Hope answered an overlay where property is prioritized not to grow hasn't been part of the conversation with regard to hubs or centers or property near hubs or centers. The potential capacity was calculated based on removing critical areas. Council President Olson referred to comments about excluding open space and the natural environment from the land use guiding principle and asked if that was intentional or something that could be looked at. Ms. Hope reminded she was not here for some of the original discussion; she asked if there was an open space guiding principle that wasn't included. Council President Olson said the land use guiding principle did not include the concept of open space and natural space. Ms. Hope asked if the land use principle was the one reviewed by the community and the council. Council President Olson answered she did not remember that specifically. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that was the guiding principle that went forward with council approval, but she could determine if that was the case. Council President Olson did not recall that being an overt approval by council. Councilmember Paine referred to the FLUM and the upcoming zoning map and asked if they would be identical. Ms. Hope answered probably not, because typically a comprehensive plan map is more generalized and the zoning map is more detailed. For example there may be a business district in the comprehensive plan, and the zoning includes more specific details. Councilmember Paine responded that was good and what she was expecting to hear. With regard to the environmental overlay, she asked if that would add more regulation. She recalled hearing that one area having more regulation than another area was discouraged by the laws passed by the legislature. Ms. Hope responded there is a lot of confusion and people speaking about different concepts that do not necessarily track. For example, critical areas are regulated in the City code; drawing lines on a map will not make a difference. Councilmember Paine said she experienced that when having a fence installed in critical area, but where the fence was installed, it wasn't a critical area. Ms. Hope explained the code is the driver, not the map. The map is intended to be a red flag to say there is probably an issue that requires more review of the specific site and determinations based on field work, studies, etc. whether there is actually a critical area. Councilmember Nand noted for the public when Acting Director Hope rejoined the City, it was initially predicted that the City would not have a finalized comprehensive plan in time to meeting the state's December 31, 2024 deadline. She was excited to see this very well done, 288 page draft document in November. She recognized development and building is a sensitive topic in Edmonds that rouses passions, pointing out Edmonds staff is apolitical and are following mandates from the state, county, city and mayor. She offered hats off to the planning department and Ms. Hope for salvaging the document and the process, dealing with a lot of inquiries and questions, and handling it all with incredible grace. With regard to residential low scale and residential walkable urban, Councilmember Dotsch pointed out those incorporated RS6-RS20 and RSW-12. The fact that a property is located withing'/2 miles of a center or hub puts in it in one of the two designations; it is not required by the housing bills. Ms. Hope offered to revisit that. Councilmember Dotsch pointed out people living within'/2 mile of centers and hubs were never told they would have retail and service. The area within 11/2 mile of a center or hub was overlayed differently than areas beyond that. Ms. Hope offered to review it. Councilmember Dotsch commented this is the community's comprehensive plan, she did not see community input in the introduction, it was all the top level planning, urbanization terms, state mandates, etc. She acknowledged there would be some change in the neighborhoods, but there aren't mandates for every lot to have every type of housing. The City has choices and other cities are utilizing those choices. When this process began, there was a 15-minute city idea which was removed. The idea of property within Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 16 Packet Pg. 67 8.2.a 1/2 mile of a center or hub seems to be pushing back into the walkable 15-minute city idea, but Edmonds' topography is not flat. She asked what percentage of Edmonds is 1/2 mile from a center or hub. Mr. Shipley said he would have to map that. Councilmember Dotsch recalled the 15-minute city encompasses nearly all of Edmonds. She wasn't sure what to tell her constituents about the plan or how to read the map. Ms. Hope reiterated staff will look at that. Councilmember Dotsch commented this process has been really flawed. The City is coming up to the deadline with something the public doesn't understand how it will affect their neighborhood. Ms. Hope advised staff would return with changes or clarifications. Mr. Shipley agreed the amount of specificity could be reduced in the comprehensive plan and that conversation continued in the development code. Ms. Hope agreed the comprehensive plan is intended to be more general. 5. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING Mayor Rosen advised no specific budget amendments were identified for this meeting. The ones submitted previously were postponed to tomorrow's agenda. He asked if councilmembers had any additional amendments. Councilmember Nand offered Councilmember Chen an opportunity discuss his amendments, explaining they were tabled to give him an opportunity to present them himself. No new amendments were proposed. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:25 pm. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 25, 2024 Page 17 Packet Pg. 68 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes November 26, 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: 2024-11-26 Council Special Minutes Packet Pg. 69 8.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 26, 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 STAFF PRESENT Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. 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. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Denise Nelson, Everett, City of Edmonds employee for nearly 10 years, expressed concerned with the idea of cutting staff hours. In the last 16 months she has been dealing with cancer which required many surgeries and over 50 doctor appointments, but due to how dedicated she is to her job, she has lost less than 3 weeks of work during those 16 weeks. If council reduced staff s hours to 32 or 35 hours/week, she would be unable to afford her cancer care. She wanted the council to see the person behind their proposed cuts and the effects those cuts have. She is the only breadwinner in her family, reducing her hours to 32 or 35 hours/week or a 10% cut will not allow her to supplement her income and she was unsure how she would pay for her cancer treatment. She hoped the council looked at Mayor Rosen's proposal as it seemed like the best proposal, one that would save valuable employees. Jennifer Lambert, Lake Forest Park, City of Edmonds employee, asked the council to allow the administration to determine how budget cuts should occur as it would be difficult for the council to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 70 8.3.a understand exactly how each position impacts City operations. Losing staff members with years of experience and knowledge could be more of a detriment than relief to the budget. The city formed a taskforce to address budget concerns and solutions, she urged the council not to let that hard work be in vain. City employees already work under extreme workloads with limited staff in high stress situations. During the 17 years she has worked for Edmonds, her coworkers have become like extended family and support system, especially after recently losing her husband and becoming a single parent. Staying in Edmonds will not be as important if this family starts breaking up. This area is expensive to live in, cutting pay or hours does not mean staff can reduce their own expenses. For example, daycare is typically paid monthly, not by the day or hour so staff s daycare expenses will remain the same. Some proposed cuts will force staff to find employment elsewhere to maintain their cost of living and if the benefits begin disappearing, many staff will look for jobs with more manageable expectations. People in the industry talk to each other and know which cities treat their staff well; some of Edmonds' dedicated staff have already been approached by colleagues in other agencies with current and upcoming positions. There would be a great loss of knowledge and history if neighboring jurisdictions make competitive offers to the city's most experienced employees. Ms. Lambert continued, many staff members have worked for Edmonds for years if not decades and are cross -trained and very good at what they do. It would be difficulty, expensive and time consuming to fill the vacated positions and train new employees to the caliber of staff the city current has. She reminded the council their words have power; the council has proposed amendments without considering the people attached to those positions which has been hurtful and disrespectful. She felt council should apologize to Shannon Burley for making such an open and personal speculation of her position in a previous meeting. She recognized the council's task was not easy but reminded the employees did not create the deficit; this situation was created by and masked by elected officials. The growing financial emergency was facilitated by council in not holding officials and their hires accountable. The staff that council is choosing to suffer the weight of those actions are only guilty of doing their job to provide services to citizens. She urged the council to work with current city leaders to create a successful path forward while showing staff the respect they have earned. Trust the mayor, directors, and managers to develop a plan that is responsive to the current circumstances while creating the least amount of collateral damage to the organization and the people who work for it. Marissa Rutler, Lynnwood, City of Edmonds Plans Examiner, stated her opposition to the proposed Amendment C8 presented by Councilmember Chen, C15(A) presented by Councilmember Paine and C19 presented by Councilmember Dotsch. These irrational suggestions are disheartening seeing as many city employees witnessed their managers and directors pour an immense amount of energy into compiling a list of solid, rational budget cut decisions provided to council in the month of October. The city relies on those individuals to make the best decisions they can for their respective departments and in return they have been as transparent as possible during this endeavor. Staff is painfully aware they will all experience a pinch during the next couple years and are ready to take charge. However, the proposed amendments will severely dwindle the remaining capacity that each manager and director was depending on to make it possible to stay afloat. She is the sole provider of her household, much like many of her colleagues; these proposals are outright disgusting. Earlier this year, she left private practice as an architectural associate and designer of K-12 educational facilities, knowing she wanted to invest her time, energy and passion into the local community in which she lives. Ms. Rutler continued, any of the amendments suggested by council would reduce and encumber the ability of the planning and development employees to do their jobs. The planning and development department is revenue based and revenue will be directly impacted by the proposed reduced hours, fewer permits will be reviewed and customers at the counter will also feel the impact. People's livelihoods are at stake with the potential reduction of 115t1i of their pay. She honestly didn't know how she would make ends meet to keep a roof over her family's head and food on the table. The reduce work week proposals do not provide current Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 71 8.3.a city employees enough bandwidth to pursue a second job to fill the gap in their income and the city will lose good, talented, professional, and passionate employees. She supported the mayor's plan and strongly recommended the council reconsider these preposterous amendments. It will be tough, but at least the intent is to save jobs and support the community they are committed to serving. As council gathers with their family and friends during this holiday season, she urged them to take the time to reflect on the decision they have to make. As they look into their loved ones' eyes, she suggested they think about all the families looking into their families eyes with worry and wondering how they will make ends meet in 2025 and 2026. The lack of compassion for the human factor is evident with the city council. Rose Haas, Seattle, City of Edmonds Planner, expressed her opposition to the proposed budget amendments that would result in additional cuts to staff, including decreasing the work week to 32 or 35 hours. She is the primary income earner in her home. The decision to cut hours will push many city employees to look for more lucrative positions within their fields, within the private sector or with other municipalities that offer the ability to work a full work week as is the norm. A 32-hour work week would reduce employees' take-home pay by 20%, for her, the equivalent of 14 months of preschool tuition for her toddler or 7 mortgage payments. A 32-hour work week would reduce her take-home pay by 12.5%, the equivalent of 9 months of preschool tuition or 4 mortgage payments, pay cuts her family cannot absorb. Cutting work hours will result in many talented employees leaving the city to work elsewhere. As anyone who has owned a business can attest, retaining staff is more cost effective than training new staff. As a member of the planning division for the last 2'/Z years, their team has been chronically understaff, leaving all team members with untenable workloads at times. The division is currently hiring two positions, a reduced work week with pay 12.5-20% less than comparable municipalities is not attractive to qualified, professional candidates. She summarized cutting staff hours is a myopic solution that will harm staff retention and hinder talent acquisition, something hardworking and understaffed employees simply cannot afford. She urged the council to accept the mayor's budget proposal without additional staff reductions. Mindy Woods, Edmonds, Edmonds' Human Services Program Manager, spoke in opposition to any additional cuts, whether hours or jobs. The parks, recreation and human services division is already overworked and understaffed; she could not imagine how parks could earn any revenue if any additional cuts were made because they are already down to a skeleton crew. She is the only person in human services and already her job is being hindered by the closure of the neighborhood office where she runs all her programs. Without that office where the bulk of people come to receive services and respite because they have no where else to go as well as be able to develop relationships to build rapport and understand where people are coming from, their circumstances and how to best serve them, people will be lost in the wind. Without those connections, she will receive more calls from the public about people who need help; there is only one of her and she cannot respond to all those requests. She is also facing health challenges and her health insurance is very important to her. Morale is very low among city employees right now; she recognized the city was facing hard times and difficult decisions must be made, but she urged the council not to make those decisions on the backs of people who work hard to serve the city and do the best they can for the residents. As a resident of Edmonds, she feared what else would be coming if other services are cut. She implored the council to pass the mayor's budget proposal. Alec Rowlands, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of the city employees and the tremendous resource that personnel are to any organization, probably greater than the organization's fixed assets. He urged the council not to cut salaries or hours. His concern was this would force some of the city's most important employees to seek employment elsewhere because everyone, including the city, is feeling the crunch of the current recession. He wanted to ensure the city retains its most valuable asset. 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 72 8.3.a COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO HEAR STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES FIRST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Hearing Examiner Work - Staff Recommendation #11 Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe explained during the transition to new leadership and the development of two different budgets, several professional services requests that align with ongoing biennial budget processes were inadvertently excluded from the proposed budget. These requests reflect routine, recurring work that is essential to maintaining operations, and do not represent an expansion of the work plan. The first is the hearing examiner; she requested council approve the addition of $15,000 in professional services to the planning & development department to comply with City code. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, ADD $15,000 TO PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT FOR HEARING EXAMINER FUNCTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Minute Taker - Staff Recommendation #12 Ms. Dunscombe reiterated several professional services were inadvertently excluded from the proposed budget. This is a request to add $10,000 of professionals services to planning & development, the typical annual cost for contacted services to take minutes for evening meetings of the planning board and the architectural design board (ADB). COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR MINUTE TAKER SERVICES IN 2025 AND 2026. Council President Olson commented there has been some conversation about the possibly of putting a pause on any of the non -mandatory boards. She asked if this could be brought back as a budget amendment and removed from the budget if council ended up approving such a pause. She was aware the planning board was mandatory but was unsure if the ADB was. Ms. Dunscombe answered that would be a great way to keep in line with budgeting by priorities (BBP) concept and to keep professional services in check throughout the year. Councilmember Tibbott observed this list of amendments were all from the General Fund; he asked if Ms. Dunscombe was offering cost reductions to offset these amendments. Ms. Dunscombe answered the way they are presented she did not have an offset. They total $49,000 and it would come from ending fund balance in 2025. Councilmember Tibbott observed to stay within the proposed budget, council would need to look for additional cuts. Ms. Dunscombe answered that was correct, but envisioned $49,000 was an easy amount to achieve in savings throughout the year. Councilmember Tibbott summarized these are essential services and that normally would be included in the budget. Ms. Dunscombe agreed. Councilmember Paine observed if the funds weren't used, they would remain in the General Fund. Ms. Dunscombe agreed. Councilmember Eck relayed her understanding that the planning board meets frequently during most months. She asked how often the ADB meets. Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope advised the planning board is the bulk of $10,000; the ADB is approximately %4 due to the number of ADB meetings. Councilmember Eck said she will support this since most of it is related to the planning board. She wondered if the ADB could use Al to take notes since they meet less frequently and suggested considering that method for boards other than the planning board. Councilmember Chen wondered if the 2023 audit resulted in any General Fund balance restatement. Ms. Dunscombe answered not at this time, the 2023 ending balance is still $2.49M. Councilmember Chen Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 73 8.3.a observed there were funds available in the ending fund balance if it was necessary to access those funds. Ms. Dunscombe responded that was the council's decision in 2025. Councilmember Chen recalled in the past the balance was dramatically changed. Ms. Dunscombe advised in the proposed budget the estimated yearend 2024 ending fund balance was around $700,000, her mid -year estimate of $900,000 is closer to where it will be and that is the fund balance she would suggest be used for these expenditures. Councilmember Chen observed it will not result in a negative fund balance if more of the General Fund balance is used. Ms. Dunscombe answered these staff recommendations will not venture into that area. Obviously, depending on other decisions made tonight, there may need to be further discussion at the time amendments are made. Councilmember Nand asked if the spending authority request to raise 2024 by $550,000 had been accounted for in the General Fund for 2025 or will that still be a consideration after all the amendments are made. Ms. Dunscombe answered that has already been considered and is part of the proposed budget. Councilmember Nand commented the lifting of the spending authority hasn't been authorized by council yet. Ms. Dunscombe answered the $550,000 to raise the spending authority for 2024 has already been approved and expenditures are already included in the proposed budget. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Alliance for Housing Affordability Membership— Staff Recommendation #13 Ms. Dunscombe explained this is an increase in spending authority of the General Fund by $6,250 for the Alliance for Housing Affordable (AHA) membership fee. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY MEMBERSHIP FOR 2025/2026. Council President Olson asked what the City gets and whether there is value in pausing this membership based on the fiscal emergency. Ms. Hope answered AHA, which began with the Snohomish County Tomorrow process, is a regional effort to provide data and planning assistance related to housing. The $6250 is much less than each jurisdiction having a staff person and represents pooling resources to share the cost. Edmonds has participated in AHA for some years and found it useful. Councilmember Nand advised she was the AHA liaison in 2023 and recalled AHA Program Manager Chris Collier saying he felt his expertise was being underutilized by cities in Snohomish County; he has a lot of data and input that could benefit cities' housing discussions and plan development in the context of what is happening in the rest of Snohomish County. If the City will be dedicating these funds to AHA, she recommended the City fully utilize Mr. Collier's services. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that Mr. Collier is the data scientist that does a lot of the number crunching that helps support housing priorities and disaggregating data for Snohomish County in alignment with 14ASCO policies and understanding the economic demographics. Ms. Hope agreed, Mr. Collier is the only staff person for AHA, housed at the Housing Authority of Snohomish County and his salary and benefits are paid by participating cities. He has provided useful data to the City in the past and she anticipated he would be involved in providing data next year as the City considers updates to the code as well as tracking progress as compared to neighboring cities. Councilmember Eck commented she did not see this as a nice to have, she viewed it as a need to have. It is important the City has to make headway with regard to housing. This is a small investment compared to hiring a consultant or devoting City staff to this effort. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 74 Arborist Services — Staff Recommendation #14 Ms. Dunscombe relayed cutting and pruning trees is regulated by the City code. The development team does not have any trained arborists on staff. The request is for $15,000 to fund arborist services as needed. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR ARBORIST SERVICES FOR 2025 AND 2026 UP TO $15,000. Council President Olson said she thought there was an arborist on staff. Ms. Hope answered there was at one time but there was not now. Council President Olson observed that was not Debra Dill's role, but she is an arborist. Ms. Hope said she was unsure if she was working for another department, but she does not provide services for planning & development. Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director Angie Feser explained parks & recreation has a field arborist and on -call contracts for arborist services as well. It was her understanding planning & development's request was for an urban forester to review plans. The parks & recreation arborist does in -field work. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Digitization Service - Staff Recommendation #15 Ms. Dunscombe explained planning & development has been digitizing paper records that must be preserved. This amount would allow the planning division's paper archives to be digitized and findable when needed. The request is $10,000 in 2025 to accommodate this work. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE DIGITIZATION SERVICES IN 2025 IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000. Councilmember Tibbott commented this is an ongoing program that adds efficiency to departments and future cost savings and is a valuable investment. Council President Olson suggested costs that can be put off should be. The paper records are less efficient, but she supported not doing the digitization this year. Councilmember Dotsch observed the recommendation says 2025 and 2026. Ms. Dunscombe clarified it is for 2025 only. Councilmember Chen suggested the new ERP system could help with this effort instead of spending more money on digitization. Ms. Dunscombe answered it may or may not, depending on what records this relates to, she was unsure the new ERP system would accommodate them. The ERP system will help with purchase orders and contracts, but the ERP is not the appropriate system for permits and plans. Ms. Hope advised this is for permits, plans, site review and large format which are different than contracts and purchase orders. Councilmember Chen asked if this was hiring more hours to do the work or would an existing employee do the work. Ms. Hope answered it is a combination; this has been ongoing for several years, digitizing a chunk of the paperwork each year and this is wrapping up the major part of that last effort. Staff will provide some assistance, but it is much faster using professional services. The $10,000 is only for the professional services portion. Councilmember Chen said he understands this process because he does it on a daily basis himself. He suggested existing staff step up this effort to help ease the financial crisis and delay this given the budget situation. Councilmember Nand said she was a Starbucks file clerk when she was 21 years old and strongly supports digitization. She understood how many hours it takes to pull documents from a paper archive, distribute them, and then refile them. Getting these documents online and having OCR recognition so they are Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 75 8.3.a searchable will save FTE hours so the return on investment for $10,000, even though the City is in a fiscal crisis, is warranted. She will support the amendment. Councilmember Paine said she worked in permitting and knew about large format. Some developers will submit plans electronically so they do not have to be scanned. The scanned information is important for the historical record. This respects staff s time every day so they are not chasing paper. She recalled permitting work with plans in rolled up tubes; having that digitized makes it so much easier. She was supportive of the amendment. Councilmember Eck said she was not interested in spending just to spend, but was interested in efficiencies. She asked if there was an estimate of how many FTEs this would save in the short and long term. Ms. Hope said she did not have that information, but envisioned it would save many hours of time on an ongoing basis. The City is required to retain these records and be able to access them. Councilmember Eck envisioned it was a large volume of paperwork and tracking down paper in the future risks inaccuracies. Ms. Hope agreed, explaining the professional services have the expertise to make the records searchable. Digitizing the records saves time for people inquiring about a project, but also staff time to track the records. Councilmember Eck summarized it is a fine line between investing money and saving money. She recognized not all expenditures pay off quickly, but envisioned this would have a good return on investment. She expressed support for the amendment. Councilmember Chen said he 100% supports efficiency and digitalization. In his experience if an individual has to go through each department and learn what paperwork needs to be scanned, it would require more time training and clarifying the job duty than having the employee working on it scan it and put it in folder. Speaking from his own experience, it would be more efficient to do it that way than hiring professional services. Ms. Hope responded the volume of paperwork with sets of plans and sometimes large format paper requires a great deal of work. When staff is at the counter servicing customers, it is hard to do all those things efficiently at the same time. The City has relied on permit coordinator staff for assistance so there is not much training of the professional services staff; it is a pretty seamless handoff to get the documents in a retrievable format. Councilmember Dotsch recalled going from paper dental charts to digital, time is time and the ability to scan records so anyone can it access it is valuable. This is a worthwhile expenditure to save time and grief. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Interpretation Services — Staff Recommendation #16 Ms. Dunscombe described the request for $2,500 in General Fund money to provide interpretation services in 2025 and 2026 for the planning & development department. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR INTERPRETATION SERVICES IN 2025 AND 2026. Councilmember Eck commented if Edmonds' goal is to treat everybody equitably, this is a small investment to ensure conversations are efficient, and the City is caring for everyone who is seeking assistance. Councilmember Paine commented on the importance, particularly with permitting, of ensuring what is being discussed is absolutely clear with regard to property and projects. $2500 is not a lot, but when it is needed, it absolutely is needed. Councilmember Nand asked what interpretation services are typically used for in planning & development. Ms. Hope answered it is primarily for people seeking permits. There are residents for whom English is not their first language. It can be complicated to explain permit requirements, land use regulations, construction Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 76 8.3.a requirements, etc. and at times people bring their children or another person to help explain. Interpretation services help provide residents a more dependable option. Councilmember Nand asked if this is the same phone -based vendor that the courts use. Ms. Hope answered she was unsure if it was the same one, but was aware there were a pool of interpreters that can be contacted. Councilmember Nand expressed her support for the amendment. Council President Olson commented this is a very small amount and she could understand it was needed at times. She reminded the City pays an additional benefit to employees who speak another language. She encouraged departments to utilize existing employees to provide interpretation services to realize the return on investment from the City paying that additional benefit. She suggested creating a list of languages staff members speak. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for this budget amendment, but was unsure how it would work with this small amount. It is a necessary service for the City to have for non-English speakers, but he wondered if other departments needed interpretation services and anticipated $2500 would not be adequate. There are so many services the City wants to provide, but there is a budget crisis. Each individual budget amendment sounds so necessary which makes it hard for council to say no. The council is trying to do its job and all the fingers and fists are pointed at the council. He urged staff to be thoughtful in their requests, summarizing we're all in this together. Ms. Hope appreciated those sentiments, relaying she felt badly bringing these amendments to council; they should have been in the budget packet, but due to the transition that happened at the time the budget was put together, there wasn't staff that knew to include all these things in the budget process. Staff worked very hard on the budget, but a things got left out. Councilmember Paine asked if the City pays a bonus for employees speak additional languages. HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson answered there is bilingual pay for employees who provide interpreter services as part of their position with the City. It would be up to the director to notify HR that they have an employee providing those interpreter services as part of their job and then they would receive the additional compensation. Councilmember Paine relayed she thought that was only the police department. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised HR added that to all the contracts. Councilmember Chen commented English is his 3' or 4' language so he is aware of the importance of this service. He recalled when taking his mom to the hospital, that was one of the essential services his mom required and needed. He appreciated this amendment, but wanted to be thoughtful that the City is heading into a budget crisis and if expenditures keep increasing without revenue, the budget is heading in the wrong direction. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Historical Property Inventory - Staff Recommendation #17 Ms. Dunscombe relayed this amendment adds $15,000 of spending authority for professional services in planning & development and is offset by a $15,000 grant for an historical property inventory. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO APPROVE THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $15,000, REIMBURSED BY A GRANT, FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF MID CENTURY HOUSES IN THE SHERWOOD VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Tibbott relayed he provided a motion to the council earlier for consideration tonight. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO TARGET A REDUCTION IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY AN ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION BEGINNING ON APRIL 1, 2025. THE $2 MILLION IN Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 77 8.3.a PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO APRIL 1ST AND THEN PRORATED FOR THAT DATE. AND FURTHER, THE SAVINGS IDENTIFIED WOULD BE APPLIED TO THE LOAN AMOUNT IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY THE PRORATED AMOUNT. Councilmember Tibbott commented there have been extensive discussions regarding whether to reduce wages, hours or a percentage of wages and benefits. It was recommended there would be greater flexibility by choosing a dollar amount. In this motion he proposed a target of $2M to be identified between now and April 1, 2025. Approval of any of those budget cuts would need to be brought to council prior to April 1; he would leave it up to the administration when to bring those to council. If the motion is approved, the $2M would be prorated for the budget year following the first quarter and any savings would be applied toward the $7.5M loan in the proposed budget,. Councilmember Nand asked if Ms. Dunscombe could provide a rough estimate of the savings to the City by repaying an internal fund loan of $5.5M instead of $7.5M over a 3-year period. Ms. Dunscombe answered she did not have that off the top of her head. Councilmember Nand estimated the cost of an FTE was about $99,000 - $100,000. The motion would be a request to cut an additional 20 positions in 2025. Ms. Dunscombe relayed her estimate for an average FTE was $120,000. Councilmember Nand responded the motion would result in an additional 13-15 people being laid off. Mayor Rosen explained one of the reasons this was proposed as alternative was that it was not specific to salaries or benefits and gives the administration the opportunity to look at other things. For example, it could be looking at the benefit package, other ways of staffing such as job sharing. The goal was the ultimate amount of flexibility rather than a 10% cut which was very specific where it would come from or the 32 or 35-hour work week. It was administration's opinion that this method gave them ultimate flexibility in making decisions and also honored the BBP process and looking at the community and council's priorities, looking at the ratings and the attributes. This method provided more ability to honor that system and be flexible. Given the amount of salaries in the budget, there likely would be staff reductions. Councilmember Nand stated her opposition to Councilmember Tibbott's amendment. She has confidence in Ms. Dunscombe's calculation that the enterprise funds can support an interfund transfer of $7.5M to help forestall additional layoffs in 2025 and 2026. A lot is being asked of the City's workforce already and asking them to squeeze out an additional 10-15 FTE or give up some of their benefits through bargaining would be unnecessary and not something she could personally support. She summarized she has great respect for the City's workforce and everything they do. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO AMEND TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT FROM $2 MILLION TO $1,660,000 TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON STAFF AND EASE THE PAIN THROUGH THIS TRANSITION. Councilmember Paine relayed the council was presented with a balanced budget but it included a big loan, a loan that will be really challenging. The council has been asked to find more cuts to reduce the repayment of the $7.5M loan from the utilities fund which resulted in proposals for a 32-hour and 35-hours work weeks, and a 10% reduction. That loan has to be repaid within three years so the council was trying to find ways to offset the challenge of repaying the loan due to other big issues that will need to be sorted out next year. Her proposal is to reduce the $2M by 1/3 which would offer a cushion to see where thing are following the first vote next year, annexation into the RFA. The council is making honest and transparent steps to manage the challenges responsibly. Councilmember Tibbott's motion would not start this process before April 1 to see if there were other opportunity and ease off the immediacy of the cuts. Councilmember Eck expressed support for the amendment. Hearing directly from staff was impactful and vital and she respected staff for sharing their voices. Council takes full responsibility, this is their job. It Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 78 8.3.a was not lost on council that the decisions they make have important consequences on staff and their families. There were a lot of cuts in the proposed budget and it seems prudent to take a little extra time to see what else could be considered before making even more drastic cuts to staff in departments that will already be struggling with maintaining services levels. Council President Olson commented this is not matter of deciding what to spend because the council is spending all money it has to spend; this is about how much to borrow. The amount of borrowing that was in the originally proposed budget was $7.5M. The intent of council which began a week or so ago and was represented by the reduced work week was about $2.3M. Then the discussion was to reduce that to $2M and now the proposal is $1.66 M. The City can't borrow that much because it can't pay it back; the only way to pay that back is via a significant levy which the council can and will ask for because she personally misses the people and the services the council was looking at cutting, she missed the feeling in Edmonds that would be lost by not doing what has been enjoyed in the past, but can no longer afford. She has a lot of passion and enthusiasm about finding new revenue sources and was personally willing to support a levy, but the council cannot count on a levy because there won't be time to recover if the levy is not approved. As hard a reality as this is, she was in favor of a $2.3M cut which still may not be enough. She cannot support this amendment and she hoped the council would support the $2M that was originally proposed as that is the very minimum the council can do. Councilmember Tibbott did not support amendment as he agreed $2M was the least the council should be doing in terms of cuts. The reason he proposed that amount was it offered the most flexibility, not just for wages and benefits, but also programs, purchases, etc. Savings in a variety of areas could allow the City to reach $2M, not just cuts to staff. He expressed support for the original amount. Councilmember Chen did not support the amendment. Based on the proposal, the original amount is $2M, but language is to prorated it throughout the year. If it is implemented April 1, the actual budget cuts for 2025 is $1.5M which is even less than $1.66M. As other councilmembers have stated, the council has a difficult job; councilmembers are real people with jobs and families. The reason the council is going through this difficult process was to try to save City employees' jobs. In 2023, $6.5M in ARPA funds was used keep the City afloat. In 2024, the General Fund balance and other funds were used to keep the City afloat. In 2025, there is no longer any ARPA money. The City is already in the red and to cover the red, one of the brilliant ideas was to borrow internally, but borrowing creates another risk. The utility enterprise funds are not revenue generating funds, they are self-sustaining operations. Borrowing potentially creates a tricky situation for the wastewater treatment plant and utilities which are essential, crucial services. Councilmember Chen continued, the council is doing what it can to identify budget cuts such as a 32 or 35 hour work week, a 10% cut, those are ideas for discussion. The fact that the council hears from the City's dedicated staff, that's what this process is about. He appreciated the administration developing another proposal, to let the administration determine where the opportunities are and which programs can be reduced and not necessarily employees or hours, but to explore programs, purchases, and other opportunities and he supported that approach. He wanted the public to know the council's efforts are based on good intentions in an attempt to save jobs; the council does want to cut employees or cut their pay. Everett voters rejected a levy that represented a 44% increase, Mukilteo's 40% increase was also rejected. Edmonds would be asking for a 100-160% increase if further cuts are not made; City employees who live in Edmonds will pay that as well. He reminded we're all in this together and increased revenues and reduced expenditures is the only way to get through this difficult time together. He expressed support for the main motion to allow the administration to identify appropriate places to make cuts. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSON TO EXTEND TO 6:55. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 79 8.3.a Councilmember Nand defended the proposed $7.5M internal fund loan. She has been accused in My Edmonds News for treating the $7.5M loan as credit card debt; someone asked whether Councilmember Nand knew how to control her own credit card debt. She thought that was a great analogy and wanted to explain to the public, to the budget hawks who nitpick at her and teach her a lot, this is not like credit card debt, not like the City bonding for $7.5M. This is an internal transfer of money in a different pot to a pot that is struggling to fund basic levels of operation. The finance department worked very hard to calculate the $7.5M amount to ensure the enterprise funds would remain viable and be able to fund all the necessary maintenance and still maintain adequate reserves if the various budget scenarios related to RFA annexation, levy lid lift, etc. were approved. Councilmember Nand continued, in the analogy, if she doesn't have enough money in her main checking account, she will take money out of her savings account. That doesn't mean she doesn't know how to control her credit card debt, it is internal, not her going to American Express and asking for $5,000 to buy a new bag. She did not understand the level of discomfort with an internal, interfund transfer that is supported by the finance department in their original budget proposal. It is not like credit card debt, it is not an external debtor that the City will have to repay $7.5M to; the City will be repaying its own enterprise fund. It is just shifting money from one pot to another to help the City get through lean years, retain staff that make the City function, and then try to fix what's wrong with the structural budget gap. She did not care if the budget hawks want to make fun of her and accuse her of having credit card debt and being fiscally irresponsible because she values the City's workforce. Councilmember Chen explained the $7.5M loan is not borrowing from a savings account; the City doesn't have any savings. The savings account was the General Fund balance reserve and now the City is down to the contingency reserve. The $7.5M belongs to a separate enterprise fund, the utilities, which are self- sustaining and it is not the City's savings account. Councilmember Eck commented whether it's $2.3M, $2M, $1.66M, or $1.5M, a large percentage of that has to be salaries and benefits because salaries and benefits are the largest part of the budget regardless of sector. The budget proposed by the administration already includes quite a few staff cuts. A reduction of $1.5M or $1.6M in the April/March would allow time to determine if that level of cuts still need to be made. The truth is a $2M cut will be a lot of staff. She recognized the administration would have the discretion to figure out where those cuts would come from, but for all practicality, a large percentage would come from staff and benefits. This conversation is incredibly useful and necessary to ensure the council is covering all bases before those cuts are made. Council President Olson said the credit given to Ms. Dunscombe is appropriate with regard to saying $7.5M is an amount that can be borrowed from the utility funds in the short term. The ability to pay it back is the other side of that coin; $7.5M is a significant part of the City's total budget revenues each year and it has to be paid back in 3 years, something the state auditor's office (SAO) looks at during audits. Earlier people were referring to what happens with the RFA vote; the 2025/2026 budget assumed approval of the RFA annexation but did not assume passage of a levy. There is no reason to talk about whether the RFA annexation vote passes or not or whether it will inform future budget cuts because the situation will only be worse if that eventuality doesn't happen. She cautioned against thinking there was more time; there isn't more time although she wished there was. Councilmember Dotsch recalled the $7.5M loan from the utilities was not calculated based on what was needed, the $7.5M was the maximum amount that could be borrowed and not put those funds at risk. The money in the utility fund is provided by residents' utilities and it earns 5% so repayment of the loan includes that interest. Ms. Dunscombe explained $7.5M was the amount needed to balance the budget; the 2025 ending fund balance is about $600,000. That amount was necessary to get the ending fund balance above zero. A replenishment plan hasn't been included in the proposed budget and is important to consider. The Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 11 Packet Pg. 80 8.3.a $7.5M was chosen to bring the General Fund above zero and obviously she made sure the utility funds could afford that amount. She acknowledged repayment will be difficult and the SAO will look to having that loan repaid within three years. The SAO website in the BARS manual states not repaying the loan would be a permanent diversion of funds which would lead to an audit finding. The City receives audit findings all the time and she was not saying that was the end of the world, but the bond market also would not look kindly on stretching out that loan although she did not anticipate the City going out for bonds for major capital projects on the general government side any time soon. Those were two downfalls of not being able to pay back the loan in the three years that SAO would like to see. Councilmember Dotsch pointed out the proposed budget also calls for a $5M loan in 2026. Ms. Dunscombe agreed it does, advising the process kind of ran out of time and there needs to be a lot of thought and consideration into the amount of a levy lid lift, what it's for, whether it's permanent, one time, etc. before including it in the budget and strategic forecast. Councilmember Dotsch concluded to balance the budget, the City is borrowing $12.5M plus interest for these two years. Ms. Dunscombe answered that is correct; borrowing $5M from the utilities in 2026 runs the utilities a little tight and during the mid -biennium budget review, that $5M loan needs to turn into some other revenue source. AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES. City Attorney Jeff Taraday requested clarification of the motion; the way the motion is phrased it appears it is to not reducing the General Fund appropriation by a fixed dollar amount, it is going forward with the General Fund appropriation as proposed and asking the administration to come back next year and seek reduction in the budget. Mayor Rosen said to approve the motion, the council has to give spending authority which would have to reflect a real number. Mr. Taraday responded there will be a real number appropriated in the General Fund and it is currently whatever the mayor's budget proposed plus whatever amendments have been adopted. There is a difference between in 2024 saying we will reduce the General Fund appropriation by some fixed dollar amount versus saying we will go forward with the currently proposed General Fund appropriation and then seek to reduce that amount in 2025.One big difference between those two is if the intent is to reduce the budget next year, there will need to be five votes, not four, to do it so he encouraged the council to be mindful with regard to what they wanted to do via this motion. Mayor Rosen relayed his assumption the intent was to reduce the appropriation by $2M with these directions and qualifiers. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding if it is prorated, the appropriation would be $1.5M. Mr. Taraday offered to rephrase the motion at the regular meeting. Mayor Rosen asked how to advance this to the next meeting in accordance with Robert's Rules. Mr. Taraday answered it really doesn't matter because this same item is on the regular meeting agenda. He suggested tabling the motion and taking it from the table at the next meeting. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO TABLE TO THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 12 Packet Pg. 81 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes November 26, 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: 2024-11-26 Council Minutes Packet Pg. 82 8.4.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 26, 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 Uneek Maylor, Court Administrator Phil Williams, Acting Public Works Director Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Nand read the City Council Land 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 PROCLAMATION FOR SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY Mayor Rosen read a proclamation proclaiming November 30, 2024, as Small Business Saturday and urged the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday — celebrating its 15th year in 2024 — and Shop Small throughout the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 1 Packet Pg. 83 8.4.a year. He presented the proclamation to Sheila Cloney, BID Vice President. Ms. Cloney thanked Mayor Rosen and the council for supporting Small Business Saturday. Like many other businesses in Edmonds, she loves being part of what makes Edmonds unique and special. The businesses especially appreciate the support the City gives to the shop local culture; Edmonds is a wonderful place to do business. 2. SISTER CITY COMMISSION 2024 REPORT TO COUNCIL Sister City Commissioner and this year's Youth Exchange Chaperone Karen Heinekin provided an update on the work of the Sister City Commission (SCC) in 2024 and plans for the upcoming year: • Mission: It is the mission of the Edmonds Sister City Commission to promote international communication and understanding through exchanges of people, ideas, and culture. • 2024 Highlights 0 2024 student exchange — summer 2024: ■ Recruitment of students via media release, posting w/Edmonds school district, posting on city website and Sister City Facebook page ■ Conducted student interviews and five orientation meetings ■ Planned and executed a ten-day itinerary for the Hekinan visit o Recruitment of two new commissioners in 2024 ■ Kiwa Tashiro in March ■ Karen Reid in April ■ There are currently 10 commissioners o Community Outreach @ the Museum Market ■ 7/13/2024 focused on Commissioner recruitment; there was a high-level of interest, and several commission applications were passed out ■ 9/21/2024 focused on Commission familiarization; another day of high-level interest, many brochures passed out, two previous student delegates stopped by and shared what a positive impact the program had on their lives o Created a policy for recruitment and selection for the adult exchange program, which is included in your agenda packet along with your directive ■ An opportunity was provided through Sister Cities International for students between the age of 19-27 to work at the USA Pavilion at the 2025 Osaka World Expo. We learned of this opportunity through our relationship with the Consulate -General of Japan in Seattle and passed it along to our list of past student exchange delegates. We are aware of one past student delegate who has applied • 2025 Goals o Due to current budget constraints, the decision was made to cancel the 2025 student exchange and concentrate on fundraising in 2025 o In place of an in -person exchange we will plan a virtual meet -up, like the ones we did during COVID o Further explore the Commission becoming a non-profit organization o To bring attention to the Commission and our work locally and regionally, we plan to arrange speaking engagements, and participate in local markets, fairs, and cultural events Commissioner Heinekin reported on the 10-day 2024 Student Exchange with Hekinan, Japan • Traveled with 16 high school students, ages 15-18 • Quickly formed a cohesive group quickly and represented the City well • Tried variety of things, greeted everyone with smiles, practiced their Japanese, and rarely complained • Formed strong bonds of friendship with the Japanese delegation which carried over to their trip to Edmonds • Hosted by wonderful families who provided great home experiences Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 2 Packet Pg. 84 o During the first week, host families took students to many of their favorite places to experience Japan ■ Met Hekinan Mayor Koike ■ Five -story firehouse ■ Hekinan high school ■ Hekinan aquarium ■ Thermal plant ■ Traditional tea ceremony ■ Fishing at the Yahagi River ■ Made washi paper ■ Toyota museum ■ Temple visits in Kyoto ■ Shrine in downtown Nagoya and Nagoya Castle ■ Art museums and restaurants Commissioner Heinekin reported on the 10-day 2024 Hekinan, Japan Student Delegation that visited Edmonds Seven students plus a chaperone Visited many places in Edmonds and throughout the area to give them an experience of life in Washington. o Favorite activities included ■ Meeting Mayor Rosen ■ Edmonds fire station ■ Ferry to Kingston ■ Pike Place Market and MOHAI Museum ■ Scavenger hunt in Edmonds ■ Boehm's Chocolate Factory tour ■ Snoqualmie Falls ■ Woodland Park Zoo Ms. Heinekin reported following the student exchange, two students have joined City boards. She thanked the Edmonds and Hekinan SCCs for their hard work and planning to make this year's exchange, the first exchange in five years, a success. The cities have worked hard to promote international communication and understanding with 36 years of successful exchanges as sister cities. She has been part of the SCC for 11 years and has seen the value it provides to the cities, students and adults. The SCC hopes to continue their work to build the City's relationship with Hekinan, Japan. She displayed a video of the Edmonds' student trip to Hekinan and Hekinan students' trip to Edmonds. Councilmember Paine commented she wants to go; it was lovely to see all the pictures. Councilmember Eck thanked Commissioner Heinekin for the time she has invested in the SCC. She remarked on the priceless experience of the student exchange for the youth, that will pay dividends. She thanked all the volunteers on the SCC. Council President Olson echoed other councilmembers' comments. She gave a shout out to Carolyn LaFave who has done a phenomenal job shepherding this program for the past 12 years. She thanked Ms. LaFave on behalf of the City and international relations for all she has done for this program and thanked all the volunteers for their support. 3. MAYOR'S FINANCE UPDATE Mayor Rosen had no update. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 3 Packet Pg. 85 8.4.a 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO AMEND THE AGENDA BY ADDING A BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM THE COURT TO FOLLOW CONSIDERATION OF COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT'S MOTION THAT WAS TABLED AT THE PRIOR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED (6-1-1) COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH ABSTAINING. Councilmember Nand relayed she would like to bring some contingent budget amendments forward if certain savings can be ascertained within the proposed budget. She asked if she should make a motion to amend now, or should she do it subsequently. City Clerk Scott Passey suggested making the amendments during deliberations on the budget. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2024 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2024 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 4, 2024 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS. 5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. SOCIAL WORKER POSITION 7. CONFIRMATION OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION & ACCESSIBILITY (DEIA) COMMISSION APPOINTEES ELAINE DUCHARME & JOSEPH TAI ADEMOFE 8. APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, TO RENEW AN ON -GOING WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FOR LAKE BALLINGER 9. APPROVE SUBAWARD SAFETY ACTION PLAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL AND CITY OF EDMONDS 10. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR PHASE 12 (2025) & 13 (2026) SEWER REPLACEMENT 11. PERMITTING PROGRAM MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION 12. CODE AMENDMENT ECC 2.10.010 13. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 4 Packet Pg. 86 1. INT'L DISTRICT BANNER UPDATE Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin relayed this is an update regarding the Highway 99 International District Banner project; no decision is required, just an opportunity to review the progress to date and the selected designs. She explained the banner project is focused on the 14 red light poles on Highway 99 in the International District and are part of a project that started in 2008 as an economic development and arts project. The lanterns on seven poles and one in the island, Eight Paths of Light, designed by artist Patty Beyette. That project included fiber banners that were installed above the lanterns and on the other light poles that were visible when entering the International District from either direction. That area is quite a wind tunnel and the fiber banners didn't last very long. When they were removed, there was a plan to put up permanent cut metal banners in the future. Ms. Chapin continued, the arts commission was interested in permanent artist -design banners for the poles to provide public art on Highway 99. There was some funding left in the original project and the arts commission suggest using some public art money on the banner. That budget and the request for artists was approved by council. A request for qualifications went out, 21 artists applied and were invited to provide submissions last summer and a selection panel chose artists to design banners for the site. The selection panel, consisting of Councilmembers Nand and Paine, Arts Commissioners Chung and Leute, and Robert Ha, a member of the International District business community, selected five artists to create final designs for the 14 poles, 2 of each design and 2 individual designs. The designs are developed for fabrication but have not yet been fabricated. The banners will be made out of cut metal, viewable from both sides, and include a range of artistic themes that reflect the cultural and environmental context of the Edmonds International District. Ms. Chapin displayed the designs the committee selected which were designed by artists Romson Regarde Bustillo, Rebecca Elaynow, Stuart Nakamura, June Sekiguchi, and Gabrielle Wildheart. The multiple ethnic and cultural traditions of the International District are reflected in the various designs, from textile to print patterns, from Hispanic to Japanese and Filipino and references to nearby habitats of the lake and forest. She displayed renderings of the banner graphics and their locations on Highway 99: III ��".. \. ma �� ,,,� tci �. fi � ..� 4•. � ,,,� � , � lei �. . � The panels are on poles fabrication- 1 to occur in spring 2025. 1 Councilmember Tibbott thanked Ms. Chapin for her enthusiasm for this exciting project. He asked about maintenance over the next 5-10 years. Ms. Chapin answered very little maintenance will be required, the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 5 Packet Pg. 87 banner will be made of painted cut aluminum and should be fine for at least 10 years. This project also includes fabrication of the banner arms. Councilmember Tibbott summarized they will look great for 10 years. Ms. Chapin hoped they would look great for 20 years. Councilmember Nand commented as Ms. Chapin is retiring, she wanted to highlight what an incredible resource and asset she has been for the City. She found it very exciting to participate in the selection process for this project. When looking at the business district on Highway 99, there has always been an abrupt change between Shoreline and Edmonds. Shoreline has very similar poles with public art. Culturally and visually matching Edmonds and Shoreline will enhance prospects for small businesses along Highway 99. She viewed this as a valuable investment, and expressed her appreciation to Ms. Chapin for what she does to make the City beautiful, visually interesting and memorable for people who come here to live, work, shop and the City's increased tax base. She summarized Ms. Chapin has been a very valuable asset for the City. Councilmember Paine agreed participating on the selection panel was a fun project; the volunteers were very engaging and the artists did a lot of spectacular work. She asked when Ms. Chapin will be retiring. Ms. Chapin answered she was retiring in February. Councilmember Eck echoed the comments about Ms. Chapin, thanking her for her commitment and the time spent. She appreciated the intentionality of placing these banners on Highway 99 to honor the culture and history, but also placemaking and community building and ensuring no matter where residents live in the City, they have the same amenities. This is a very important layer among other layers that will be occurring. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for Ms. Chapin's efforts. When he goes to the International District in Seattle, he is proud to tells them Edmonds has an International District. These projects require volunteers, leadership, artists and many hours of work. He hoped Ms. Chapin will stay engaged after her hard-earned retirement as he anticipated there will be other opportunities for art and gathering places on Highway 99. Councilmember Dotsch echoed other councilmembers' comments. She saw the designs at the council committee and was very excited for this project, bringing art to Highway 99 and beginning to revitalize that area. 2. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO TAKE THE ITEM FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING FROM THE TABLE. Mr. Passey said for anything that was postponed, the correct motion would be to take it from the table; that motion requires a second and is non -debatable or amendable and requires a majority vote. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday relayed the following was his attempt to rephrase Councilmember Tibbott's motion with the clarification that resulted from the Q&A during the special meeting: To strike the main motion and replace with the following: reduce the general fund appropriation by $1.5M and have the administration report back to the council by no later than April 1, 2025 with a report as to how the reduced appropriation will be achieved along with any proposed amendments to the authorized positions ordinance that would be necessary to achieve the reduce appropriation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 6 Packet Pg. 88 8.4.a COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO THE STRIKE MAIN MOTION AND REPLACE WITH THE FOLLOWING: REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION BY $GSM $3.5M AND HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL NO LATER THAN APRIL 1, 2025 WITH A REPORT AS TO HOW THE REDUCED APPROPRIATION WILL BE ACHIEVED ALONG WITH ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTHORIZED POSITIONS ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE REDUCED APPROPRIATION. Councilmember Tibbott asked where the intent was for the savings to go toward reducing the loan. Mr. Taraday assumed that would be understood, but it could be discussed. Mayor Rosen relayed the original intent was $2M in the second year. Councilmember Tibbott agreed the original intent was to find $2M in savings by April with an appropriation of $1.5M in 2025. Mr. Taraday clarified it is a $3.5M reduction over the biennium. Councilmember Tibbott agreed that was correct. The above motion was changed from $1.5M to $3.5M. Mr. Taraday said his understanding was any reduction in the General Fund appropriation would necessarily correspond with a reduction in the loan from the utilities. In the interest of simplicity, it may be worthwhile stating that as a general operating principle and the final ordinance would reflect hat. If the General Fund appropriation is reduced, it will also reduce the loan; if the General Fund appropriation is increased, it will increase the loan. In the interest of simplicity, that does not need to be stated with each motion where the savings would come from. Councilmember Nand commented Councilmember Tibbott is senior to her and has been through more budget cycles. She was confused by the April 1, 2025 report back by the administration. The council is deliberating on the 2025 and 2026 budget; if this were a motion to add $3.5M worth of additional cuts over what the administrative has proposed for 2025 and 2026 with full transparency to the council and public, that would make sense to her. She did not understand why the council would ask the administration in almost a secretive manner to institute another $3.5M in cuts and bring that forward to council by April 1. She was not comfortable authorizing the administration to do that without full transparency before the council and public, therefore, unless Councilmember Tibbott could justify the April 1, 2025 date and why the administration would do that without full debate on the dais, she will not support the motion. Councilmember Chen agreed it was assumed this would reduce the utility loan, but he preferred to have that documented and offered to make an amendment if required. Mr. Taraday said the final budget ordinance will reflect a total General Fund appropriation as well as any loan from the utility fund to the General Fund. The mayor's proposed budget includes a $7.5M loan; as the General Fund appropriation goes down, it was his understanding what comes back for final adoption is a corresponding reduction in the amount of the loan. A councilmember could make that as a general principle motion, but he did not think it was necessary because that's everyone's intention and the council will see it before adopting the final budget. Councilmember Chen commented when the council sees this opportunity to reduce General Fund expenditures by $3.5M over 2 years, it is very tempting to add back additional expenses. Mr. Taraday reminded if the council does that, the loan amount will go up. Every amendment the council makes between now and finalizing the budget, will either increase or reduce the amount of the loan depending on whether the amendment is increasing or reducing the General Fund appropriation. There is no other proposed source of revenue other than the loan. If an amendment increased the General Fund appropriation, it increased the amount of the loan; if an amendment decreased the General Fund appropriation, it decreased the amount of the loan. Councilmember Chen responded that was not entirely correct because there is still about $560,000 General Fund by the end of 2025 and $2.3M contingency fund balance that can be used. Mr. Taraday clarified the running assumption, unless council directs otherwise, is staff will provide a final budget ordinance that is consistent with what he just said; unless council directed staff to use the contingency or some other source, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 7 Packet Pg. 89 8.4.a the assumption is the final budget ordinance will reflect a loan amount that corresponds to any council amendments. Mayor Rosen commented with that clarification, it was council prerogative to make this motion if they chose. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, THAT ANY EXPENDITURE REDUCTION THROUGH THIS EFFORT WILL BE USED SOLELY TO REDUCE THE INTERNAL LOAN FROM THE UTILITY FUND IN 2025 AND 2026. Councilmember Eck said she absolutely hears staff when they talk about other amendments on the table with regard to cutting hours and she no longer supported either of those amendment proposals. She sees the merits of this amendment. Her concern is as a separate branch, the city council should not normally relinquish control over where these cuts will be made. The council represents its constituents and should be keeping their interests in mind when making these decisions. There is merit in asking the administration to make a proposal, but for the council to agree on the cuts before seeing the proposal made her uncomfortable. Mayor Rosen clarified the amendment on the table is for expenditure reductions to be used to reduce the loan from the utility funds. Councilmember Nand said she did not support this amendment or the main motion. If councilmembers wish to accomplish $3.5M in reductions, the public, the council and staff deserve to see a line item breakdown of how those cuts will be accomplished. She did not like this abdication of council authority to oversee the budget process and be open and transparent with constituents about where cuts will be accomplished so the public can provide feedback. That is why the administration spent months preparing a proposed budget with line item reductions and proposals that the council has spent months deliberating on. Politically, she found it very uncomfortable to try to kick the can down the road this close to the filing deadline if someone is motivated to run against a councilmember because they disagree with their vote on the budget. The filing deadline is in May and April 1 is too close to that deadline to see where cuts were accomplished. Mayor Rosen restated the motion: ANY EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOTION WILL BE USED TO REDUCE THE LOAN FROM THE UTILITY FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE, AND NAND VOTING NO. Mayor Rosen reread the motion as amended: TO STRIKE THE MAIN MOTION AND REPLACE WITH THE FOLLOWING: REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION BY $3.5M AND HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL NO LATER THAN APRIL 1, 2025 WITH A REPORT AS TO HOW THE REDUCED APPROPRIATION WILL BE ACHIEVED ALONG WITH ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTHORIZED POSITIONS ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE REDUCED APPROPRIATION AND ANY EXPENDITURE REDUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOTION WILL BE U SED TO REDUCE THE LOAN FROM THE UTILITY FUNDS. Councilmember Tibbott offered rebuttal to the comments about transparency and kicking the can down the road. His preference when this was first discussed was to go out to June to give the administration plenty of time to deliberate with organizations representing City staff, look at areas of savings including purchases, operations, programs, etc. because there is not enough time to do that deliberation now. This motion is intended to offer as much flexibility for staff to bring back $2M in cuts in the budget that would be applied in 2025 and 2026 for a total of $3.5M. This is an opportunity for the administration to do their work using their expertise and bring back their very best recommendation to council for approval or rejection. There will be complete transparency between January 1 and April 1 about what the budget cuts will be, there will Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 8 Packet Pg. 90 be discussion back and forth and council will do their due diligence with regard to approving any budget amendments that result from this effort. He supported the motion as written and liked the fact that reductions would be applied to the loan balance. Councilmember Paine commented this will delay impacts from the mayor's proposed budget until April 1. Ms. Dunscombe said this would be in addition to what is already in the proposed budget. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that the proposed cuts would be solidified and any additional cuts would be delayed until April 1. The council will have to see what the administration would propose; it is a lot of finagling and working with numbers that the administration knows best. The additional cuts would have to be approved by council because these are big policy discussions. The council will be working on the budget all next year and having other discussions depending on how the votes go. This approach probably results in less harm than the 35 or 32 hour workweek proposal which council has heard tonight is damaging morale and has been difficult for staff to accept. She supported the motion, commenting cuts have to be made and they have to start now. The things that can be given up now will only help later next year and the years beyond. Council President Olson commented it is important to commit to lowering the loan amount and it shows the council's resolve by having the benefit of the administration's support in finding the best places to exercise BBP and there is some history and trust that council and community priorities will be acted on and upheld. The survey was not done willy nilly and for no reason, it was intended to find out the community's core priorities and whether they thought the City was over or under performing on those. She appreciated the administration and Mayor Rosen's willingness to work on this further and to bring back a proposal. When this proposal comes back to council, if council doesn't like what's in it, due to the target number, any changes will require swapping other expenditures due to the commitment to reduce the loan. If this passes, which she supports, that's great; if it doesn't pass, she looked forward to two other councilmembers joining her between now and Tuesday figuring out where additional cuts can be found because that's the alternative. The council either identifies specific cuts, or have the people who know which staff impact the priorities do it. Councilmember Chen commented by taking this approach, allowing the administration the flexibility to come up with cuts, the negative impact to staff will be far less than the 32 or 35 hour workweek. Using this approach, the administration has the opportunity to look at program cuts, purchasing cuts, or cuts to other areas to achieve a reduction in internal borrowing. He preferred this option over the reduction in work hours. His hesitation in reading the motion, even though English is his second language, he sees opportunity for the administration to push the $3.5M entirely into 2026 and carry on business as usual for 2025. If that is done, there is almost no chance of recovery because by then the City will not only be in the hole for $20M plus the $7.5M loan, but it also creates a hole of almost $30M plus interest. The City would then have to go to the public for a levy lid lift for that amount, an 160% increase in taxes on top of the RFA annexation and other tax increases by other taxing authorities. He did not see that being successful. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND TO CLARFY THE REDUCTION OF $3.5M WILL BE ALLOCATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.5M IN 2025 AND THE REMAINDER OF $2M WILL BE IN 2026. Councilmember Dotsch asked what if there is opportunity for more than a $1.5M reduction in 2025. Mayor Rosen relayed his assumption that if more cuts were found in 2025, it would reduce the amount of reductions in 2026. Councilmember Chen restated the amendment: TO CLARIFY THE REDUCTIONS WILL BE AT LEAST $1.5M IN 2025 AND $2M IN 2026. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 9 Packet Pg. 91 8.4.a Councilmember Nand said she was unable to support the amendment. If Councilmember Tibbott or other councilmembers wish to accomplish $1.5M in reductions in 2025 and $2M in 2026, the council has the budget book with programs, they should pick programs and positions to defend and have an open discussion on the dais. She did not understand this mechanism to bypass open discussion before the public about which programs the council intends to defund. It is an attempt to bypass politically unpopular decisions and delay the impact of those politically unpopular decisions, it is illegitimate and disrespectful to the public. Councilmember Paine said she wished it hadn't been changed. The council is pushing a lot and it will come out of the hard work staff does. Having the administration identify programs for council, that will be extremely helpful. As it is now, she will not support the amendment. Ms. Dunscombe clarified while this is a biennium budget, it is presented as two 1-year budgets. While she was fine with the motion, the $1.5M would have been shown in 2025 and $2M in 2026. It would have been very clear and transparent that the $3.5M was split into two years. MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Councilmember Dotsch referred to language in the motion, report back to council for approval no later than April 1. Approval is an assumption; she suggested it would be preferable to say the administration will report back to council with this by a certain date such as March 11. Mr. Taraday suggested changing "approval" to "action." The date the report is due could also be earlier. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND TO CHANGE APRIL 1, 2025 TO NO LATER THAN MARCH 11, 2025. Councilmember Paine did not support the amendment because she would prefer changing "for approval by April 1" to "action by April 1." Councilmember Nand did not support the amendment because if the council wants to make changes to the proposed biennial budget, they should be done by December 31 to be completely open, honest and transparent with constituents about the cuts that will be made. If constituents aren't happy with council, they can start preparing to run against them. She did not like this finagling with the timelines and this attempt to hide the ball. Mr. Taraday shared how this proposal would be implemented. Some of the labor unions have 45-day layoff notice requirements so if the council is contemplating there may be additional layoffs on April 1, that decision would need to be made by February 11, not March 11. Unless that is done, for the unions that have a 45-day layoff notice, layoffs could not take effect early enough to be on target for the $1.5M reduction in 2025. Not all the unions have a 45-day layoff notice, and non -represented employees do not have that requirement, but it is something to keep in mind. Mayor Rosen said another option would be for the administration to accommodate that in meeting the targets. Councilmember Dotsch restated the amendment: TO CHANGE APRIL 1 TO MARCH 11 AND STRIKE "FOR APPROVAL." Councilmember Dotsch commented her intent was to have the report to council by April 11 and it would be up to council to approve it by whatever date they wished. Mayor Rosen commented if council approval is delayed beyond the April 1 target, the amount would need to be increased. Councilmember Nand said she didn't know why the City spent so much money on Mike Bailey's services and devoted so much time this year toward implementing a biennial budget, BBP and attempting to pass a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 10 Packet Pg. 92 8.4.a balanced budget by December 3 1 " if the council is now going to play these calendar games which is a huge waste of taxpayer resources. AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Councilmember Eck said she respected the process used for BBP and recognized the importance of multiple public forums for input. She was not willing to abandon that, because it is valid, there was a lot of good public input. For the record, she pointed out she was keeping the voices of the most vulnerable people who cannot attend these meetings in her mind during these conversations. She will respect the BBP process, but will continue to raise her voice to help amplify the voices of people who were unable to attend those meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he brought this forward due to other amendments that were being offered with regard to reducing hours, positions and benefits during this deliberation. The administration is in the best place to identify areas where savings might be realized that keep the most employees and the most relevant programs and services in place. Doing this now allows the council to make a commitment to making reductions in the future and by requesting the administration report to council by March 11 is a good way for the council to move forward. Councilmember Paine commented these proposals will absolutely have to be transparent with the same reporting the council gets related to finances. There aren't other programs that can be cut that won't be devastating to the community. The first cuts resulted in zero wiggle room so some of the changes will have to be structural. She anticipated it would be devastating for employees. Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for the motion. The 10% reduction suggested last week was $2.3M and this motion is now $1.5M; there still have to be more cuts. The tipping point is coming fast next year and revenues are not an option. She recalled that sales tax was down $500,000 last month. Ms. Dunscombe responded sales tax is down, increasing 1% in 2024 over 2023 and she has a 3% increase in 2025 over 2024. She acknowledged the trend in sales tax revenue was definitely slowing. Councilmember Dotsch commented the impacts on staff are not lost on councilmembers, but the fiscal cliff will require cuts the City cannot plan for if there are not enough cuts now. In that respect she agreed with Councilmember Nand's thought process about identifying cuts this year. There is still time this year to do more and she hoped councilmembers would consider that. Councilmember Nand stated for the public the council could easily authorize a $7.5M interfund loan, the council could decide to place the RFA annexation before the voters, the council does not have to drive the City over a fiscal cliff. The council could be responsible to its constituents, the City's workforce and visitors and make fiscally responsible decisions. The council could choose to be open and transparent about programs they choose to defund now using the gigantic budget book full of programs to achieve $3.5M in savings. She continued to protest this attempt to kick the can down the road; the budget is the purview of council and it is supposed to be open and transparent to the public so they understand the decisions the council is making based on policy and if they disagree, they can hold the council accountable via the political process. She did not support the motion. Mayor Rosen read the motion with amendments: TO REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION BY $3.5M (AT LEAST $1.5M IN 2025 AND $2M IN 2026) AND HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL A T BY NO LATER THAN MARCH 11 APRIL 1 2025 WITH A REPORT AS TO HOW THE REDUCED APPROPRIATION WILL BE ACHIEVED ALONG WITH ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTHORIZED POSITIONS ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE REDUCED APPROPRIATION AND ANY EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS MOTION WILL BE USED TO REDUCE THE LOAN FROM THE UTILITY FUND. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 11 Packet Pg. 93 MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE, NAND AND ECK VOTING NO. Court Related Amendments COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S PROPOSED BUDGET AS PRESENTED BY THE COURT AT THE 10/22/24 COUNCIL MEETING: REDLIGHT PROGRAM — CLERK FTES - $2.66, $279,210 REDLIGHT PROGRAM — PRO TEM BUDGET - $25,000 REDLIGHT PROGRAM — INTERPRETER BUDGET - $15,000 REDLIGHT PROGRAM — EQUIPMENT COST FOR FTES - $15,000 (ONE TIME FOR DESKS/COMPUTERS/SUPPLIES. Councilmember Paine explained this is to correctly document the net budget impacts necessary for implementing the red light camera program. Court Administrator Uneek Maylor recalled the budget she and Judge Weiss presented to council on October 22 that included a slide with all these amounts, the court's analysis of the cost of the red light cameras. The court provided a 13-page workbook on June 24, 2024 that explained how the court's needs were determined. Councilmember Paine commented if there isn't staffing available to perform all the tasks associated with red light cameras, the court prioritizes their work as described in a PowerPoint that was attached to an email sent to council today, the same PowerPoint provided to council at the October 22 meeting. The estimates in the court's budget assumed revenue from the red light cameras. This is the staffing workload that was not included in the budget; this is the court's opportunity to ensure they have access to the level of funding and FTEs they need to accomplish the financial goals from the red light camera revenue. Ms. Dunscombe said it appears by the court's request that revenue would be reduced by $500,000 and expenses increased by $190,210 which is a hit to the General Fund bottom line of $690,210. She asked for clarification, if this passes, where those funds would come from. There is not that much in fund balance so it would probably require an increase in the interfund loan. Ms. Maylor explained the court brought these figures to the administration in June. The administration was informed of the staff needed, she sent an email to Mayor Rosen in June and sent a workbook that the judge worked on to council in June that explained based on citation count, the court would need almost 4 people to do the job. She didn't receive any indication that that would be included in the budget. She reached out to other court administrators, surveyed other courts that have red light camera programs and looked at many decision packages that the council has voted on in the past to ensure her information was as clear as possible so the council could make a decision on funding for the program. They then had a meeting with HR, law enforcement, Mayor Rosen, and Ms. Dunscombe and that meeting didn't go well. The mayor and administration asked why the court couldn't just assume the work. This work is almost four times the existing caseload in any given month. It would be asking a staff of four to take on four times what they normally do in a 40 hour week without any help. She explained in the best way possible that that couldn't be done, adding 400 hours/month of staff time cannot be assumed by people already working full-time. Ms. Maylor continued, at that point she went back to the judge; the judge created an excel spreadsheet based on citation count to provide a clear look at what they were trying to explain. That excel spreadsheet was based on her work productivity. She worked as a clerk, and timed herself doing all the tasks. She did not know of any other director that has come to council, the mayor or finance director and said they timed themselves mowing grass or fixing a pothole to ensure the staffing they were requesting was the appropriate amount. She did that and created an excel spreadsheet where the citation amount could be changed to figure out the amount of staff needed. It was presented multiple times to the administration and the information was provided to council. This is the staff that is needed to produce the amount of revenue that is included Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 12 Packet Pg. 94 8.4.a in the budget book. The budget includes $2.5M; that wasn't a number developed by the court. To put money into the City accounts, there need to be people to receipting that money. Without enough staff, the court cannot put the money into the criminal data base that issues a check to the City. The logic of not staffing appropriately to receipt money that is already spent in the budget doesn't make sense. Ms. Maylor continued, she attempted to have this conversation with the administration multiple times. She was told orally in a director's meeting that the court would be given three people in the budget, but learned on the night the budget was presented that the court was given two people and the next day the printed budget book says 1.5 people. Per GR29, the judge has sole discretion to present their budget to the city council and be voted on. Typically the judge and the mayor get together prior to the budget reveal and agree upon the court's budget that will be included in the budget book. This has been an issue that has come up in multiple administrations; she is on the third mayor, third finance director and third police chief. For example in 2018 or 2019, Judge Coburn asked for full-time security; the court had part-time security at the time. There was a court rule that came out that required full-time security for the court house so Judge Coburn put in a decision package and the finance director at that time, Scott James, decided not to include it in the budget that was presented to council. The judge then informed council the finance director does not get to determine what she requests and made her presentation to council during her budget presentation and it was voted on separately and added to the budget. Ms. Maylor continued, ultimately the council approves the court's budget; they have been very clear, very transparent, and she has done everything she can to report how many minutes it will take to process these documents. She has gone above and beyond to try and work with the administration to make sure it is clear what will happen if these positions are not approved. The legislative bill states revenue from the cameras can be used to process citations. The fact that none of that revenue was included in the court's budget to pay for these positions is not on her. She was sorry that occurred, was sorry the budget book included revenue that was used elsewhere that should be used to fund these positions, but she was unable to speak to why that was done. Mayor Rosen recalled his hesitation was those people will not be needed day one. There is a 30-day warning period, it is unknown exactly how many citations will be issued so gearing up and staffing as needed based on science and the reality of experience seemed preferable to him. The City also has ultimate control so if staff capacity is being reached, the cameras can be turned off and/or slowed down which would have an immediate reduction in demand. Those things gave him comfort in recommending gearing up as appropriate and as required and that was addressed in the conversation with the court. Ms. Dunscombe agreed the revenue is high in the proposed budget which was concerning to her. She felt it was appropriate to see Edmonds' experience before increasing staff. The City is in a position now where everything that is approved requires saying no to something else; there is no budgetary slack for the potential of staff need. Although she was concerned the revenue was high, $144,000 was allocated to the court in increased salary and benefits to ramp up when the ticket volume was experienced. The current contract will implement the red light camera program in January with one -month grace period. How that is staffed and the City's experience in 2025 with regard to ticket volume, staff can come back to council to ask for amendments when ticket volume is known. She did not feel it was a good idea to add staff to the budget that might not be needed based on another city's experience or information received from the vendor in their presentation because that would require saying no to something else and identifying the funding in some other department or expenditure. She concluded that was the logic that went into those decisions. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for Ms. Dunscomb's explanation, relaying her understanding how that came to be, but the court is not another department, it is an entirely different branch of government. Looking at the study done by Ms. Maylor brought back memories from her years in courts; the studies Ms. Maylor provided regarding how much time it took to docket the tickets and going through the entire life cycle of a citation demonstrates what courts do, everything is calculated by citations. Her concern is the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 13 Packet Pg. 95 court not being able to fund the necessary people and build in the necessary capacity. Ms. Maylor is a very good court administrator and a qualified probation officer; no other court has a court administrator that is also a probation officer. Court employees wear many hats which is what all courts do. The study did not use numbers from another city, it reflects actual hours by the court administrator to ensure the council understands how much time it takes to put a ticket into the system. She worried tickets would have to be sent back and money refunded if citations/infractions are unable to be adjudicated. She summarized the decision on when to hire would be up to the court; the court has not made rash decisions across time. The council supported red light cameras at two of the City's most dangerous intersections; public safety was one of the top priorities in BBP. Councilmember Nand commented since the discussion regarding red light cameras first came forward under the previous administration, she had had a lot of questions about appropriate staffing, issues with getting the administration to ascertain appropriate staff support for this program, and the effect staff will have on revenue. HB 2384 requires disaggregation; she has asked how the finance department will disaggregate and properly allocate automated traffic safety camera revenue. She hoped councilmembers understand this was never just free money; it was never a really easy way to plug a budget hole. When a new program is implemented in any branch of City government, it has to be appropriately staffed. With drastic budget cuts slashing millions from programs, the council cannot expect people will grow extra sets of arms to do yet more work. She thanked Ms. Maylor for sharing her frustrations and the court concerns about proper implementation of this program, remarking it is information the public needs to hear. Councilmember Eck commented this was an investment to create greater revenue. She asked the amount of revenue that was counted on for 2025. Ms. Dunscome responded the budget includes $2.5M for red light cameras. She assured it was not her intent to balance the General Fund with this revenue, it is just part of the math and part of what was included in budget based on a contract signed in 2024. There was no intention of hiding it or making it balance, her only request was to wait and see the volume of Edmonds' experience with red light cameras before hiring staff. There is $144,000 in the budget, if the volume justified more FTE, it is a simple budget amendment mid -year to show those details. Councilmember Eck relayed her understanding and respect for the work Ms. Dunscombe has been doing. Councilmember Eck observed if the court is not staffed correctly, the City will not realize that revenue. It's a decision point, the administration was counting on this revenue and if the cameras are paused, that jeopardizes that level of revenue. She understood the wait and see approach, but being too reactive puts a lot on the court, waiting for them to cry uncle before they are staffed appropriately. Ms. Maylor said $2.5M in revenue equals clerk time, but it doesn't equal 1.5 clerks. To have a budget that is balanced off $2.5M in red light camera revenue without the staff to put those payments into the criminal justice system is not reality; a payment equals time, it is not an automated system. A citation is not a like a PUD bill where the account number and the amount is input and it magically goes somewhere; this is money a clerk looks at and types into a dot matrix system that was created in 1983. For a finance director or anyone in the administration to say this revenue can be created by this staffing doesn't make sense because they do not work in the court. Ms. Mayor continued, the City of Lynnwood's budget was approved yesterday and it included three more clerks in addition to the clerk they asked for earlier this year plus a full-time commissioner to manage their caseload of red light cameras. Lynnwood's court already has 10 clerks for I full-time judge. Edmonds court has 4 clerks; if a court that has 10 clerks can't keep up with the red light camera revenue, regardless of whether they have more citations than Edmonds, Lynnwood already has almost 6 more clerks than Edmonds. She assured $2.5M in revenue will not be realized with 1.5 personnel if the City receives that volume of citations. It takes time for a staff member to type that into a computer. When she calculated the time it takes, she went as fast as she could and she has 20 years of experience. She likely will not get someone with 20 years of experience to do that type of work and it takes at least 6 months to train a clerk to process all the required documents. The computer systems and processes the court uses require working Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 14 Packet Pg. 96 with live data and working multiple case types that require multiple screens. Training new clerks takes time which is why she indicated the court would not start hiring until March. Ms. Mayor continued even if the volume is not as high as expected, the court has to be ready to deliver access to justice. It is not just about processing payments, it is answering the public concerns and processing documents regarding their rights, as well as hearing management. The budget does not include funds for a pro tem judge; the court has a full-time judge working a full-time caseload. The red light cameras also have the potential to add thousands of citations to a hearing process, meaning if there are only 40 hours in a week and someone asks for a hearing, does the judge come in on Saturdays to process those or are those citations dismissed because there is no pro tem budget to allow someone to review the hearings by mail? Whether the City receives 1000 citations or 2300 citations, the 2300 citations were based on the lowest amount that would be received. She recalled the expected volume was 17 tickets per camera per day. She recalled pointing out to the mayor when she went to Whole Foods, she saw 3-4 cars getting a red light camera ticket. The numbers are very conservative. The City was told they could receive 500-800 citations per month without the City being billed extra; the court used the 500 number. Councilmember Eck pointed out Ms. Maylor's comments highlight the City cannot wait, the court has to have staff in place ahead of the volumes coming in. Council President Olson referred to information the council received, account in BARS shows a decrease of $2M in revenue; she assumed that was incorrect, that it was an adjustment from $2.5M to $2M. Ms. Maylor said she put $2M based on clerks and average hearings and payments. An Excel spreadsheet was provided based on hearings and processes and the revenue based on that ticket count, not necessarily based on staff time. Based on 500 citations/month/camera, this is an estimated average and does not include all the independent decisions that a judge makes on the bench. The calculation was 500 multiplied by 5 multiplied by the average hearing amount and considering cases paid outright based on historical data. Council President Olson asked if it was expected to have $500,000 in revenue. Ms. Maylor apologized if she filled out the form incorrectly. She was saying $2M was more reasonable based on the ticket count, not $2.5M. Council President Olson observed the impact to the budget is $834,210 as presented. Ms. Dunscombe said the way the budget amendment is written, the impact to the General Fund would be $690,210. Council President Olson observed computers, desks and chairs were part of the budget ask. She wondered if any of those items were available to avoid purchasing new desks and chairs. She observed someone said no. Councilmember Dotsch thanked Ms. Mayor for the clarification. With regard to the FTE number, the budget books says one thing and Ms. Mayor said something else and now she sees 2.76 FTE. She asked what was allocated in the budget and what additional FTE did the court need. Ms. Maylor answered the court total is 2.66 which is a very, very conservative number. The original number she presented to Mayor Rosen was 4 based on 800 ticket count; the ticket count was reduced to 500 with the hope the spigot would be turned off at 500 tickets/month. If that happens, based on her average, 2.66 FTE was the bare minimum. That FTE does not include many other things such as answering phones, fax machines, front counter help, vacations, sick leave, etc. The reason the 1.5 was included in the budget book was because the court was not included in that conversation. She found out about that number when the court got a printed copy of the budget book the day after the mayor's presentation. Ms. Dunscombe responded there was a meeting scheduled that Ms. Mayor did not attend. Councilmember Dotsch referred to page 73 which shows an addition of 2 court clerks. Ms. Maylor said whatever is in the budget book is not what the court presented. The court is presenting 2.66 total FTEs in addition to the 2. She noted the top of that program page was not completed by the court; it was completed by finance. Councilmember Dotsch pointed out the budget book says 2. Ms. Maylor responded the number does not equate to 2 full-time employees. Councilmember Dotsch commented the 1.5 is baked in and the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 15 Packet Pg. 97 8.4.a court needs more. Ms. Maylor responded 2.66 minus 1.5 equals the total amount. She had about an hour to complete the form while having a conversation with the city attorney and others. All these numbers and information were provided to council during the court's presentation. The only reason she is presenting this information now is to ensure there are no legal issues between the three branches of government and what is approved/not approved, and what the court has requested and what the council votes on is transparent to the public Councilmember Dotsch relayed one of her concerns when the red light camera program was proposed was not enough consideration was being given to how to run the program. If the goal of the red light cameras is safety, there is a cost to run the program and that comes out of revenues. She recalled the numbers were conservative understanding there was a grace period, but also time to get staff trained. She concluded there will need to be cuts elsewhere in the City's budget to cover this. Council President Olson commented equipment costs are a one-time cost so the total impact is $653,420 versus $690,000. Ms. Dunscombe responded the amount she calculated was for 2025; the $690,000 did not reflect an amendment to 2026. Council President Olson observed $334,210 is what the things at the top added up to. Ms. Dunscombe relayed her assumption with how this was written was $334,210 in expenditures; there is already $144,000 for additional staff in the current budget. She noted that was an assumption because she saw this proposed amendment just minutes before the meeting. There is $2.5M in the proposed budget; if the court's proposal is accepted, the revenue would need to be reduced to $2M which is $500,000 in reduced revenue and $190,210 in increased expense which equates to $690,210 in 2025. If the council wanted to do the same for 2026, she would need to consider the FTE that was added I 2026, recalling the FTE was phased in 2025 but included the full amount in 2026. She did not have that information available tonight. Council President Olson said she stands by her original support for the red light cameras at troubled intersections. This is obviously disconcerting because there are budget impacts that the council didn't already considered which is stressful, but it is obviously net positive for the entirety of the program. More importantly, while driving on 212' today and passing the cross country team running, she drove very slowly and carefully in that school zone which is the effect the traffic safety cameras have. She suggested tabling this amendment as it is the first time the council has seen it and there is a lot to discuss and think about. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO TABLE THIS TO A FUTURE MEETING ON THE BUDGET. Mr. Taraday said if the motion is actually to table, it is not debatable. If the motion is to postpone to a future date, it is debatable. The council often makes a motion to table when they don't really mean it. He assumed the motion was really to postpone. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 3, 2025. Councilmember Nand asked when the court made its presentation to council with the description of appropriate staffing for Edmonds' automated traffic safety camera program. Ms. Maylor answered the council was provided a 13-page document with a workload estimate on June 14 based on 500-800 citations and her timing of every aspect of the document process. At the court's October 22 budget presentation to council, the judge explained the last slide in that presentation; there had been multiple discussions with administration but an agreement had not been reached which is why the red light camera presentation was provided to council in that form. Councilmember Nand recalled Judge Weiss emailing a worksheet describing the calculation for the required FTE hours. She did not think the council needed more time to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 16 Packet Pg. 98 8.4.a consider the court's request and she did not support a motion to postpone. The council should vote on it tonight and start making responsible budget decisions in a timely fashion. Councilmember Paine did not support the motion to postpone for the reasons Councilmember Nand stated. The council and administration has had this information and it's unfortunate that some lines of communication weren't as successful as hoped. Councilmember Chen said he has supported the red light cameras program from the beginning for public safety and did not want to delay it any longer. In a new biennial budget process, things fall through. He did not support postponing council action. Councilmember Dotsch commented it seemed there were multiple decisions to be made, whether the amount in the budget book of $2.5M or the $2M from the court was accurate which equates to a $500,000. The other decision is the staffing necessary to process citations from the program. She needed clarity and wanted to ensure whatever is approved, everyone is on the same page. The only reason she may support postponing is to get clarity about the impacts. Councilmember Eck said she was comfortable supporting the request for additional FTEs tonight. It remains to be seen how it will be accounted for on other side which is a conversation the council needs to have in the next budget conversation. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING YES. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO CALL THE QUESTION. Mr. Taraday advised a super majority is required to approve a call for the question. CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH VOTING NO. The motion as clarified during council discussion was displayed as follows: TO ACCEPT THE COURT'S PROPOSED BUDGET OF: RED LIGHT PROGRAM — CLERK FTES - $2.66, $279,210 (MINUS $144K OF THE NEW SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR THE 1.5 FTE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET) RED LIGHT PROGRAM — PRO TEM BUDGET - $25,000 RED LIGHT PROGRAM — INTERPRETER BUDGET - $15,000 RED LIGHT PROGRAM — EQUIPMENT COST FOR FTES - $15,000 (ONE TIME FOR DESKS/COMPUTERS/SUPPLIES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES, COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON ABSTAINING. Mr. Taraday pointed out what is shown on the screen and what the council voted on does not include the revised revenue assumption. If the council wants to make a motion to use the court's revenue assumption rather than the revenue in the proposed budget, that would be an appropriate amendment. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO CHANGE THE ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS FOR 2025 TO $2 MILLION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 17 Packet Pg. 99 8.4.a Ms. Maylor advised the court will present regarding citation counts, staffing, program outcomes, and other real data during their spring state of the court address to council. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. Mayor Rosen recalled a number of amendments were postponed to this meeting. Police Leadership Structure — Amendment #C6 Councilmember Chen advised this was addressed by the administration reducing the General Fund by $3.5M. Reduce City Hall Operations to 32 hours a Week Except for Police, Court and Wastewater Treatment - Amendment #C8 Mayor Rosen relayed his assumption that C8 would also be removed. Reduce Work Week to 35 hours/Week with Exceptions - Amendment #C15(A) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO REMOVE AMENDMENT C15(A), 35 HOUR WORK WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Rosen asked if motions were necessary for C8 and C6 as well. Mr. Passey relayed he was uncertain the council needed to take affirmative action on any amendments. If the council wanted to bring back an amendment, it could be taken from the table. Workforce Planning Study - Amendment C15(B) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO DISCUSS THE WORKFORCE PLANNING PROPOSAL. Councilmember Paine explained this is $20,000 to add to a workforce planning study to establish the proper staffing based on programs. This study was planned for 2025 and was brought up at the council retreat earlier this year as information that would be helpful for council's mandated role in budgeting and understanding staffing levels and what would be appropriate for the size of Edmonds. This amendment was postponed as HR Director Neill Hoyson was not available to describe the study. She supported having this workforce planning study done to provide data and outside analysis regarding the City's workforce needs. In light of council's decision to authorize the administration to seek another $3.5M in cuts in 2025 and 2026, Councilmember Nand asked staff to speak to how this study could help accomplish that in a data driven and intelligent manner. Ms. Neill Hoyson responded when the council is looking at cuts, being able to fully identify the people resources needed to support projects and initiatives is very important. Without that, it's very difficult to make clear decisions. The administration absolutely depends on directors to know what they need to accomplish projects, but having outside validation is important. Ever since she joined the City, she has known the staffing levels are not the correct size for the workloads which is why the City has added positions over the last couple years. Unfortunately, the City can no longer afford those positions. A full workforce planning analysis will provide information that will assist with making informed decisions about the people attached to projects and programs based on the funding available. Council President Olson referred to the police audit that was conducted and how the consultant identified the ideal organization which was implemented and now the City cannot afford it. She questioned the value of a study to identify the idealized workforce when the City is in this financial situation. It seems like it's a consulting report that is not of value and she would rather use the $20,000 toward head count. Ms. Neill Hoyson commented it would not be looking at an idealized situation; workforce planning would look at the projects, initiatives, and the work that the city council wants to accomplish and provide to residents and what bodies does it take to achieve that. It is not idealized, it is where we are right now and looking at where Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 18 Packet Pg. 100 8.4.a do we need to be, providing a clearer view of where the City needs to be to do every single thing the City wants to do and what needs to be done to reduce that. Council President Olson clarified if the study said it will take this much staff and that is beyond the budget amount, more programs would need to be cut. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there would need to be a look at programs and the number of bodies attached to that program, and if the City cannot afford that, consider cutting that program. Councilmember Dotsch commented thinking in terms of a dental practice, each practice is a bit different, just the same each city is different. There are so many moving parts right now, although such a study could be helpful, she did not think it was helpful right now because it can't really be realized until the City gets through this initial phase. She did not think undertaking this at this point in time would provide actionable information. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Nand commented based on council decisions over the last few years and particularly tonight, the City will have less than 250 FTE. In shrinking the workforce, she supported doing it in the most intelligent, 21" century way. She was tired of the City being caught in a situation where there are a lot of great ideas and suffering from severe mission creep in multiple departments. She would like there to be better alignment between the number of FTE hours the City can fund and the number of objectives the City is attempting to meet. She wouldn't want to work for a place where she was expected to do four times as much work as she was being paid for, a frustration the courts just voiced. The courts' frustration is a perfect objective lesson for funding a study like this to ensure there is intelligent alignment between the number of FTEs and what they are expected to do. Councilmember Eck referred to work studies, job observation, shadowing, etc. done in her career, realistic information about what the City is doing that is used for those studies. This would also be helpful with BBP conversation because as programs are trimmed, the City can say we are understaffed for things the community wants. She had no doubt staff would continue to do their best, but she wondered if they were working more than 40 hours/week to make that happen. This study feels much more scientific and should the City get into a better budget position in 2-3 years, there will be data to figure out the right staffing for the programs the City wants to provide for the community. Councilmember Chen said he sees the value of this study, but viewed it as a long term strategy, looking at appropriate staffing and service levels. In this moment, the City's precious dollars should go to paying the already overworked staff and then maybe when the City gets out of this budget crisis, the City would have the luxury to fund the police department and other departments as they should be. He fully supports the idea, but the timing is not ideal. Ms. Dunscombe asked if this passes, was it council's intent to use information to somehow inform the recommended motion to reduce $1.5M in 2025 and $2M in 2026. If so, the timing for that reduction in 2025 might be tight. Councilmember Paine responded in conversations with Ms. Neill Hoyson, she indicated the study could be done pretty swiftly and she was left with the understanding that the study would also be useful in looking at scaling down. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it would depend on the availability of consultants; she anticipated once a consultant was retained, the study would take no more than 60 days. Councilmember Tibbott said he was originally in favor of this study. He still thinks it is probably valuable, but given the time constraints between now and when the council is asking the administration to make budget reductions, the money is better spent in other areas and an amendment could be proposed in the future if it make sense to do the study . He did not support this expenditure at this time. MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES. Creation of a New Fund to SuDDort the 35-Hour Workweek — Amendment #C-15(C) Councilmember Paine withdrew the project completion fund attached to the 35 hour/week proposal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 19 Packet Pg. 101 Reinstate Funding for the Police Community Engagement/Crime Prevention Position - Amendment #C 16 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REINSTATE FUNDING FOR POLICE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/CRIME PREVENTION POSITION. Councilmember Paine relayed this position provides a great service to our community by providing outreach to the public, making and keeping community connections regarding crime prevention programs. Councilmember Nand recognized councilmembers are very budget conscious, but she regarded the work the community engagement officer does to be preventative in terms of costs to the City and the savings in terms of human cost that the position has accomplished in her long career with the Edmonds Police Department. Current funding is quite lean with one full-time community engagement officer; the council is potentially offsetting many more contacts that would be costly and negative for community members and the city government. This would be an appropriately preventative measure to save time and heartache as well as from an equity perspective, the human cost that can happen when the City does not have the model police department that Edmonds has due to the very thoughtful workforce planning and investment from people like Ms. Shoemake. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Reinstate Funding for the Police Public Records Position - Amendment #C 17 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REINSTATE FUNDING FOR POLICE PUBLIC RECORDS POSITION. Councilmember Paine relayed this position requires technical and legal training and decision -making, along with an understanding of timelines and deadlines associated with records requests. Council President Olson said she doesn't have a lot of hope there will be approval when staff comes back with their proposal regarding how to make $2M more in cuts. She agreed this position was valuable, just like she agreed the community engagement position and all the positions in the City are valuable. This is an example of duplication, where more than one person was doing the job or a program, such as community engagement, that could done by other officers. The City just doesn't have money, that is the bottom line. She was really concerned about the proposals to add things back to the budget. Councilmember Nand referred to an email that Chief Bennett forwarded from Commander Hawley regarding the potential impact related to litigation exposure if this position is eliminated. Chief Bennett provided a recent example, an 82-year old woman who assaulted sign holders in Edmonds that made the international news; there were 20 public disclosures related to that incident. As Commander Hawley stated in his email, it takes one big incident to wipe out hours of what the City is responsible for civil liability wise. Another issue is who does the work if one person is out sick, on vacation, etc. There are frequent lawsuits against law enforcement and government agencies for not following public disclosure laws. Chief Bennett continued, a search of 2024 found 6,400 public disclosure lawsuits filed in Washington State. Local examples included a University of Washington settlement with the Seattle Times for $100,000 over a PDR lawsuit, the UW lost a PDR lawsuit with PETA in King County Superior Court that was $540,000. Settlements for PDR lawsuits are not covered by WCIA. There has been discussion about outside attorneys doing some of the PDR work if someone is out sick as long as that wasn't a union issue, but that would require paying a high hourly rate. One of the PDR staff averages over 48 new PDR/month; some of them involve hours of video and audio redaction. One incident can be 40 hours of PDR redaction and another Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 20 Packet Pg. 102 could take 4 hours; it is hard to gauge the time required. She concluded those were the salient points addressed in Commander Hawley's email. Councilmember Paine asked Mr. Taraday to describe the email he sent which included information regarding the process. Mr. Taraday explained the question he was looking into was to what extent have the courts articulated a standard for staffing public records staff at a city. There obviously won't be a particular FTE because that will vary by city, according to established case law, as long as a city is making reasonably diligent efforts to fulfill a request, the city will not be not penalized for a delay in processing a request simply due to being under-resourced. Some requests take a lot of time due to nature of the request. Requests usually require some level of video or attorney client privilege redaction which is very time consuming. Sometimes reasonable diligence in fulfilling a request takes the form of production over a period of time such as releasing the response to a massive request in increments over a period of time. Obviously a city needs to resource sufficiently to meet the reasonably diligent standard, but he could not say what exactly that was. If he was trying to figure that out, he would be curious to know how long the department has been taking to fulfill requests. Lighthouse advises the police department but does not have access to the number of outstanding requests. Mr. Taraday continued, to Chief Bennett's point, there is some unpredictability because the department never knows when a massive request will come in. The City has 4 FTEs doing public records production, 2 in the police department plus the chief s administrative assistant, and 2 in administrative services. He could not say that was the FTE needed to avoid getting sued. Most of the lawsuits that happen have little to do with resources and are related to refusing to communicate with a requester, not performing a proper search etc. In reading case law, there wasn't one that alleged a city didn't hire enough people and therefore was being penalized. The conclusion he has reached is he would disagree with the suggestion that simply by dropping from 2 to 1 public records positions in the police department would necessarily translate into a lawsuit. Of course, it increases the risk in some marginal way, but he did not think there was a major risk from what he hears from Patricia Taraday in his office who works with police department staff. It would be a loss to lose one of the public records staff, but they are both very good which gave him confidence the City might be fine with either one staying on. Councilmember Chen asked if a public records request came up, similar to the example Chief Bennett gave, could existing, experienced police officers or others in the office provide assistance or could the public records position work overtime to address the spike. Chief Bennett responded police department public records positions do body worn camera public disclosure which is a specialty within public disclosure. The other people in the City do not do that work and her administrative assistant doesn't do that type of work and if she did, it could be an unfair labor practice. Some of the public disclosure requests her administrative assistant does will take up to 9 years to fulfill. There has to be timely notice to extend, but when there is not a lot of staff, and there are continual extensions, the worry is something is unintentionally missed. If there is only one person doing PDRs and there are a lot of requests, the requester has to be provided notice of how long it will take, and staff has to work on them to get them fulfilled and in the meantime, more PDRs are received. She summarized it is a piling on of workload versus just overtime to finishing one request. Councilmember Chen observed there may be some delay, but the level of workload varies. Chief Bennett answered it has increased since the positions were added in 2022 which makes sense because more body cameras and in -car cameras have been added. Councilmember Eck asked whether Chief Bennett would have still offered this position as one to cut had this information come to light when it was proposed in the mayor's budget. Chief Bennett answered as mentioned earlier, all positions are vital. It was hard to find any positions to propose as a cut. As Council President Olson said, each department had to come up with something so one of the factors that was considered was redundancy. Command staff made decisions based on mandates and potential redundancy, but that did not negate all the issues that came with those cuts. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 21 Packet Pg. 103 8.4.a MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING YES. General Fund Labor/Benefits Expenditure Reduction - Amendment #C19 Councilmember Dotsch withdrew the amendment. Councilmember Nand advised given the addition cuts that have passed, she will not bring forward any of her contingent amendments. Include Fund Balance Reserve Replenishment in Strategic Outlook - Amendment #C2 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO RENEW AMENDMENT #C2, INCLUDE FUND BALANCE RESERVE REPLENISHMENT IN THE STRATEGIC OUTLOOK. Councilmember Dotsch explained this was to incorporate the fund balance reserve replenishment plan into strategic outlook once the budget process is completed to demonstrate the intent to replenish the reserves to policy mandated levels. Ms. Dunscombe responded given all the new amendments and new information, she will be happy to include that as a separate line item in the strategic forecast. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Rebalance Intergovernmental Loan Principal and Interest Amounts Based on Final Loan Details A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH AND SECONDED TO REBALANCE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AMOUNTS BASED ON FINAL LOAN DETAILS. Councilmember Dotsch explained this was regarding how all the changes impact the loan amount. Ms. Dunscombe responded given the amendments passed tonight, the intergovernmental loan will need to be rebalanced. Given that most of the amendments tonight went the opposite way, she will need time go back to the drawing board. Councilmember Dotsch relayed her interest in accurately reflecting the loan amount for transparency. Councilmember Paine asked if the loan was intergovernmental or intragovernmental. Ms. Dunscombe answered it is an intergovernmental loan because it is between an enterprise fund and government. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. 3. 2025-2030 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser introduced City Engineer Rob English, Acting Public Works Director Phil Williams and Deputy Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Shannon Burley. She explained this is the final draft of the 2025-2030 CFP/CIP. Staff has been in front of council a handful of times including a presentation to the planning board on September 11 and public hearing on September 25, presentation to council on October 8 and public hearing on October 22. The document has been available to the public and council and questions have been answered via the budget query process. The plan as proposed and attached in the packet includes one amendment approved by council on November 12, a $100,000 reduction related to the Johnson property master plan in 2026 that is reflected in the parks capital program. Staff s request is approval of the document as presented; it will be formally adopted with the comprehensive plan as an element which will occur later this year. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 22 Packet Pg. 104 8.4.a COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE PARKS CFP/CIP. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO REDUCE THE REET AMOUNT ON THE MEE PROPERTY FROM $80,000 TO $10,00 WHICH WOULD ALLOW PERMITS TO STILL BE PULED AND TO DO A MORE GRASSROOTS, INHOUSE EVALUATION OF THAT MASTER PLAN. Council President Olson said she was really excited by this addition to the park. She asked staff via email whether the park could be utilized without doing the master plan process first and was told yes. It is a great space with a lot of great trees, a wonderful place to picnic or throw a ball or frisbee and that will not change if master planning is delayed. With the City in a financial crisis and so many other projects delayed, most notably street projects where the pavement on many of the City's streets is alligatored. In the short term when the City doesn't have enough resources, this is a project that can and should be put off. Councilmember Nand recalled a conversation with Ms. Feser earlier today that with $20,000, master planning for the Mee property could be done internally. Ms. Feser responded one option is to leave the allocation of $80,000 in the capital plan, but use park impact fees to fund it. There are two parts to this, one is transferring $70,000 in REET funds out of the parks capital program and into streets. The other part is whether the council wants to reduce the project when there are other funds that can be used to do the master plan. One option is the possibility of bringing the master plan inhouse and doing a community engagement process to help determine amenities in the park. The Mee property adjacent to Mathay Ballinger is about 50% the size of Mathay Ballinger so it considerably expands the park. It would be good to design how it ties into Mathay Ballinger and allow people in the surrounding neighborhoods and the entire City to be involved in the design. The funding provided by Snohomish County Conservation Futures grant limits uses to passive recreation as well as limits impervious surface so it will not be a very elaborate design. She anticipated it could be brought inhouse; she is a licensed landscape architect and could lead and manage the design process due to the small, simple scope. It would be nice to have some funds allocated to offset staff time, materials for the process, etc. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND TO PROVIDE $20,000 FROM REET FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND MASTER PLANNING FOR THE MEE PROPERTY. Mayor Rosen clarified the amendment would be reducing $80,000 to $20,000 instead of reducing $80,000 to $10,000. Councilmember Chen asked for clarification that the $80,000 was not covered by the Snohomish County Conservation Futures grant. Ms. Feser answered the grant does not cover master planning or improvements to the property, it was solely for acquisition and securing the site such as demolition of the house which has been done and costs related to purchasing the property. Councilmember Chen asked if the design could still be done in-house if the amount is reduced from $80,000 to $20,000. Ms. Feser answered yes. Councilmember Chen observed the reduction will not impact the timeline to use the Mee property. Ms. Feser answered in-house master planning will be contingent on other upcoming budget cuts if more staff are eliminated in parks. Councilmember Chen commented that was unrelated to this project. Ms. Feser responded it is related because if other staff are cut in the department, her responsibilities may shift to fill those voids. Councilmember Chen commented this project lifted up the entire community during this budget crisis and he hated to see any funding cut from it. The budget constraint is in the General Fund, not in the capital project funds. He did not support the motion. Council President Olson pointed out the City doesn't have enough money in streets and it has been really underfunded for a long time. She found it a bit of a misstatement to say there is plenty of money if it can be done in a more budget -oriented way. Whether the master planning is done or not, it is not a matter of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 23 Packet Pg. 105 8.4.a using the property, it is just how extensive the planning is. The property will be used regardless of whether any money is allocated. Councilmember Nand said she found it odd given the investments in improving park properties in other parts of the City that the one addition to a park in southeast Edmonds is getting short shrift. She supports doing master planning and community engagement and if that can be done for $20,000, she did not see why that was such a difficult lift for the council considering $13M was spent on Civic Park. Councilmember Paine relayed Ms. Feser could inform council if this could not be done due to further cuts in the first quarter of next year and then the council could consider reallocating funds. Ms. Feser agreed that could be done once the budget all shakes out. Councilmember Paine relayed the hope the City will not lose any more staff. AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER CHEN AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER CHEN VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO PRELIMINARILY ADOPT THE PUBLIC WORKS CFP/CIP FOR THE YEARS 2025-2030. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:20. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH VOTING NO. Council President Olson referred to an email exchange she had with Mr. Williams regarding minor amendments and suggested they be offered as amendments for council to vote on. She referred to PWT-30, the narrative sounded like it was only the sidewalk install on 236' which did not match the red line of the project on the map. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO AMEND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO UPDATE THE NARRATIVE TO INCLUDE 96TH AND 94TH AS SHOWN ON THE PROJECT MAP. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nand acknowledged this evening's approval of the consent agenda included confirmation of Elaine Ducharme & Joseph Tai Ademofe as the newest members of DEIA Commission. She thanked them for volunteering. Councilmember Paine thanked everyone for coming and talking about the importance of their jobs; she recognizes the importance of their jobs to getting work done in the City. Councilmember Dotsch thanked everyone for their participation tonight. She relayed concern the council was going in wrong direction with regard to the budget; insolvency will be brutal, the council has to make cuts, and may even have to sell buildings. There are a lot of things on the horizon that could be quite catastrophic if assumptions are not realized, many of which are out of the council's hands. The council has added a lot back into the budget without the funds to sustain it and have anything left over next year. She was hopeful the council could come back next week with some opportunities for additional cuts to keep the City solvent next year. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 24 Packet Pg. 106 8.4.a Council President Olson wanted to be on the record saying she supports the wonderful Tabitha Shoemake, every bit as much as other councilmembers who voted in favor of keeping that program and position in place, a $181,000 cut in the proposed budget that now adds to the amount to be cut. The addition of clerks in the court are offset by revenues. She would have loved for Ms. Shoemake to pursue a job in the courts so the City does not lose her. The community engagement/crime prevention position was one the City can do without in the short term. The $181,000 includes funds that go along with that position. She feared the council went in the wrong direction today. What she was hoping to avoid as councilmembers make these hard choices and have difficult conversations regarding the budget happened today to her disappointment. Casting dispersions about taking REET funds out of the CFP/CIP for the Mee property for example, commenting she was happy to share an email with the councilmember who pointed that out. One of the ways those funds could be used was the sidewalk on 84t' which is in that same neighborhood. This is about making hard choices and getting the core things done in this year when there's not enough money to do everything the community cares about and prioritizes which is everything the City has funded before. Councilmember Tibbott said he found this deliberation process very difficult; last year was hard for different reasons. Having to cut positions and programs has been really difficult. As Council President Olson stated, the council has now added to the proposed budget so councilmembers will need to roll up their sleeves in the next week and find additional cuts before the end of year in order to pass a balanced budget. There are a lot of things he was excited about in Edmonds in the new year such as the arts programs, the school district's offerings, and families' involvement. He thanked everyone involved in helping the council through this budget process and the directors for their time to provide explanations to council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND FOR 4 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Chen thanked the public for expressing their concerns to council. Making budget cuts is a very difficult decision -making process and the City's financial situation requires the council make hard decisions. With regard to the community engagement position, it is one the City can potentially live without, but considering the history of the City from an equity perspective, that position provides services to the underserved population which is why he made the exception to retain that position. With regard to the police and court, especially the court, red light camera revenue put the budget in an unfavorable position. The entire City needs to work together to find opportunities. The council is focused on expenditure cuts, but energies also need to be focused on revenue generation as well as expenditure reductions. He summarized the council still has work to do. Councilmember Eck welcomed the new DEIA commissioners. She has the honor of being the council liaison to the DEIA Commission and has met both commissioners who will be fantastic. She realized the council did not make the headway that was hoped tonight. The council has to determine what revenue opportunities can be implemented, because the council cannot cut their way out of this. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen commented every decision being made here tonight will affect every individual in the City. Everyone is either facing challenges or knows someone facing challenges. This week is Thanksgiving and he encouraged everyone to reflect on the things they are thankful for and move forward with empathy and grace. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:23 pm. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 26, 2024 Page 25 Packet Pg. 107 8.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 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 check #66153 dated January 3, 2025 for $4,402.19, direct deposit for $887,939.95, benefit checks #66154 through #66159 and wire payments for $795,822.27 for the pay period of December 16, 2024 through December 31, 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: 12-16-2024 to 12-31-2024 benefit checks summary 12-16-2024 to 12-31-2024 payroll earnings summary Packet Pg. 108 8.5.a Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,163 - 12/16/2024 to 12/31/2024 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 66154 01/03/2025 bpas BPAS 8,790.81 0.00 66155 01/03/2025 icma MISSIONSQUARE PLAN SERVICES 6,237.01 0.00 66156 01/03/2025 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 6,144.48 0.00 66157 01/03/2025 tx TEXAS CHILD SUPPORT SDU 166.50 0.00 66158 01/03/2025 rwt WASHINGTON TEAMSTERS 284.55 0.00 66159 01/03/2025 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 3,130.28 0.00 24,753.63 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3776 01/03/2025 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 377,412.93 0.00 3778 01/03/2025 aflac AFLAC 2,946.70 0.00 3782 01/03/2025 us US BANK 177,274.56 0.00 3783 01/03/2025 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 161,489.77 0.00 3784 01/03/2025 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 9,401.25 0.00 3785 01/03/2025 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 41,453.43 0.00 3786 01/03/2025 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,090.00 0.00 771,068.64 0.00 Grand Totals: 795,822.27 0.00 1 /5/2025 Packet Pg. 109 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,163 (12/16/2024 to 12/31/2024) , Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 42.00 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 16.00 0.00 113 ABSENT Unpaid ADA hours 185.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 877.00 41,561.30 122 VACATION VACATION 2,509.00 126,908.45 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 540.50 28,222.49 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 182.90 7,811.11 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 387.10 19,922.89 128 HOLIDAY Holiday Bank WWTP 262.00 11,864.16 132 JURY DUTY JURY DUTY 8.00 385.58 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEAVE 4.00 83.40 138 REGULAR HOURS Commanders Leave Usaqe 10.00 953.00 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 183.50 10,005.68 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 12.50 590.23 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 100.00 10,426.88 154 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK 32.00 1,372.02 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 28.00 2,000.31 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 527.54 21,505.70 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 787.76 34,572.72 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 250.00 17,383.22 161 VACATION VACATION PREMIUM PAYOFF 26.12 1,189.52 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,159.25 751,205.11 194 SICK Emergency Sick Leave 24.00 990.24 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 77.00 3,777.19 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 160.50 9,497.74 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 54.00 4,003.39 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 4.00 505.97 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 266.00 23,570.95 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 22.00 2,360.80 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 100.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 1,083.82 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 2,197.03 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 293.92 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 55.50 0.00 01/05/2025 Packet Pg. 110 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,163 (12/1612024 to 12/31/2024) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 77.50 0.00 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 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 11.00 626.18 fmlb HOLIDAY Family Medical Leave Holiday 30.00 1,192.34 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 96.00 5,161.34 fmly VACATION Family Medical Leave Vacation 40.00 1,589.80 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 2,789.12 135,151.08 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 Assiqnment 0.00 414.20 Ian MISCELLANEOUS LANGUAGE PAY 0.00 600.00 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,126.37 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 1,059.11 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 9% 0.00 3,750.14 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 7% 0.00 1,210.41 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 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 Lonqevity 1% 0.00 1,141.32 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 3% 0.00 3,918.37 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevity .5% 0.00 28.35 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevity 1.5% 0.00 696.13 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 171.25 0.00 pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 40.75 1,765.77 pfmv VACATION Paid Family Medical Vacation 28.00 1,233.69 01/05/2025 Packet Pg. 111 Hour Type Hour Class phv MISCELLANEOUS str MISCELLANEOUS tac MISCELLANEOUS to MISCELLANEOUS traf MISCELLANEOUS vap VACATION Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,163 (12/16/2024 to 12/31/2024) Description PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY PSET Serqeant TAC Officer Traininq Officer Traffic Officer - Car Vacation Premium Hours Amount 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 26,092.79 Total Net Pay 2,904.56 246.44 207.10 207.10 414.20 708.89 $1,323,218.83 $892,342.14 8.5.b P 01/05/2025 Packet Pg. 112 8.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Staff Lead: Kimberly Dunscombe Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #265675 through #265784 dated January 8, 2025 for $3,133,428.33 and wire payment of $440.00. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 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 01-08-25 Agenda copy Packet Pg. 113 8.6.a apPosPay Positive Pay Listing Page: 1 1/8/2025 11:33:30AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 265675 1/8/2025 245.32 079673 ACCORD CONTRACTORS LLC 265676 1/8/2025 28,195.44 078938 ALLOY ARTS LLC 265677 1/8/2025 456.37 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC 265678 1/8/2025 141.68 001528 AM TEST INC 265679 1/8/2025 105.00 079537 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC 265680 1/8/2025 23,750.00 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 265681 1/8/2025 9,019.53 071377 ARGUELLES, ERIN 265682 1/8/2025 132.00 078237 ARIAS, ADRIAN 265683 1/8/2025 130.00 064341 AT&T MOBILITY 265684 1/8/2025 43.35 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 265685 1/8/2025 1,459.40 076685 BAILEY, MICHAEL E 265686 1/8/2025 90.00 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY C 265687 1/8/2025 211.25 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 265688 1/8/2025 837.90 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 265689 1/8/2025 899.91 075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT 265690 1/8/2025 2,855.00 079788 BRADLEY LANGUAGE SERVICES 265691 1/8/2025 260.00 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 265692 1/8/2025 65.59 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 265693 1/8/2025 1,004.25 079792 BUSBY, LUKE 265694 1/8/2025 400.00 077166 CADENA, MICHAEL 265695 1/8/2025 260.00 079349 CAMPBELL, SHANNON 265696 1/8/2025 18.76 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 265697 1/8/2025 1,565.80 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 265698 1/8/2025 65,776.14 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 265699 1/8/2025 511.73 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 265700 1/8/2025 931.50 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 265701 1/8/2025 351.95 072746 CONSOR NORTH AMERICA INC 265702 1/8/2025 997.75 079077 D & D CARPET CLEANING LLC 265703 1/8/2025 5,933.85 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 265704 1/8/2025 634.39 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 265705 1/8/2025 285.00 064531 DINES, J EAN N I E 265706 1/8/2025 3,848.00 079739 DK BOOS GLASS INC 265707 1/8/2025 6,897.06 076172 DK SYSTEMS 265708 1/8/2025 873.51 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 265709 1/8/2025 4,700.00 074674 ECOLUBE RECOVERY LLC 265710 1/8/2025 87.50 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 265711 1/8/2025 500.00 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 265712 1/8/2025 28.71 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 265713 1/8/2025 30,000.00 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 265714 1/8/2025 293.35 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 265715 1/8/2025 130.00 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 265716 1/8/2025 1,043.16 066004 ESRI 265717 1/8/2025 20,872.35 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 265718 1/8/2025 39.56 075673 FARMER, MARIA 265719 1/8/2025 284.79 075871 FLOW TECHNOLOGIES INC 265720 1/8/2025 20,000.50 072138 FUELCARE INC 265721 1/8/2025 538.50 072634 GCP WW HOLDCO LLC 265722 1/8/2025 347.70 078371 GENERAL MECHANICAL INC 265723 1/8/2025 62,322.00 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC 265724 1/8/2025 1,326.83 075517 GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM INC 265725 1/8/2025 24,385.75 012199 GRAINGER 265726 1/8/2025 1,673.43 076542 GRANICUS 265727 1/8/2025 54,907.62 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 114 apPosPay Positive Pay Listing 1/8/2025 11:33:30AM City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 265728 1/8/2025 31,194.18 013338 HICKOK, ROBIN 265729 1/8/2025 2,700.00 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 265730 1/8/2025 3,567.67 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 265731 1/8/2025 500.00 072528 INTERCOM LANGUAGE SERVICES 265732 1/8/2025 130.00 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 265733 1/8/2025 575.09 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC 265734 1/8/2025 2,409.00 078794 JR SMOOTS CONSULTING LLC 265735 1/8/2025 1,600.00 079524 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 265736 1/8/2025 9,449.50 079069 KISHA POST 265737 1/8/2025 1,155.00 067568 KPG PSOMAS INC 265738 1/8/2025 9,629.50 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 265739 1/8/2025 513.50 075149 LIM, VANNARA 265740 1/8/2025 130.00 079732 LIZ LOOMIS PUBLIC AFFAIRS 265741 1/8/2025 8,000.00 079481 MALAKOOTI TRANSLATING 265742 1/8/2025 130.00 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 265743 1/8/2025 97.16 079529 MOLDOVAN DOAMARAL, CRISTINA 265744 1/8/2025 130.00 018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS 265745 1/8/2025 131.32 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 265746 1/8/2025 315.00 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 265751 1/8/2025 107.57 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 265747 1/8/2025 123.00 074148 OLSON, VIVIAN 265748 1/8/2025 35.00 077389 OLYMPIC ELEVATOR COMPANY 265749 1/8/2025 808.86 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 265750 1/8/2025 600.88 078895 PADILLA, TRACIE 265752 1/8/2025 64.32 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 265753 1/8/2025 8,035.00 071488 PARENTMAP 265754 1/8/2025 450.00 007800 PETTY CASH 265755 1/8/2025 254.86 008350 PETTY CASH 265756 1/8/2025 51.23 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 265757 1/8/2025 385.21 073231 POLYDYNE INC 265758 1/8/2025 46,255.30 079020 PRECISION LANGUAGE SERVICES 265759 1/8/2025 390.00 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 265760 1/8/2025 1,097.60 075737 ROBINSON, HUA 265761 1/8/2025 130.00 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 265762 1/8/2025 477.46 079019 ROOT AND LIMB YOGA 265763 1/8/2025 342.00 079763 SANDAG SOLUTIONS 265764 1/8/2025 130.00 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 265765 1/8/2025 241.36 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 265766 1/8/2025 7,000.00 075590 SMARSH INC 265767 1/8/2025 152.55 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 265768 1/8/2025 52,271.00 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 265770 1/8/2025 23,818.39 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 265771 1/8/2025 5,166.07 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 265772 1/8/2025 146.50 076114 SOUND SALMON SOLUTIONS 265773 1/8/2025 4,000.00 079185 SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY INC 265774 1/8/2025 80,072.27 079359 THE WALLS LAW FIRM INC 265775 1/8/2025 25,000.00 078203 TOTALTESTING 265776 1/8/2025 100.00 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 265777 1/8/2025 13,744.33 069751 VESTIS 265778 1/8/2025 214.81 079791 WALLAIA, MAZEN 265779 1/8/2025 350.00 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 265780 1/8/2025 126.00 026510 WCIA 265781 1/8/2025 2,404,172.00 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 265782 1/8/2025 1,425.78 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 115 apPosPay 1/8/2025 11:33:30AM Positive Pay Listing City of Edmonds Document group: jacobson Vendor Code & Name 063008 WSDOT 079705 ZUBELLI, CHRISTINA Check # Check Date Amount 265783 1 /8/2025 402.88 265784 1 /8/2025 260.00 GrandTotal: 3,133,428.33 Total count: 109 _ d E a m L �3 y Y V t C,1 E V O O L CL Q. Q Q O V M _ d a LO N 00 O O N Y V E U _ d E t 0 ns Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 116 8.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Resolution of Appreciation for Service as Council President - Vlvian Olson Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Beckie Peterson Background/History It has been customary to adopt a resolution thanking the outgoing Council President for their service at the end of their term. Staff Recommendation Adopt a resolution thanking Councilmember Olson for her dedication and service. Narrative Councilmember Vivian Olson served as Council President from January to December 2024. Attachments: Resolution Thanking Council President Vivian Olson January 2025 Packet Pg. 117 8.7.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL THANKING COUNCIL PRESIDENT VIVIAN OLSON FOR HER SERVICE TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, Vivian Olson served as Council President from January to December 2024, while also serving as the liaison to Snohomish County Tomorrow, and member of the City of Edmonds Boards and Commission Task Force, the City of Edmonds Future of Fire, and the Anway Park public art selection committee; and WHEREAS, Council President Olson exhibited leadership with prompt response and respectful consideration to differing views of Council peers, city staff, and members of the Edmonds community; and WHEREAS, Council President Olson shepherded the development and adoption of the city's first Council Rules of Procedure, providing documented guidance for Council processes; and WHEREAS, she served with tenacious dedication to accuracy, precision, and detail of the process considering the city's future of Fire and Emergency Medical Services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Olson managed a challenging Council workload year, including the adoption of the 2025-2026 biennial budget with inaugural community prioritization methods, the update to our city's Comprehensive Plan, and financial policies and revenue initiatives related to the city's fiscal challenges; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Vivian Olson be commended and thanked for serving as Council President. RESOLVED this 14th day of January 2024. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE ROSEN ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 118 8.7.a FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 119 8.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Adoption of Interim Ordinance 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 14 will hopefully keep the City from being considered non -compliant and ineligible for grants and loans, especially given that a major document -- the Comprehensive Plan --was adopted on time. At the Council meeting on January 7, the Council voted to place the interim ordinance, with one amendment, on the consent agenda for Jan.uary 14. The amendment was to add a sentence to the Height subsection of 16.120.050.A.2 at the end of subsections a, b, and c to read as follows: "However, for any lot abutting or immediately across the street from a single family zone, the height of any development that is within 20 feet of the property line shall be no greater than 30 feet." The intent behind the amendment was to provide a transition area for reduced heights. See the attached draft code, which has been amended to reflect this requested change in all three places. Staff Recommendation Adopt the Interim Ordinance for Neighborhood Centers and Hubs as part of the Consent Agenda. Packet Pg. 120 8.8 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 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 14 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. expires. At the end of six months (or sooner, depending on Council action), the interim ordinance 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: Packet Pg. 121 8.8 o Goal LU-3. a longer -term replacement ordinance for Council consideration before interim ordinance expires. Attachments: Centers and Hubs Maps 2024-12-30 interim ordinance for centers and hubs 16.120.ECDC.Draft-12-21-24.bs sh.Rvsd.Fnl.3 Packet Pg. 122 8.8.a 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. 123 8.8.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. 125 8.8.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. 126 8.8.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. 127 8.8.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. 128 8.8.c 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. Packet Pg. 129 8.8.c 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. 16.120.020 Definitions. In implementing this chapter, the following definitions apply. A. "Community services" mean services provided by a nonprofit or religious organization 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 space, 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. H. "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. Packet Pg. 130 8.8.c "Retail" means the direct sale of goods to the public for use or consumption. J. "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. K. "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. 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. Packet Pg. 131 8.8.c 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. However, for any lot abutting or immediately across the street from a single-family zone, the height of any development that is within 20 feet of the property line shall be no greater than 30 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 40 feet (or 42 feet if the first -floor height is 12 feet) that includes one incentive floor. However, for any lot abutting or immediately across the street from a single-family zone, the height of any development that is within 20 feet of the property line shall be no greater than 30 feet. c. 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 not including an 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. However, for any lot abutting or immediately Packet Pg. 132 8.8.c across the street from a single-family zone, the height of any development that is within 20 feet of the property line shall be no greater than 30 feet. 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. a. For buildings achieving green building certification pursuant to ECDC 16.45.040 or ECDC 16.45.045 and that have commercial uses (excluding for vehicle parking) 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. B. Setbacks. For single-family houses and their accessory or secondary uses, the minimum setbacks are 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 prevail. 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 Packet Pg. 133 8.8.c 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 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 facade 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 facade of a building, including any townhome, that faces a primary street. C. The street -facing fapade 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. 134 8.8.c 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, 16.120.090 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. 135 8.8.c 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. Packet Pg. 136 8.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Adoption of Interim Ordinance for STEP Housing Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning & Development Preparer: Heather Lakefish Background/History In 2021, Washington state passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), which amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) and set new requirements for how city codes regulate development of certain housing types. 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. Furthermore, RCW 36.130.020 provides that local governments may not adopt, impose, or enforce requirements on an affordable housing development that are different than the requirements proposed on housing developments generally. (Note: Permanent supportive housing is considered a type of affordable housing.) 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, the Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies regarding supportive and emergency housing, such as these: 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. Packet Pg. 137 8.9 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). Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed code addresses the 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 allowed in Edmonds. The zoning districts that currently allow hotels are: Commercial Waterfront (CW) Community Business (BC), Downtown Business (BD), Westgate Mixed -Use, and General Commercial (CG). (Note: hotels are currently not allowed under the proposed interim zoning for Neighborhood Centers and Hubs.) --Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing as permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Generally, such housing types are not built without significant subsidies from grants, governmental entities or nonprofit resources. In that sense, their numbers are somewhat self-limiting. The need for such housing is almost always greater than funding available. January 7 City Council meeting and follow-up At the City Council meeting, the Council discussed the interim ordinance and the need for "STEP housing" (i.e., emergency indoor shelters, emergency indoor housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing), along with related issues. One of the issues was about additional requirements that could be placed on STEP housing. Since then, more research has been done to address this and further research could be conducted over the next few months. Potential code amendments could be considered for the current interim ordinance or addressed as part of the longer - term ordinance. A question was also raised about whether the list of Edmonds zoning districts that allow hotels was in fact correct; staff committed to confirming this and making any corrections. The Council voted to put the interim ordinance on the next Council consent agenda. NOTE: Staff's re -check found a need to correct the list of zoning districts that allow hotels by adding one other: the Westgate Mixed Use district. Regardless, the mixed -use zones proposed for Neighborhood hubs and centers should not be on the list because the interim ordinance for them currently precludes hotel uses. Given that the list of zoning districts allowing hotels could change overtime, the corrected interim ordinance now on the Council's consent agenda does NOT list the specific zoning districts but states that all districts allowing hotels must allow the relevant STEP housing. Staff Recommendation Adopt the interim ordinance for STEP Housing as part of the Consent Agenda. Alternative: Consider any amendments that are consistent with state law prior to adopting the interim ordinance. Packet Pg. 138 8.9 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 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 - 2 are documents produced by the Department of Commerce that provide additional background information about STEP housing and the critical need for it throughout the state. Attachment 3 is a model ordinance provided by the Department of Commerce. It is very similar to the proposed interim code language (Attachment 5.) Next steps A public hearing on the interim ordinance will be scheduled within 60 days (currently proposed for January 28) to obtain public input about the proposed code language. Then other community outreach will be done to inform and learn more. Meanwhile, the interim code language will be compared with existing related code language in ECDC 17.105 (Emergency Temporary Indoor Shelter), and ECDC 17.100 (Community Facilities). Public input and other timely information will be considered in any revisions to the interim code and the resulting draft code will be presented for consideration, subject to open public process, as a longer -term ordinance. The interim code and related information will be reviewed by the Planning Board, who will make a recommendation on a final STEP housing code for City Council consideration. Packet Pg. 139 8.9 NOTE: The interim ordinance expires six months from adoption, unless Council takes other action sooner. 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 2024-12-31 interim ordinance for supportive housing draft ECDC Chapter 17.125 STEP Housing.Rvsd Packet Pg. 140 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 0 0 0 000 0 ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ n o Apartments Mufti Alex Single family Perm Wwwp."-hOl g(PSH) PSH narPSH 0-30%AM 0-30% AN 30-50% 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. 0 x a w fn 0 w m c0 _ L 0 E 0 _ 0 CL 0 a STEP 101 FACTSHEET — JULY 2024 V3.1 Packet Pg. 141 8.9.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 rdlo t ew , F ­kh. GNI"I V. Yam" 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-3o, ■2027uei.M * Slued cashes ere p.1,0y p1--g —dn the G-1h 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. 142 8.9.a Benefits of STEP ® Reduces the number of people living and sleeping in unsafe conditions and public spaces 0 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. 0 Provides 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 RCW 36.70A.540 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 authority to offer incentives in exchange for providing development for low-income households. U) 3 0 x a w CO L 0 w m c� _ L 0 E �L d r.+ _ 0 _ 0 W a 0 a STEP 101 FACTSHEET — JULY 2024 V3.1 I Packet Pg. 143 8.9.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 Prevents 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. 144 MODEL ORDINANCE AND COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT FOR STEP E9 a� cu L (L m w 0 m cn a� .N 0 a w U) r� Q v3.5 Packet Pg. 145 8.9.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 N 3 O x a w U) m 0 E 0 _ O a O g STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 2 Packet Pg. 146 8.9.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. 147 8.9.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 1a N 3 0 x a w U) 0 a� _ 0 E •L a� w 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 4 Packet Pg. 148 8.9.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. 5 0 x (L w U) 0 w m _ L O E •L a� 0 _ 0 W a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 149 8.9.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. 150 8.9.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. a� N 3 0 x a w U) 0 m _ 0 E �L a� w 0 _ 0 a 0 V g STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 7 Packet Pg. 151 8.9.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 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 152 8.9.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 as N 3 O 2 (L w U) 0 m _ _ L 0 E �L a� 0 _ 0 a 0 g 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 0 Packet Pg. 153 8.9.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. 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 1a N 3 0 x IL w U) L 0 m 0 E �L d Wr 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 10 Packet Pg. 154 8.9.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. 155 8.9.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 x° plumbing and electrical practices, insulation, weather tightness, energy efficiency and safety (smoke alarms w and egress). U) L 0 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 o possible building forms in which shelters can be provided, as indicated in Table 1. "Indoor" implies buildings L 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. c r- 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 -°a outside to provide safer places for people experiencing homelessness. These non-standard housing types g could include, for example, safe parking, pallet shelters and other non-standard projects that offer occupants 4) sanitation services, connections to community services and support in finding permanent housing. 9 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. 156 8.9.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. 157 8.9.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 N 3 0 x a w U) L O _ _ 0 E •L d 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 14 Packet Pg. 158 8.9.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 "S 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 a assistance funding, agencies must participate in an HMIS that allows them to collect and report on the specific V2 data elements outlined in the HMIS Data and Technical Standards. c Homeless, homeless individual and homeless person, as defined by federal law and HUD, means— w a� _ (1) an individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence; o (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 c building, bus or train station, airport or camping ground; c c 0 (3) an individual or family living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide a temporary living arrangements (including hotels and motels paid for by Federal, State or local government a 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. 159 8.9.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.21.430 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 36.01.290(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. _ .N 0 x a w U) L O a� _ M _ 0 E •L W 0 0 Q. 0 STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 160 8.9.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 S should document its share of the countywide housing need by income level in its comprehensive plan's o' housing element and show that it has sufficient land capacity for these needs in a land capacity analysis. a O The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 establish minimum requirements to meet state uJ law for STEP. Cities may only impose reasonable occupancy, spacing and intensity of use limits on L 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 m = 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 O Consistent with RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430, city code must allow permanent supportive and 0 transitional housing in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. This requirement includes traditional single-family detached housing zones. w O Consistent with RCW 35.21.683 and RCW 35A.21.430, city code shall not prohibit indoor emergency c shelters and indoor emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed, except in such cities that c have adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency housing in a o majority of zones within a one -mile proximity to transit. Even if a jurisdiction does not allow hotels in any a zone, they must allow the siting of a sufficient number of indoor emergency shelter beds and/or 0 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. 161 8.9.b O 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. O 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 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. U) O Regulatory limits on outdoor encampments, safe parking efforts, indoor overnight shelters, and temporary 0 small houses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization must be consistent with RCW w 35.21.915 and RCW 36.01.290, which are very rigorous lists of potential items. For example, any religious organization hosting the homeless with a publicly funded managing agency must utilize the Homeless c Management Information System (RCW 35.21.915(5)). O A city, county or other local governmental entity or agency may impose and enforce requirements on 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 p program under RCW 36.70A.540 or any other program involving bonus density, transfer of development •L rights, waiver of development regulations or fees or other development incentives. O 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 c r_ advised to add local regulations to create a community protection zone. a O Public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to ordinances or -°a development regulations adopted by a city that prohibit building permit applications for or the construction a 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). a O Restrictions and requirements imposed on the siting, development and operations of STEP must not s violate civil rights protections provided by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, as well as the c federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, in RCW 49.60.222 specifically (1)(f) and41 (2)(a), (b) and (c). Individuals experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness are disproportionately CU 41 N members of several protected classes under state and federal laws. These classes include but are not = limited to people with disabilities and people of color. To comply with these regulations, policymakers must ensure equitable access to supportive services and housing opportunities for all individuals. _ O Permanent supportive housing and other types of housing that require leases must adhere to the w Washington State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act, which include laws such as landlords must give tenants at least 2 days' written notice before entering a rental to make repairs or inspect the place and landlords N must have good cause for evicting a tenant (e.g., not paying rent, missing a payment under an installment a plan, not following the rental agreement or drug -related or gang -related activity). E O 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 Q environmental values are part of state and local decision -making. a� E 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. 162 8.9.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 y are race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), familial status c and disability. _ a O The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and W provides enforceable standards to address discrimination, including accessible design standards for newly y 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 c a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that O imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (a) is in furtherance of a compelling E 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. 0 c Table 2 - STEP Types and Applicable Laws 0. a The Growth Management Act and RCWs 35A.21 and 35.21 require local governments to I Y I Y I Y 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 Y Y Y 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 I I I in areas where multifamily housing is permitted. RCW 36.130.020 prohibits any local government from having requirements on an Y* Y* affordable housing development that are different from the requirements imposed on housing developments generally. I RCW 35.21.682. RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 prohibit any local government from Y Y I Y having requirements related to unrelated persons that may occupy a unit. i RCW 36.70A.545 requires fully planning cities and counties to allow increased density Y* I Y* bonuses for any affordable housing on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization. RCW 35.21.915, RCW 35A.21.360 and RCW 36.01.290 any local government regulatory Y 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 Y* Y* providing development for low-income housing units. STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 163 8.9.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 .-. c Y (a M 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 O 2 control are not applicable to regulations that prohibit building permit applications for d transitional housing or permanent supportive housing in any zones in which residential W dwellings or hotels are allowed or prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor N emergency housing in any zones in which hotels are allowed. Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits requirements imposed on STEP that — Y — Y Y O w Y y violate civil rights protections. v c Washington State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act includes laws landlords must follow. R Y Y* Y* 'a Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires all branches of government in the Y Y Y Y p state to examine their laws' environmental impacts. At the local level, this requires an E 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 C disabilities and provides enforceable standards to address discrimination. r- - O Fair Housing Act prohibits "neutral" policy that has a disproportionately adverse effect on Y Y Y Y Q a protected class. O Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prevents the implementation of land Y Y Y Y Q use regulations that impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person. a) *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. 164 8.9.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. 165 8.9.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. N 0 x IL w U) L O 0 E �L a� 0 _ 0 W a 0 g STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 22 Packet Pg. 166 8.9.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. 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. a� N 0 x IL w U) L 0 w m _ L 0 E 0 _ 0 a 0 g STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 23 Packet Pg. 167 8.9.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). a� N 3 0 x (L w U) 0 m 0 E �L a� w 0 _ 0 W a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 24 Packet Pg. 168 8.9.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 a 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. 169 8.9.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 0 x a w 0 w m _ 0 E •L 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 26 Packet Pg. 170 8.9.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 S local regulations and processes to permit STEP conflict with the state and federal laws noted in Chapter 3, o 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. a LU U) Where to Allow STEP L ° 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 0 communities still limit STEP in these areas, and others do not address certain types of STEP (e.g., E emergency shelter and emergency housing) in their ordinances, which is inconsistent with state law. w 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 a other residential housing types do not have these same restrictions or criteria. Similar local regulations are -°a commonly applied to emergency shelter and emergency housing in commercial zones. a 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 a inconsistent with state law if this restriction is not clearly linked to public health and safety purposes. s 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. 171 8.9.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 0 A facility management plan, including security policies and an emergency management plan 0 Site and facility maintenance policies O Occupancy policies 0 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. N 0 x a w U) L a� _ 0 E 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 172 8.9.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 level of review such as conditional use permits commonly fall under Type III and higher. 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. N 3 0 2 IL w U) L 0 w m _ L O E •L a� 0 _ 0 a 0 Q STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 29 Packet Pg. 173 8.9.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 S location, which is usually not consistent with state law for permanent supportive housing and transitional o' housing (RCW 36.130.020). As conditional use projects, these must meet certain criteria and go through a a LU 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. � 0 w 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. 0 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 c project's application stage, administrative staff conduct a thorough review of the project to ensure compliance o with all local requirements. Once the project is confirmed to be in compliance, a public hearing is held with a c hearing examiner who will issue the final decision. Based on feedback and questions from local jurisdictions to 0 the Department of Commerce, many communities are looking for solutions to reduce barriers for the siting and a 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. 174 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. 175 8.9.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. 176 8.9.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 N 0 x IL w U) L w m _ L O E 0 _ 0 a 0 V a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 33 Packet Pg. 177 8.9.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. N 0 x IL w U) m _ L O E •L a� w 0 _ 0 W a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 34 Packet Pg. 178 8.9.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 N 0 x IL w U) w a� _ L 0 E �L a� 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 35 Packet Pg. 179 8.9.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. 1a N 3 O 2 a w U) 0 m _ L 0 E 0 _ 0 a 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 36 Packet Pg. 180 8.9.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. a� N 0 a w U) w m _ L 0 E •L a� 0 _ 0 CL 0 a STEP STATE OF THE PRACTICE - JULY 2024 37 Packet Pg. 181 8.9.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 ordinances."49 Additionally, because FWRC 19.220.105 was not appealed to the Growth Management Hearings board within 60 days of publication, the hearing examiner had no jurisdiction to decide on the code's 3 compliance with the GMA.so x° a 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 c shelters and emergency housings' The superior court dismissed the case without trial, affirming the hearing examiner's earlier decision. c c L O E L d Wr O r- O yr Q O Q 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. 182 .y MODEL ORDINANCE AND o COMMUNICATIONS TOOLKIT = FOR STEP a w a v3.5 Packet Pg. 183 8.9.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 E Packet Pg. 184 8.9.c Table of Contents Chapter1: Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................4 Background...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 EmergingBest Practices..........................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 2• Background 7 0 2021 Updates to the Growth Management Act......................................................................................................................................................................7 a RelevantState and Federal Laws............................................................................................................................................................................................8 a0 Stateof the Practice in Washinaton......................................................................................................................................................................................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. 185 8.9.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). E Q 0 c 0 a 0 n3 Q STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 4 Packet Pg. 186 8.9.c entry than 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 E connect the resident of the housing with community -based health care, treatment, or employment services. RCW 36.70A.030(31) Background o _ 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 c affordable housing, resulting in housing prices rising faster than the lowest incomes.5 e To address this crisis, state and local governments must c encourage a variety of shelter and housing options, including STEP, to meet the unique needs of individuals, families, unaccompanied youth, a seniors, veterans, people with disabilities and other subpopulations who are at the greatest risk of losing their housing in these market conditions. a) 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. httos://aoo.lea.wa.aov/ReDortsToTheLeaislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=CommerceReDorts2023 HID _Homelessness _in_Washinaton 24def55e-7087-43fc-adOc- 7894a56106ab.pdf STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 5 Packet Pg. 187 8.9.c Emerging Best Practices Communities can use the following strategies to accommodate local housing needs, prevent perpetuating discriminatory practices that make it 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 E •L contribute to larger initiatives to tackle homelessness and housing insecurity in the state. c • Allow STEP developments outright as a permitted use in designated zones c 0 a • Encourage STEP development in locations close to healthcare services, transportation, jobs and other amenities to promote economic mobility -00 and access to services a • Reduce and clarify requirements to streamline permitting steps and reduce barriers for STEP development • 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. 188 8.9.c 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 A tAin 0 2024 DW Dec«nber 31- M 2025 Due December 31» 2026 Due Juno all" M 2027 Dua June 30 * Started counties ate perbnity planning ur4w the Growth Manapen»nt 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 Packet Pg. 189 E 8.9.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 E g Packet Pg. 190 8.9.c Table 1 - STEP Types and Applicable Laws ,,.MIA 'i 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 housing affordable to all income levels. _ 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 0 Y C zones where hotels are allowed. Cities must allow permanent supportive and transitional housing in zones where residential o dwelling units or hotels are allowed. These regulations may limit occupancy, spacing and intensity of use requirements to protect a public health and safety so long as such limits allow the siting of a sufficient number of units/beds to accommodate each city's O projected housing needs. Q Y 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 Y* Y* Y from those imposed on housing developments generally. Y Y N Y RCW 35.21.682. RCW 35A.21.314 and RCW 36.01.227 prohibit any local government from having requirements related to unrelated Y persons that may occupy a unit. Y* Y* _ Y L) RCW 36.70A.545 requires fully planning cities and counties to allow increased density bonuses for any affordable housing on real property owned or controlled by a religious organization. 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. 0 RCW 36.70A.540 gives authority to local governments to offer incentives in exchange for providing development for low-income Y* Y* Y 13 housing units. o 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. y 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. a LU RCW 9.94A.030(6) regulates where level two and three sex offenders may not live. Y Y Y Y to RCW 36.70A.390 states public hearing requirements for moratoria and interim zoning control are not applicable to regulations that Y Y Y Y ' 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. d E Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits requirements imposed on STEP that violate civil rights protections. Y Y Y Y CU r Washinaton State Residential -Landlord Tenant Act includes laws landlords must follow. Y* Y* Y Q Washington State Environmental Policy Act requires all branches of government in the state to examine their laws' environmental Y Y Y Y m impacts. At the local level, this requires an assessment of comprehensive plans, development regulations, and project permits E unless specifically exempted by the act. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 9 Packet Pg. 191 Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provides enforceable standards to address discrimination. Fair Housing Act prohibits "neutral" policy that has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act prevents the implementation of land use regulations that impose a substantial I Y I Y I 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," E R STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 192 8.9.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 construction of emergency shelters or emergency housing within one-half mile of another existing or proposed shelter or emergency housing E projects. Variations of this requirement are common in Washington's jurisdictions. In most cases, jurisdictions have not shown in their ordinances' findings how their spacing, occupancy and intensity of use regulations are o 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 o this demonstration and possibly in violation of federal fair housing laws. Their spacing requirements are also not consistent with the c Department of Commerce's recommendations that any spacing requirements should not exceed the spacing already required by RCWs a 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. ib 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. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 11 Packet Pg. 193 8.9.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: • Contact information for key staff and their roles and responsibilities E •L • A facility management plan, including security policies and an emergency management plan • Site and facility maintenance policies 4- Occupancy policies c • A staffing plan c • A community engagement plan a • Documentation of record -keeping processes as • A description of transportation either provided or accessible to residents 2 3 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 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. 194 8.9.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 making definitions and policies more straightforward for developers. When planning for STEP, it is also helpful to consider the various processes E involved in planning, siting, funding, permitting, building, licensing and operating STEP projects. c STEP Definitions C Washington state uses specific terms and definitions for STEP that are used throughout this report; see Chapter 1: Introduction. For the purposes of a the state's model ordinance and this report, STEP refers to developments that meet the Washington State Residential Building Code based on the -°a 2021 International Residential Code, which includes rules for a permanent foundation, safe plumbing and electrical practices, insulation, weather a 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. 195 8.9.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. E a� c 0 c 0 a 0 a STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 14 Packet Pg. 196 8.9.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 permanent supportive housing are subject to all the rights and responsibilities defined in chapter 59.18 RCW, also known as the Washington State Residential Landlord -Tenant Act. A person residing in permanent supportive housing has full rights of tenancy through a lease with their landlord, but this is not the case in licensed residential facilities, such as licensed adult family homes, group living homes for persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities, or assisted living facilities for seniors where residents must pay towards the cost of their care." Disaster Relief / Recovery Shelter: While STEP may be used in the event of a disaster (e.g., floods, wildfires, landslides, and earthquakes) to meet 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 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. E a� c 0 c 0 a 0 a STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 15 Packet Pg. 197 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. 8.9.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. E L a� c 0 c a0 0 a STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 17 Packet Pg. 199 8.9.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 E •L Revisions to RCW 36.70A.070(2) in 2021 updated requirements for how jurisdictions should plan for housing in their comprehensive plans. To c implement the new law, the Department of Commerce provides projections of housing needs for each county, including emergency housing and o permanent supportive housing .31 Each county must decide how to allocate these projections among its local jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction must o then document its share of countywide housing needs by income level and plan for and accommodate that share of housing needs in its o comprehensive plan.32 a 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. STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 Packet Pg. 200 8.9.c Chapter 5: 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 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 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 o conditional use permits, commonly fall under Type III and higher. c Project permit decisions can involve different decision makers and levels of public input. Projects permits approved by local planning staff without a -°a public hearings are considered administrative decisions. More complex projects may involve review by a hearings examiner, public hearings and a 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. 4) 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. 201 8.9.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 E L d 4- 0 c 0 a 0 Q 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. 202 8.9.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). • When a conditional use permit process is required for STEP, clearly specify the required standards STEP facilities must meet to address E compatibility and impacts. This will facilitate a STEP project's ability to meet the criteria for approving the permit. When permitting projects, it is important for jurisdictions to effectively communicate to the public when they do and do not have influence over the o permit decision -making process. For example, communities can consider including this information in the messaging for public notices. If a c jurisdiction plans to organize an informational meeting about a STEP project, jurisdictions should be careful with the wording of notices to explain a that these are informational community meetings to present the facts of a project and local feedback cannot affect the permitting decision. a STEP MODEL ORDINANCE, USER GUIDE AND BEST PRACTICES REPORT - JULY 2024 21 Packet Pg. 203 8.9.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. E Packet Pg. 204 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 L 4- 0 c 0 a 0 Q Packet Pg. 205 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 E d 0 c 0 a 0 Q Packet Pg. 206 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 supporting the broader community with the code. 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 E L 0 c 0 a 0 a 25 Packet Pg. 207 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 E d c 0 c 0 a 0 Q Packet Pg. 208 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 E d 4- 0 c 0 a 0 Q 27 Packet Pg. 209 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 reference to the local building and fire codes in the ordinance's findings section, to be consistent with state law and reduce litigation risk. E Reasonable for the purposes of RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683 and this report, includes only those requirements c 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. In addition, reasonable requirements must comply with any applicable civil rights protections provided by the c Washington Law Against Discrimination, the Fair Housing Act, and the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable a requirements can vary with geographic size and population of the jurisdiction and the current siting of these housing C types. Any occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements should be justified by reference to building code, fire Q code or other citations within an ordinance 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. 210 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 recommends that they provide a sample document to further support those applying to develop STEP. It should be clear to the applicant what is needed and who will review these documents. The reviewer should be someone with sufficient capacity and qualifications to understand the needs and challenges of STEP, and they should use objective approval criteria. Jurisdictions should also limit what they require in these plans to help streamline the permitting of STEP projects. For example, an operations agreement may provide the following: c a • One phone number for emergencies -aa • Operating funding information to inform local governments of existing requirements and support a project may Q have m • Services plan (i.e., a description of on -site services, identification of service providers, and staff -to -client ratios) 3 Requirements to receive services: Because STEP funders already have project requirements for requirements to receive services, Commerce recommends jurisdictions do not add additional requirements STEP participants need to comply with to receive services or to access a project (e.g., IDs, documentation, income verification, etc.). 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. 211 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] ill. 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 L 0 c 0 Concluding sections: These generic sections of the o model ordinance can be used if applicable. Otherwise, -0 they can be left out of a local ordinance. Q For general guidance on developing this section of local ordinances, jurisdictions can read MRSC's Local Ordinances for Washington Cities and Counties (2015). 30 Packet Pg. 212 8.9.c Chapter 7: Accommodating Enough STEP To accommodate enough STEP units to address local housing needs, jurisdictions must demonstrate they have sufficient land capacity and reduce E development barriers to STEP. It is also recommended jurisdictions resist addressing all community concerns and potential project impacts with their ordinances and regulations, and defer to funder requirements and clear communication processes with housing and service providers. _ 0 c Demonstrating Sufficient Land Capacity 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 a 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). t� 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. 213 8.9.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 E 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. o r_ 0 Reducing Development Barriers o Many barriers exist for developing STEP and affordable housing in general, including but not limited to: a • 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. 214 8.9.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 E 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 c improvements and utility connections and donate land for STEP projects." 0 r_ 0 Even more important than positive incentives is avoiding local requirements that hinder rather than promote STEP development. Table 4 provides a examples of local regulations and requirements that can create barriers for STEP development and recommendations for what to do instead. a 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 Packet Pg. 215 8.9.c 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 E reasoning for how these requirements protect public health and safety in the findings of their ordinance. .r Limiting maximum densities or minimum Do not place restrictions on STEP that are not placed on other housing or shelter types, unless it is o 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 2 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. a Waive or significantly reduce parking minimums for STEP projects because they serve individuals who often as High off-street parking requirements and 2 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. L 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. 216 8.9.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. E L Allow STEP outright as a permitted use("by-right" zonin in designated zones, do not include requirements 9 p 9) � 9 q = and permitting steps different from those for other affordable housing types, and expedite permitting o processes for STEP projects when possible.49 To support classifying STEP as a permitted use outright with r_ an administrative review, a jurisdiction can adopt clear criteria for review to aid judgment in making c decisions. a 0 a 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. 217 8.9.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 have regulatory requirements developers must meet.so E 'i Making support services optional: Some community members may be concerned about making support services optional for STEP clients. N However, support services should not be mandatory so that STEP projects do not unintentionally discriminate against clients for religious o reasons or because they are hesitant to receive outside assistance. When these services are optional, tenants can drive the type, duration and o initiation of services. Studies also show voluntary services are more effective at engaging people to participate in services than mandatory c services.51 Additionally, while services are optional for the participant in permanent supportive housing, they are a core component of it and thus a 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. 218 8.9.c Department of Commerce's Housing Division developed the Permanent Supportive Housing Communications Toolkit, which includes the following helpful materials: • Permanent Supportive Housing 101 Factsheet • Benefits of Permanent Supportive Housing Factsheet E •L • Building a Community of Support guidance • Common Community Concerns FAQ: Understand and Respond o • Considerations for Rural and Urban Communities c • Amplifying the Voices of People in Need of Permanent Supportive Housing Factsheet c • Lessons Learned Factsheet a • 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. 219 8.9.c 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 understand whether state oversight or resources could be used to address the concerns. Lastly, if providers/property owners remain out of E compliance, a local government may utilize its code enforcement tools, as it would with any other nuisance property or landlord. Sex offenders near children: Some local regulations in Washington currently impose potentially discriminatory distancing requirements for o STEP related to parks, schools and daycare centers. Community protection zones for STEP projects are not needed because Washington state c law already establishes an 880-foot community protection zone around public and private schools to regulate the residency of level two and c three sex offenders (RCW9.94A.030(6)). Furthermore, policies that prevent STEP from being built near parks, schools or other public uses can a unintentionally affect other populations experiencing homelessness such as children that need access to these services. 0 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/imoact of su000rtive housina on neiahborhood crime and orooery v2.Ddf?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. 220 8.9.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 this guide is highly encouraged. While the use of the model ordinance is voluntary, state laws require cities and counties planning under the Growth E Management Act to ensure their local regulations adhere to the minimum state requirements. General tips for adoption and implementation of STEP regulations include: o _ 0 • Plan for adoption at the beginning: Preparing for adoption should begin with establishing how this work will fit into your jurisdiction's upcoming a annual work plan or periodic update work plan. Establish a critical path and work backward from desired legislative action dates with the city a 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. c� 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. 221 8.9.c Appendix Methodology From February 2024 through July 2024, Commerce is working with Abt Global and the Corporation for Supportive Housing (the project team) to create a STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report and Communications Toolkit. The following includes the project team's methodology for drafting the STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report. Establish an Advisory Committee 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 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 nn E Packet Pg. 222 8.9.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 o • City of Olympia o • GS Consulting, Affordable Housing Consultant o • King County a • Lewis County • Snohomish County • Plymouth Housing a� • 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 Al Packet Pg. 223 8.9.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. .y 3 0 x IL w U) L 0 (i _ CU _ O E .L d 0 _ 0 W a 0 Q 76 CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12024 Packet Pg. 224 8.9.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% AAJ 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) a� .y 3 0 x IL w F_ U) m CU 0 E .L d 4- 0 _ 0 a 0 a EVERYONE'S EDMO Packet Pg. 225 8.9.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. 226 8.9.e 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. 227 8.9.e 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. 228 8.9.e 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. 229 8.9.e 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. 230 8.9.f 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. 231 8.9.f 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 are permitted in all zones in which hotels are allowed. 2. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing are permitted in all zones where residential dwelling units or hotels are allowed. Packet Pg. 232 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Planning Board Update Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning & Development Preparer: Heather Lakefish Background/History The Planning Board is an appointed board focused on advising the Mayor and City Council on comprehensive planning, updates to development regulations, and related issues. The Planning Board also serves as the park board. (See ECDC 10.40.020) Staff Recommendation Consider the information and bring forward any questions or comments. Narrative The Planning Board typically provides a quarterly report to the City Council. At the January 14th Council meeting, the Planning Board will make a presentation and welcomes discussion and questions. In 2024, the Planning Board was significantly involved in the Comprehensive Plan update. In 2025, the Board will be very involved in the code update process. Packet Pg. 233 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Ordinance to amend ECDC 18.00.050 and 18.00.060 Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English Background/History On November 19, 2024, this item was presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and was forwarded to the full City Council for action. Staff Recommendation Approve Ordinance. Narrative Attached is a proposed ordinance drafted by the City Attorney's Office amending ECDC 18.00.050 (Apprentice Requirements) and 18.00.060 (Bidder Responsibility Criteria) to comply with changes made by the State Legislature related to the use of apprentices and bidder responsibility criteria on public works projects. The proposed changes will align with apprentice and bidder responsibility criteria in the City's Purchasing Policies that were updated to be in compliance with state law and approved by the City Council in October 2024. The revisions to these code sections are intended to simplify each section by referencing state law and the City's current Purchasing Policies to reduce the chance of future inconsistencies between the code and the purchasing policies when state law changes and the purchasing policies are amended. This will eliminate the administrative effort and cost for staff and the City Attorney's Office to update either code section when changes are made to state law. Background: On July 1, 2024, state requirements were changed, and cities are now required to have contractors perform at least 15% of labor hours on public works projects using apprentices enrolled in state approved apprenticeship programs. The new apprentice utilization requirements are being implemented on public works projects with an estimated cost of $2M or more between July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2026. This threshold will drop to $1.5M or more between July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2028 and $1M or more beginning on July 1, 2028 or after. Section 10.7.4 of the City's Purchasing Policies approved by City Council in October 2024 align with the new state requirements. Packet Pg. 234 9.2 Apprentice requirements on City public works projects were implemented in 2011. The original threshold was $250,000. The amount increased to $300,000 in 2012 to be more than the small works roster contract threshold. In 2017 the amount increased to $1M to be consistent with other public agencies and reduce the administrative cost and effort to manage the apprentice requirements on projects between $300,000 to $1M. Attachments: Ordinance Amending ECDC 18.00.050 and 18.00.060 01.08.25 ECDC 18.00.050 - 18.00.060 Presentation Packet Pg. 235 9.2.a C1 90 10[�to] Do [0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.00 ECDC (PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS) TO UPDATE REFERENCES TO THE APPRENTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 39.04.320 AND THE RESPONSIBLE BIDDER CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 39.04.350; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature has enacted legislation revising the requirements in RCW 39.04.320 relating to the use of apprentices and the requirements in RCW 39.04.350 relating to bidder responsibility criteria; and WHEREAS, the City Council has recently adopted a comprehensive update to the City of Edmonds Contracting and Purchasing Policies and Procedures that includes these updates to state law; and WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it to be appropriate to amend Sections 18.00.050 ("Apprentice Requirements") and 18.00.060 ("Bidder Responsibility Criteria") of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to update the language in the code to simplify the information provided therein and to reference state law and the Contracting Purchasing Policies and Procedures for more detailed information on these topics; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECDC 18.00.050 is amended to read as follows (deleted text is shown in tfike thfa g ; new text is shown in underline): This section is intended to supplement, and to be followed in conjunction with RCW 39.04.320 as it is currently in effect or hereafter amended, and the City of Edmonds Contracting and Purchasing Policies and Procedures, dated januaFy 2012 October 2024 or as amended ("Purchasing Policies"). A. Definitions. Terms relating to apprentice requirements are defined in the Purchasing pnliriac Packet Pg. 236 9.2.a �w�e�iw�wr�rArr�wirwnuiirrarer�ma !V-IElRFTrr!E V-"T-. T.TS'!'. 7�!!!!f!fF IS!'ZT'.fR'J!�_ lITT.�f!TllST ffm • 1. � ITITAITIS . appr-eved or- r-eeegnized by the Washington State Appr-entieeship and Training Getmeil. 7. cc „ , tO ., 446 by ., .AFaetEW C RSt, 0et E44 B. Apprentice Utilization. Apprentices shall be utilized for the construction of public works by contractors and subcontractors in accordance with this section. 1. Apprenticeship Utilization Program Requirements Gea-l. Apprenticeship utilization on city public works contracts shall comply with the reauirements of RCW 39.04.320 and the Purchasing Policies. ' E)Fks ^ nt-Faets with an esfi ,. t^a eost f e i nnn nnn Of , , 2. Contract Requirements. Contract documents for such public works construction projects shall include provisions detailing the apprentice labor requirements of RCW 39.04.320 and the Purchasing Policies. 3. Monitoring. The city shall monitor the utilization of apprentices as required by RCW 39.04.320 and the Purchasing Policies. The e t.. will make available—an—appr-eptiee and afty stibeen#aeter-s. This doettmen4 is to be submitted by the stleeessfill bidder- after- the eoatfaetor- at the eoneltision of the ptiblie works pr-qjeet that will identify the aetual wor-k utiliza&)n plan f4m, whieh identifies the Wended usage E)f appr-epAiees by the e0fitfa6tOF co 0 0 0 CO r C 10 O LO O O O O c.> ❑ :.i W C O M O rr O V C R C O U) N O O O O W O O O O T c M 0 Ln R 0 R 00 U U W C C d E a d tU C R C =a O c m E s �a w Q Packet Pg. 237 9.2.a o 4. Failure to Meet Utilization Goal. Failure by a contractor to comply with established apprenticeship requirements, unless otherwise adjusted or waived in writing as set forth in RCW 39.04.320 and the Purchasing Policies, bek �� may be deemed a breach of contract for which the city shall be entitled to all remedies allowed by law under the contract. Failure to comply with the apprenticeship requirements may also be considered evidence bearing on a contractor's qualification for award of future contracts with the city. 5. Adjustment and Waiver. The responsible department director of r„bl we ', , or his designee, may adjust or waive the apprentice utilization requirements of this seet e for a specific project at any time for the following reasons: set forth in RCW 39.04.320 and the Purchasing Policies. � re srzsr��e�se res...... s�se��rsestire infeasible . 4 the v r-e lo..ol�• its F o5 requirements of this seetion; and/o Section 2. ECDC 18.00.060 is amended to read as follows (deleted text is shown in strike thfo g ; new text is shown in underline): This section is intended to supplement, and to be followed in conjunction with RCW 39.04.350 as it is currently in effect or hereafter amended, and the City of Edmonds Contracting and Purchasing Policies and Procedures, dated October 2024 or as amended ("Purchasing Policies"). Packet Pg. 238 9.2.a A. Mandatory Responsible Bidder Criteria. 1. The bidder responsibility criteria set forth in this RCW 39.04.350 and the Purchasing Policies shall be used by the perks responsible department to establish the minimum requirements for all contractors and subcontractors bidding on city contracts for public work (as those terms are defined in RCW 39.04.010). The bid documents shall set forth the documentation to be submitted by bidders to demonstrate their compliance with the mandatory responsible bidder criteria. 2. To be considered a responsible bidder and qualified to be awarded a city contract for public work, the bidder must comply with the mandatory responsible bidder criteria requirements of RCW 39.04.350 and the Purchasing Policies.: !*s���!er.�■ss�:e�x�zs�i�esr_s�trsrssr�s e�s!�r�� 113YAWIN" 0 MITI III ■ _ ... w4liffla 3. A bidder must verify mandatory responsibility criteria for each first -tier subcontractor, and a subcontractor of any tier that hires other subcontractors must verify mandatory responsibility criteria for each of its subcontractors as required by RCW 39.04.350. . . �. �. .IN Packet Pg. 239 9.2.a B. Supplemental Responsible Bidder Criteria. 1. In addition to the mandatory bidder responsibility criteria set feAh referenced in subsection (A) of this section, the perks responsible department may adopt and implement in connection with a particular project relevant supplemental bidder responsibility criteria in accordance with RCW 39.04.350 and the Purchasing Policies and must implement such criteria as set forth therein. whiethe bidder- mast meet. These supplemental er-iteria, ineluding the or- bidding deettments-. b. The bidder- shall not etfffen4ly be debaffed or- stispended by the federal g&vemmen4; The bidder- ha-ve -ad business e. shall eemplied with ininefity a women's eftt disadvantaged business federally funded publie epAefpr-ises, or- other- similaf works pfejeets vi� stieh r-equir-ements tAiliz-a4ion r-e"ir-efnen4s or- goals on eempleted by the bidder- within the ei�17;1 • !H III III JI, ii. Shall have eemplied with appr-entieeship tAilizatieff goals on ptiblie works pr-ejeets h i _ stieh r-e"ir-emefAs th4 were eempleted by the bidder- within a three year- period immediat&1Y .,t.,b.loo e e. tthe t.• o , Packet Pg. 240 9.2.a fl. The bidder- shall not have been eenvieted of a er-ime involving bidding on a pUblie wE)Fks t7-.--p ZUUMQM�= 411 411 01 ills I -I - Il li ) k. The bidder- shall not have judgmen4s en4er-ed by a eetH4 of law against the bidder- within five years of the bid submittal date that demonstfate a pat4efn of failing to fneet the tefffis 0 ability, co 0 0 0 c �a 0 LO O 0 O C) ❑ V W a O m O r-) O V C R C :a L 0 v LO N O O O O to O O O O T m CD Ln R Q Q 00 T U U W C C d E a U C R C E L 0 E t c.i Q Packet Pg. 241 9.2.a 4. in timely b6afe the bid deadline, bidder- that the a mafmer- submittal the bidder- a patentW may r-e"est The the eity medify supplemental responsibility er-iter-ia. eity Must evaluate the in the the to the evaluation r-esults a ehange of efitefia, eit-y must publish an addeadum 5. if the bidder- fails to supply infefmatien r-e"ested eeneeming responsibility within the tifne a -ad manner- speeified in the bid deeumefAs, the eity may base its detefmination of responsibility upon my available infefma4ion r-eleAed to the stipplemen4al er-iter-ia or- may find the bidder- not ;b4c ��ww�wll�r�rrnl�Irr�riw�rwar eowAffanie4ieas, deadlines and detefmifi4ieas required by this seeti Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4. 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. 242 9.2.a ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 243 9.2.a On the Ordinance No. provides as follows: SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington day of 2025, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.00 ECDC (PUBLIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS; GENERAL REQUIREMENTS) TO UPDATE REFERENCES TO THE APPRENTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 39.04.320 AND THE RESPONSIBLE BIDDER CRITERIA REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 39.04.350; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 2025. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 244 9.2.b ■ ■ Packet Pg. 245 Apprentice Requirements • State Requirements (RCW 39.04.320) o Requires contractors to perform at least 15% of labor hours on public works projects using apprentices. o Apprentices must be enrolled in state - approved apprentice programs o Implementation Schedule ■ Projects > $2M or more (7/l/24-6/30/26) ■ > $1.5M or more (7/l/26-6/20/28) ■ > $1M or more (7/1/28 or after) o Project cost based on engineer's estimate Apprentice Requirements • City Responsibilities o Incorporate requirements in bid documents o Review and approve Contractor apprentice utilization plans o Monitor compliance 0 ■ Verify documents are being submitted to WA Department of Labor & Industries ■ Track progress and confirm goal is achieved Review and adjust goal based on good faith efforts or specific conditions o Administer incentives and penaltie d irenesed orennanec Section 18.00.050 Apprentice Requirements & Section 18.00.060 Bidder Responsibility Criteria o Amends sections to be consistent with State Requirements & City Purchasing Policies o Simplifies code and references State Law and City Purchasing Policies ■ Detailed requirements in Purchasing Policies: • Section 10.7.3 (Responsible Bidder Criteria) • Section 10.7.4 (Apprentice Requirements) ■ Reduce chance of future inconsistencies ■ Eliminates administrative effort and cost for staff and the City Attorne office to update code when changes are made to State Law -�: 144F - 1114N IV Zecc am Approve Ordinance kv lmmm� 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Interfund Loan Staff Lead: Kim Dunscombe Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Kimberly Dunscombe Background/History As part of the 2025 budget deliberation process, the City Council identified and approved the need for an Interfund Loan to the General Fund as a short-term funding mechanism to address cash flow needs while maintaining essential service levels. This loan will provide the necessary liquidity to ensure continued funding for core services and programs. It complies with all applicable state laws and city policies governing Interfund Loans. To minimize the cost of capital, the loan will be drawn on a monthly basis, as needed, aligning with the General Fund's cash flow requirements and reducing unnecessary interest expenses. An analysis of the Utility Funds confirmed that they have sufficient liquidity to support the loan without compromising their operational or capital needs. Loan Details: 1. Loan Amount: up to $6,000,000.00 2. Source Funds: Water and Stormwater Funds 3. Purpose: Support General Fund operations in 2025. 4. Interest Rate: LGIP interest rate at the time of draw. 5. Repayment Period: Interest on the loan will accrue as funds are drawn, with repayment scheduled to begin in the second year, consistent with the 2025-2026 budget deliberation process. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Council approve the Interfund Loan Ordinance from the Utility Funds to the General Fund. Narrative Attachments: Ordinance XXXX Interfund Loan Packet Pg. 250 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF THE GENERAL FUND; AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOANS UP TO A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $6,000,000 FROM UTILITY FUNDS TO THE GENERAL FUND AS BRIDGE FINANCING WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has determined that the General Fund requires temporary financing to meet cash flow needs for operational requirements; and WHEREAS, Edmonds Municipal Code subsection 3.22.010 the administrative services = director, or designee, is authorized to administer an interfund loan program and make interfund loans R 0 as needed to keep the funds of the city solvent; and = WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and Mayor have determined that this interfund loan request is consistent with the Financial Policies adopted by Resolution 1556; and = WHEREAS, the 2025-2026 Adopted Biennium Budget approved by Ordinance included a $6.0 M 0 million interfund loan to the General Fund from utility funds; and WHEREAS, the adopted budget anticipated cash shortfalls in the General Fund at times during the biennium, and the Director of Finance and Mayor have recommended that an interfund loan is the most viable alternative available for maintaining consistent city services and operations; and X x WHEREAS, there is sufficient cash in utility funds to support portions of the total loan to the m General Fund and still meet regular budgeted operating and immediate capital needs; and c =a O WHEREAS, funds loaned to the General fund pursuant to this ordinance, along with the applicable interest to be paid to the lending funds are anticipated to be repaid from future tax proceeds c E and other anticipated revenues; and t WHEREAS, the interfund loan authorized by this ordinance is consistent with the guidelines a established by the Washington State Auditor's Office as described in the Washington State Bars Manual; and WHEREAS, the City desires to formalize the terms and conditions of this interfund loan to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with the Washington State Auditor's Office guidelines; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes an interfund loan from utility funds to the Packet Pg. 251 9.3.a General Fund in an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 during the time period January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this ordinance. The loan shall bear interest at a rate equal to the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) rate as of the date of a draw on the loan. Section 2. The loan is intended to provide temporary cash flow support for the General Fund to support operations. Section 3. The City Finance Department shall maintain detailed records of all loan transactions, including disbursements, payments, and interest calculations. Section 4. The City Finance Department shall monitor compliance with the repayment terms and report the loan status to the City Council as part of the monthly financial reporting 0 J process as described in the Council's Financial Policies adopted by Resolution XXXXX. , Section 5. The Council has determined that this interfund loan complies with Washington m State Auditor's Office's guidance on interfund loans, including prohibition of borrowing from restricted funds for unrelated purposes. The Council has further determined that utility funds retain 0 J c sufficient reserves to meet operational and legal obligations throughout the term of the loan. n Section 6. 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 7. 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: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLIS Packet Pg. 252 9.3.a EFFECTIVE DATE: January XX, 2025 ORDINANCE NO. January XX, 2025 January XX, 2025 January XX, 2025 XXxx Packet Pg. 253 9.3.a Q Packet Pg. 254 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Ordinance Authorizing Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) Staff Lead: Kim Dunscombe Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Kimberly Dunscombe Background/History In 2023, during the preparation of the 2024 Adopted Budget, City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended that the city implement a more structured and formal system for position control. This ordinance stems directly from that recommendation. The 2025-2026 Adopted Biennium Budget highlighted a structural imbalance in the city's General Fund finances, leading to several previously authorized positions being classified as unfunded for this budget cycle. While the position descriptions for these positions remain valid, any positions identified in the following exhibits with 0 FTE approved are considered unfunded and will remain vacant during this budget period. This ordinance: Documents all positions with corresponding job descriptions approved by Council Documents all positions the mayor is authorized to fill Sets maximum hiring levels Is organized to show those positions that are 100% General Fund, those that are 33.3 - 66.6% General Fund, and those that are 0 - 33.3% General Fund Amendments to this ordinance will clearly document Council's additions or reductions of FTE positions. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends forwarding ordinance to the next regular council meeting consent agenda for approval. Attachments: Ordinance -Authorized Employee Positions Packet Pg. 255 9.4.a ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE POSITIONS AND PAY RANGES AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 4359 WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A. 11.020, "[t]he legislative body of each code city shall have power ... to define the functions, powers, and duties of its officers and employees; ... , to fix the compensation and working conditions of such officers and employees... "; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.12.090, "[t]he mayor shall have the power of appointment and removal of all appointive officers and employees;" and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.33.050, "[t]he salary or salary range for each office, position or job classification shall be set forth separately together with the title or position designation thereof. PROVIDED, That salaries may be set out in total amounts under each department if a detailed schedule of such salaries and positions be attached to and made a part of the budget document;" and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.33.105, " [n] otwithstanding the appropriations for any salary, or salary range of any employee or employees adopted in a final budget, the legislative body of any code city may, by ordinance, change the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of any or all of its appointive employees if sufficient funds are available for appropriation to such purposes;" and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has historically adopted its budget at the fund level; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds budget book is typically finalized administratively after adoption of the budget ordinance; and WHEREAS, city council intends that the City of Edmonds budget book be conformed to this ordinance, as it may be amended from time -to -time; and WHEREAS, the city council acknowledges that the version of the ordinance that is being adopted in conjunction with the 2025-2026 budget authorizes more positions than are actually funded in the 2025-2026 budget; and WHEREAS, the city council intends to amend this ordinance in the first quarter of 2025 with the goal of conforming the authorized positions to the funds actually appropriated for 2025-2026; and 1 Packet Pg. 256 9.4.a WHEREAS, with respect to the employee positions that the mayor is authorized to hire, this ordinance, as it may be amended from time -to -time, is intended to be the controlling document; and WHEREAS, previous versions ofthis ordinance were adopted with Ordinances 4336, 4344, and 4359; and WHEREAS, should it become necessary to defund or deauthorize the filling of a particular position, it is intended that the FTE levels in this ordinance be adjusted in concert with an associated budget amendment; and WHEREAS, a position that is listed in the exhibits to this ordinance while having an associated FTE count of 0.0 indicates that the position description has been approved by the city council but that the city council has not appropriated funds for the position or authorized it to be filled; and WHEREAS, the city council intends to use this ordinance to establish the number and types of employee positions, wage and salary rates and ranges for all the city's employees; WHEREAS, with this amendment, the city council intends to add a temporary social worker FTE position that would be on an hourly schedule and at pay grade NR-32; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The number and titles of authorized Full -Time Equivalent employees (FTEs), including full-time and part-time regular employees, shall be established at 264.19 FTEs, as detailed in Attachment A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The mayor is authorized to hire only those authorized positions shown on Attachment A and only pursuant to the salary ranges shown therein. Section 2. The number and titles of authorized Full -Time Equivalent employees (FTEs), including full-time and part-time irregular employees, shall be established at 2.07 FTEs, as detailed in Attachment B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. It is the intention that irregular positions are not benefit eligible and/or union positions. At no time should the schedule of irregular positions into which employees are hired be such that it would 2 Packet Pg. 257 9.4.a cause the position to become benefit eligible or covered by a union, unless otherwise called out in a collective bargaining agreement. The mayor is authorized to hire only those authorized positions shown on Attachment B and only pursuant to the salary ranges shown therein. Section 3. This ordinance shall apply and continue in effect until amended by subsequent ordinance of the city council. Ordinance 4359 is hereby repealed. Section 4. This ordinance, as it may be amended from time -to -time, shall be included as an exhibit to every proposed and final budget book, PROVIDED THAT the city council need not take annual action to re -adopt this ordinance unless it deems it necessary to change the number and/or titles of authorized FTEs Section 5. This ordinance shall control in the event of any conflict between this ordinance and the final budget book or any other action of the city council purporting to authorize the hiring of employees. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to abrogate an existing obligation of the City of Edmonds with regard to its various collective bargaining agreements. Section 6. 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 7. 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. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY "U NWO : u : 01-M 3 Packet Pg. 258 9.4.a FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. ATTACHMENT A January XX, 2025 January XX, 2025 January XX, 2025 January XX, 2025 XXXX Funded Position FTE Grade Department 66.6%-100% General Fund 001 funded Council President 1.0 25,291 Council Councilmembers 6.0 21,076 Council Legislative/Executive Assistant 1.0 NR-33 Council Mayor 1.0 160,807 Mayor Executive Assistant to the Mayor 1.0 NR-34 Mayor Human Resources Director 1.0 NR-44 Human Resources Senior Human Resources Analyst 1.0 NR-34 Human Resources Human Resources Analyst 0-6-0.0 NR-32 Human Resources Human Resources Assistant 4$.95 NR-29 Human Resources Human Resources Manager 1.0 NR-40 Human Resources Judge 1.0 206,470 Court Court Administrator 1.0 NR-43 Court Assistant Court Administrator 1.0 NR-37 Court Lead Court Clerk 1.0 NE-29 Court Court Clerk 4-.0 6.67 NE-28 Court Probation Officer 2-.0-1.0 NE-33 -- NE- 34 Court City Clerk 1.0 NR-37 Administrative Services Deputy City Clerk 1.0 NE-31 Administrative Services Accounting Specialist 2.0 NE-30 -- NE- 31 Administrative Services Administrative Assistant 1.0 NE-29 -- NE- 30 Administrative Services Senior Office Specialist 4 0 0.0 NE-25 Administrative Services Public Records Officer 1.0 NE-32 Administrative Services Public Records Assistant 1.0 NE-30 Administrative Services Police Chief 1.0 PD-03 Police Police Assistant Chief 2.0 PD-02 Police Executive Assistant Confidential II 1.0 NR-35 Police Executive Assistant Confidential 1 1.0 NR-33 Police 4 Packet Pg. 259 9.4.a Safety & Disaster Coordinator 1.0 NR-34 Police Police Commanders 3.0 PD-01 Police Sergeant 7-.0 6.0 NE-13 Police Corporal 6.0 NE-12 Police Police Officer 47-.0 36.0 NE-9 - NE-11 Police Police Crime Analyst 4,0 0.0 NE-11 Police Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer 2,011.0 NE-10 -- NE- 11 Police Parking Enforcement Officer 4 0 0.0 NE-6 Police Police Services Assistant 6.0 NE-7 -- NE-8 Police Property Officer/Evidence Technician 1.0 NE-9 Police Domestic Violence Coordinator 1.0 NE-10 Police Administrative Assistant 0.75 NE-6 Police Police Public Disclosure Specialist 2-9 1.0 NE-10 Police Community Engagement/Crime Prevention Coordinator 1.0 NE-11 Police Social Worker (LTE) 1.0 NR-32 Police Community Services & Economic Develo ment Director 1.0 NR-44 Community Services & Economic Development Administrative Assistant 9-.5 0.0 NE-29 -- NE- 30 Community Services & Economic Development Community Services Program Coordinator 1.0 NE-33 Community Services & Economic Development Arts & Cultural Services Program Manager 4-0 0.25 NR-35 Community Services & Economic Development Cultural Arts Program Specialist 1.0 NE-29 Community Services & Economic Development Communications Strategist/Public Information Officer 1.0 NE-35 Community Services & Economic Development_ Diversity Commission Coordinator 0:3 0.0 x02 Community Services & Economic Development Planning & Development Director 1.0 NR-44 Planning & Development Code Enforcement Officer 1.0 NE-34 Planning & Development Administrative Assistant 2.0 1.5 NE-29 - NE- 30 Planning & Development Building Official 1.0 NR-39 Planning & Development Plans Examiner 2.0 NE-34 - NE- 35 Planning & Development Permitting Program Manager 1.0 NE-33 Planning & Development Combination Building Inspector 1.0 NE-33 - NE- 35 Planning & Development Permit Coordinator 2.0 NE-29 - NE- 31 Planning & Development Building Inspector 1.0 NE-33 Planning & Development Planning Manager 1.0 NR-40 Planning & Development Senior Planner 2.0 1.0 NR-35 Planning & Development Associate Planner 1.0 NR-33 Planning & Development Planner 2.0 NR-32 Planning & Development Urban Forest Planner 1.0 NR-35 Planning & Development N w N r d 3 Cr w d E i= 3 U- c �N �L 0 t a m c �a =a L O w _ 0 N 0 IL d d 0 Q. E w m N �L 0 s 21 Packet Pg. 260 9.4.a Associate Transportation Planner 1.0 NR-33 Planning & Development Parks, Recreation, and Human Services Director 1.0 NR-44 Parks & Recreation Executive Assistant 1.0 NE-33 Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Manager 1.0 NR-35 Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Lead Worker 1.0 N Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Worker 43.0 11.0 1 -- J Parks & Recreation Seasonal Parks Maintenance Laborer 5 0 2.32 B Parks & Recreation Field Arborist 1.0 J Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Mechanic 1.0 K Parks & Recreation Deputy Parks & Recreation Services Director 1.0 NR-41 Parks & Recreation Recreation Supervisor 1.0 NR-35 Parks & Recreation Recreation Coordinator 2-.6 2.0 NE-33 Parks & Recreation Environmental Education & Sustainability Coordinator 4-.0 0.5 NE-34 Parks & Recreation Senior Office Specialist 4-.0 0.75 NE-25 Parks & Recreation Preschool Assistant (2024) 03 0.0 NE-21 Parks & Recreation Program Assistant 4-9 0.0 NE-27 Parks & Recreation Recreation Leader (.7 in 2024) 4-.2 0.0 NE-23 Parks & Recreation Interpretive Specialist (2024) 0-.5 0.0 NE-23 Parks & Recreation Youth Commission Coordinator (2024) 0-.5 0.0 H13 Parks & Recreation Human Services Program Manager 1.0 NE-36 Parks & Recreation Administrative Assistant 1.0 NE-29 -- NE- 30 Public Works Facilities Manager 1.0 NR-38 Public Works Lead Custodian 1.0 H Public Works Custodian 5-.0 4.0 D -- E Public Works City Electrician 1.0 N Public Works Lead Building Maintenance Operator 1.0 M Public Works Building Maintenance Operator 3.0 J Public Works Total FTE count for positions that are 66.6%-100% General Fund (001) funded 162.69 33.3%-66.6% General Fund 001 funded Accountant 3.0 NE-36 -- NE- 37 Administrative Services Finance Director 1.0 NR-44 Administrative Services Deputy Administrative Services Director 4-0 0.0 NR-41 Administrative Services Public Works Director 1.0 NR-45 Public Works Executive Assistant 1.0 NE-33 Public Works Total FTE count for positions that are 33.3%-66.6% General Fund (001) funded 6.0 N w H LL N r.+ d 3 Cr w d E 3 LL IM c N .r 0 t a m c ea =a L O w _ 0 N 0 IL d d 0 Q- E w m N .I- 0 s 21 Packet Pg. 261 9.4.a 0%-33.3% General Fund 001 funded Accountant 1.0 NE-36 -- NE- 37 Administrative Services Accounting Specialist 2.0 NE-30 -- NE- 31 Administrative Services Information Services Manager 1.0 NR-41 Administrative Services Information Systems Specialist 1.0 NE-35 -- NE- 36 Administrative Services GIS Analyst 1.0 NE-35 -- NE- 36 Administrative Services Systems Support Technician 2.0 NE-32 Administrative Services Web Systems Analyst 1.0 NE-33 Administrative Services Park Planner and Capital Projects Manager 1.0 NR-36 Parks & Recreation Cemetery Sexton 1.0 L Parks & Recreation Parks Maintenance Worker 2.0 I -- J Parks & Recreation City Engineer 1.0 NR-43 Public Works Administrative Assistant 1.0 NE-29 -- NE- 30 Public Works Capital Projects Manager 5.0 NR-36 Public Works Transportation Engineer 1.0 NR-39 Public Works Senior Construction Inspector 1.0 NE-35 Public Works Senior Utilities Engineer 1.0 NR-41 Public Works Stormwater Engineer 1.0 NR-38 Public Works Stormwater Technician 1.0 NE-32 -- NE- 33 Public Works Associate Engineer 1.0 NR-33 Public Works Engineering Program Manager II 1.0 NR-38 Public Works Engineering Technician 4.0 NE-30 -- NE- 34 Public Works Permit Coordinator 0.5 NE-29 -- NE- 31 Public Works Public Works Record Administrator 1.0 New, No Grade available Public Works Asset/Project Management Specialist 1.0 NR-36 Public Works Utility Locator 1.0 New, No Grade available Public Works Sewer Maintenance/GIS Worker 1.0 New, No Grade available Public Works Environmental Program Specialist 1.0 NR-33 Public Works Street/Storm Manager 1.0 NR-40 Public Works Stormwater Maintenance Lead Worker 1.0 N Public Works Senior Storm GIS Technician/Maintenance Worker 1.0 K Public Works Storm Maintenance Worker 6.0 1 -- J Public Works N w w N d 3 Cr w d E r= 3 U- c �N •L 0 t 0 a m c ea =a L O w _ 0 0 IL a) a> 0 Q. E w m N .L 0 s .r 21 Packet Pg. 262 9.4.a Street Maintenance Lead Worker 1.0 N Public Works Traffic Control Technician 1.0 L Public Works Senior Street Maintenance Worker- Cement Finisher 2.0 K Public Works Street/Storm Maintenance Worker 5.0 1 -- J Public Works Water/Sewer Manager 1.0 NR-40 Public Works Water Maintenance Lead Worker 1.0 N Public Works Water Maintenance Worker 5.0 1 -- J Public Works Water Meter Reader 2.0 E -- F Public Works Water Quality Control Technician 1.0 L Public Works Sewer Maintenance Lead Worker 1.0 N Public Works Sewer Maintenance Worker 6.0 1 -- K Public Works WWTP Manager 1.0 NR-41 Public Works Office Coordinator 1.0 NE-30 Public Works WWTP Pre -Treatment Technician 1.0 K Public Works WWTP Water Quality Analyst 1.0 N Public Works WWTP Instrument Technician/Plant Electrician 1.0 L -- N Public Works WWTP Plant Supervisor 1.0 NR-37 Public Works WWTP Operator 44-.9 12.0 J-N Public Works WWTP Maintenance Mechanic 2.0 J -N Public Works Fleet Manager 1.0 NR-37 Public Works Fleet Mechanic 3.0 K -- M Public Works Total FTE count for positions that are 0%-33.3% General Fund (001) funded 95.5 Total All City FTE Count 264.19 N W H LL N r.+ d 3 Cr w d E 3 LL Im c N 0 t a m c ea =a L O w _ 0 0 IL d d 0 Q. E w m N .L O t 2 Packet Pg. 263 9.4.a ATTACHMENT B Department Title Pay Grade # of FTEs approved Council Legislative Executive Assistant Parks Facility Attendant H-06 9-5.40 Gymnastics Assistant H-07 " 0.0 Daycamp Assistant H-07 4 0 0.0 Front Desk Receptionist H-08 2:0 1.13 Ranger Naturalist H-09 4-2 0.0 Gymnastics Instructor H-10 0:-5 0.0 Information Services Audio Visual Assistant H-13 4-.0 .25 Engineering Engineering Intern H-09 4,00.0 Public Works Seasonal Street Department Laborer H-08 3�0 0.0 Municipal Court Pro Tem Jude H-21 .29 Genera l/Non-s ecified Temporary Office Worker H-07 0.0 Intern H-09 0.0 Temporary Project Specialist H-16 0.0 44,9 2.07 w c a� �a �3 s w a) E 3 U- cm .N •L 0 s r 3 Q V _ _ 0 0 _ 0 .N 0 a Q m 0 a E w m Q N .I- 0 s r 3 Q Packet Pg. 264 9.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Extension of Interim Finance Director Appointment Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Kim Dunscombe was appointed by the Mayor as the Interim Finance Director. Per City Code 2.10, extensions of acting assignments, beyond 6 months, must be approved by City Council. Acting Director Dunscombe's initial 6 month appointment will expire on 01/24/25. Staff Recommendation Approve Extension of Kim Dunscombe as Interim Finance Director for 6 months or until the position of Finance Director is filled. Narrative Per Policy and Edmonds City Code, the Mayor is requesting an extension of this appointment as the City is currently in the process of interviewing candidates for this position. Panel interviews of 3 candidates occurred on 1/7/25, these will then be followed by the Mayor's interview on 1/9/25. Remaining steps will be Council interviews of candidates, reference checks, and background checks before the Mayor will make a selection. While this process is moving forward, a hire will not occur prior to the end of Acting Director Dunscombe's initial 6 month appointment. Packet Pg. 265 9.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 01/14/2025 Discussion of Proposed Changes to ECC 1.04 Council Meetings Staff Lead: City Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History The city council has the power to organize and regulate its internal affairs under RCW 35A.11.020. This includes the time, manner, and structure of council meetings. Over the years, the city council has amended its code several times in response to changing needs and to maximize council effectiveness in the conduct of city business. Staff Recommendation Discuss and achieve consensus on proposed changes to ECC 1.04, Council Meetings. Narrative Council President Tibbott will use this opportunity to share ideas on possible changes to council meetings, including the council committee structure. Attachments: UPDATE CP memo to Council re proposed changes to council meetings 20250108 UPDATED Council Committee Assignments 2025 DRAFT Packet Pg. 266 9.6.a ng EDA1 \�� CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0248 - FAX 425-771-0254 Website: www.edmondswa.gov CITY COUNCIL Date: January 13, 2025 To: Edmonds City Councilmembers From: Neil Tibbott, Council President Subject: UPDATED Proposed Changes to Council meetings and Council Committees For consideration and discussion during our January 14 council meeting, I propose the following adjustments, with updated information as a result of valuable staff input after the agenda was published: Regular Council meetings: • Adjust start time to 6:00pm and adjournment time to 9:00 pm • Council seating assignments - alternate monthly Council Committees: • Establish two committees made up of three councilmembers, with one serving as chair. Each committee will meet virtually for 90 minutes at 3:30pm, with Committee A meeting on the first Tuesday of the month, and Committee B meeting on the third Tuesday of the month, and consider business items of all matters, not department specific. Items that receive majority unanimous support may be forwarded to a city council consent agenda. (note: this meeting schedule allows city staff the flexibility of committee business being considered twice a month). The council president will serve as ExOfficio to both committees, and will fill in if there is an absence. If the chair of the committee is absent, the committee member with the most council seniority will serve as chair (or the lowest council position number if there is a tie) • Establish a Committee of the Whole made up of seven councilmembers, with the council president serving as chair. This Committee of the Whole will meet virtually on the third Tuesday of the month from 6pm — 9pm, and consider items including Finance, code updates, as well as other matters benefitting from council -wide presentation and discussion. No final action would occur during this committee meeting, rather consideration of a future consent agenda or full council agenda item. Election Day: • Codify the practice of rescheduling council meetings that fall on a primary or general election day, and any special elections that the city has a ballot measure Packet Pg. 267 9.6.b CITY COUNCIL 2025 COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES Committee of the Council Representative(s) Committee A (3) 3:30 PM on the 1st Tuesday of month — 90 minutes Chair: Dotsch Paine, Chen Committee B (3) 3:30 PM on the 3rd Tuesday of month — 90 minutes Chair: Nand Eck, Olson Committee as a Whole — 6:00 — 9:00pm on the 3rd Tuesday of month Finance, Council -wide topics and presentations, Training Chair: Tibbott Council Working Committee Legal Assessment Committee (2) established by ECC2.05.035 Tibbott, Paine City of Edmonds Boards, Committees and Commissions Council Liaisons for 2025 are assigned only to groups who are mandated to hold meetings. For those non -mandated groups who may be approved by the mayor or council vote to hold special meetings, the Council President will assign a councilmember with priority to the previously assigned liaison. Disability Board (Edmonds) Mayor appoints (2) Councilmembers (meets quarterly) Appointments TBD by mayor Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (Edmonds) Olson Outside Boards/Commissions/Advisory Affordable Housing Alliance Dotsch Community Transit Paine Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Olson Lake Ballinger Work Group Nand PFD Oversight Committee (Edmonds) Olson Port of Edmonds 211 and 41" Monday Chen Seashore Transportation Forum Paine SNOCOM 911 3rd Thursday Eck Snohomish County Tomorrow Alternate: Olson Nand Salmon Recovery — WRIA 8 Dotsch Packet Pg. 268