Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-03-05 City Council Packet
1 2 3 4 o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARCH 5, 2019, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2019 2. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 3. Claim for Damages 4. Approval to pay final invoice of $1,862.25 to Kone Consulting 5. Ordinance Banning Single -use Plastic Utensils 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. Sound Transit Permit Parking Program (15 min) 2. City Attorney Annual Report (30 min) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process (30 min) 2. PSRC Vision 2050 Planning Process (15 min) 3. Council Discussion of Homelessness Assessment (60 min) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1). 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda March 5, 2019 Page 1 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 26, 2019 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 02-26-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 2 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 26, 2019 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Michael Nelson, Council President Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Mike Richardson, Police Sergeant Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Johnson. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2019 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. WWTP PHASE 6 ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECT -CARBON RECOVERY FULL DESIGN 5. PRESENTATIONS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 1 Packet Pg. 3 1. 2018 PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT HR Director Mary Ann Hardie introduced Kathleen Kyle, Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA). Ms. Kyle reviewed: • Edmonds Attorneys o Nikita Parehk and Srikanth Naidu Photograph of SCPDA staff o Reception o Daily jail visits o Create client files o Schedule client appointments Photographs of investigators and social workers What is a misdemeanor? o Subject to jail ■ Triggers right to counsel o Simple misdemeanor ■ Maximum of 90 days jail and $1000 fine o Gross misdemeanor ■ Maximum of 364 days jail and $1000 fine Life of a misdemeanor case o Jail can occur at any stage ■ Arrest ■ Bail ■ Bench warrant/bail amount set ■ Sentence ■ Nonappearance with probation ■ Violation of probation condition What is the impact of jail? o Inefficient spending: It costs taxpayer dollars to enforce, prosecute, and defend people charged with misdemeanors. o Increased unemployment: People we want to be employed cannot get to work and cannot stayed employed. o Leads to housing instability: Discrimination against people with criminal records in housing applications. o Does not increase safety: The consequence of jail does not distinguish between petty offenses and serious misdemeanor offenses. Who do public defenders represent? o The poor o Homeless o Veterans o Mentally Ill o Immigrants o People of color Who else works with the same group or subgroup of people? o Churches o Service organizations o YWCA o Job support, e.g. Goodwill o Food banks o Local medical, mental health, and chemical dependency services Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a o Public programs Goals of this presentation o Demonstrate providing effective assistance of counsel o Report on workload Complying with WSBA Indigent Defense Standards o Monitor caseloads o Access to additional professional services: investigator, social worker, immigration consultation, interpreters o Diligence in meeting with clients in a confidential setting, reviewing discovery, researching legal issues o On -going continuing legal education Total case load per year 0 2016: 904 (includes 2015 cases SCPDA inherited) 0 2017: 621 0 2018: 634 • Graph of total cases per quarter 2017-2018 • Top 6 categories of cases per quarter in 2018 — these six categories make up 7% of the cases we handled last year o Theft/shoplifting o DWLS Yd Degree o Misdemeanors unlisted (possession of drug paraphernalia) o DUI and physical control o Domestic violence o Criminal trespass • Bottom categories of cases per quarter for 2018 — remainder 2 1 % o Violation if court order o DWLS 1st and 2" o Alcohol related offenses o Simple traffic o Assault (not domestic violence) o Obstruct public servant o Reckless driving o Malicious mischief o Harassment o Hit and run o Weapons related o Disorderly conduct • Graph of top 6 categories of cases in 2017 and 2018 by quarter o Workload strikingly similar in 2017 and 2018 • SCPDA Case rate per 1000 people Population of Edmonds Year Case Rate per Year 41,260 2017 0.0658 41,820 2018 0.0651 o When adjusted for population growth, the case rate declined by 1% in 2018 • Graph of distribution of charges in 2018 and 2017 with 10 or more counts o 2017 and 2018 very similar • Serious Misdemeanor Cases 2018 by quarter 2018 Charge I Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Domestic Violence 17 9 12 14 DUI and physical control 1 10 24 17 23 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a Violation of court order 18 4 3 5 o Variation often due to enforcement such as DUI patrols Graph of combined distribution of charges 2017-2018 o Illustrates how serious misdemeanor charges rank compared to all other charges Distribution of types of charges 2017 2018 Charges % of Year Total Charges $ of Year Total Driving Charges 350 43.42% 343 41.63% Property Charges 218 27.05% 200 24.27% Crimes Against Persons 79 9.80% 129 15.66% Drug and/or Alcohol as an Element of Crime* 115 14.27% 96 11.65% Others 44 5.46% 56 6.80% Grand Total 806 100.00% 824 1 100.00% *Reflects Snohomish County's decision to not charge under 2 grams or less of possession of a controlled substance as a felony, so likely more possession of drug paraphernalia charged in municipal court Graph of distribution of charges 2018 vs 2017 in % As the Council moves forward in making decisions about priorities, Ms. Kyle asked what information SCPDA could provide to assist in analyzing whether the City is aligning its values with spending. Councilmember Mesaros asked Ms. Kyle to explain the Combined Distribution of Charges graph. Ms. Kyle explained this is a pareto chart, the line shows the percentage of cases which illustrates the vast majority of charges are DWLS3 (Driving with License Suspended in the 3rd Degree). Councilmember Mesaros asked how many of the defendants that SCPDA represents live in Edmonds. Ms. Kyle said she could try to data -collect that but did not have that information immediately available. Councilmember Mesaros said although it may not be relevant, that would be an interesting statistic. Ms. Kyle said it would be relevant in considering who is put on probation, who are services provided to, etc. Councilmember Mesaros commented a defendant may be having similar issues in another jurisdiction which raises the question of coordination, etc. Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was a pressing issue in Edmonds or outside Edmonds that "kept her awake at night." Ms. Kyle said SCPDA is a 45-year old non-profit organization that does some things very well and is considering how go to the next level and how to partner with the community. When SCPDA is appointed to an Edmonds case and the person is in jail, SCPDA receives the court calendar mid -day which raises the issue of how much effective lawyering can be accomplished in a limited amount of time to develop a release plan, etc. People often plead guilty to get out of jail whether they are guilty or not; court rules in Washington have a presumption of release, yet people are detained on low level misdemeanors. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed people who live outside the City are brought up on charges within the City. Ms. Kyle answered Edmonds is responsible for holding court proceedings for offenses that occur within the city limits. Snohomish County has four divisions of district court; cases are currently divided regionally, but a defendant may appear at multiple divisions of the same court. The question is whether that is addressing the issue holistically or just throwing good money after bad. Having access to data regarding who is in custody and where has been a game changer. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the Distribution of Types Charges and asked what charges constituted "Others." Ms. Kyle answered these are charges that are not driving, property, drug/alcohol Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 related, or a crime against person. For example obstructing, disorderly conduct, fairly low level offenses, weapons related, etc., sometimes referred to as quality of life offenses. She referred to the bottom categories for 2018 (21 %), Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Distribution of Charges in 2018 and 2017 and asked what crimes were "Theft 3." Ms. Kyle advised they were primarily shoplifting; theft is taking from a person. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that included burglary, shoplifting, etc. Ms. Kyle answered burglary is usually a felony, home invasions are residential burglaries which is its own class of felony. A burglary can be from a fenced yard, a shed, detached garage, etc. When reviewing Theft 3s in 2017, she found 50% were thefts from the Safeway on Hwy 99. Councilmember Tibbott asked what progress is being made on new state laws regarding DWLS3 and what impact that would have on the caseload. Ms. Kyle answered the House and Senate bills made it through committee and are still alive. It would have a very large impact on their caseload as DWLS3 was 25% of the crime in 2018. There are multiple ways to be DWLS3; the new legislation does not take it away totally, it eliminates certain categories. When that has happened in the past, in 2013 failure to pay an infraction for a non-moving violation such as a jaywalking ticket was decriminalized which decreased the number of DWLS3. In 2005 there was a challenge and the state law was found unconstitutional for not providing for due process. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that category would be reduced by half. Ms. Kyle estimated it may even be reduced by 75% as the new law targets decriminalizing failure to pay for a moving violation. She anticipated the vast majority of DWLS3s are due to not paying for a moving violation versus not paying child support or other infraction. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was anything the Council could do to encourage legislators to move that along. Ms. Kyle offered to provide who proposed the bills and Councilmembers could contact them directly to explain the impact to Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott observed it would decrease the cost to the City and free up SCPDA's time to work on other matters. Councilmember Tibbott observed a DUI can occur in tandem with DWLS3 and asked if that was recorded twice on the Distribution of Charges chart. Ms. Kyle answered the DUI and DWLS3 would both be recorded on the Distribution of Charges graph. In the graph of Top 6 Categories of Cases, only the DUI is counted; the DWLS3s on that chart are solely DWLS3s. She clarified when she said 25% of the cases in Edmonds are DWLS3, she meant 25% are solely DWLS3 and did not have a greater charged attached. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the correlation between the number of police officers and the number of tickets issued. She asked if Ms. Kyle had information about the Edmonds Police Department in 2017 and 2018. Ms. Kyle said she did not have that readily available; sometimes when increases in quarters occur, she will call the police department to ask about any changes in order to predict staffing needs. She also did not know when cadets graduate out of academy, observing there was often an uptick at the beginning of careers. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there have been a number of retirements and new officers and some Councilmembers are interested in adding more police officers. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the drug paraphernalia charge was only opioids or was it related to any type of drug paraphernalia. Ms. Kyle said the law that defines possession of drug paraphernalia is quite broad; it can be a baggie, a syringe, anything that supports drug use. They do not categorize the type of drug paraphernalia, but anecdotally it is consistent with the heroin epidemic. Councilmember Buckshnis was interested in the police force in 2017 compared to 2018 as charges are consistent between 2017 and 2018. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the Distribution of Types of Charges 2018 compared to 2017, recalling 2018 was slightly lower. He asked if that trend was consistent with nearby cities. Ms. Kyle answered it is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a consistent with the national trend; she did not have information regarding local jurisdictions. The most recent information on national trends is 2016. Generally crime per capita has been decreasing in all categories, violent offenses, property offenses, even drug offenses. Councilmember Teitzel asked how the downward trend is explained. Ms. Kyle answered it is not, but it is nothing the criminal justice system is doing. 2. COMMUNITY TRANSIT UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Roland Behee, Manager of Planning, and June DeVoll, Manager of Regional Programs and Projects, Community Transit, explaining they have worked diligently on future planning, immediate issues related to transit service in the region as well as working with the community and City staff. Mr. Behee explained as Community Transit was looking out 6 years, 2024 is a significant year for Snohomish County and the region, driven somewhat by Sound Transit's buildout of their system as well as tremendous development in the community and the buildout of major transportation projects. The presentation was initially an internal attempt to help Community Transit understand the scope of issues. The presentation has been so impactful that it is being shared thought the region. The presentation includes information from Community Transit as well as Sound Transit and the scope of changes over the next few years and what is driving planning at Community Transit for future transit. He reviewed: Our history is not our future o Things will be much different in the coming years as the transportation system is built out o Map of Integrated future Network 2024 — Southwest Snohomish County ■ Swift Blue Line ■ Swift Green Line ■ Swift Orange Line ■ Transit emphasis corridors ■ ST2 Link Light Rail ■ ST3 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) ■ First mile/last mile opportunities Sound Transit System Plan o Map of proposed ST3 projects ■ Link Light Rail ■ BRT ■ Sounder Rail ■ Proposed shoulder -running buses/speed and reliability improvements ■ Environmental study ■ Future investment study o Current and planned service ■ Link Light Rail ■ Sounder Rail ■ Sound Transit Express Bus o Stations ■ New Station ■ New station/added parking ■ Improved station ■ Major rail transfer Lynnwood Link o Alignment map from Northgate to Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood o Anticipated daily ridership Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a Station Daily Ridership Lynnwood 17,900 Mountlake Terrace 5,100 Shoreline 185th 6,600 Shoreline 145' 6,000 North ate 13,300 o Daily boardings by station ■ Today: Lynnwood Transit Center + Mountlake Terrace = 6,200/day ■ 2024-2035: Lynnwood Transit Center + Mountlake Terrace = 23,000/day o How long with my trip from Lynnwood take? ■ One train every 4 minutes during peak weekday commutes ■ 20 minutes Lynnwood to UW ■ 28 minutes to downtown Seattle ■ 33 minutes to stadiums ■ 60 minutes to SeaTac Airport ■ 50 minutes to downtown Bellevue ■ 60 minutes to Overlake Transit Center o Project milestones ■ 2010-2012 Alternatives Analysis and Scoping ■ 2013-2015 Environmental Review ■ 2016-2018 Final Design and Permitting ■ 2018-2023 Construction ■ 2024 Open for Service Transit Experience on I-5 today o Lynnwood to Downtown Seattle ■ Scheduled at 29 min to 52 min, depending on time of day ■ Actual travel time is 24 min to 73 min o Downtown Seattle to Lynnwood ■ Scheduled at 30 min to 45 min, depending on time of day ■ Actual travel time is 22 min to 86 min o Link will be 28 min, every day, every time Lynnwood Transit Center o Aerial view of current configuration ■ 1,400 parking spaces ■ Transit loop with 18 bays ■ Direct access ramp connecting to I-5 o Overhead view of Sound Transit's plan ■ Same transit loop ■ Direct access ramp to I-5 ■ Parking structure with 1,500 spaces ■ Some surface parking retained on west side of site ■ Bus layover/staging space ■ Anticipates bus arrival/departure every 35 second (3x current service) o Renderings of Lynnwood Transit Center Mountlake Terrace Transit Center o Aerial view of existing configuration ■ Freeway station in center of 1-5 ■ 600+ parking structure and surface parking o Overhead view of plans ■ Elevated rail alignment on east side of I-5 that straddles 236t1i Street between the surface parking lot and garage Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a ■ North of garage, tracks travels west across I-5 with a pillar in the center of 1-5 ■ Very frequent bus service out of Edmonds to connect with light rail o Rendering of Mountlake Terrace facility Shoreline North 185' Station o Aerial view of existing ■ Overpass ■ No interchange or connection with 1-5 o Overhead view of plans ■ 500 space parking garage on east side of 1-5 ■ Train travel on east below grade ■ Transit center for Metro and Community Transit on surface of garage including a pair of Swift stations immediately adjacent to rail ■ Of the 6,600 anticipated boardings, 4,600 are forecast to come from Swift Blue Line (from Edmonds, Shoreline and to this station) o Rendering of station 1-405 BRT o Process ■ Planning 2018-2020 ■ Design 2020-2022 ■ Construction 2022-24 ■ Start of Service 2024 o Map of I-405 BRT (Burien to Tukwila, Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland, UW Bothell/Cascadia, Canyon Park, and Lynnwood Transit Center) o Rendering of infrastructure on 1-405 o WSDOT project at Canyon Park— new center direct access ramp to 1-405 express toll lanes • SR 522 BRT o Map: Begins west of I-5 at 145th Link station SR522 Kenmore Bothell UW/Cascadia and Woodinville and connecting to Community Transit in Bothell • Community Transit bus service levels o Graph of growth in annual bus service hours 2018 (400,000), 2019 (440,000), 2024 (550,000) o Reinvestment of inter-county/I-5 (80,000-90,000 annual hours of service) • Map of redesigned commuter network o Proposed areas with one seat to Link — weekday peak • Service Concepts o Access to Link o Connect activity centers o North -south o More frequent o More span o New routes Map illustrating Transit Today versus Transit 2024 o 10-15 min, 30 min, commuter Alternative services (first mile/last mile connections) o Ridesharing Services o Uber o Lyft o Carshare and bikeshare o Van programs and on demand connections o Microtransit, business/community shuttles o Transit facility parking management Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a Ms. DeVoll explained light rail reaching Snohomish County is a game changer and many jurisdictions have major plans revolving around Link light rail. Anywhere there is a major activity center or resident, there is more market for transit service. She reviewed: • Major Developments/projects o Lynnwood City Center development already under construction o Alderwood Mixed use Building ■ On former Toys R Us site across from Alderwood Mall ■ Proposed 18-story mixed use development with 346 residential units and 3,400 square feet of commercial retail space o Mall project on former Sears site ■ Two 6-story multi -family apartment buildings ■ 328 residential units ■ Ground floor retail o Build out of Lynnwood Place (next to Costco) ■ New Home Depot - 108,000 square feet of retail - 28,00 square feet garden center ■ 500 unit apartment complex - 5 story with underground parking - 10,000 square feet office space - 12,000 square feet of retail o Former Edmonds School District bus property (south side of Alderwood Mall) ■ 9.7 acres ■ 240 new apartment units o Mountlake Terrace ■ Mixed use apartment/retail/commercial in proximity to rail station o Paine Field opening to commercial aviation in March 2019 o Mukilteo Multimodal terminal 2020 o Metro Everett Plan ■ High rise residential with mixed commercial and office space ■ Concept drawing of transit oriented development around Everett station o Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan ■ Includes transit emphasis corridors o US 2 Westbound Trestle Replacement o Arlington/Marysville Manufacturing & Industrial Center (MIC) designation with 25,000 jobs Ms. DeVoll commented the above creates major demands for transportation along the light rail alignment and throughout the county to feed the rail alignment. She reviewed: Cities whose plans call for Swift BRT o Bothell o Edmonds o Everett o Lynnwood o Marysville o Mill Creek o Mountlake Terrace o Snohomish County Swift Network and future plans o Swift design principles ■ Ten second dwell time ■ Off -board fare collection Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a ■ Raised platforms ■ Transit signal priority ■ Farside stops ■ Signalized crosswalks ■ In -lane stops ■ Close to existing transit ■ Three or more lanes o Swift Blue Line ■ SR 99 - Everett Station to Aurora Village Transit Center - Opened November 2009 - "overlay" BRT - 16.7 miles - 15 station pairs o System ridership ■ Swift ridership is more than triple the next closest route ■ 1 in 6 Community Transit boardings are on Swift o Swift Green Line ■ 12. 5 miles ■ Boeing/Paine Field (Seaway Transit Center) to Airport Road, 128", SR 527 to Canyon Park Pak and Ride ■ 15 station pairs ■ Rendering of Seaway Transit Center opening on March 24th - Utilized by King County Metro, Community Transit, Sound Transit and Everett Transit and Boeing shuttle Future of Swift o Swift Orange line ■ 10.5 miles ■ Focus is to deliver to riders to Link light rail at the Lynnwood transit center ■ Sound Transit expects about 18,000 riders/day at Lynnwood Transit Center; parking garage has 1,900 spaces; 80% of riders will need to access Link light rail by transit, walking, bicycle, car share, or drop off. o Extend Swift Blue Line to 185' Street station in Shoreline to support Link Light Rail ■ Feasibility study to begin fall 2018 ■ Opening in 2024 Councilmember Mesaros referred to the Integrated Future Network 2024 map, commenting it did not include Sounder which is part of the integrated network and is key to Edmonds residents although parking is an issue. Mr. Behee agreed it could be added, noting there are Sounder connections in Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds. On one of the early deliverables with ST3 is parking expansion related to Sounder including in Edmonds. Part of the planning for September services changes is enhanced connections to Sounder. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Integrated Future Network 2024 map and asked about the Edmonds Community College (EdCC) transit station which appears to be the furthest west access for an Edmonds resident. Mr. Behee said that station is in the early design stages; the vision is 196' Street on the north end of the campus. The EdCC transit station will remain. Councilmember Tibbott asked if it would allow for drop-off. Mr. Behee answered yes. The most effective way to provide connections between Edmonds and light rail service is robust east -west connections coming from Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott said he would be encouraged if he saw more east -west connections on the map. Mr. Behee referred to the Service Concepts Map, and identified service from Edmonds including express -type service from the waterfront/downtown Edmonds to Mountlake Terrace Transit Center as well as east -west connections from Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a Five Corners to EdCC. Councilmember Tibbott asked how frequent that was envisioned to be. Mr. Behee answered 10-15 minute frequency. Councilmember Tibbott asked about planning for bike lanes and alternate transportation to reach transit connections. Ms. Hope explained the City has been working on bike lanes and coordinating with Community Transit. Councilmember Tibbott asked about electric Community Transit vehicles. Mr. Behee said Community Transit is monitoring development of electric vehicle technology. They have had early experience with hybrid electric and believe the future is full electric as their experience with hybrid has not penciled out in terms of cost-effectiveness. Community Transit is studying the issue and learning what it means with regard to planning and levels of service given the constraints of current technology. Councilmember Mesaros asked about the growth in ridership over the last 10 years for Community Transit. Mr. Behee explained there have been ups and downs driven by economic cycles and service levels. Community Transit has seen increases in ridership recent years. For example, last year was slightly below 4% year -over -year increase; the national trend is a reduction in bus ridership. Community Transit is also substantially expanding services levels. Councilmember Mesaros said he represents the City on the Seashore Transportation Forum; during a presentation by Metro, they announced they are the fastest growing transportation service in the country and acknowledged Community Transit and Pierce Transit are also growing and that the region is developing into one of the fastest growing transportation systems both in service and ridership. He relayed one of the problems he hears is it is difficult to get on a bus sometimes in downtown Seattle which keeps people from riding the bus. Mr. Behee said that is part of why they are focused on 2024 and the magnitude of the transportation problem they can solve; knowing they will be delivering 18,000 riders per day to the Lynnwood Transit Center, capacity is an issue. Councilmember Mesaros commented that was 18,000 fewer people driving south on I-5. Councilmember Teitzel relayed the Council recently had a presentation regarding 5G wirelines that will support massive amounts of bandwidth. One of the reported benefits of that technology is autonomous vehicles. He asked to what extent that technology may help congestion and whether that factors into Community Transit's planning. Mr. Behee said they are asked that question a lot. From the perspective of a transit agency, they have begun to participate int that incrementally with regard to tools inside the cab with the driver that provide a higher level of safety and awareness. For example, they have tested systems that provide visual and audio alerts to help with collision avoidance. Community Transit has heard speculation that full autonomous technology will allow more vehicles in a smaller space on the same roads. They are paying close attention to that technology but are uncertain about the timeframe that might materialize. Councilmember Nelson commented it was helpful to know what was happening in the region and significant growth occurring in Lynnwood and projections that 18,000 people will use the Lynnwood Link. However, his question was Edmonds specific such as the projected increase in Edmonds ridership. Mr. Behee answered they do not have those projections. He can provide current daily ridership in Edmonds. Councilmember Nelson anticipated Edmonds residents would access light rail at Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Shoreline and was interested the percentage of the riders expected to come from Edmonds. Mr. Behee said there is not good modeling with regard specifically to Edmonds. It is reasonable to assume a significant share of the riders at the Lynnwood station will come from Edmonds. Councilmember Nelson asked if there would be data in future regarding city -specific growth. Mr. Behee said that would be difficult to forecast with any level of accuracy. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a Councilmember Nelson asked if Orca cards providing that data. Mr. Behee said information regarding current boardings is available based on Orca card use, primarily boarding activity at Edmonds stops. They could also make projections based on increases in service levels. Ms. Hope anticipated ridership will increase based on changes on Hwy 99 as a result of recent planning. Councilmember Mesaros said one of the advantages in Edmonds is the convenience of Sounder. Reaching downtown via Link light rail would involve 7-8 stops versus Sounder whose first stop after leaving Edmonds is downtown Seattle. Mayor Earling suggested when making presentations in south Snohomish County to emphasize the frequency of Swift service to light rail stations. 3. EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS ASSESSMENT Council President Fraley-Monillas explained tonight is the report from Kon6 Consulting and an opportunity for Council to ask questions; next week's agenda will include discussion regarding policy and how to move forward as a Council. She explained in December 2017 the City Council allocated $250k,000 in the City's 2018 budget for a Homelessness Response Project. After reviewing requests for proposals under $25,000 in the spring of 2018, the Edmonds City Council Homelessness Response Steering Committee chose an Edmonds business, Kon6 Consulting. The committee asked Kon6 Consulting to conduct a rapid assessment of homelessness in Edmonds in order to make informed decisions on how to invest Homelessness Response funds based on the identified community needs. She introduced Alicia Kon6, President, Karin Ellis, and Erika Larimer, Kon6 Consulting. Ms. Kon6 described her background working in the human services field for 25 years. She described the values that guide Kon6 Consulting's work, 1) strive to be thorough and unbiased in their research so that their work enriches the conversations about the issue they are studying not shut it down, 2) government and nonprofit organizations play an important role in creating thriving and compassionate communities and it gives them joy to work primarily with government clients on health and human service issues, and 3) they value and respect people including the dozens of people they interviewed for this assessment. She reviewed: • Introduction and background o After being selected by Edmonds City Council Homelessness Assessment Steering Committee in spring of 2018, Kon6 Consulting began their interviews in early summer 2018. o This presentation and the report made public today are their final work products. • Major Tasks o Identify the Type and Extent of the Homelessness in Edmonds o Inventory Current Homeless Services in Edmonds and Seven Surrounding Cities o Identify Actual Funding Sources for Current Homeless Services and Potential Funding Sources to Address Edmonds -Area Homelessness o Best Practices Research Ms. Ellis described her education and 15 years' experience serving homeless individuals. She and Ms. Kon6 reviewed: Methodology for the Assessment — Qualitative o A broad range of perspectives. o Kon6 Consulting interviewed 63 people in 47 interviews: ■ Neighboring municipalities ■ Faith -based service organizations ■ Human services agencies and providers ■ Healthcare providers ■ Emergency responders Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 4.1.a ■ Public/private partnerships ■ Schools ■ The Edmonds library ■ Motel and grocery store managers • Methodology for the Assessment — Quanitative o Kon6 Consulting chose data from the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) because it is the most reliable and representative of the population o Quantitative Data was compiled from the following sources: ■ American Community Survey Census data ■ Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) ■ Edmonds School District - McKinney Vento ■ Snohomish County Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) ■ Snohomish County Point -in -Time report ■ 2-1-1 data and reports • Department of Social & Health Services Data o DSHS applications for assistance include a question about homeless status, so Kon6 Consulting was able to get data on individuals who reported being homeless who received cash or food benefits in zip codes 98020 and 98026, excluding the city of Woodway, over the past 10 years. o Graph of Homeless Trends in Edmonds over time (July 2007-January 2018) • Edmonds Residents Experiencing Homelessness o Based on DSHS data on individuals receiving benefits, there are currently approximately 230 Edmonds residents experiencing homelessness, meaning they are without housing (ex. unsheltered or car camping), homeless with housing (ex. short-term hotels or couch surfing) or in an emergency shelter or domestic violence shelter or otherwise living somewhere not typically sleeping quarters for humans (DSHS's definition in WAC). • Reasons for Homelessness o When homeless people in Snohomish County were asked why they were homeless in a 2018 survey, family crisis was the most frequent reason cited.* o The environmental factors currently impacting homelessness in Edmonds include rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and cost -burdened households. *Snohomish County 2018 Point -in -Time (PIT) survey • Housing Unit Types in Edmonds 0 1 unit, detached 11,528 0 1 unit, attached 613 0 2 units 372 o 3 or 4 units 849 0 5 to 9 units 1,466 0 10 to 19 units 1,387 0 20 or more units 2,389 o Mobile homes 64 o Boat, RV, van, etc. 15 o Two-thirds of Edmonds residents are homeowners o One third are renters Cost -burdened households o Over 30% of Edmonds households are cost- or severely cost -burdened (spend 30%-50% of income on housing. o According to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) there were 3,420 (19.4%) cost burdened households and 2,195 (12.5%) severely cost burdened households in Edmonds between 2011-2015. o In Edmonds homeowners are more cost burdened than renters Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a o National research indicates cities where many people are cost burdened are more likely to experience a homelessness crisis o Since median home prices have increased since this data was compiled and wages have remained stagnant, cost burdened households have likely increased. Food Insecurity & Homelessness o It is likely that some of the 229 homeless individuals receiving Basic Food in Edmonds are working and still cannot afford housing. ■ For example a three period household, income less than $3,300/month to qualify for food benefits o There is a strong connection between food insecurity, hunger and homelessness. o Food and housing are two basic needs that must be met daily. Homeless People and Behavior Health o Mental health and substance use, jointly referred to as behavioral health, has a complicated, two-way relationship with homelessness. ■ Mental illness and substance use can strain relationships, disrupt capabilities of self -care, and interrupt the routine of employment, which are all factors that can lead to homelessness. ■ Homelessness can exacerbate mental health, substance use and chronic medical conditions. ■ Nationwide 20% of homeless people report having a serious mental illness and 16% reported having a substance abuse disorder. ■ About 20% of the homeless population in Edmonds are elderly, blind or disabled - For example, they spoke with middle age white man who grew up in Edmonds and became homeless after parents killed in a car accident and funeral costs wiped out his savings. He struggled with grief and depression and began drinking heavily and became homeless and has been homeless and living in Edmonds parks for eight years. Homelessness in Edmonds o A common misperception of people experiencing visible homelessness in Edmonds is that they immigrate here from outside the region. The data shows the majority of people who are homeless in Snohomish County are from here originally. Types of Homelessness o Visible ■ Visible unsheltered homelessness is homelessness that you see in public areas, such as tent encampments, or where people are sleeping in doorways, parks, greenbelt areas or along the waterfront. ■ One type of homelessness that is more visible in Edmonds is the practice of car camping, a common step down for someone with a vehicle when they first lose their housing. ■ Visible homelessness is less common than hidden homelessness in Edmonds so it's less obvious to the community that there are homeless people here. o Hidden ■ Hidden homelessness in Edmonds is less visible when individuals have support from friends or family, or still have some resources, like an automobile or RV, or enough funds to stay in a motel for part of the month. Homeless in Edmonds by Age and Race o By Age ■ Under 18 16% ■ 18-24 10% ■ 25-34 25% ■ 35-44 20% ■ 45-54 16% ■ 55-64 11% ■ 65 or older 2% Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 14 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a o By Race ■ White 66% ■ Hispanic 8% ■ Asian/Pacific Islander 5% ■ Black/African American 11 % ■ Native American 3% ■ Two or more races 2% ■ Race not reported 5% Burden for Seniors o Many of those interviewed believe that Edmonds seniors are the most at risk of becoming homeless. o Fixed incomes and the rising cost of medications force difficult choices for seniors. o Senior housing options are very limited and one waitlist for senior housing is said to be two years long. Student Homelessness "You can't learn if you're cold, wet and wondering where your next meal is coming from." o College Students ■ The Everett Herald reported that 18 Edmonds Community College students had lived in Shepherd's Village, a sanctioned tent encampment hosted by the Good Shepherd Baptist Church in Lynnwood over an 18-month period. o Edmonds School District Students ■ We estimate there are 120 McKinney-Vento students who likely reside in the city of Edmonds and lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. Outreach efforts o Talked with over a dozen people in Edmonds experiencing homelessness o Focused on people living in Edmonds o Approached people in public who appeared to be homeless o Visited service provider sites to talk with people receiving services o Outreach with police imbedded social worker o Ridealongs with Edmonds Police Department and South Snohomish County Fire o Compensated them for their time with gift card for a grocery store ■ Edmonds Homeless in Their Own Words: - Tom and Sarah, mid -twenties who live in a van: became homeless because their landlord would not make necessary to their apartment and it became unsafe from them to live there. They did not have enough savings to pay a deposit and first and last month's rent. "Being homeless is not a choice for us. We'd like to be given a chance because not all homeless are bad people. We're not drug or alcohol abusers." - Tom - Chronic health issues plague Andy, 58; his partner Maria, 49 explains: "I refuse to lie (about having an RV) in order to get services, we are not considered homeless because we have an RV. We need more support for homeless with disabilities, like a homeless wellness center." • Resources available o Faith -based organizations provide almost all of the supportive services for homeless Edmonds residents o Annie's Community Kitchen cooks 200 meals per week and periodically has a mobile health outreach van o Edmonds Senior Center and homage Senior Services include warm meals, food and hygiene services o The Edmonds Food Bank at the Edmonds Methodist Church provides food to approximately 1,400 households a year and distributes 60 food bags to Trinity Lutheran every week o There is no shelter in Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 15 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a Identified Needs o Services needed to address homelessness in Edmonds ■ Affordable housing and low income housing 61 ■ Community engagement 19 ■ Behavioral health services 18 ■ Emergency shelter 17 ■ Homelessness prevention services 12 ■ Day centers 7 ■ Housing access support/services 7 ■ Inpatient treatment 7 ■ City role in coordinating social services 6 ■ Reducing barriers to services 6 ■ Transportation 6 ■ Wrap around services 5 Promising Practices from Other Cities o Kon6 Consulting interviewed managers from other cities about best practices in addressing homelessness. The themes from interviews included the importance of: ■ A regional collaborative response ■ Housing preservation and homelessness prevention ■ Ongoing data collection, monitoring and improvement ■ Seeking new funding sources Human Services Funding Across Municipalities o Edmonds is the only city profiled that does not fund human services directly City Population Median Household Income Median Rent Vacancy Rate; Homeowner Rental Dedicated Human Services Funds City Staff solely dedicated to human services Beaverton, OR 89,803 $64,619 $1,172 1.4 (l.7) $300,000 Yes Bothell, WA 44,082 $89,477 $1,565 1(3.5) $350,000 No Burien, WA 50,729 $60,732 $1,109 1.5(3) $370,000 Yes Edmonds, WA 41,309 $82,697 $1,275 0.5 (6.3) None No Issaquah, WA 35,629 $100,844 $1,756 1.8(6) $371,500 Yes Lynnwood, WA 35,836 $58,852 $1,114 1.4(3.3) $100,000 No Minneapolis, MN 382,578 $55,720 $941 1.8(3.1) $6 million Yes Salt Lake City, UT 194,188 $54,009 $881 2.2 (3.8) $13 million Yes Shoreline, WA 53,007 $76,271 $1,287 0.6 (l.4) $500,000 Yes Spokane, WA 212,982 $44,768 $805 2.4 (4.7) $5 million Yes *Comparator cities in italics City Data, 2013-2017. American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates. Funds and staffing confirmed via city website or key informant interview • Funding Resources o Washington State's homeless housing systems are funded by an estimated $196 million annually in private, federal, state, and local government funding. o The City of Edmonds has an opportunity to attract funding to prevent and address homelessness. Recommendations o Areas of Opportunity for Edmonds ■ Community Education and Outreach. ■ Increase collaborative efforts with providers, neighboring cities and Snohomish County. ■ Preserve already existing affordable housing and prevent displacement of Edmonds residents and increased homelessness. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 16 Packet Pg. 18 4.1.a ■ Increase quality of data reporting to monitor the community needs and measure outcomes of services. ■ Pursue additional funding streams through grant opportunities and philanthropic giving. ■ Ensure the City has enough community services staff or consultant resources to carry out the other recommendations. • Getting Ahead of a Growing Issue o The City of Edmonds is in a unique position to develop a proactive approach to address homelessness early enough to prevent what has become an overwhelmingly tragic and visible challenge in other cities nearby. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the list of available resources that includes faith based organizations, recalling the Homelessness Response Steering Committee (Councilmembers Nelson and Teitzel and herself) learned a number of churches are doing things and possibly duplicating efforts because there is no coordination of services. Ms. Ellis answered they are focusing on meeting the needs and do not necessarily have the capacity to coordinate efforts. Councilmember Mesaros commended the comprehensive report, viewing it as a starting point. He referred to the table regarding housing unit types in Edmonds, recalling the City has been discussing a housing strategy to meet the needs of all residents. Although this assessment focuses on one group, it is an indication there needs to be a strategy to look at all the needs including the homeless. With regard to opportunities, he said Lynnwood is considering the purchase of the Rodeo Inn on Hwy 99 and asked if there was any further information available. Ms. Kon6 advised they interviewed the manager of the Rodeo Inn for the assessment but Lynnwood's plans were not part of the conversation at that time. Councilmember Mesaros referred to cost burdened households and asked the average of cost -burdened homeowners versus renters in Edmonds. Ms. Ellis referred to a comparison of cost burdened households (in Kon6 Consulting's report) that illustrates 11.4% of homeowners in Edmonds and 8% of renters in Edmonds are cost burdened and 7.6% of homeowners and 4.9 % of renters are severely cost burdened. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the comparison of cities and suggested coordinating with Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Mukilteo and unincorporated Snohomish County and whether it would be Snohomish County responsibility to coordinate cities' efforts. He recognized the faith based organizations are doing their best efforts, but no one is coordinating their efforts. He feared individual cities could do their best effort without any coordination to maximize their efforts. He anticipated educating people about the issue via this presentation will be the start of a conversation. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the comparison between cities, pointing out Salt Lake City has dedicated $13M and Spokane has dedicated $5M. She asked what a human services manager does. Ms. Kon6 said in other cities with a dedicated human services position, their efforts vary depending on whether it is a coordinator or manager. Managers do not provide direct services, they oversee grants to the community, gather data to track progress, etc. Coordinators respond to calls from the community and coordinate efforts. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded it was different than what the Police Department's social worker does, dealing directly with homeless individuals. She asked about the former Wight's Nursery on 196t1i. Ms. Kon6 said that the agency at that site provides senior services. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about McKinney-Vento services for students. Ms. Kon6 answered the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act provides funding to school districts to serve homeless students and requires them to gather data. They utilized the McKinney-Vento data from the Edmonds School District but it is difficult to decipher students living in Edmonds because the district serves several cities. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 17 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a Councilmember Teitzel liked the recommendation about collaborating with neighboring cities because he agreed Edmonds could not solve it in a silo. He envisioned potentially sharing personnel and finances to address the issue. He referred to a statement in the presentation that a majority of people who are homeless in Snohomish County are from here originally. He agreed there was a common misperception that people experiencing homelessness in Edmonds are from other areas. In fact they are our friends, neighbors, and family members. He referred to another statement, many of those interviewed believe that Edmonds seniors are the most at risk of becoming homeless. He agreed with that statement, noting cost of living increasing at a higher rate than income puts pressure on people remaining in their homes. Consideration needs to be given to helping seniors age in place or provide housing opportunities for them to remain in Edmonds. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the statement by one of the couples interviewed that they refused to lie about having an RV in order to get services and we are not considered homeless because we have an RV. He said that was contrary to what was stated in the report that people living in RVs are considered homeless. He asked who considered them homeless. Ms. Ellis said one of the challenges in gathering good data on homelessness is agencies and services providers have different definitions. For example, she would consider couch surfing as being homeless, but some providers, due to their funding sources, are not able to serve those people as they are not included in the definition of homeless. Councilmember Teitzel commented the report includes great data that will help the City act on the issue. For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Mayor Earling said the City's budget included $250,000 toward the purchase of the Rodeo Inn. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Rodeo Inn is not intended to serve the general homeless but McKinney-Vento families in the Edmonds School District. She noted the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless are not just seniors, but also the disabled and veterans. Councilmember Nelson thanked Kon6 Consulting for their in-depth report. When the report was commissioned, he was uncertain what the numbers would show. He was surprised by the breadth and depth of those who do not have a permanent roof over their head as well as the length of time they have been without a permanent roof over their head. For almost a decade, several hundred in the City have been without permanent housing. This is a problem that has been going on for some time and people need to be aware of that. He had the pleasure today of talking with an Air Force veteran at Verdant who works with homeless veterans who "people don't see they have a face." Councilmember Nelson hoped to begin the conversation by putting face on the homeless who are veterans, children, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. He summarized this is clearly something that needs to be addressed in Edmonds. Mayor Earling said a number of south Snohomish County cities and entities have been actively involved in the purchase of the Rodeo Inn including Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Verdant, Premera Blue Cross, Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College, Hazel Miller Foundation, Swedish - Edmonds. Council President Fraley-Monillas congratulated Lynnwood for moving forward with the purchase of the Rodeo Inn that has 40-70 rooms. Although that will help, it will not have a huge impact. She expressed her heartfelt thanks to Kon6 Consulting for meeting with the committee and completing the assessment. She encouraged Councilmembers to think about the information over the next week; 60 minutes is scheduled on the next agenda to discuss ideas, ways to move forward in a manner that helps the homeless who live in Edmonds. She thanked Councilmembers Teitzel and Nelson for participating on the committee. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Earling advised the three minute limit will be enforced. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 18 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a Marisa Connell, Edmonds, expressed support for Edmonds doing its part to combat the regional crisis of homelessness. People become homeless for many complex reasons, but one universal aspect is that once homeless, it is extremely difficult to claw one's way back. Living in unsafe or unstable housing or without shelter perpetuates and exacerbates any challenges that contributed to a person becoming homeless. Alicia Crank, Edmonds, said she work for YWCA which covers King and Snohomish County and has a slightly different perspective than her colleagues because she works on the fundraising side rather than the provider side. This report was great for her and others who do fundraising to ensure those experiencing homelessness can obtain services for free. She urged the City to focus on, 1) the data which is so important and varies by agency, and 2) the philanthropic piece — there are businesses and organizations interested assisting people experiencing homelessness or to prevent them from becoming homeless. Another issue is housing affordability; homelessness is not just about mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse, many are priced out of their communities. She emphasized the City's housing stock needs some diversity to fill in the missing middle. As the Council revisits the housing strategy, she recommended it address the missing middle in development opportunities. Mindy Woods, Edmonds, thanked Kon6 Consulting for their report. As one of the numbers in the report, she hoped the report opened the eyes of those who did not think there was a housing crisis or a homeless population in Edmonds. She sees people living in their cars, getting their kids read for school in bathrooms; she was one of those with her child when they were homeless in Edmonds. Participating in the Point in Time Count last month, she counted 12 people in Edmonds between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Dawn Murphy, Edmonds, thanked Kon6 Consulting for a well-rounded presentation, commenting she learned a lot. With regard to the 230 people who are not housed or living in their cars, she sees them when running in the City. She encounters people just trying to stay warm and helped someone find housing through Verdant. Not having a cold weather shelter in downtown Edmonds has been problematic so coordination of services is a wonderful idea as well as possibly increasing the social worker's hours and having outreach workers. Churches, who are already strapped, are being asked to do a lot; it may be time to ask residents to give back to the community to assist those who are not housed. She summarized when you are warm on a cold day, the homeless are not. 7. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BAN OF SINGLE -USE PLASTIC UTENSILS IN 2020 WITHIN EDMONDS CITY LIMITS Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher explained last May, a resolution introduced by Councilmember Teitzel that called for a ban on single use plastic straws, utensils and stir sticks was passed by the City Council. Tonight is a public hearing on the draft ordinance that bans single use plastic utensils offered by food service businesses in Edmonds. Utensils is further defined in the ordinance to include plastic straws as well as other standard utensils. The ordinance also addresses the need to continue the provision of single plastic use straws only for medical and physical conditions. In January, the Council unanimously passed a companion ordinance banning all single use plastic food service containers. That ordinance and the ordinance banning single use plastic utensils are both effective January 1, 2020. Businesses are highly encouraged to provide straws only on demand and to consider using or continuing to use durable utensils to reduce waste. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. Fisher for his assistance and City Attorney Jeff Taraday for drafting the ordinance. This ordinance codifies Resolution 1412 that was passed last year. Synchronization of these companion ordinances will enable City staff to initiate stakeholder communication. Some stakeholder communication has occurred; he and Mr. Fisher met with Swedish Edmonds and the Edmonds School District superintendent to discuss impacts on their organizations. Stakeholder communication will accelerate once this ordinance is passed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 19 Packet Pg. 21 Councilmember Nelson recalled in the ordinance passed in January 2019, there was a provision whereby the Mayor may authorize or designate a one-year renewable waiver for certain food containers when there is not a suitable alternative. This ordinance banning single use utensils does not include that provision. Mr. Fisher said there are alternatives for all types of utensils. Councilmember Nelson asked if the timeline was sufficient for businesses to obtain those alternatives. Mr. Fisher answered yes. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Annie Crawley, Edmonds, a small business owner that work with kids, teens, youth, schools and scuba drivers, applauded the Council for adopting this ordinance. It was her understanding there would be a lot of education of businesses and she encouraged the City to also educate citizens. The European Union and other countries are banning single use plastic completely by 2021. She volunteered to help with messaging that could be distributed to businesses and citizens, noting citizens may choose to visit restaurants that are going environmental instead of visiting restaurants in neighboring cities that are not. Kalil Alobaidi, Edmonds, expressed his gratitude and support for the work done on the ordinances, recalling he spoke to the Council last May regarding plastic straws. He wanted to show his support as a scuba diver and an environmental advocate as well as a person who wants the opportunity to raise kids and grandchildren in a world where people still appreciate nature and the ocean. He urged the Council to take steps in the future to further ban single use plastic and to support environmental advocacy. Edmonds has an opportunity to be a leader in the state and the country and to work together on environmental advocacy. Robert Stivers, Edmonds, sensed a loss of freedom with this change regarding what people would be able to take out of restaurants. For example, today he got takeout from Spud and ate it north of the ferry landing. It was nice to have utensils to eat with and to be able to dispose of them easily. An alternative would have required he return the utensils to the restaurant or find a composting bin. The proposed ordinance imposes on people's enjoyment of Edmonds. He said there are costs involved with the ordinance which should be compared to the benefits. In his opinion, straws, plastic utensils and plastic containers were a minor part of the problem. For example, a water bottle packed with Amazon groceries was equivalent to the weight of four plastic spoons. He concluded there were a lot of disposables sold in grocery stores and he asked how the ordinance would affect those. Heather Trim, Executive Director, Zero Waste Washington, referred to a piece on KOMO regarding the difficulty composing facilities have with plastics especially utensils and how important compostable products are. She referred to bills in progress in the legislature related to this ordinance; SB 5077 would require straws only be offered on demand, an overlay on local ordinance related to the material straws are made of. A House bill would require utensils, straws and condiment packs only be offered on demand. These are based on a Portland ordinance passed last year. The bills would result in great waste reduction and a cost savings. HB 1205 and SB 5323 related to plastic bags both passed out of financial committees and are poised to go to the floor in the next few weeks; those bills include a $0.10/bag charge. Vivian Olson supported a ban on single use plastic overall, but said there is a segment of the business community, bubble teas, that might be put out of business by the ordinance. She urged the City to discuss the ordinance with them and determine if they could be exempted or if some modification could be made to the ordinance. With bubble tea, the straw delivers a bubble of tapioca which is part of the beverage experience. Bubble tea requires a straw and there are several bubble tea vendors in Edmonds. John Lane, Director of Local Government Affairs, Washington Hospitality Association, representing 6,000 restaurants, lodging and other hospitality members, relayed support for the environmental efforts related to single use plastics. They have been working on bills related to this issue at the State level and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 20 Packet Pg. 22 4.1.a have worked extensively in other local jurisdictions such as Seattle who stopped renewing some waivers. Although people assume compostable products are readily available, their members found it difficult to get enough compostable materials before Seattle's July implementation deadline because distributors had not put them in process a year in advance. He suggested the Council consider the availability of materials through distributors. With regard to bubble tea, he agreed there are utensils that do not have a compostable alternative in limited circumstances which makes it important to include waiver language to allow the City to work with business that require an exception. In implementing the ordinance in Seattle, Seattle Public Utilities allowed businesses to exhaust their product. Education of businesses as well as consumers is critical. He submitted a letter from Washington Hospitality Association. Councilmember Teitzel said he has reviewed Mr. Lane's letter and is sympathetic to his point; there may be businesses that need to use certain utensils longer than the effective date of the ban such as bubble tea vendors. He was in favor of adding the waiver language in ECC 6.90.020.1) that was included in the non- compostable food service containers ordinance passed in January. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO ADD THE LANGUAGE IN ECC 6.90.020.1) THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE NON- COMPOSTABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS ORDINANCE PASSED IN JANUARY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Mesaros suggested Mr. Taraday redraft the ordinance with that change and schedule it on the Consent Agenda for approval next week. That was acceptable to the Council and Mr. Taraday. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the clam chowder cookoff last weekend was a major success. He attended Snohomish County Day in Olympia last Friday and had an opportunity to meet with local legislators and felt great progress was made. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas reported a family trip to the ocean was cancelled due to snow; they went last week and it snowed at the ocean for two days. Mayor Earling commented the high temperature in Arizona last week was 54. Councilmember Teitzel referred to Community Transit's presentation about improving transit in the region, observing parking is related to transit. Sound Transit is considering investing $40M in Edmonds and Mukilteo to address parking. The Port of Edmonds is talking to Sound Transit about potentially building a parking structure in the gravel lot on Admiral Way across from Amie's. Due to the compact space available for a parking structure, the Port wants to ensure if they partner on a structure, the parking will be at least what they currently have in the gravel lot. Councilmember Teitzel reported an employee at the Port, Riki Vesoja, who started in 1970 is retiring after working for the Port for 49 years. He was amazed by the time he has invested in the Port and wished him well. Councilmember Tibbott reported he also attended Snohomish County Days in Olympia and met with Representative Peterson and Senator Liias. Representative Peterson is working on the $500,000 for the Dayton Street pump and making presentations on the City's behalf. Senator Liias identified a potential funding source for development on Hwy 99. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 21 Packet Pg. 23 4.1.a Councilmember Mesaros reported while in Arizona last week it snowed in the hills outside Scottsdale. While shopping at Safeway in Arizona, the cashier was astonished that they didn't want plastic bags and wanted to use their reusable bags and said she wished more people would do that. She was astonished when he informed her they lived in a city that does not allow plastic bags and she wished that could be done in Arizona. He concluded maybe Edmonds residents can influence other cities to do the right thing. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 26, 2019 Page 22 Packet Pg. 24 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #235605 through #235732 dated February 28, 2019 for $986,692.72 (re -issued check #235635 $7,546.14) and wire payment of $417.67. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks 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 expenditures. Attachments: claims 02-28-19 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 02-27-19 wire 02-28-19 Packet Pg. 25 4.2.a vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235605 2/28/2019 076040 911 SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Page 0 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun r c 70904 INV 70904 EDMONDS PD - DANIEL; SAFARILAND SX02-3A BALLISTIC V >, 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 860.0( a 10.0% Sales Tax L_ 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 86.0( 3 70906 INV 70906 EDMONDS PD DANIELS BLAUER 8436 L/S SHIRTS c 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 139.9E � NAMETAPES FOR L/S SHIRTS (D 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0( U 10.0% Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.6( R 70907 INV 70907 DANIELS ,- BLAUER 8436 L/S SHIRT O 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 69.9� > NAMETAPE FOR L/S SHIRT o L 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0( a 10.0% Sales Tax Q 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 7.8( M 70908 INV 70908 EDMONDS PD - TREVOF o0 BLAUER 8561 P6 TROUSERS N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 84.9� c BLAUER 8436 L/S SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 69.9( BLAUER 4660 FLEECE JACKET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 119.9( NAMETAPE FOR JACKET m t 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0( BROOME 45015 18" TIE m r 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.9� Q 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 29.3( Total : 1,525.6: Page: 1 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235606 2/28/2019 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 18408 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 93.7( 18618 PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI PM & SENIOR CENTER PEST CONI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 137.8E Total: 231.61 235607 2/28/2019 075844 ADVANCE AUTO PARTS 2523-ID-349879 UNIT 183 - OIL Unit 183 - Oil 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 59.8E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.2< Total: 66.1' 235608 2/28/2019 065568 ALLWATER INC 020819002 WWTP: 2/14/19 DRINK WATER SER 2/14/19 Water services, rental & 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 20.9( 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.1 E Total: 23.0E 235609 2/28/2019 001528 AM TEST INC 109071 WWTP: NPDES PRIORITY POLLUT/ NPDES PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCP 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 850.0( Total : 850.0( 235610 2/28/2019 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5692166 RETIREE PREMIUMS - MARCH 2OV LEOFF PREMIUMS 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,428.6E FIRE PREMIUMS 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,193.1( Total : 9,621.7E 235611 2/28/2019 076934 ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LLC 20509956 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies Page: 2 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235611 2/28/2019 076934 ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS LLC (Continued) 235612 2/28/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991112593 1991112594 1991122666 1991122667 1991128515 4.2.a Page: 3 PO # Description/Account Amoun c 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 207.2( 10.3% Sales Tax E E, 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 21.3, a Total: 228.5' L 3 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 51.5E Y 10.3% Sales Tax U 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 5.3- FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS E FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS M 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.3" 10.3% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.8" > WWTP: 2/20/19 UNIFORMSJOWEL o Mats/Towels 0. a 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 56.3E Q Uniforms rn 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5( "" 10.3% Sales Tax C14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5.8" c 10.3% Sales Tax U) 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.3E . PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE fd v PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 51.5E (D 10.3% Sales Tax t 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 5.3- m PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS Q 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 2.3" PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 8.7, PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS Page: 3 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235612 2/28/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 8.7 � m PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E, 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 8.7, Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE L 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 8.71 3 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 c 0.21 10.3% Sales Tax Y 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.9( y 10.3% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.9( E 10.3% Sales Tax ii 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.9( ,- 10.3% Sales Tax O 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.9( > 10.3% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.9' a PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Q 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 8.7, rn 1991128516 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT o0 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS N 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.Of o FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 17.3z 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5, 10.3% Sales Tax m 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.7� t Total: 285.4, r 235613 2/28/2019 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 1383400-IN WWTP: DIESEL FUEL Q ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 1,057.3' 10.3% Sales Tax Page: 4 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235613 2/28/2019 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 108.9' 1383536-IN FLEET REG FUEL - 7500 GAL Fleet Reg Fuel - 7500 Gal a 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 12,155.2E L WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 3 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 3,864.4E Diesel 2600 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 4,929.8E Y 10.3% Sales Tax U 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 5.1E r- WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill E 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,348.6, n WA St Svc Fees U 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 50.1 < O Total: 23,519.7( 0 L 235614 2/28/2019 075263 AVR PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC DJ 2242019 DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE DJ a DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE DJ 2/21� Q 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 500.0( Total : 500.0( C& N 235615 2/28/2019 076510 BARN PROS CONSTRUCTION BPC-0264-3 SHED REPLACEMENT CONSTRUC- N Shed Replacement Construction N 125.000.64.594.76.65.00 16,985.5, E Sales Tax fd 125.000.64.594.76.65.00 U 2,264.5' Total: 19,250.0F E 235616 2/28/2019 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 36152 SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 02 SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 02 r 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.4� Q Total : 106.4< 235617 2/28/2019 075941 BELL, LAURIE 7142 ZENDALA CLASS 7142 ZENDALA CLASS INSTRUCTIC 7142 ZENTANGLE + MANDALA= ZE Page: 5 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235617 2/28/2019 075941 BELL, LAURIE (Continued) 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 257.4( Total: 257.4( E, �a a 235618 2/28/2019 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 10677 ESJB.SERVICES THRU 1/25/19 m ESJB.Services thru 1/25/19 3 421.000.74.594.34.65.41 447.0z ESJB.Services thru 1/25/19 �a 423.000.75.594.35.65.41 447.0E Y ESJB.Services thru 1/25/19 U 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 447.0E ESJB.Services thru 1/25/19 E 126.000.68.595.33.65.41 4,796.1 'M Total: 6,137.2E 0 235619 2/28/2019 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 10042 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 657.9 GAL i Fleet Auto Propane 657.9 Gal o 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 886.8, a 1077613-IN FLEET - LPG EVACUATION SYSTEM Q Fleet - LPG Evacuation System - 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 4,846.6z T- Freight 00 N 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 260.0( c� 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.594.48.64.00 499.2( E Total: 6,492.6E 12 235620 2/28/2019 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE 22519 BUCKSHNIS TRAVEL/GOODS EXPE r- WRIA 8 Meeting Travel mileage °' E 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 25.5, u Apple Store - Cell phone cover/securi r 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 85.0( Q Total : 110.5: 235621 2/28/2019 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1061315 FAC REPLACEMENT - PUBLISH ON FAC Replacement - Publish online Page: 6 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235621 2/28/2019 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 45.0( Tota I : 45.0( 235622 2/28/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 19767351 WWTP: 2/2019 MO CHG+1/2019 ME 2/2019 MO CHG+1/2019 METER USI 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 200.5- 19767359 COUNCIL CANON LEASE & USAGE Contract charge 2/1/19-2/28/19 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.4z Black/white Meter usage 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 2.8E Color Meter usage 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.7- 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 6.1 Total : 266.7( 235623 2/28/2019 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 7156 DRAWING 7156 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP 7156 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING IP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 167.2( Total: 167.2( 235624 2/28/2019 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION 87 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT/ Consulting: Communications and 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.0( Total: 2,500.0( 235625 2/28/2019 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E8FC.STF20190002 E8FC.STF20190002 SEPA E8FC.STF20190002 SEPA 422.000.72.594.31.65.41 705.0( Total : 705.0( 235626 2/28/2019 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 15144 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS JOINT MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS JOINT 001.000.64.576.80.41.50 25.836.2E Page: 7 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 8 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235626 2/28/2019 019215 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD (Continued) Total : 25,836.2E m 235627 2/28/2019 068161 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION INC 1000425078 PS - ANNUAL MONITORING E PS - Annual Monitoring a 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 393.2E m Total: 393.2E 3 235628 2/28/2019 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100182759 WWTP: 2/2019 JANITORIAL SERVIC c 2/2019 JANITORIAL SERVICE ea N 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.0( Total: 514.0( t U 235629 2/28/2019 075925 CROSSROADS STRATEGIES LLC 1013818 FEDERAL LOBBYIST FOR FEBRUAI E Federal lobbyist for February 2019 R U 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 6,000.0( Total: o 6,000.0( �a 235630 2/28/2019 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3344709 P&R: OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE AC p L P&R: OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE AC a 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 168.0( Q Total : 168.0( rn r. 235631 2/28/2019 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 239588 SR CENTER ELEVATOR CERT FEN C14 Sr Center Elevator Cert Renewal 201 N 0 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 134.1( N 239664 PS ELEVATOR CERT RENEWAL 20 E PS ELEVATOR CERT RENEWAL 20 2 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 134.1( Total: 268.2( E 235632 2/28/2019 006626 DEPTOF ECOLOGY 2019WA0024058-#2 WWTP: 2NDHALF FY2019 WASTEV U 2NDHALF FY2019 WASTEWATER P f° 423.000.76.535.80.41.50 29,363.0, Q Total: 29,363.01 235633 2/28/2019 072885 DICK'S TOWING INC 675115 UNIT 14 - TOW (SNOW DAY) Unit 14 - Tow (Snow Day) Page: 8 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 9 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235633 2/28/2019 072885 DICK'S TOWING INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2,700.0( 9.7% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 261.9( a Total: 2,961.9( L 3 235634 2/28/2019 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 19-3913 02/19/2019 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE; 02/19/2019 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE; 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 287.0( Y Total: 287.0( u t 235635 2/28/2019 076172 DK SYSTEMS 21961 FAC - HONEYWELL THERMOSTAT I U FAC - Honeywell Thermostat installec E 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2 4,944.0( U Prevailing Wage Affidavit o 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0( Ta 10.3% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 509.2' a 22411 MUSEUM - INSTALL CONTROL °' Q Museum - Install Control 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,618.9z T- Prevailing Wage Affidavit 00 N 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0( c14 10.3% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 166.7E E 22757 FAC - INSTALL THERMOSTAT IN DA fd FAC - Install Thermostat in Day Care U 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 206.0( 10.3% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 21.2, U Total: 7,546.1� Q 235636 2/28/2019 076913 DOCKREY, MATTHEW 2/26/2019 PSA: SCULPTURE FOR DAYTON S1 PSA: SCULPTURE FOR DAYTON S1 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 800.0( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235636 2/28/2019 076913 076913 DOCKREY, MATTHEW 235637 2/28/2019 063037 EARLING, DAVE 235638 2/28/2019 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 02222019 PO # Description/Account Total EASC ADVOCACY DAY Mileage for EASC Advocacy Day in O 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 Total 1-92573 PM: OIL FILTER PM: OIL FILTER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1-92900 PM: STAR BIT PM: STAR BIT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 235639 2/28/2019 067703 EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 009-1819 235640 2/28/2019 060401 EDMONDS HARBOR INN 235641 2/28/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 244281 244283 244284 1237 Total : GYM RENTAL: ADULT VOLLEYBALL GYM RENTAL: ADULT VOLLEYBALL 001.000.64.571.25.45.00 Total WWTP: RM 214 - 2/8-2/11/19 PRANL RM 214 - PRANDOLPH - SNOW STC 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 WWTP: RM 217 2/8-2/11 - MVANPEL ROOM 217 2/8-2/11 - 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 WWTP: RM 218 2/8-2/9/19 JCASTR( RM 218 2/8-2/9/19 JCASTRO,EDUEP 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Total PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE 4.2.a Page: 10 Amoun 800.0( d E �a a 91.61 m 91.61 3 c N 7.9� m t 0.8, U 2 U 2.7� o 1i 0.2� o 11.85 � a Q rn 31865.0( 00 3,865.0( N 0 E 540.7E m 585.7( t U m r Q 296.2, 1,422.7( Page: 10 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235641 2/28/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued) 235642 235643 PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1242 PM SUPPLIES: DEODORIZER PM SUPPLIES: DEODORIZER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1243 PM SUPPLIES: SANITIZER, GARDEI PM SUPPLIES: SANITIZER, GARDEI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 2/28/2019 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 1001800215 E8CB.236TH ST. SW PAVING E8CB.236th St. Paving 112.000.68.542.30.48.00 E8CB.236th St. Paving 125.000.68.542.30.48.00 E8CB.236th St. Paving 126.000.68.542.30.48.00 Total : 2/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 C WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 C 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2-25175 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 Cj EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 C) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2-28275 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AV PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AV 4.2.a Page: 11 Amoun c 17.5E 1.8- a 3 1.7E 0.1 £ Y U m t U 20.5£ E M 2.1, ,u 44.0' O R 0 L a a 5,393.5( Q rn 9,887.5( N 19,719.0( c 35,000.0( 2 U 51.2, E t U 51.2, Q 108.6� Page: 11 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235643 2/28/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 51.2, 2 29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / f° a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.2, L 2-37180 SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £ 3 SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 70.4£ 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S' (n LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S' U 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 55.6 u Total: 439.65 E 235644 2/28/2019 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR126990 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 2 U Maintenance for printers 02/21/19 - o 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2( i 10.3% Sales Tax o L 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.6z 0- Total : 338.8E Q 235645 2/28/2019 075505 ENGINEERED PROCESS CONTROLS 9926 WWTP: FOXBORO IGP 10S-T22DFP . °r. FOXBORO IGP 10S-T22DFA-L1 N 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3,286.0( c14 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 142.6E E 10.3% Sales Tax R 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 353.1.E U Total: 3,781.7E t 235646 2/28/2019 076939 ESSENTRICALLY FIT LLC 7331 ESSENTRICS 7331 ESSENTRICS CLASS INSTRUI 7331 ESSENTRICS CLASS INSTRU( r 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 188.0( Q Total : 188.0( 235647 2/28/2019 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI 9010885 WWTP: TRAPS ANALYSIS Traps Analysis: EPA 30B Large Bed Page: 12 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 235647 2/28/2019 076483 EUROFINS FRONTIER GLOBAL SCI (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota I : 235648 2/28/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH843878 P&R: OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE RF P&R: OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONE RF 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 EDH844469 LEGAL DESCRIP: DNS AMD 2018.0 Legal Descrip: DNS AMD 2018.0010 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH844471 LEGAL DESCRIP: PLN2018.0066 Legal Descrip: PLN2018.0066 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH844472 LEGAL DESCRIP: PLN 2019.0001 Legal Descrip: PLN 2019.0001 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH844873 LEGAL DESCRIP: AMD 2018.0010 Legal Descrip: AMD 2018.0010 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 Tota I : 235649 2/28/2019 069042 EVERETT HYDRAULICS INC 25716 UNIT 11 -REPAIRS Unit 11 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.7% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total 235650 2/28/2019 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU52679 PM: SUPPLIES: ROAD RUNNER PM: SUPPLIES: ROAD RUNNER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 WAMOU52824 PM: SUPPLIES PM: SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.2.a Page: 13 Amoun c 570.0( 570.0( E, �a a W : 3 61.9, c �a 39.5E u t U 67.0E •@ U 4- 0 77.4( i 0 L a a 46.4z Q 292.4( rn C& N N 760.0( N E 73.7, .2 833.7: U m E t U 231.2z tea, Q 23.8, 14111.1 Page: 13 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235650 2/28/2019 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 235651 2/28/2019 065427 FCS GROUP 235652 2/28/2019 076624 FORAN, SHANNON 235653 2/28/2019 069567 FOSSIL INDUSTRIES INC 235654 2/28/2019 071998 FOSTER, KELSEY Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 14 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 10.3% Sales Tax c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.6� >, Total: 294.55 a m 2964-21901034 EBJB.SERVICES THRU 1/18/19 3 EBJB.Services thru 1/18/19 421.000.74.534.80.41.10 727.0E EBJB.Services thru 1/18/19 Y 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 727.0E u EBJB.Services thru 1/18/19 423.000.75.535.80.41.30 727.0E E 2964-21902012 EBJB.SERVICES THRU 2/15/19 M EBJB.Services thru 2/15/19 421.000.74.534.80.41.10 467.0E O EBJB.Services thru 2/15/19 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 467.0E o EBJB.Services thru 2/15/19 a 423.000.75.535.80.41.30 467.0� Q Total : 3,582.5( a, T- 7332 ZUMBA CLASS 7332 ZUMBA CLASS INSTRCUTION N 7332 ZUMBA CLASS INSTRCUTION c14 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 0 95.3E N Total: 95.3E E .R F82448 SIMPSON PLAQUE: PUBLIC ART U SIMPSON PLAQUE: PUBLIC ART 117.200.64.575.50.49.00 299.0( E Total: 299.0( u m r BID-02252019 BID/ED! COPYWRITING FEBRUARI Q BID/Ed! copywriting February articles 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.0( Total : 600.0( Page: 14 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235655 2/28/2019 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) r SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) c 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.0� >, 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES f° a TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES L .3 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.5( TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 301.8( 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE Y TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE U 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.8E � TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE E 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.8, n 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE U TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE O 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.0( > TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE o L 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.2, a 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE Q CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE rn 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 71.3, o 425-745-3335 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL N MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF N 0 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 67.3, 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, E E FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 135.1( Total: 960.3( m E 235656 2/28/2019 075164 GROWING SYSTEMS INC 37300 PM: GREENHOUSE SEEDER TEMP U PM: GREENHOUSE SEEDER TEMP f° 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 330.1 Q Total : 330.1 S 235657 2/28/2019 012560 HACH COMPANY 11338164 WWTP: SENSOR KIT CAP REPLACI SENSOR KIT CAP REPLACEMENTS Page: 15 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 16 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235657 2/28/2019 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 11344.0( Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 71.1( a 10.3% Sales Tax L 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 145.7E .3 11341616 WWTP: BUFFER SOLN, ROSOLIC P BUFFER SOLN, ROSOLIC ACID, CC ca 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 943.3E Y Freight U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 56.5- 10.3% Sales Tax E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 102.9E n 11344686 WWTP: AIRBLAST WASHER HEAD U AIRBLAST WASHER HEAD ASSY O 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 120.0( > 10.3% Sales Tax o 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 12.3( a Total : 2,796.0E Q 235658 2/28/2019 074804 HARLES, JANINE 527272 PHOTOGRAPHY - FEBRUARY 2019 M r. Photography for February 2019 N 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.0( c Total: 200.0( o) E 235659 2/28/2019 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-136 TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKI 2 Tourism promotion and marketing for U 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.0( Tourism website maintenance for E 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.0( U Total: 1,866.0( Q 235660 2/28/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1023245 PM: LUMBER, DROP CLOTH, WREI` PM: LUMBER, DROP CLOTH, WREI` 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 53.5' 10.0% Sales Tax Page: 16 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235660 2/28/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.3( 1071882 PM: TARPS PM: TARPS f° a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.9E L 10.0% Sales Tax 3 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.1( c 23381 PM: POLYCARBONATE SHEETS sa PM: POLYCARBONATE SHEETS Y 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 160.0( u 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.0( E 3084685 PM: SCREWS, SAW BLADE SET, C( M PM: SCREWS, SAW BLADE SET, C( 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 60.4, 10.0% Sales Tax > 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.0, LO- 4071551 PM: PAINT SUPPLIES, TOWER HEA a PM: PAINT SUPPLIES, TOWER HEA Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 104.4z rn 10.0% Sales Tax . 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4z N 5022736 PM: CEMENT N 0 PM: CEMENT N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.7( 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.2, 6050992 PM: BATTERIES (D PM: BATTERIES E t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.3' 10.0% Sales Tax Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.0' 6082960 PM: TRASH CAN, HOSE, DRILL BIT( PM: TRASH CAN, HOSE, DRILL BIT( 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 133.4( Page: 17 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235660 2/28/2019 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 10.0% Sales Tax m 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.3z >, 7022511 PM: LUMBER, TOOL CADDY, SAFEI f° a PM: LUMBER, TOOL CADDY, SAFEI L .3 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 172.8( 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 c 17.2( 8082647 PM: GARAGE DOOR RUBBER BOTI Y PM: GARAGE DOOR RUBBER BOTI U 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 9.5' 10.0% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 0.9E n 8082699 PM: SCISSORS, METAL CUT-OFF D U PM: SCISSORS, METAL CUT-OFF D O 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.9z > 10.0% Sales Tax o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.7E a Total : 952.65 Q 235661 2/28/2019 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0550965549 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK CREDIT M r. s MATHAY BALLINGER PARK CREDIT C14 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -47.8E c 0550970417 OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO U) OLYMPIC BEACH RESTROOMS HO E 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 161.5( TU Total : 113.6E 235662 2/28/2019 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-0026 BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGEMENT E BID/Ed! program management Febru 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,866.5( Total : 2,866.5( Q 235663 2/28/2019 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG BID-022019 BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FEBRUAR BID/Ed! photography February 2019 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.0( Page: 18 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 235663 2/28/2019 076488 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG (Continued) 235664 2/28/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3211913 3213247 3213639 3213712 3215722 235665 2/28/2019 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10052686 4.2.a Page: 19 Description/Account Amoun Total: 600.0( d LEGAL PADS, EMERGENCY WATEF E Legal pads, emergency water a 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 47.0E m 10.3% Sales Tax 3 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 4.81 HAND SOAP Dial hand soap Y 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 15.7z u 10.3% Sales Tax t 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 U 1.6, E WWTP: PAPER TOWELS,C-FOLD Ti M PAPER TOWELS, C-FOLD TOWELS z 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 255.1E o 10.3% Sales Tax R 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 26.2E o L SORTKWIK FINGERTIP MOISTENEI a 10.3% Sales Tax Q 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 0.8' SortKwik Multipack Fingertip Moisten( 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 8.0� N WWTP: PAPER TOWEL ROLLS c WWTP: PAPER TOWEL ROLLS N 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 55.3z .E 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.7( Total: 420.6E E FLEET - PENLIGHT Fleet - Penlight f° 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 33.9E Q Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 110.0' 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 3.5( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235665 2/28/2019 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 235666 2/28/2019 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 235667 2/28/2019 073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 235668 2/28/2019 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 235669 2/28/2019 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 20 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 10.3% Sales Tax c E 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.3< Total: 158.8, a m 044 STATE LOBBYIST FOR FEBRUARY ; 3 State lobbyist for February 2019 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.0( Total : 3,358.0( Y U 08350 WWTP: 2/6/19 POLYMER a) 2/6/19 POLYMER U 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 5,686.1 z •9 10.3% Sales Tax z 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 585.E o 08369 WWTP: POLYMER Polymer o 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 11,372.2� a 10.3% Sales Tax Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 Total: 18,815.4E 02152019-01 INV 02152019-01 EDMONDS PD JAf C& N 25 CARWASHES @ $5.06/EACH N 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 126.5( E Total : 126.5( .� 37400316128 FLEET - TIRE INVENTORY (4) Fleet - Tire Inventory (4) m 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 2,109.1 E Tire Tax m r 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0( Q 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 219.3E 80500259857 PM: TIRE FOR CEMETERY GATOR PM: TIRE FOR CEMETERY GATOR Page: 20 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235669 2/28/2019 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER (Continued) 235670 2/28/2019 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER 03/19 Cigna Premiums 235671 2/28/2019 073226 LIFE LINE SCREENING 235672 2/28/2019 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 235673 2/28/2019 075769 MAILFINANCE INC 2001707.009 PO # Description/Account 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 Total : MARCH CIGNA PREMIUMS March 2019 Cigna Insurance Premiur 811.000.231.550 Total REFUND: PLAZA ROOM DAMAGE C REFUND: PLAZA ROOM DAMAGE C 001.000.239.200 Total 1055911 UNIT 90 - SWITCH Unit 90 - Switch 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total N7549206 UB FOLDING MACHINE LEASE UB Folding Machine Lease 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 Late fees 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 Late fees 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Late fees 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 4.2.a Page: 21 Page: 21 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235673 2/28/2019 075769 MAILFINANCE INC (Continued) UB Folding Machine Lease E, 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 193.5f UB Folding Machine Lease a 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 193.5E L Total: 672.55 .3 235674 2/28/2019 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 73199 INV 73199 EDMONDS PD CASE 19-: ea TOW AIU8704 FROM EPD TO IMPOI Y 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 189.0( u IMPOUND FEES-3.5 DAYS PER LAVA 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 171.5( E 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 _M Z 37.1 < 75454 INV 75454 EDMONDS PD CASE 19-: O 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 19.4, o TOW VW GOLF CASE 19-3750 a 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 189.0( Q Total : 606.1( a, 235675 2/28/2019 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 86057765 WWTP: SEALANT TAPE,FITTING,PII N SEALANT TAPE, FITTING,PIPE FLAN c 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 110.2E N Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.1E 2 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 12.4' r- 86153067 WWTP: TUBE CAPS+SLEEVES, FL( E TUBE CAPS+SLEEVES, FLOAT SWI U 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 383.9 1 Freight Q 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 11.31 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 40.7, 86167788 WWTP: FLOAT SWITCHES Page: 22 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235675 2/28/2019 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 11.3, 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 29.6, FLOAT SWITCHES 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 276.2( Tota I : 886.1( 235676 2/28/2019 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 7322 7325 CLASS 7322 7325 FELDENKRAIS CLASS IN 7322 FELDENKRAIS CLASS INSTRI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 130.0( 7325 FELDENKRAIS CLASS INSTRI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 156.0( Tota I : 286.0( 235677 2/28/2019 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 298403 PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES, FILES PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES, FILES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.7� 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.3: Total: 57.1, 235678 2/28/2019 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS PN #4659 LIBRARY DECK PROPOSAL- DOWI Library Deck Proposal - Downpaymer 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 13,000.0( Total : 13,000.0( 235679 2/28/2019 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC ME144367 UNIT 22 - FAN HUB Unit 22 - Fan Hub 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,061.5E 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 109.3, Total : 1,170.9: 235680 2/28/2019 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 18-2194-9 EBGA.SERVICES THRU 1/31/19 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235680 2/28/2019 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC (Continued) EBGA.Services thru 1/31/19 423.000.75.594.35.65.41 10,303.5( Total: 10,303.5( 235681 2/28/2019 018950 NAPAAUTO PARTS 3276-818944 UNIT 10 - BELTS Unit 10 - Belts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 45.1 , 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.6E 3276-818971 UNIT 10 - BELTS Unit 10 - Belts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 22.5 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.3, 3276-819018 UNIT 10 - MC LAMPS Unit 10 - MC Lamps 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.5, 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.7, 3276-819857 UNIT 11 - CB ANTENNA Unit 11 - CB Antenna 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.2 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.3< 3276-820243 UNIT 22 - OIL, SUPPLIES Unit 22 - Oil, Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.0: 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.7( Total : 168.1( 235682 2/28/2019 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 5283481 PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 492.4E 10.3% Sales Tax Page: 24 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235682 2/28/2019 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS (Continued) 235683 2/28/2019 024001 NC MACHINERY 235684 2/28/2019 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 235685 2/28/2019 024910 NORMED MVCS0296856 0686371-IN 0687070-IN 24808-785944 PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 UNIT 101 Unit 101 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : Total FLEET FILTER INVENTORY Fleet Filter Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 FLEET - POWER TRAN FLUID INVE Fleet - Power Tran Fluid Inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.21 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.21 Total INV 24808-785944 ORDER 99446 E[ PROPRINAL SOFTGEL CAPSULES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 SUPRENO SE NITRILE GLOVES - L 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Total 4.2.a Page: 25 Page: 25 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235686 2/28/2019 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S9149948.002 235687 235688 235689 2/28/2019 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN EA10262018 2/28/2019 025690 NOYES, KARIN 2/28/2019 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY PO # Description/Account WWTP: CONTROLLOGIX MODULE CONTROLLOGIX MODULE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total REMAINING BALANCE FOR 11 WAT REMAINING BALANCE FOR 11 WAT 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 Total 2/14/2019 HIST. PRES. COM. MINUI 2/14/2019 Hist. Pres. Corn. Minutes 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 Total 00092134 UNIT 47 - HOSE SUPPLIES Unit 47 - Hose Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 00092171 UNIT 47 - HOSE SUPPLIES Unit 47 - Hose Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 00092177 UNIT 66 - PARTS Unit 66 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.2.a Page: 26 Amoun c 2,631.6( �% M a 271.0E L 2,902.6E .3 c �a 11,871.2E U t U 1,222.7z E 13,093.95 'ij 0 R 111.0( p L 111.0( a Q rn 801.6< N N 82.5 1 N E M 251.2- U 43.4< E t U 30.3E Q 225.2� 131.9, Page: 26 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 27 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235689 2/28/2019 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.8( 00092197 UNIT 47 - PARTS Unit 47 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 172.6( Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 77.2, 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 25.7, 00092217 UNIT 47 - CLAMP Unit 47 - Clamp 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 76.6( Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.1 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.91 Total: 2,006.5( 235690 2/28/2019 027450 PAWS 2-12-19 FOR JAN 2019 INV DATED 2-12-19 FOR JAN 2019 ) 10 IMP. C $200-$155 RECLAIM FEE; 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,845.0( Tota I : 1,845.0( 235691 2/28/2019 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR 6865444 UNIT 400 - RADIATOR Unit 400 - Radiator 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 128.7: Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.4� 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.2( Total: 168.41 235692 2/28/2019 008350 PETTY CASH 2/27 PARKS PETTY CSH 2/27 PARKS PETTY CASH ROSE: GOOD TO GO TOLL: WOTS 117.100.64.573.20.43.00 6.3( Page: 27 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 28 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235692 2/28/2019 008350 PETTY CASH (Continued) CHAPIN: HOMEGOODS: WOTS PH( E, 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 22.0E CORT: RITEAID: REC SUPPLIES: FL f° a 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 16.3, L CORT: WINCO: REC SUPPLIES: DA 3 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 113.0, CORT: QFC: REC SUPPLIES: DADD sa 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 14.1 < Y Total: 171.& (D t 235693 2/28/2019 008475 PETTY CASH 022219 PW - OLYMPIA MEETING - PARKINC U E PW - OLYMPIA MEETING - PARKINC 001.000.65.518.20.43.00 16.0( PW - OLYMPIA MEETING - TOLL FE O 001.000.65.518.20.43.00 6.0( PS - GUN CLEANING STATION o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 60.0( a STREET - DOT PHYS REIM - B SANI Q 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 99.0( rn WATER - SUPPLIES FOR MEETING r. 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 C& 31.7E N WATER - CDL RENEWAL - J DANIEL c 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 102.0( N Total: 314.7f •� 235694 2/28/2019 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY U313683 WWTP: POLY & NYLON HANDLES POLY & NYLON HANDLES 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 31.8, E Freight U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 m 12.0' 10.3% Sales Tax Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4.5' U381096 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.5< Page: 28 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 29 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235694 2/28/2019 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.5' >, Total: 75.4( a m 235695 2/28/2019 064088 PROTECTION ONE 730531 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 3 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 40.5� ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF Y 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 40.5� u ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 36.5E E ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 _ii 46.6E u ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF O 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 20.3( ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WOF o 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 18.2( a Total : 202.9: Q 235696 2/28/2019 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(' r FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 00 N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,700.5, c 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN N YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 147.7' 2 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 436.3' E 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE U FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE f° 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 353.0E Q 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 311.6, 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / Page: 29 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235696 2/28/2019 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 235697 2/28/2019 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 30 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / c E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 992.3' 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 f° a FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 L 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 694.3E 3 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 296.4, Y 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; y PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 48.7f E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; M 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 185.3, u PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; O 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 185.3, > PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; o 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 185.3, a PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Q 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 185.3, rn PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : o 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 185.31 N 200021829581 WWTP: 1/18-2/20/19 METER 00039( o 1/18-2/20/19 METER 000390395: 20( N 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 37.0z 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 338.4E aD Total : 6,283.5E t U 19-0266 COURT SECURITY 02/11/2019-02/1E COURT SECURITY 02/11/2019-02/1 E Q 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 1,100.0( PROBATION MRT SECURITY 02/13t 001.000.23.523.30.41.00 96.2E Page: 30 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 235697 2/28/2019 070809 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE (Continued) 235698 2/28/2019 076935 PULSE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC 2180 235699 235700 235701 2/28/2019 070789 QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES INC 55235 2/28/2019 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 2/28/2019 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 190429 190430 190431 190432 Description/Account Total INV 2180 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT SCOUT CORDLESS RADAR SHD-0z 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 GENESIS RADAR GHD-20126 GHD, 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 Total WWTP: CALIBRATE THERMOMETE CALIBRATE THERMOMETERS 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-MO INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-MO 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-SO INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-SO 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-BIC INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-BIC 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-WA INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-WA 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 Total 5-021748 UNIT 22 - BATTERY Unit 22 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : 4.2.a Page: 31 Amoun 1,196.2E m E �a a 995.0( L 3 1,290.0( 2,285.0( m t 210.0( U M 12.7E 222.7E p R 0 a 140.0( Q rn 140.0( o0 N N 0 140.0( E 140.0( 560.0( E t U m r Q 203.9, 21.0( 224.9, Page: 31 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235702 2/28/2019 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 235703 2/28/2019 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 235704 2/28/2019 075387 SELECT HOMES 235705 2/28/2019 068489 SIRENNET.COM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 636303 INV 636303 EDMONDS PD FED-AE223J-CF3 AMMO - 500/CASE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 4,709.4( �% 10.3% Sales Tax a 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 485.0, L Total : 5,194.41, .3 S3-4125330 UNIT 679- PARTS ea Unit 679- Parts Y 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 146.2E u 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.0 ' E S3-4126901 UNIT 679 - BRAKE SHOE 0 Unit 679 - Brake Shoe U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.1E 4" O 10.3% Sales Tax > 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.7� o Total: 191.2E a Q PLN 2018.0034 PLANNING REFUND: HE REFUND. Planning Refund: HE refund. 001.000.245.967 312.0( N Total : 312.0( c14 0 0236510-IN LINT E163EQ - PARTS E E Unt E163EQ - Parts M 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 469.1 E U 10.3% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 48.3< E 0236511-IN UNIT 10 - ION T-SERIES SOLO LINE Unit 10 - ION T-Series SOLO Linear U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 328.0z Q 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 33.7� 0236512-IN UNITS E161 EQ, E162EQ - PARTS Units E161 EQ, E162EQ - Parts Page: 32 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 33 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235705 2/28/2019 068489 SIRENNET.COM (Continued) 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 915.8, 10.3% Sales Tax E 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 94.3: a 0236621-IN UNIT E165PO - SPEAKERS L Unit E165PO - Speakers 3 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 76.0( c Freight sa 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 12.4, Y 10.3% Sales Tax U 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.1' 0236869-IN UNIT E163EQ - PARTS E Unit E163EQ - Parts R 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,096.7; u 10.3% Sales Tax O 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 112.9, > Total: 3,196.7: o a 235706 2/28/2019 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-379704 UNIT 2 - AUTO SOCKS Q Unit 2 - Auto Socks M 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 164.Of "" 10.3% Sales Tax c00.i 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 16.9( c 14-379909 UNIT 282 - EASY SOX PASSENGER Unit 282 - Easy Sox Passenger/LT, E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 386.81' TU 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 39.8z (D Total : 607.6° U 235707 2/28/2019 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1293551 PM: FERTIL-MULCH PM: FERTIL-MULCH Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 760.0( 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 78.2E Page: 33 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235707 2/28/2019 036955 036955 SKY NURSERY 235708 2/28/2019 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 235709 2/28/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2586 200348233 200386456 200468593 200493146 200638609 200865202 201236825 201265980 201327111 201374964 4.2.a Page: 34 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 838.2F m PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT - J E JANUARY CONTRACT sa 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 a 26,265.2, m Total: 26,265.21, 3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W c TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W ea N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 40.1 , CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE t CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 68.8 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / o 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 264.1.' -ii MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M 0 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.3, Q OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON M r. 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 386.2, N LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE N LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE c 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 80.3- E FISHING PIER RESTROOMS M FISHING PIER RESTROOMS U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 223.3, LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � E E LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � U 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 172.1, PINE ST PARK Q PINE ST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.7z LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P Page: 34 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235709 2/28/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 35 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 c 21.5, 201551744 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN E E SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN f° a 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,220.7( L 201572898 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 43.9z 201594488 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S Y LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S U 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 18.7.' u 201611951 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W E TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 _M 37.3E 201751476 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW O TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 47.3' o 201782646 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � a TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � Q 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.6( rn 201907862 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW r. TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW C14 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 28.5" c 202289120 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 52.6E 2 202439246 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER (D 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,321.3' E Renewable Energy Pilot Program m 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 526.2< Q Renewable Energy Pilot Program 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 19.0E Renewable Energy Pilot Program 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,653.6, Renewable Energy Pilot Program Page: 35 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235709 2/28/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 235710 235711 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 202620415 202807632 2/28/2019 066072 SNO CO SHERIFF & POLICE CHIEFS 2019 DUES 2/28/2019 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 65095 4.2.a Page: 36 PO # Description/Account Amoun c 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 113.1 £ Renewable Energy Pilot Program E E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 214.4� a Renewable Energy Pilot Program L .3 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 72.4- Renewable Energy Pilot Program 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 48.61 Renewable Energy Pilot Program Y 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 178.8E W Renewable Energy Pilot Program U 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 72.4- E Renewable Energy Pilot Program 6 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 449.11 ,� Renewable Energy Pilot Program O 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 4,402.4z > Renewable Energy Pilot Program a 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 8.5z a Renewable Energy Pilot Program Q 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 72.4( rn MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA o0 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.8� o TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW U) E TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 18.5, Total: 17,948.9( m 2019 SCSPCA DUES - EDMONDS P E 2019 AGENCY DUES m 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.0( Total : 75.0( Q INV 65095 EDMONDS PD MAILBOX TAGS - BURKLANE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.0( Page: 36 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235711 2/28/2019 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 235712 235713 235714 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2/28/2019 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE EDMS 2019-3 2/28/2019 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 2/28/2019 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 104757 66292/4 66296/4 66749/4 66984/4 4.2.a Page: 37 PO # Description/Account Amoun c MAILBOX TAGS - KERN m E, 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.0( Freight a 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.5( L 10.3% Sales Tax 3 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1.4� c Total : 15.95 N MAR-2019 FIRE SERVICES CONTRj U Mar-2019 Fire Services Contract Payi 001.000.39.522.20.41.50 614,893.1 ' E Total : 6114,893.111, WWTP: 1/2019 ROLLOFF ASH DISP p 1/2019 ROLLOFF ASH DISPOSAL+T 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 3,018.7.E o Total: L 3,018.7° a Q FAC MAINT - WORK PANTS - D HOL Fac Maint - Work Pants - D Housler M T- 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 199.6( N 10.3% Sales Tax N 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 20.5E N FAC MAINT - WORK JACKET D HOL E Fac Maint - Work Jacket D Housler M 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 56.4.E v 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 5.8- E FAC MAINT - WORK JACKET, PANT U Fac Maint - Work Jacket, Pants - D r 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 280.3� Q 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 28.8E FAC MAINT - WORK PANTS, JACKE Fac Maint - Work Pants, Jacket - L Page: 37 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 38 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235714 2/28/2019 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 302.9� 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 31.2 67268/4 FAC MAINT - WORK JACKET, PANT Fac Maint - Work Jacket, Pants - F 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 356.5, 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 36.7, 67476/4 SEWER - WORK JEANS (5) - J CLEI Sewer - Work Jeans (5) - J Clemmen 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 249.7E 10.3% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 25.7, Total: 1,594.6( 235715 2/28/2019 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 5684 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR FEE Social media services for February 2( 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.0( Total : 300.0( 235716 2/28/2019 076324 SUPERION LLC 228016 TRAKIT Trakit 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,544.2( Total : 1,544.2( 235717 2/28/2019 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18230245 UNIT 11 -SUPPLIES Unit 11 -Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 142.2( 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.6E Total : 156.9' 235718 2/28/2019 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 00128244 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 407.4� Page: 38 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 235718 2/28/2019 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC (Continued) 235719 2/28/2019 074800 TURNSTYLE INC BID-4701 235720 2/28/2019 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 9010149 235721 2/28/2019 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS PO # Description/Account 10.3% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 Total : BID/ED! WEBSITE MAINTENANCE f BID/Ed! website maintenance and up 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Total 9824103477 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 4.2.a Page: 39 Amoun c m 41.9 1 >, 449.41 Q m L 3 250.0( 250.0( Y U m t U 125.1E 125.1E o R 128.9z o L 379.2E a Q rn 18.6� N N 99.21 N E 303.3E .2 U 18.6E E 18.6� r- m r 18.6� Q !.7:1 11c 18.6� Page: 39 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235721 2/28/2019 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 235722 2/28/2019 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 235723 235724 235725 2/28/2019 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 8085199395 201132032 201132063 2/28/2019 069922 WA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV 021319 2/28/2019 073472 WAPRO M0 2175 4[:Ir 4.2.a Page: 40 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 552.1' m WWTP: TRACEABLE TEMPERATUF E TRACEABLE TEMPERATURE/HUMII sa 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 a 86.4� m 10.3% Sales Tax 3 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 8.9' Total: 95.4( INV 201132032 CUSTOMER 23104-C N 1k VNR FOR BASIC LE - CEBAN t 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.0( U VNR FOR BASIC LE - HAIR 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.0( U VNR FOR BASIC LE - STEFFINS o 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 50.0( -jj INV 201132063 23104-001 EDMOND 0 MITSUI BLEA CLASS 783 a 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 3,187.0( Q Total : 3,337.0( MUSEUM - HERITAGE CAPITALAD\ r. o0 Museum - Heritage Capital Advocacy N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 N 15.0( Total: 15.0( E 2 INV 2082 EDMONDS PD - BROMAN U SPRING CONF REGISTRATION 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.0( E INV 2175 EDMONDS PD - SPRING C t WAPRO SPRING CONF REGISTRAI 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 r 175.0( Q INV 2182 EDMONDS PD - HAWLEY SPRING CONF REGISTRATION 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.0( Total : 525.0( Page: 40 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 41 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235726 2/28/2019 075283 WAVE 8136 50 211 00055035 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF r High Speed Internet service 03/01/19 c m E, 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.0( Total: 816.0( a m 235727 2/28/2019 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11058314 PM: SUPPLIES: ICE MELT, FLOOR ; 3 PM: SUPPLIES: ICE MELT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 385.0( PM: SUPPLIES: FLOOR SAFETY SK Y 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 70.0( u 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 46.8 ' E 11060465 FAC MAINT - AIR DEODORIZER ii Fac Maint - Air Deodorizer U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 85.4( O 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.8( o 11070007 PM: SUPPLIES: ICE MELT a PM: SUPPLIES: ICE MELT Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 462.0( M 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.5� N 11070008 FAC MAINT - SNOW MELT N 0 Fac Maint - Snow Melt 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 481.2E . 10.3% Sales Tax fd U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.5 � +: Total : 1,636.41 (D E 235728 2/28/2019 064800 WEHOP 639859 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS f° 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 436.5( Q 10.3% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.9( Tota I : 481.4E Page: 41 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 42 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 235729 2/28/2019 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7607 BUSINESS CARDS PARKS & REC, F FINANCE - MARISSA CAIN & DEB S E, 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 71.7, PARKS & REC - SHANNON BURLEY f° a 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 143.4z L PARKS & REC - CARRIE HASLAM B 3 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 35.8( 10.3% Sales Tax sa 001.000.31.514.20.31.00 7.3E Y 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 14.7E U 10.3% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 3.6E R 7615 BLDG. NOTICE TO PERMITTEE ANI ,- Bldg. notice to Permittee and/or owns 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 231.6< > Total: 508.51 a a 235730 2/28/2019 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 1847081 PS - BI-MONTHLY FEES Q PS - Bi-Monthly Fees a) 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 99.0( C& 10.3% Sales Tax N 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 10.2( c Total: 109.2( N E 235731 2/28/2019 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN 22748 UNIT 38 - CHAIN SETS, SUPPLIES fd Unit 38 - Chain Sets, Supplies U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 930.6( 10.3% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 95.8E U Total : 1,026.4E Q 235732 2/28/2019 063008 WSDOT RE 41 JZ0185 L005 E7DC.SERVICES THRU JANUARY 2 E7DC.Services thru January 2019 112.000.68.595.33.65.41 73.7z Page: 42 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 02/28/2019 7:40:30AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 235732 2/28/2019 063008 063008 WSDOT 128 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 128 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 43 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Total : 73.71 m Bank total : 994,238.8E E �a Total vouchers : 994,238.8E m L 3 c U m M U E 2 U 4- 0 M 0 L Q El r C& N N O N E M V C d E t V f0 r Q Page: 43 Packet Pg. 68 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA E STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB Q STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA 3 WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA Y v STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA c� SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC E SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA 2 U STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB - WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STIR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC Q STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA N SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC c WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC >n a� WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB E WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA M Z STIR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA d STIR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STIR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA 2, SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC a STIR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA LL WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB r c WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB 0) E STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA tc STIR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA Q STIR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC STIR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 69 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB +� c STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD m E STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB Q WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB i STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC 3 STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC Y v STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB O t c� STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA E STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC 2 U STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA `- O STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC O STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD Q' Q STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA ti N STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE c STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB >n a� STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB E STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB O Z STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA o (L PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB j 2, SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC a STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB u_ WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5,113 c STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM 0) E PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA O STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC Q STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 70 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STIR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive iol l E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STIR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STIR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC c m E M L 3 c M rn Y V N t c� E v 4- 0 O CL O. Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 71 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements M" STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR J&h Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program ' STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I E4GC Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update a Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 72 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle blic Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR 2015 Traffic Calming STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR Bikelink Proje General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects sol 1 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Va WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers solo Standard Details Updates low IF STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repair SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phas SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project s013 WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 73 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) 4.2.b Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle E6JC 2018 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza E6MB FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STIR 2017 Traffic Calming STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIRlow- i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays STIR i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement c276 Dayton Street Plaza PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration 2018 Traffic Calming STIR E8AB i028 STIR E8CB i030 E8CC i031 WTR E8CD i034 _ E8CE i035 STIR E8DA i032 STIR E8DB i033 STIR E8DC i037 STM E8FA s018 STM E8FB c521 STM E8FC c525 220th Adaptive 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements 2018 Overlay Program 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th 2018 Waterline Overlays 2018 Sewerline Overlays 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project ADA Curb Ramps 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps 2018 Lorian Woods Study 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 74 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c m E M L 3 c M rn Y V N t c� E v 4- 0 O CL O. Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 75 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program m E STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects Q STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects 3 SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STIRE5AA c470 Trackside Warning System Y v STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming c� STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) E WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating 2 U STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project - WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement Q General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility N PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza c WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications L a� WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) E STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements M Z STIRE6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) o d STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II 2, STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project a WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project LL PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW E WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project Q STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 76 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades m E STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program M STIR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays 3 SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays M STIR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming v STIR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades t c� STIR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program E STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals 2 U STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall p STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements O O STIR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming Q STIR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive Q STIR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements rn STIR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program N STIR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th N 0 STIR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project a� STIR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps E WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays O Z SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays o d STIR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STIR E8DC i037 238th St.lsland & Misc. Ramps m N STM E71FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) O PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration 3 a STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization LL UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study E UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization Q STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES E8J13 s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 77 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers i FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB rw ESCO III Projec FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41LA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA FAC Band Shell Replacement MB PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC WTM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB WTM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 - STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA �2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 _ STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E81FA ST V 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin 34 STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive 011 STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E31FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E71FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Fact c479 Em STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB Iff STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 78 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM low Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoratiolhoon c435 E4FC STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC 2014 Chip Seal c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E50A E STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB M 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA 3 STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB �2017 JJ s Overlay Program i018 E71911 c� STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA E STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA c� STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB p lL8AAn STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 > O STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA Q. STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 Q STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC CD T_ STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 ti N STR 238th St. Island & Misc Ramps i037 E8DC N 0 STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th AveAh c423 STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA CD .0 E STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements 02CM Z STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA d STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th y N STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD 21 STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project as STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE O ADA Curb Ramps LL STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB c Audible Pedestrian Signals - - i024 d E STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA v O STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancemen i026 Q STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 79 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STR Train T=h - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Oth Adap i028 EBAB SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB +j c SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA E SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 ESCC Q SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Projec c441 E4GA i SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 ESGA 3 SWRX 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC ca SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA Y v SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC t SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 EBCE v E SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC v SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA o SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Q. SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Q' a SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC CD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update ti N UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA N 0 UTILITIES Utility Rate Update L WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlay 3 WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4,1137 0 2016 Water Comp Plan Update IL m WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB w 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 21 c WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays iol9 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects f i014 d WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 EBCD u_ 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 4) WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA v 2019 Waterline Replaceme c498 EM a WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3,113 WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 EM WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA LWWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 2/27/2019 Packet Pg. 80 4.2.c vchlist 02/28/2019 9:01:22AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 2282019 2/28/2019 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page 0 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun Mar 2019 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN( d 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - March E 001.000.39.542.64.45.00 417.E 1 Total : 417.61 m L_ Bank total : 417.61 3 c Total vouchers : 417.6� f° N m t U E M U 4- 0 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 81 �a 0 L Q a N N O d L 3 c CD E U a 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Claim for Damages Staff Lead: WCIA Claim Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Nicholas Falk Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Tynes Properties, LP submitted a claim for damages in an undetermined amount. Attachments: CFD Tynes Properties LP Packet Pg. 82 11 CITY OF EDMONDS 26 2019 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM `E'lsae6i;'i;' 5 -it K Y t� I-"DAIrl r Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that D � LL , who currently resides at III r&�'t54+ E= 0i ":',Z tj 2 mal(ng address 1 Z 1 -,7- Nw 60L 3ffit: 3A) p_, SE ATLE, Of)('' , dome phone # , work phoneg9a&-IP(cr?- Y I-Z;;d who resided at 1 Z I -2- AAJC1J46F rS2r' at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is , is claiming damages against_ ,' r�.tvtr S in the sum of $ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 22, 6-, I TIME:lrr-- LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Pk, /AM E . t`� j�G �1 s `i''V t)' `a 5+ ko &fQe., DESCRIPTION: Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought tA L.ctiti r. the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage extra sheet for additional information, if needed) Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence includina names. addresses. and Dhone s� fir'`. ,. i_ e•'+ r. .: 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: _ Yes _K No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address. Form Revised 07/16/09 Page 1 of 2 d at M E M 0 L MrT L E M :� Packet Pg. 83 4.3.a * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * i� � y NESP�>i2TS J [� I% t= �`"� �4�1 1S, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. X- ----- P State of Washington Countyof CS ff Signature of Claimant(s) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 1<,0 V al 6s the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and Durooses mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 4-1;� Title My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to Form Revised 07/16/09 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5ch Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Page 2 of 2 w (D 0) M M 0 Jq t� Packet Pg. 84 4.3.a - r. ')� Lei i� r.J� j I Levi Stearns ServicemAsTBR Restoration Project Manager Restore ServiceMaster of Seattle 150o0 Woodinville -Redmond Rd NE Suite B600 :E Woodinville, Wa 98072 Disaster Restoration office:425/637-9770 or 800/767-2332 Services Cell: 425/766-8257 National award -winning Company Istearns@soseattle.com MY NPS Score is 80% www.servlcemast6rofseattle.com SERVIMS9441.9 I Packet Pg. 85 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Approval to pay final invoice of $1,862.25 to Kone Consulting Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History In the spring of 2018, the Edmonds City Council Homelessness Response Steering Committee chose Kone Consulting to conduct a rapid assessment of homelessness in Edmonds in order to make informed decisions on how to invest Homelessness Response funds based on the identified community needs. Staff Recommendation Review and approve the payment of $1,862.25 to Kone Consulting for the additional research they conducted for the Edmonds Homelessness Assessment. Narrative In order for the City Council to make informed decisions on how to invest Homelessness Response funds based on the identified community needs, the Kone Consulting Homelessness Assessment report will be discussed further by Council. Attachments: Invoice 1309 from KONE CONSULTING LLC Packet Pg. 86 KONE CONSULTING, LLC 23632 HIGHWAY 99 Suite F #225 EDMONDS, WA 98026 (360) 402-4606 christina.watson@koneconsulting.com INVOICE BILL TO City of Edmonds ATTN: Maureen Judge 121 Fifth Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 ACTIVITY Services Hours completed by Alicia Kone for the City of Edmonds Homelessness Response Project - final report and council presentation. Services Hours completed by Karin Ellis for the City of Edmonds Homelessness Response Project - final report and council presentation. Services Hours completed by Erika Larimer for the City of Edmonds Homelessness Response Project - final report and council presentation. This will be the final invoice for this project. Kone Consulting appreciates your business! O kone i L consulting QTY 2 10 3.75 BALANCE DUE INVOICE # 1309 DATE 02/12/2019 DUE DATE 03/14/2019 TERMS Net 30 RATE AMOUNT 183.00 366.00 120.00 1,200.00 79.00 296.25 $1,862.25 Packet Pg. 87 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Ordinance Banning Single -use Plastic Utensils Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The Council heard comments from the public during the 2/26/19 public hearing on the ban of single -use plastic utensils in 2020 within Edmonds City Limits. The Council voted to approve the ban with an additional language change providing renewable one-year waivers when commonly used composting technology cannot produce a suitable compostable utensil. On 5/22/18, the City Council unanimously passed a resolution stating Edmonds' intent to ban single -use plastic products (e.g., straws, dining utensils and stirrers) by 2020. The Mayor's Climate Protection Committee unanimously endorses this proposal, as did Zero Waste Washington, the Washington Environmental Council, Washington Conservation Voters, Port of Edmonds, Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition and others. Edmonds was an environmental protection leader in 2009 when it banned plastic bags in the city. We can again take an environmental protection leadership role by moving to ban single -use plastic utensils in the Edmonds food service industry. Staff Recommendation Ask Council to review and approve the updated language in the single -use plastics ban ordinance. Narrative Pursuant to the 5/22/18 resolution to ban single -use plastic dining utensils, the City Council proposed an ordinance to review and public hearing for 2/26/19 to hear community input. This ordinance is consistent with the language of the 5/22/18 resolution, and its effective date will align with the effective date of the ordinance passed by Council on 1/15/2019 banning non-compostable food packaging items in Edmonds. Synchronization of the effective dates of these companion ordinances will enable City staff to initiate stakeholder communications to ensure the local food industry is aware of the upcoming effective date of the bans and is afforded adequate preparation time to stock compostable alternatives to the banned plastic items. Attachments: 2019-02-28 Straw_Single Use Plastics Ban Ordinance Resolution 1412 5-22-19 Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 88 4.5.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN IMMEDIATE BAN ON THE USE OF NON-COMPOSTABLE SINGLE - USE PLASTIC UTENSILS BY CITY STAFF AT CITY EVENTS AND ADOPTING A CITY-WIDE BAN ON USE OF NON-COMPOSTABLE SINGLE USE PLASTIC UTENSILS BY FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2020. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds Climate Change Action Plan states our vision by 2050 as: "Edmonds is one of many flourishing communities in the Puget Sound region of Western Washington with our energy coming from nearly 100% renewable sources, our waste streams approaching zero, and nearly all our products and services obtained from sustainable sources"; and WHEREAS, in the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan's Community Stability Element, Community Health Goal and Policy BA states: "Promote a healthy community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment through a balanced program of education, regulation, and incentives. Environmental programs in Edmonds should be tailored to and reflect the unique opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea -side community with a history of environmental protection and awareness"; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution 1357 on April 16, 2016, which adopts both "Zero Waste Washington" and the State of Washington's "Beyond Waste Plan" as long-term goals to eliminate waste and pollution in the extraction, manufacture, transportation, storage, use, reuse, and recycling of materials; and WHEREAS, these goals can be supported through strategies, policies, and action plans that significantly reduce waste and pollution; and WHEREAS, a June 2017 University of Washington study that sampled sand on twelve Puget Sound Beaches (including Marina Beach in Edmonds) found: "small plastics 1 Packet Pg. 89 4.5.a are widespread along the shore of Puget Sound. All 12 samples contained microplastics, at an average of 1,776 pieces per 3-foot-square sampling plot"; and WHEREAS, approximately 8.8 million tons of plastic pollution flow into the ocean each year, and this amount is expected to double by 2025; and WHEREAS, durable (e.g., metal, glass, wood, etc.) straws are now readily available alternatives to single -use straws, reducing the need for eateries to provide single -use straws to patrons; and WHEREAS, only 9% of the plastic produced to date has been recycled, and annual recycling rates in the U.S. have stagnated at around 9% since 2012; and WHEREAS, plastic breaks down into smaller pieces that can turn into microplastic, which is becoming more prevalent in salt water bodies and has been shown to enter the marine food chain; and WHEREAS, single use plastic products are commonly transported into salt water bodies from land -based sources via rivers/streams and stormwater conveyance systems; and WHEREAS, plastic straws are consistently cited as one of the top ten contributors to marine debris pollution; and WHEREAS, while paper straw costs are approximately triple the average cost of plastic straws ($0.015 vs. $0.005), restaurants now utilizing paper straws report —when only supplying straws on demand patrons request straws only 1/3 of the time, negating the net cost difference between paper and plastic straws; and WHEREAS, while the average cost of compostable cutlery is approximately triple the cost of plastic cutlery (roughly $0.03 versus $0.01 per item), the net cost of these items can be mitigated by providing single use compostable cutlery only on demand; and WHEREAS, recognizing the negative environmental effects caused by single use plastics, hundreds of restaurants around the United States have already voluntarily stopped providing plastic straws and plastic cutlery; and K Packet Pg. 90 4.5.a WHEREAS, food service businesses should be strongly encouraged to provide paper- based straws when patrons request straws, as they are both compostable and break down into inert components when exposed to the marine environment; and WHEREAS, municipalities such as Seattle, WA, Santa Cruz, CA, Malibu, CA, Davis, CA, San Luis Obispo, CA, Miami Beach, FL, Fort Myers, FL and others now have single use plastics bans in effect, and entire countries such as Scotland and Taiwan have announced plans to introduce similar bans; and WHEREAS, compostable alternatives to plastic straws, plastic stirrers and non- compostable plastic cutlery are now readily available in the retail and wholesale markets; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds desires to protect the integrity of the natural environment and wildlife from litter and pollution caused by plastic straws, plastic stirrers and plastic cutlery; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance will serve the interest of public health, safety, and welfare as well as the environment by reducing litter and pollutants on the land and into the waters of the city and beyond; and WHEREAS, notifying the local food industry now of the single -use plastic utensil ban that will take effect in 2020 will provide the food industry a fair opportunity to use up their current supplies of single -use plastic utensils before the ordinance takes effect; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council adopts the following new chapter 6.95 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Single -use Plastic Utensils -- Prohibition": 6.95.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply. A. " Utensil" or "utensils" means a product designed to be used by a consumer to facilitate the consumption of food or beverages, including straws, 3 Packet Pg. 91 forks, knives, spoons, sporks, cocktail picks, chopsticks, splash sticks, stirrers, and similar products. "Utensil" or "utensils" does not include plates, bowls, cups, and other products used to contain food or beverages. B. "Food service businesses" means full -service restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafes, delicatessens, coffee shops, grocery stores, retail food vendors, home delivery services, non-profit food providers, vending trucks or carts, farmers markets, business or institutional cafeterias, or other similar businesses selling or providing food within the City of Edmonds for consumption on or off the premises. C. "Single -use plastic utensils" means a non-compostable utensil that is made from plastic and that is neither intended nor suitable for continuous re -use. D. "Compostable utensils" means utensils that are capable of being completely broken down into stable products in a controlled, aerobic, commercial process that results in a material safe and desirable as a soil amendment or when discharged into stormwater. 6.95.020 Single -use plastic utensils -- Prohibition. A. The City may not provide single -use plastic utensils at any City facility or City -sponsored event. No City department or facility shall purchase or acquire single -use plastic utensils. All parties who contract with the City for provision of public events shall be prohibited from using single -use plastic utensils in City facilities. B. Effective January 1, 2020, food service businesses shall be prohibited from purchasing, acquiring, using, or providing single -use plastic utensils to their customers, except as otherwise provided under subsection C and D, below. C. The prohibition shall not apply to: 1. Single -use plastic utensils when needed due to medical or physical conditions and for whom compostable utensils are unsuitable; and 2. Compostable plastic utensils. 4 Packet Pg. 92 4.5.a D. The mayor or designee is authorized to provide renewable one-year waivers or other relief that apply to use of certain single -use plastic utensils. Such waivers or relief shall be granted only for circumstances where commonly used composting technology cannot produce a suitable compostable utensil. 6.95.030 Violations. A violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a Class I civil infraction pursuant to Chapter 7.80 RCW. Issuance and disposition of infractions issued for violations of this chapter shall be in accordance with Chapter 7.80 RCW. The penalty for violation of a provision of this chapter shall be $100.00. The penalty for a second or subsequent offense in violation of the provision of this chapter within two years of any previous offense shall be $250.00. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING 5 Packet Pg. 93 4.5.a FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 0 Packet Pg. 94 4.5.b RESOLUTION NO. 1412 A RESOLUTION STATING EDMONDS' INTENT TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC STRAWS/STIRRERS AND SINGLE USE PLASTIC CUTLERY PROVIDED BY THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF EDMONDS WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds Climate Change Action Plan states our vision by 2050 as: "Edmonds is one of many flourishing communities in the Puget Sound region of Western Washington with our energy coming from nearly 100% renewable sources, our waste streams approaching zero, and nearly all our products and services obtained from sustainable sources," and WHEREAS, item B.4 in Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan states: "Promote a healthy community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment through a balanced program of education, regulation, and incentives. Environmental programs in Edmonds should be tailored to and reflect the unique opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea -side community with a history of environmental protection and awareness," and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution 1357 on April 16, 2016 which adopts both Zero Waste Washington's and the State of Washington's "Beyond Waste Plan" as long-term goals to eliminate waste and pollution in the extraction, manufacture, transportation, storage, use, reuse and recycling of materials, and WHEREAS, these goals can be supported through strategies, policies and action plans that significantly reduce waste and pollution, and WHEREAS, a June 2017 University of Washington study which sampled sand on twelve Puget Sound Beaches (including Marina Beach in Edmonds) found: "small plastics are widespread along the shore of Puget Sound. All 12 samples contained microplastics, at an average of 1,776 pieces per 3-foot-square sampling plot," and WHEREAS, approximately 8.8 million tons of plastic pollution flows into the ocean each year, and this amount is expected to double by 2025, and WHEREAS, the average American uses 1.6 disposable straws per day, meaning that our population of 325 million uses approximately 500 million straws ep r day, and WHEREAS, durable (e.g., metal, glass, wood, etc.) straws are now readily available alternatives to single -use straws, reducing the need for eateries to provide single -use straws to patrons, and Packet Pg. 95 4.5.b WHEREAS, only 9% of the plastic produced to date has been recycled, and annual recycling 4 rates in the U.S. have stagnated at around 9% since 2012, and WHEREAS, plastic breaks down into smaller pieces that can turn into microplastic, which is becoming more prevalent in salt water bodies and has been shown to enter the marine food chain, and WHEREAS, single use plastic products are commonly transported into salt water bodies from land -based sources via rivers/streams and stormwater conveyance systems, and WHEREAS, plastic straws are consistently cited as one of the top ten contributors to marine debris pollution, and WHEREAS, while paper straw costs are approximately triple the average cost of plastic straws ($0.015 vs. $0.005), restaurants now utilizing paper straws report —when only supplying straws on demand —patrons request straws only 1/3 of the time, negating the net cost difference between paper and plastic straws, and WHEREAS, while the average cost of compostable cutlery is approximately triple the cost of plastic cutlery (roughly $0.03 versus $0.01 per item), the net cost of these items can be mitigated by providing single use compostable cutlery only on demand, and WHEREAS, recognizing the negative environmental effects caused by single use plastics, hundreds of restaurants around the United States have already voluntarily stopped providing plastic straws and plastic cutlery, and WHEREAS, food service businesses should be strongly encouraged to provide paper - based straws —when straws are demanded by patrons —as they are both compostable and break down into inert components when exposed to the marine environment, and WHEREAS, municipalities such as Seattle, WA, Santa Cruz, CA, Malibu, CA, Davis, CA, San Luis Obispo, CA, Miami Beach, FLA, Fort Myers, FLA and others now have single use plastics bans in effect, and entire countries such as Scotland and Taiwan have announced plans to introduce similar bans, and WHEREAS, compostable alternatives to plastic straws, plastic stirrers and non- compostable plastic cutlery are now readily available in the retail and wholesale markets, and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds desires to protect the integrity of the natural environment and wildlife from litter and pollution caused by plastic straws, plastic stirrers and plastic cutlery, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Edmonds will ban by 2020 single use plastic straws, single use plastic stirrers and single use plastic cutlery by food service providers (e.g., restaurants, fast food providers, cafes, convenience markets, delicatessens, coffee Packet Pg. 96 4.5.b shops, schools, hospitals, grocery store take-out food counters, vending trucks or other businesses selling prepared food and beverages for consumption on or off the premises within the Edmonds city limits, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notifying the local food industry now of the single use plastics ban that will take effect by early 2020 will provide the food industry a fair opportunity to use up their current supplies of single use plastic products and order supplies of compostable alternative products before the ordinance banning the single use plastic products takes effect, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that food service providers should only provide straws on demand and only paper straws should be provided --if practicable --when demanded,' and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Edmonds City Council directs the Administration to develop implementation, enforcement and program costs associated with the proposed ban, such that those costs can be addressed in the 2019 Edmonds City Budget, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that single use plastic straws, plastic stirrers and plastic cutlery will not be provided in City of Edmonds facilities beyond December 2018, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that single use plastic straws, plastic stirrers and plastic cutlery will not be allowed to be provided by vendors in 2019 or beyond at public events requiring a contract with the City —contract terms will clearly specify only compostable products will be allowed in lieu of these items, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Administration will develop a stakeholdering plan by the end of August 2018 to educate the local Edmonds food industry of the specifics of the single use plastics ban to take effect by early 2020, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Edmonds City Council will continue to work with City staff and the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee to implement zero waste goals, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Edmonds City Council will introduce an ordinance by early 2020 codifying the citywide ban of single use plastic straws, single use plastic stirrers and single use plastic cutlery by the Edmonds food service industry for use with prepared food and beverages for consumption on or off the providers' premises. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2018. 1 Provision of durable straws and cutlery --such as wood or metal --that are reusable is also to be encouraged. Packet Pg. 97 4.5.b MAYOR, DAVID O. EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: cs:-- C. �) CITY CLERK, SCOTT ASSEY r Q Packet Pg. 98 4.5.c EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 22, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Michael Nelson, Council President Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 7:40 p.m.) Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Noal Leonetti, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Johnson (who arrived at 7:40 p.m.) 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2018 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 15, 2018 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. KONE CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 1 Packet Pg. 99 4.5.c 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS DAY Mayor Earling commented ten days ago there was another violent mass shooting incident in Santa Fe, Texas. This unprovoked attack at the community's high school resulted in the death of 8 students and 8 teachers and the injury of 11 others. As mayor, he generally tries to stay out of national issues and focus on this community and local issues. However, with the mass shootings that have occurred in the past several years, he chose to get involved and joined the organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which works for common sense gun laws. Over 1,000 current and former mayors from nearly every state have become members. The repeated horrific attacks on innocent people whether it be Columbine, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas or Santa Fe, are always met with national appall, mourning and the wringing of hands followed by talk of reform and how to control the violence. Appeals to state and federal officials have little or no end result. Although local, state and federal officials want reform to remove illegal guns, their efforts need to be actively supported. To better protect students and faculty in Edmonds, beginning this fall there will once be a police officer at Edmonds-Woodway High School, paid for by the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds School District. These are trying times but we, as a community, need to engage in bringing change. Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring Friday, June 1, 2018, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day in Edmonds to honor and remember all victims and survivors of gun violence and encourage all citizens to support their local communities' efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence. He presented the proclamation to Segen Berhane, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Ms. Berhane thanked the Mayor and Council for the proclamation, commenting that raising awareness and effecting change is a group effort. She recognized other Edmonds-Woodway High School students involved in raising awareness about gun violence. Efforts cannot stop at the proclamation, it takes much more than supporting the cause. Unfortunately, gun violence has gotten so prevalent in schools and neighborhoods, places a child should not have to think about possibly losing their life or a parent to fear their child may not come home from school. Living in Edmonds is a privilege and advantage; gun violence has a daily presence in cities and areas not far away. No city, town or school is untouchable no matter how safe it is thought to be. Arming teachers with guns or increasing police presence with the intent of safety may worsen the problem; solving the issue with more guns while creating a power shift in an environment where certain students should feel at ease will only end with certain regret. For these reasons, gun reform is vital. She encouraged the public to think about what is needed and what they as individuals can do to pave a path toward change; a child's safety and life is infinitely more important than the right to carry a weapon. 2. EDMONDS CEMETERY ANNUAL MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY ANNOUNCEMENT Dale Hoggins, volunteer on the 2018 Memorial Day Planning Committee, on behalf of the Cemetery Board, invited the Council and the public to the 36' annual Memorial Day program on May 28t1i at 11 a.m. at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. In earlier days, Memorial Day was also called Remembrance Day and Decoration Day. The red poppy began post WWI as a symbol of remembrance. Memorial Day is time to remember the fallen local men who answered the country's call; 917 to date of whom 16 are still MIA. At this year's event, there were be special remembrance of the 5 local casualties since 9/11. He extended a special invitation to all Iraq/Afghanistan Era Veterans and their families. First Sergeant Chris Edwards, Washington National Guard, will provide remarks. Mr. Hoggins explained this ceremony is unique; it does not have a political agenda and the emphasis on remembering, youth are featured and there is no sales pitch. The Cemetery Board is honored to have the memorial monument, previously located in front of the Edmonds Museum, relocated to the Edmonds Cemetery and it will be rededicated on Memorial Day. The Cemetery Board thanked Mayor Earling, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 100 Councilmember and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Quiring Monuments for their assistance in relocating the monument. As the ceremony is an outdoor event, he encouraged attendees to dress for weather and be prepared to walk a distance to/from parking. 3. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE PORT OF EDMONDS David Preston, President, Port of Edmonds Commission, reviewed: • Port Commissioners o District 1— Angela Harris o District 2 — David Preston o District 3 — Bruce Faires o At Large — Jim Orvis o At Large — Steve Johnston Map of Port districts History of the Port o From the 1890's until 1951 up to ten shingle mills operated along the waterfront 0 1890 The City of Edmonds incorporated 0 1891 The Great Northern Railroad arrived 0 1947 Edmonds Port Association was formed by representative business and industrial firms along waterfront 0 1948 Taxpayers approved formation of the Port district with a remarkable 94% majority vote 0 1960 the Port owned 14 acres of uplands and approximately 18 acres of tidelands 0 1961 the Port of Edmonds began construction of what was first called the Edmonds Boat Harbor. 0 1969 the north marina and breakwater was completed 0 1979 Port capacity had expanded to include dry storage Operations: Marina o Your Homeport Advantage and Choice Destination ■ 662 Wet Moorage Slips ■ 232 Dry Storage Spaces ■ Approximate Occupancy: 96% ■ 2017 Guest Moorage nights: 5,307 ■ 2017 Boatyard Stall Usage: 1804 ■ 2017 Public Launches: 3,469 o Quality, Service, Value, Convenience Operations: Rental Properties o Rental Properties ■ 28% Revenue o Harbor Square ■ 102,450 Rentable Square Feet ■ 50+ Businesses ■ 94.04% Occupancy Sources of Revenue o Properties: 28% o Other: 0% o Internal Income: 1 % o Property Taxes: 5% o Marine Operations: 66% Tourism o Puget Sound Express o Port of Settle Grant Project Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 101 4.5.c ■ Marketing Edmonds and whale watching in Denver, Colorado area o Destination Port of Edmonds ■ Partnership with 30 businesses in Edmonds Community o Sea Jazz ■ 7t' year begins June 1 st ■ Sundays at 1-3 pm and Wednesdays at 5-7 pm through the Summer o Event Sponsorship and Participation ■ Edmonds Arts Festival ■ Bird Fest ■ Edmonds Waterfront Festival & Classic Yachts ■ Seattle International Boat Show ■ Tall Ships ■ Holiday on the Dock o Youth Education ■ UW & ECC-Marine Life Discovery Days ■ Annie Crawley Scuba Dive Team ■ Sea Scouts Environmental Practices o Clean Marina Certified o Leadership Clean Boatyard o Rigorous Best Management Practices (BMPs) o Youth Education and Community Campaigns o Hazardous Waste Disposal & Recycling Program o Innovative Oyster Shell Water -Treatment System o Plans for a rain garden at SR104 & Dayton intersection Bob McChesney, Executive Director, described: • Economic Development: Commercial Opportunity o Site Specs ■ Lot = 20,880+/-SF (0.48 acres) ■ Building footprint = 6,650+/-SF with 2,700+/-SF Outdoor display space ■ 24+/-parking stalls ■ Preliminary landscape, grading & drainage, utilities, and site lighting plans available ■ Shoreline permit • Staying Connected o Monthly Newsletter o Beacon Column o Community Publications o Facebook o https://portofedmonds.org Commissioner Preston responded to the following questions asked by Councilmember Mesaros: 1. How long have you been a Port Commissioner? Six years 2. During that six -year period, what has been the biggest surprise as a commissioner? Trying to get things done is like swimming in molasses. 3. What is your biggest concern over the next 5-10 years? The marina is at capacity; there is not much more to do, so we have to do what we are currently doing better. There are areas that could be expanded such as a finger pier or operate a mosquito fleet between Edmonds, South Whidbey and Kingston. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 102 4.5.c Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how businesses and restaurants featured in the Destination Tourism packet that is distributed to marina users are selected. Mr. McChesney answered it is a 2-year program, the Port solicits participation from businesses and restaurants in downtown Edmonds. It has been an immensely successful program and has been implemented by other marinas around Puget Sound. It is voluntary, some businesses are more interested than others. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the businesses or restaurants offer discounts. Mr. McChesney answered some do; there are also advertisement opportunities in the booklet. It has been very effective in leveraging the Port as a destination and encouraging people to visit downtown to spend money and hopefully return. Councilmember Tibbott asked Commissioner Preston's biggest concern for the Port in the next 30-40 years. Commissioner Preston answered having enough money to replace the marina. A marina restoration reserve fund has been established because it will be an astronomical cost in 25-30 years. The marina will likely be replaced as things fail rather than a total restoration. Mr. McChesney said one of the long-term challenges in a 30-year horizon is parking capacity, an issue that needs to be solved as a community. Commissioner Preston commented on the possibility of a parking garage in the gravel lot across from Anthony's. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the information about environmental practices and asked if the Clean Boating Foundation and Clean Marina were national or state organizations. Mr. McChesney answered both are regional and the sponsoring organization is the NW Marine Trades Association. Councilmember Tibbott asked what the organizations were recognizing. Mr. McChesney said boatyards have been the focus of regulatory and environmental community for many years, but they have not been regulated in the past. Paints and solvents used in the past have had a serious negative impact on the environment over time. Via the Clean Water Act and other regulations, the Port is required to have a boatyard permit which establishes thresholds for various chemicals. The Port of Edmonds goes beyond what the permit requires and are a leader in boatyard management and is recognized for leadership in Clean Boatyard. The Port enforces and is very proud of its best management practice. Councilmember Tibbott congratulated the Port for those recognitions, recognizing the great job the Port does. He was aware it took a lot of work to stay on top of those things and the Port should be proud of its operation. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Laura Johnson, Edmonds, commented following the presentation at the April Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting regarding potential changes to BD-1 zoning, she had an opportunity to research and consider the implications of changes to the downtown core. She referred to the importance of the City's historic downtown and recalled feeling she had been transported back in time when she drove through downtown Edmonds 12 years ago which eventually led to her family's decision move to Edmonds. Edmonds' historic downtown is a unique jewel that warrants serious discussion about conservation for the community's enjoyment and benefits to the economy via tourism. An online search of Edmonds, Washington features many photographs of historic downtown accompanied by the phrases, quaint historic downtown, small town feeling, and one of the most charming little businesses districts you can find. At the last HPC meeting, the concept of a historic district designation was raised. As a citizen, she supported that consideration and encouraged the City Council to pause on any zoning changes in this area to allow the community to discuss preserving the historic character before it's too late. Carmen Rumbaut, Edmonds, expressed support for the ban on single use plastic straw, utensil and stirrers that the Council is considering tonight. A member of the Sierra Club, she relayed the Club's support of the ban. The Climate Reality Project also supports a ban on single use plastics. She was glad to see the Port's 30-day challenge to refuse single use plastics. The Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition Climate and Environment Committee has also been working on increasing awareness about single use plastic straws. She referred to a young girl, Geneva, who she met at the Science March where she and her friends spoke Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 103 4.5.c against using single use plastic straws. She speaks from her heart with a great deal of strength of conviction. At the march Geneva and her mother said they were trying to have a ban instituted in Shoreline and she told them about the effort to institute a ban in Edmonds. They challenged her to speak to the Shoreline City Council and said they would speak to the Edmonds City Council. Richard Blacklow, Edmonds, voiced his support for the proclamation on gun violence awareness, commenting the proclamation was a good start, but only a start. Since the decision to adopt the proclamation, another terrible school shooting has occurred. The problem is not awareness, the problem is lack of action. Local governments do not have much authority or power with regard to guns and gun control and he did not expect much at the federal level at this point in time. Many local governments acting together could bring pressure on the State government which does have some power and authority. He encouraged the City Council to be more proactive and take action with recommendations to the State. A starting point may be I-1693, which has not yet been circulated due to a lawsuit challenging the language. He encouraged the City Council to be more proactive and to interact with State government. Josh Thompson, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of the Climate Protection Committee, said the committee had an opportunity to provide input on early versions of the resolution the Council will be considering and unanimously support the resolution. The Committee looks forward to the conversations that will lead to final action. The Committee understands the resolution is a conversation starter and looks forward to assisting as much as they can. Tracy Felix, Edmonds, a local business owner, President of DEMA, and member of the Business Improvement District (BID), speaking on behalf business community, thanked the Council for their support of local businesses. Local businesses work closely with Mr. Doherty and he reports to them on important issues related to tourism, development and encouraging people to shop local. A Parking Committee has been working on increasing parking in the downtown core to help businesses be successful and has added 70 new parking spaces downtown. The BID recently had its fifth annual meeting; every year the primary concern is parking in the downtown core. Although businesses appreciate the new parking spaces, that effort is maxed out and they want the City to think about, and possibly take steps toward building a parking structure to accommodate more visitors created by new development and tourism. She offered to provide further information regarding concerns that businesses hear from customers, Susan Paine, Edmonds, referred to the Economic Development Commission's (EDC) proposal to study changing the first -floor heights in the BD-1 zone from 15 feet to 12 feet. She questioned why this came up as well as expressed concern with the intent, not sure the EDC was operating with the City's best interest in mind. She was also concerned that the look and feel of the downtown business core would be irretrievable changed; people visit Edmonds because of the charm. The BD-1 is term of art that no one really pays attention to and this a small code change that is easy to wave away. However, in fairness to Edmonds residents, it needs to be broadly discussed in the community. She hoped the Council would consider not moving this forward, noting there were other areas that deserved attention such as Hwy 99, Firdale and Perrinville. Businesses also need to provide input. She concluded this was a dramatic decision that needed to be made with community support. Sarah Betno and daughter Geneva, Shoreline, said she was excited to hear the Edmonds is considering a ban on single use plastic straws, utensils and stirrers. In November Geneva wrote to the Shoreline City Council, asking for a ban in Shoreline; their response was an educational approach instead of a legislative approach. In April Geneva challenged the City Council and all residents to personally give up using plastic straws for one month. When taking up the challenge, she said people are surprised to see how prevalent plastic straws and utensils are in their daily lives. Geneva had thousands of responses in support of giving up plastic straws. She displayed the reusable straws her family uses. She expressed support for Edmonds' proposed resolution. For a city located on the water, a ban on plastic straws, utensils and stirrers is not just Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 104 4.5.c right thing to do, it makes business sense. When Edmonds institutes a ban, it will be the first city in Washington other than Seattle which will create a precedence and help other cities like Redmond and Kirkland who are considering bans. She urged the Council to show the leadership the public looks for in elected officials and do it, not because it's easy, but because it's the right thing to do. When she asked Geneva what she wanted her to say to the Council, she said make it a law. Bruce Speight, Edmonds, Director, Environment Washington, expressed support for the resolution to ban single use plastic. It is easy for birds, fish or turtles to mistake a small piece of plastic for food, especially when there are millions of plastic pieces floating in rivers and oceans. Scientists have found plastic in hundreds of species including 86% of all sea turtle species, 44% of all sea bird species and 43% of all marine mammal species. Ingesting these fragments is often fatal as they block digestive tracts and the animal starves. Toxic chemicals and plastics can also harm animals' health in other ways and people ingest these chemicals as they make their way up the food chain. The goal at Environment Washington is to eliminate all plastic pollution. To that end, they are eager to work with Edmonds to also ban polystyrene, commonly known as Styrofoam. Plastic foam bans have been passed in over 200 cities and by year end, McDonald's will phase out foam cups and containers worldwide in favor of 100% recycled materials. A ban on single plastic straws, utensils and stirrers is a huge step forward for wildlife, oceans and waters, the environment and public health. He thanked Edmonds for its leadership and on behalf of Environment Washington's members in Edmonds, he urged the Council to pass the resolution banning single use plastic. Sydney Harris, Puget Sound Policy Manager, Washington Environmental Council, expressed support for the resolution considering a ban on single use plastic cutlery, straws and stirrers. She displayed reusable bamboo silverware and explained plastic pollution has exploded in national and local consciousness over the past decade. She referred to articles online about sea turtles with a straw in their noses, etc., pointing out another side not often considered is plastic is manufactured on land for consumption. While some plastics are very beneficial like in the medical industry, other plastics like straws and utensils are completely unnecessary. This is a rare opportunity for synergy where doing something that massively benefits environment and the local economy is also an opportunity to support small businesses. She encouraged the Council and the public to research case studies that show restaurants have saved thousands per year by switching to durable service ware. She referred to an organization, Rethink Disposable, that helps businesses make that transition. She concluded not only would this be a great step for cities around the Puget Sound, it is also a good opportunity for local businesses. She thanked the Council for considering this resolution and encouraged the public to consider reusable bamboo silverware. Kalil Alobaidi, Edmonds, a scuba diver who began diving at 13, said going underwater changed his perspective of the ocean, seeing coral reefs, witnessing massive schools of fish and exploring a whole new world in the Edmonds marine park. However, beauty is not the only thing to see underwater. Unfortunately, the ocean is being threatened by single use plastic. Two weeks ago he participated in an ocean clean up at the Port of Edmonds, led by Anne Crawley Diving Team, where he saw the sandy bottom littered with all sorts of single plastics, straws and cutlery the biggest offenders. As a representative of scuba divers throughout the community but also as a voice for children and teenagers who do not have the power to vote, he said it is the community's job to preserve this wonderful gift of the ocean. Although he supported the ban on single use plastic straws and cutlery, he questioned whether it was enough. If the City is serious about 2050 as a goal for eliminating all waste products, it must work toward banning single use plastic altogether. Continuing to support resolutions like this one and further banning single use plastic will benefit our oceans in the long run and might bring the City to its zero waste goal much quicker. He concluded every breath we take connects us to the ocean; it influences the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. In 2009 Edmonds became a leader in conservation by banning plastic bags in grocery stores; those efforts need to continue by banning single use plastic completely for the sake of protecting the oceans for future generations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 105 4.5.c Anne Crawley, Edmonds, scuba instructor, owner of a small business, Dive into Your Imagination, said she has spoken to 20,000 students in the greater Seattle area including many in Edmonds due to the lack of ocean education in schools. As Kalil said, every breath connects us to the sea; the phytoplankton gives the planet more than 50% of the oxygen. In 2009 she traveled to the North Pacific Gyre where every trawl collected plastic. Plastic lives for 500-1000 years. The City is ahead of others with what legislation it has passed in the past regarding the plastic bag ban, it is not enough. She urged the Council to push the envelope, to be the leader and do the right thing, not just with the resolution but go beyond it. The ban the Council approved was for bags in grocery stores; restaurants still put to -go food in plastic bags. Yesterday Alaska Airlines announced plans to ban straws and coffee stirrers and she will urge them to ban plastic cups and bottles. The City Council has the power; public opinion drives policy change and corporate change. Although there is a lot of public awareness, there needs to be corporate change and policy change. Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, expressed support for the ban on single use plastic straws and appreciated there were plans to allow businesses time to implement it successful. She encouraged the City to consider adding more recycling and compostable receptacles in the right-of-way downtown. With regard to the change to the BD-1 zone, she commented that was the last area she expected economic development efforts to start. She often asks customers what they love about Edmonds and they consistently say it's such a charming, quaint town and they love all the small, independently owned businesses. When she wanted to open a coffee shop in Edmonds, she found a building that needed a little TLC and put a lot of energy and effort into the building, changed the parking lot, added plants, etc. A building that many may have thought should have been repurposed or redeveloped, adds significant value to the community. When she asks people about this change, they often say there is one shabby building with peeling paint. help. She has yet to see a community where redevelopment has occurred that she gets excited about, citing Greenwood, Freemont, Phinney Ridge, Queen Anne Hill, Ballard, etc. as places that have lost their soul. She recognized the economics of a new building are expensive, for example she wouldn't have been able to open a business in the new building on 2nd and Main where the rent is 40% higher than what she pays. She questioned who would benefit from the change, whether it was just the developer. There are other places were development is needed and where more density would be appropriate. She hoped the Council would not approve pursuing the proposed change. Robert Boehlke, HouseWares, Edmonds, said he was surprised when Ms. Stuller alerted him to the proposal to consider changing the first -floor heights in BD-1. He recalled the City considering this just a few years ago and the decision that a 15-foot first floor height was needed for good quality interiors for retail. While lowering it might result in more square footage, he feared there would be less quality tenants and, in the end„ that was not what anyone wants. His customers often say how wonderful, vibrant and quaint Edmonds is. He was not opposed to development but the idea of allowing increased height just to allow someone to redevelop the space did not make sense. There are ways to refurbish and enhance existing building and make them useful. For example, the building his business is in is over 100 years old, and is still going strong. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said she opposed the change from 15 feet to 12 feet for first floor heights. Although she was originally on the fence about this issue because the overall building height would not change, in talking with and listening to people, she learned it would have a big impact on the ambiance and atmosphere of Edmonds. She described an experiment she did, starting at 6t' & Main, walking down Main to 5' Avenue, turning turned left and continuing north to the type of buildings that could be built on Main Street if this change were made, relaying it had a totally different feel. The downtown core invites people to walk because it is at human scale. A lot of people who come to downtown Edmonds thinking they are going to only one shop, end up wandering due to the quaint charm. She referred to the Port's presentation that pointed out the charm of Edmonds is its saleability. She urged the Council to protect the charming downtown core. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 106 4.5.c Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2019-2024 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an introduction: • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP by July 1 st. • Document contains all significant transportation projects that a City possibly plans to undertake in the next six years. • City of Edmonds policy: TIP financially constrained first (3) years • Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects Construction Projects in 2018) • 238t' Walkway (from SR104 to Hwy 99 o Project Description ■ New sidewalk on north side of street ■ Mid -block crossing to reach bus stops ■ Pavement Overlay ■ Bicycle sharrows ■ Stormwater upgrades o Schedule ■ Start of construction April 2018 ■ Substantial Completion June 2018 o Funding ■ Secured TIB grant $661,000 ■ Stormwater Utility funds $64,000 Wayside Horn (Dayton St & Main St Railroad crossings) o Project Description ■ Install Wayside Horns at (2) Railroad Crossings to reduce noise level ■ (within Downtown Edmonds) during train crossings o Schedule ■ Construction completion Fall 2018 (pending BNSF construction schedule) o Funding ■ TOTAL PROJECT COST TBD ■ General Fund / Fund 126 76' Ave W @ 21th St SW Intersection/Bike-2-Health Project (Project #10) o Project Description ■ Add left turn lane for NB and SB movements on 76th Av. W ■ Add right turn lanes for SB, NB, and WB movements ■ Add bike lanes / wider sidewalk ■ Various utility upgrades (including conversion of overhead utility lines to underground) o Schedule ■ Completion of construction (final pavement lift / striping) ■ July 2018 Adaptive System along 220t1i St SW o Project Description ■ Traffic signal coordination along 220th St. SW from I-5 off -ramp to 76t1i Ave. W to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow along busy Mountlake Terrace / Edmonds corridor (� 1 mile) o Schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 9 Packet Pg. 107 4.5.c ■ Construction Summer 2018 ■ Funding ■ HSIP (Federal Grant) $400,000 (90% grant -funded) Construction projects in 2019/2020 • Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements (Project #23) o Project Description ■ Complete Citywide pedestrian crossing enhancements at (9) locations, with the following: - Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB), - Installation of HAWK signal (_> similar to SR-104 @ Pine St.), or fully actuated traffic signal o Schedule ■ Design Spring 2018- Spring 2019 ■ ROW Fall 2018 - Spring 2019 ■ Construction 2019 / 2020 o Funding ■ 100% Federal Grant (Safe Routes to School Program) • Dayton St Walkway from 7'to 8th (Project #24) o Project Description ■ Complete missing sidewalk links (- 250' new sidewalk) ■ Curb ramp upgrades at Dayton St. @ 8th ■ Addition of bulb -outs (Dayton St. @ 8th Ave. S) ■ Incorporate into Dayton St. Utility Improvements project (from 3rd to 9th) o Schedule ■ Construction 2019 o Funding ■ Complete Streets Program (TIB) projected $250,000 • 84th Ave W Overlay from 212t' St SW to 220t' St SW (Project #3) o Project Description ■ 2" overlay along this stretch ■ ADA curb ramp upgrades ■ Stormwater drainage improvements o Funding ■ Secured STP grant $690,000 ■ Stormwater / Utility funds $700,000 o Schedule ■ Design 2018 ■ Construction 2019 Other projects in 2019-2024 TIP • Preservation/Safety/Capacity projects o SR-99 Revitalization / Gateway (Project #8) 2019-2024 o Annual Street Preservation (Project #1) 2019-2024 ■ 76th Ave. W from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. (Project #2) 2021-2022 • Signal Upgrades o Puget Dr. @ OVD (Project #5) (2022-2023) 0 238th St. SW @ 100th Ave. W (Project #6) (2022) o Main St. @ 3rd Ave. (Project # 7) (2023-2024) Intersection Improvements 0 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW (Project #9) (2021-2023) 0 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W (Project #12) (2022-2024) o Main St. @ 9th Ave. (Project #13) (2019-2023) o SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W (Project #20) (2022-2023) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 10 Packet Pg. 108 4.5.c o SR-104 @ 238th St. SW (Project #21) (2022-2023 Non -motorized transportation projects o Sunset Ave. (Project #22) (2022-2023) o Minor Sidewalk Program (Project #9) (2019-2024) o ADA Curb Ramp Improvements (Project #9) (2019-2024) 0 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway (Project #9) (2019-2023) o Admiral Way crossing (Project #41) (2019) o Walkway projects near schools / parks ■ Maplewood Dr. Walkway (Project #9) (2022- 2024) ■ Elm Way Walkway (Project #26) (2022-2023) ■ 80th Ave. Walkway from 212nd St. SW to 206th St. SW (2022-2023) ■ 80th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St to Olympic View Dr. (2022-2023) ■ Dayton St. from 7th Ave. to 8th Ave. (Project # 24) (2019) Summary of secured transportation grant (2018) Project name ear rant secured Grant Type Total Grant Amount Edmonds St Waterfront Connector 2018/Pro'ect #44 State $6,000,000 • Recently submitted grants Project Name Grant Program Phase Amount Total Cost Notify Requested Highway 99 Revitalization / HSIP Design/ROW $2,000,000 $33,200,000 Oct'18 Gatewa Project #8 Highway 99 Revitalization / STP ROW $2,249,000 $33,200,000 June 'l8 Gateway (Project #8) Elm Way Walkway from 9th Safe Route to Design/Const $637,000 $830,000 July'19 Ave. N to 8th Ave. N (Project School #26) 80th Ave. W from 188th St. Safe Route to Design/Const $1,506,000 $2,135,000 July'19 SW to Olympic View Dr. School (Project #28) Edmonds St. Waterfront FMSIB Const $3,000,000 $26,000,000 June ' 18 Access Edmonds St. Waterfront Pedestrian and Design $1,000,000 $26,000,000 June '18 Access Bicycle Program 80th Ave. W from 212th St. Pedestrian and Design/Const $1,199,000 $1,996,000 July'19 SW to 206th St. SW (Project Bicycle Program #27) Maplewood Dr. from Main Pedestrian and Design $242,000 $436,000 July'19 St. to 200th St. SW (Project Bicycle Program #25) 76th Ave. W Overlay from STP Design/Const $750,000 $1,073,000 June'18 196th St. SW to Olympic View (Project #2) 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW CMAQ Design/ROW $1,180,000 $33,200,000 June'18 (Project #9) Mr. Hauss relayed staff s recommendation that the City Council approve the TIP. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about the Admiral Way crossing (Project #41). Mr. Williams answered the Council discussed adding a crosswalk on Admiral Way where Dayton goes from being an east -west street to Admiral being a north -south street; there is a great deal of pedestrian traffic at that corner going to restaurants and beaches and there is no crosswalk nearby. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 11 Packet Pg. 109 4.5.c if the intent was a HAWK or just a crosswalk. Mr. Williams answered it would be a pedestrian activated RRFB with a marked crosswalk, bulb -outs on both corners to reduce the crossing distance and an additional streetlight. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked where that fell in the list of projects. Mr. Williams answered this is a new project that came up during the 2018 budget discussion and the Council agreed to consider it in the 2019 budget. It was added to the TIP so it would not have to be revised if the Council wanted to move forward with the project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wanted to ensure that project did not take priority over other sidewalks or curb improvements that have been waiting in the queue. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for clarification regarding the indication that the first three years are constrained but the last three are not. Mr. Hauss answered projects in the first three years either have secured grants and/or local funding; a lot of the projects are 100% grant funded. Many of the projects in the last three years are identified in the Transportation Plan and staff anticipates future grants. Projects are included in the TIP so staff can pursue grants. Councilmember Buckshnis identified the Edmonds Waterfront Connector project as an example, noting she did not support this project, there is $11 million in 2023 and 2024 from federal; she found this inspiring but not realistic. Mr. Williams responding those amounts are in the unconstrained years of the plan. The standard used for including projects in the TIP is there does not have to be funds in the bank or a written grant contract, but there is some funding to keep the project moving forward and a "reasonable expectation" of future funding. If there is no reasonable expectation for funding, the project is put in the last three years. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Sunset Avenue Walkway from Bell Street to Caspers Street, commenting adding all the amounts equate to a cost of $3.2 million which she noted was never the intent. She referred to funding in 2022 and 2023. Mr. Williams responded most of that is utility upgrades that have to be done before the Sunset Avenue Walkway such as pump station, a new force main, new waterline, and storm improvements. The remainder of the funds are related to the walkway, but that project is on hold until the utility upgrades are completed which will take several years as well as a determination regarding how the Waterfront Connector will interface with the Sunset Ave Walkway. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested it would be a better representation if only the transportation aspects were included in the TIP and the remainder of the project such as the pump station put in the CIP or CFP. Mr. Williams recalled in the past the Council wanted to see the total cost of a project and these are important elements related to the Sunset Walkway. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would never have supported a $3.2 million Sunset Avenue Walkway project. Mr. Williams said the utility upgrades need to be done regardless of the walkway. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a question she was asked about how staff determined which neighborhoods get traffic calming. Mr. Williams said there is a program for traffic calming which begins with a petition from a neighborhood interested in being evaluated for a project. Once eight signatures are received from property owners on the street, staff will evaluate the request using established criteria. Traffic calming is typically related to speeding; if the 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the cars traffic going) is 8 mph or more above the posted speed limit, it is a candidate for traffic calming funding. He noted there is also other criteria, but that is the first qualification. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the Sunset Ave Walkway, noting there are no funds shown in 2019- 2021. He recalled there had been discussions about restriping to make the stalls clearer and asked whether that would be done and how it would be funded. Mr. Williams responded that is considered maintenance and not included in the TIP. Staff will do additional painting on Sunset Avenue soon where the paint has worn and is no longer visible. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 12 Packet Pg. 110 4.5.c Jim Carroll, Edmonds, a resident on Pine Street, displayed a photograph of his young children, and commented there have been a number of petitions circulated regarding traffic calming in front of his house. He recognized at least 20 supporters in the audience who also live on Pine Street. He relayed several major factors why Pine Street is higher than normal traffic volumes, 1) GPS systems are driving more traffic from I-5 and Hwy 99 down 220th, along 9th and onto Pine Street to the ferry, 2) the speed limit is not relevant because cars reach 25+ mph speed limit in 486 feet between 7t' Avenue to 6t' Avenue, 3) there are no sidewalks on either side of the street between 7' and 6t1i Avenues, presenting a serious hazard for children running, playing and riding bikes, 4) the choke point where the roadway narrows to 27 feet wide is a serious safety issue; every other street is 35-40 feet wide, and 5) the new water park at City Park has increased traffic. He suggested the following potential solutions: 1) block off Pine Street at 6th or create a one-way street, 2) put in traffic circles at 6th, 7' and 8t'', and 3), change the speed limit to 15 mph. He encouraged the Council to consider this for the children in neighborhood and for the public's safety. Zach Peerand, Edmonds, a resident at Pine & 7' Avenue, said he works from home and overlooks the intersection. He sees multiple cars fly through the stop sign and through the next intersection without slowing, assuming they were racing to the ferry. This traffic pattern happens in clusters when drivers are racing to catch a ferry. He recommended blocking off Pine to SR-104 permanently like is done on weekends. Last week while waiting with his 5-year-old daughter at the bus stop, two cars passed the stopped bus when its red lights were flashing. He summarized it is a very dangerous area, the chokepoint is located right before Pine Street Park where many children are walking in the street. He has talked to the police who acknowledge it is a dangerous area but say they do not have the resources to patrol it. He encouraged the City to take some action. He questioned the criteria for the traffic calming program after speed and whether it include drivers running stop signs. Linda Niemi, Edmonds, a resident on Pine Street, said she has submitted three traffic calming petitions, but the traffic keeps getting more dangerous. Drivers are speeding, running stop signs, and driving too close to pedestrians, many of whom are children walking to school bus stops. She can also observe drivers running the stop signs from her house and finds the majority of reckless driving occurs during morning and afternoon commute hours. She requested cut -through commuters be diverted to arterials designed to accommodate high volume traffic traveling at high speeds. Commuters are in a hurry and travel as fast and they can and do not watch for pedestrian, children, or vehicles going into/out of driveways. She urged the City to try something, noting it did not have to be permanent. Kimberly Bailey, Edmonds, a Pine Street resident, agreed with her neighbors about the need to have something done to control traffic speeds and volume on Pine Street. She noted there is little room to walk and no sidewalks near Pine Street Park, a big draw in that neighborhood. Pine Street has become a thoroughfare to the ferry and traffic has increased due to electronic mapping programs directing drivers to Pine Street. The intersections of Pine & 5' and Pine and 3rd are poorly designed for visibility and safety. She finds it difficult to pull out onto 5m from Pine Street, due to on -street parking, particularly when riding a bike. The intersection of 3' & Pine was not designed to be a thoroughfare; it is very narrow, offset, has poor sight lines, and is very steep. More and more cars will be directed through Edmonds to the marina as a result of the Port's marketing campaign. She summarized not all road hazards could be eliminated but the risk could be mitigated by reducing the volume. Amy Marsh, Edmonds, a resident on Pine Street between 7t' and Pine Street Park, relayed in the last three years since her family moved in, the population of Sherwood Elementary has grown by 25%. She sees more and more families playing at the park and local youth teams using it for baseball and soccer, but it is a dangerous area. She recalled talking with Mr. Hauss and speed monitoring done in front of her house founds speeds of 27-29 mph. If drivers stop at the stop sign on Pine Street in front of the park or the stop sign at 7th, she questioned the ability for a driver to reach 27 mph in front of her house, relaying it would require Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 13 Packet Pg. 111 4.5.c "scary" acceleration or drivers not stopping at the stop signs. She relayed the school bus stop at 7' & Pine was a recipe for a tragedy and she and her neighbors would like something done to calm traffic in the area. Betty Olson, Edmonds, thanked staff for addressing some of the other intersections listed in the plan where she was personally aware of the dangers such as Main & 9ti'. She commented on the need to shield RRFB. She referred to a project at Dayton @ 7tn and 8', pointed out the median in that location was likely intended to slow traffic but it is confusing. She suggested improvements to address that confusion. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, referred to drivers running the stop sign at 7t' & Fir. There is also a walking path but no crosswalk there or at Pine & 7ti', nothing to identify it as a frequently used pedestrian walkway. When they were looking for a house, the realtor told them people use Pine Street as a shortcut to traffic. She encouraged the City to consider traffic calming measures at Pine Street and other areas especially near pathways. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her shock that Pine Street was being used as a cut -through to the ferry. She asked what could be done about drivers speeding and running stop signs. Mr. Williams said he has looked at the situation since these concerns have been expressed. He agreed there was one block on Pine Street where the developed right-of-way was much narrower, there were no sidewalks on either side and traffic speeds may appear faster due to the narrower width. The traffic calming program which if funded with $20,000/year is limited to projects that slow traffic where objectively there is speeding. Mr. Williams recognized the lack of a continuous sidewalk on Pine Street from 9' to 3', commenting it would be a great pedestrian connection for the neighborhood and unfortunately there are some sections like this one where there are no sidewalks on either side. That issue is on the long walkway plan, ranked 18 out of 28 possible segments. With regard to traffic calming, he suggested allowing staff think about what could be done to make drivers more aware such as better enforcement. He offered to relay the comments made tonight to the Police Chief and see if additional emphasis patrols could be scheduled as well as consider what traffic calming methods could be justified in that section of Pine Street. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled hearing their requests for traffic calming had been denied three times. Mr. Williams said they were denied because they did not meet the current criteria for the traffic calming program which did not mean there were no safety issues. He understands what the neighbors are saying, children playing on a narrow street with cars traveling 27-29 mph and going through stop signs. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not as concerned about the sidewalks as many areas in Edmonds do not have sidewalks, but there are not a lot of areas where drivers routinely run stop signs traveling downhill. She was sympathetic to the neighborhood's concern and wondered what could be done. Mr. Williams suggested giving staff time to think about what the appropriate thing would be, noting there was always something that could be done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how drivers that continuously ran stop signs could be addressed, whether it was police enforcement. Mr. Williams said when a stop sign exists, there is a reasonable expectation that drivers will abide by it; when they do not, it is an enforcement issue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the situation is exacerbated because it is used as a cut -through to the ferry. Mayor Earling requested Mr. Williams meet with the Police Chief and notify the neighbors what could be done. Councilmember Mesaros said he lives further south on Pine Street and he and his wife walk up Pine Street to QFC or the cemetery and often observe what residents have described. With regard to the 27-foot Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 14 Packet Pg. 112 4.5.c developed right-of-way, he asked the actual width of the right-of-way in that area. Mr. Williams offered to research. Councilmember Mesaros commented the City's ability to respond depends on the actual width of the right-of-way. Council President Nelson asked when the traffic calming program criteria was established and who established it. Mr. Hauss answered the criteria was developed as part of the 2009 Transportation Plan. The criteria includes the 85t' percentile; whether there is a sidewalk on one side, both sides or no sidewalk; the ADT; pedestrian generator; etc. Pine Street did well on the criteria related the pedestrian generators but not well with regard to the 85' percentile. Council President Nelson asked whether there was a mechanism in place whereby a neighborhood that was repeatedly denied traffic calming because it was an enforcement rather than an engineering issue, their concerns were routed to the Police Department. Mr. Hauss said anytime there are speeding issues or lack of stopping, staff usually informs the Police Department and they monitor it based on their ability. Council President Nelson commented there is currently one traffic enforcement officer for the entire City on any given shift which he felt was not enough. Clearly more enforcement is needed if drivers feel they can run a stop sign and not get a ticket. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. TO PLACE APPROVAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien recalled last week he provided the Council an overview of the Periodic Review and noting how it differed from the recently completed comprehensive update. The Periodic Review Checklist in Attachment 2 identifies items for consideration during the Periodic Review; most are clarifications and do not change buffer setbacks, etc. Passage of the resolution does not approve any specific amendments, it only approves the intended scope of the update. The Work Program in Attachment 3 provides a rough timeline to complete the update by the statutory deadline June 30, 2019. He identified a minor amendment to the Work Program, expanding the CAO update with regard to bringing the wetland regulations into compliance with the 2016 Guidance from June to August. Mr. Lien recalled Council comments regarding the joint review with ecology. It is an option for the City; staff s intent is to follow the standard review process unless the Council directs staff to do the joint review process. The City is eligible for a $20,000 grant to complete the update and there is a June 30, 2018 deadline for the application; he needs direction from Council that they are satisfied with the scope and intent identified in the Work Program, the public participation plan and the checklist. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien for taking into account the changes she requested last week. She suggested changing the notes section related to Windward Environmental's analysis as they will only be beginning their analysis in May -June 2018. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1411, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND WORK PROGRAM FOR CONDUCTING THE LEGISLATURE'S MANDATED 2019 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW UPDATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSIDERATION OF STUDY OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO BDI 15' GROUND - FLOOR HEIGHT REQUIREMENT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 113 4.5.c Community Services Patrick Doherty reviewed: • Background 0 2017 — EDC studied barriers to redevelopment o In downtown they found that 15' ground -floor height requirement in BD 1 may be holding back further development there o Limits buildings to 2 stories within the 30' height limit; while in other BD zones 3 stories are allowed because ground floor may be 12' • Map of BD Zone Districts • Diagram of BD Zones Ground -floor height measurement in BD1 and B2, BD3, BD4 • EDC Memo o EDC presented memo to Council on 2/6/18 identifying the issue and offering the following benefits of encouraging redevelopment in BD 1: ■ New cultural, shopping, and recreation opportunities within the community; as more space becomes available, new businesses will be able to find locations in Downtown Edmonds and existing businesses will have the opportunity to expand. ■ New infusion of revenue into the city or county budget as a result of redevelopment activities (sales tax, hotel tax, and utility tax revenues) in order to provide greater public safety, parks and transportation services. ■ More job opportunities (retail, service, office, and/or manufacturing jobs); more businesses result in job creation. ■ More housing opportunities in a walkable environment. Three floors allows for upper - level residential in the Downtown core. More downtown residents will contribute to a more vital and vibrant core, increase retail activity and the overall desirability of locating a business or office in Downtown Edmonds. ■ Additions of one or two additional stories atop existing buildings (up to the 30-foot limit) could leverage needed restoration of existing buildings and/or building fagades, improving the look and feel of Downtown. Existing building standards and design guidelines would remain in place, helping to maintain the character of our community. ■ Construction jobs will be created by the development of new buildings and new infrastructure and the remodeling of existing buildings. EDC Recommendation o For these reasons EDC recommended consideration of lowering 15' required ground -floor height in BD1 to 12', thereby allowing up to 3 stories of development within the existing 30' height limit. o Full EDC memo in your packet o Council sent issue to Committee for initial discussion Council Committee o Council's former Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed the issue on 3/13/18. o No recommendation was offered. o Sent to Historic Preservation Commission for comment before returning to Council Historic Preservation Commission reviewed on 4/12/18 o Highlights of Commissioner's comments: ■ The current mix of small, mostly one- and two -stories buildings creates a special ambience in Downtown Edmonds that leads to its "charm" - a phrase repeated among Commissioners. ■ The existing variety of building heights, with staggered rooflines, creates a pleasant streetscape. ■ Do not want to see a "canyon effect" of a continuous street fagade comprised of 30' tall buildings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 16 Packet Pg. 114 4.5.c ■ One Commissioner opined that a charming streetscape is not only the product of short buildings. He referred to Leavenworth where most of the buildings are 3 or more stories, yet create a very charming environment. ■ Could there be a code change or incentive for not having flat roofs on Downtown buildings? ■ Would this create an incentive to demolish older buildings? ■ Would redevelopment drive out existing tenants? It was mentioned that new development could replace existing tenants as new construction likely yields higher rents, but that phenomenon is currently under way, given the scarcity of available tenant space and increasing demand, resulting in higher rents and tenant change -over even now. Previous Discussions o The BD 15' ground -floor height requirement was enacted by Ordinance 3624 on 1/26/07. o Subsequent formal discussions of BD zones until 2014 did NOT include substantive re -debate or re -discussion of the 15' ground -floor height requirement. o Minutes were reviewed from subsequent Planning Board and City Council meetings in 2013 and 2014. Three passing references were made in 2013 to the requirement. Recommendation o Mayor and staff recommend accepting EDC's recommendation to study the BD 15' ground - floor height issue for potential revision to 12' ground -floor height or other solution(s) that could allow 3 stories within BD I, as possible in BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones. o Study would be conducted by Planning Division, with help of Economic Development Department, and include public engagement and comment, review by Planning Board (and other Boards/Commissions if desired), etc. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THAT 15-FOOT FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT FOR BD1 ZONE IN THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREA. Councilmember Johnson relayed the BD 1 district is the commercial shopping district of downtown Edmonds; it runs on Main Street from 6t' to 3' Avenue and on 5t' Avenue from the corner of Main Street to Maple Street. According to County records in 2018, the district includes 50 parcels with 43 different owners. The uses include 26 retail establishments, 9 restaurants/pubs, 9 legal non -conforming uses (finance, insurance, real estate, health services), 4 residential uses and 1 parking lot. Councilmember Johnson explained the purpose of the 15-foot ground floor was to provide for the most attractive commercial environment should redevelopment occur in the BD 1 zone. The extra three feet would be used for lighting, ductwork and sprinkler systems. The City Council was well aware that within the 30- foot envelope only 2 stories could be built if the building lot were flat. They were also aware that this would be in keeping with the current one to two story built environment. It is not really about how tall the first floor would be, it's really the ability to build three story buildings in the downtown. The driver of this redevelopment would be the rent and sales from the multi -family dwellings and minimally about the commercial zone. The EDC memo states, "one issue identified that appears to be holding back redevelopment in the BD1 zone is the required 15-foot ground floor height for new buildings." Councilmember Johnson said this was a false premise. The EDC unanimously recommended that alternatives be considered that could allow new buildings to include 3 floors within the existing 30-foot height limit, otherwise, in their opinion, redevelopment has been stalled in the BD 1. The charm of downtown Edmonds would be forever changed with the EDC proposal, in a way that does not reflect the development pattern of mostly one-story buildings with some two-story buildings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 17 Packet Pg. 115 4.5.c Councilmember Johnson said new construction would disrupt the town and require construction of underground garages for the apartments or condos. Alternatively, alleys could provide access to storage behind the first floor, which would reduce the square footage of retail space. Established businesses would be displaced during construction. Rents would naturally increase which would impact the diversity of many small businesses. The 15-foot ground floor was the recommendation of City staff and consultants to both the EDC and Planning Board. These groups advise the City Council which adopted the recommendations in 2007. Having recently reviewed the Strategic Action Plan, she did not see any support for redevelopment of the downtown commercial zone and did not support changing the first -floor height requirement at this time. Councilmember Teitzel said it was unknown what the business owners and property owners in BD would like to see. Until he heard that input, he was not prepared to vote for or against this proposal. He was in favor of moving forward with a study so find out what property owners and businesses think. He emphasized moving forward is only studying the issue and getting input from all parties, it does not approve any change. Mr. Doherty agreed the issue before the Council is whether to study the issue, a process that would include an opportunity for public input. Councilmember Mesaros said although he was inclined to support the 15-foot ground floor height, he will vote against the motion. The Council should make its decision regarding the first -floor height based on as much information as possible; doing the study will provide that information and may reinforce his inclination toward the 15-foot height or develop new information to disincline him toward the 15-foot ground floor height. As an example, he pointed out Congress recently passed a law preventing the Center for Disease Control from doing any studies regarding gun violence and the effect of gun violence on public health, yet gun violence in America continues. Imagine being so afraid of the results of a study that a governing body votes against it. It's always best to get the most information possible and make the best decision possible for Edmonds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it is the Council's job to determine whether this was an appropriate issue to spend staff time studying it. She has always believed Edmonds is a historic place and that is apparent standing at the fountain looking around. She relayed standing at that corner and envisioning two stories above the businesses, concluding that was not Edmonds. It was not that she was afraid of what the study would show, three stories could be built in the BD2-5 zones which occupy the majority of downtown. This a small core of Edmonds has historic structures and she did not want to see two stories on both sides. She philosophically was not interested in a study and felt the BD should remain the way it was. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was a fiscal conservative and did not want to waste staff time on this. She recalled this was studied in-depth in the past when Stephen Clifton was on City staff and Roger Brooks made presentations in the City. She concluded the 15-foot first floor height is the ambiance of the BD zone and there are other areas that staff and the EDC can look at outside the BD zone. Council President Nelson said when discussing economic development, there are often references to the GMA and its goals such as growth, sprawl reduction, regional transportation, affordable housing, economic development, property rights, permit processing, natural resources, etc. One of the goals that is never talked about as part of economic development is historic preservation. He read from a report from the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development that states historic preservation makes economic sense. Many communities have successfully embraced preservation as an important component of an economic development strategy. Historic preservation can help achieve a positive image in the community, perhaps the most effective means for retaining existing and attracting new economic activity. Today more than ever business individuals place a high priority on the quality of life in making local decisions. Reinvigorated historic downtowns and neighborhoods have stimulated local economies, sparked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 18 Packet Pg. 116 4.5.c new business, generated additional tax revenue, created new jobs, conserved scarce financial and material resources. Council President Nelson concluded the City should spend more time in economic development determining how to preserve things not just tear things down and try something else. He referred to the minutes of 2006 and 2007 when this design philosophy was discussed and now 11 years later this change was proposed which he viewed as just "throwing spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." For example, just like he didn't need a study to show that guns are killing children, he did not need a study to know that downtown was perfect the way it is. Councilmember Tibbott asked for an estimate of the amount of time that would be required to study this issue. Mr. Doherty answered it would take several months, likely into next year to offer an opportunity for public involvement, other boards and commissions such as the ADB and Planning Board, researching first floor commercial requirements in other cities, physical measurements and other studies. He concluded it was not a huge amount of staff time, it was more soliciting comments and coordinating that with research. Councilmember Tibbott said the amount of time involved was concerning to him for a relatively small gain. Recognizing it has been 11 years since the first -floor height was changed from 12 feet to 15 feet, he asked what kind of development has occurred in the BD1 zone. Mr. Doherty answered none other than refurbishment of some existing building and possibly a new bank since 2007. Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in the study to establish the need for development in BD1, noting there are only a couple of vacant spaces. As Councilmember Teitzel said, he would like to hear from business owners and property owners. In speaking with two property owners with one story buildings in the BD 1 zone, neither have plans to redevelop. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the study would consider the appropriate size of the BD 1 zone, anticipating the study may discover the BD zone should be smaller and the BD2 zone bigger. A study could also help establish design standards. Although there is interest in preserving historic buildings downtown, that is not stated in the code. Perhaps a study would help determine whether that is a need and ways to protect the historic integrity of downtown buildings. He was in favor of the study but was sympathetic to 15-foot first floor heights. MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL ABSTAINING. 3. A RESOLUTION STATING EDMONDS' INTENT TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC PRODUCTS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel read an email from Heather Trim, Executive Director, Zero Waste Washington, who strongly supported the single -use plastics resolution the Council is considering. Edmonds has been a leader in sustainability, including being the first city to pass a reusable bag ordinance in the state. Addressing cutlery and straws will be beneficial for a number of reasons. It will reduce contamination of the compost stream, which is a valuable resource in our agricultural economy in Washington. Quite a few utensils accidentally get included in food waste going to commercial composters. It will also help reduce contamination in the recycling stream which is even more important now that China has mostly cut off the import of our recyclable bales. And finally, this effort will help reduce litter and trash that ends up in local waters. Some people will still want straws, and this allows for that. Many people are happy to do without a straw or excess cutlery and we are looking forward to this waste prevention measure. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 117 4.5.c Councilmember Teitzel and Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher reviewed: • Single —use plastics are fouling our terrestrial and marine environments: o Plastic straws are in the top ten of beach polluters • Background o Edmonds led in banning plastic bags: we can lead again o Approx. 500 million single -use plastic straws are used in the U.S. per day (could circle the earth twice!) o Single -use straws and cutlery are discarded on beach or washed into Sound via stormwater systems o Plastics break down into microplastics and are consumed by marine life o Plastic straws and cutlery can't be easily recycled (too small for sorting machinery) o Seattle WA, Malibu CA, Santa Cruz CA, Davis CA, San Luis Obispo CA, Oakland CA, Miami Beach FLA, Fort Myers FLA and others banned single use plastic straws/stirrers/cutlery o Hawaii developing statewide ban o Scotland, Taiwan announced plans for countrywide bans o Food industry concerns about bans: cost differential, plastic supplies already purchased, compostables durability, compostables not widely available o Mitigating factors: ■ Cost differential offset by providing items "on demand" ■ Provide ample time to use existing supplies ■ Compostables now very durable and price points declining as demand increases ■ Wide range of compostables now available (https:Hcedar-grove.com/store/packaging) • Edmonds Citizens Taking Action o Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition (ENAC) Flyers ■ Asking food providers to provide straws only on demand • Edmonds Businesses Taking Action o Many local food industry businesses already providing compostable straws/stirrers/cutlery or have announced plans to do so: ■ TacoTime, McDonalds, PCC, Starbucks, Spud Fish & Chips, Cheesemonger's Table, Walnut Street Coffee and others • Who wants Edmonds to ban single use plastics? o Citizens, Washington Environmental Council, Washington Conservation Voters, Zero Waste Washington, Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition (ENAC), Port of Edmonds, Edmonds Climate Protection Committee and others • Draft Resolution o Multi -phase approach: ■ By end of 2018, single use plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery no longer provided in City of Edmonds facilities ■ Beginning in Jan. 2019, single use plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery banned from public events (e.g., Taste Edmonds, Classic Car Show, Arts Festival, Summer Market, etc.) — contracts will outline this requirement ■ By early 2020, an ordinance will be introduced banning single use plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery by the food/beverage service industry in Edmonds ■ By Aug. 2018, Staff will develop a stakeholdering plan for the local food/beverage service industry ■ By Nov. 2018, Staff will identify implementation plan and costs (e.g., stakeholdering, mailings, etc.) which will be reflected in the 2019 City budget ■ By Nov. 2019, Staff will identify full program implementation costs (e.g., enforcement, informational pieces, etc.) which will be reflected in the 2020 City budget ■ Immediately following Council adoption of the resolution Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 118 4.5.c The local food/beverage service industry will be encouraged to begin offering plastic straws/stirrers/cutlery only on demand Patrons will be encouraged to use reusable and durable straws/cutlery (e.g., wood, metal, etc.) Compostable items (e.g., paper straws, organic resin -based cutlery, etc.) will be highlighted as qualified for placement in yard waste Overarching goal o Implement the single -use plastics ban through strong education and effective stakeholdering in a way that elicits the food service industry's full support, minimizing the need for enforcement and resulting in enhancement of our local environment Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about outreach to the school district and hospital. Councilmember Teitzel answered he has had direct contact with both. With regard to the hospital, in certain instances patients may be unable to use a plastic straw and will need a bendable plastic straw; that will be addressed in the ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about outreach to other businesses and restaurants, particularly on Hwy 99 where English may be a second language. Councilmember Teitzel said that will be part of the stakeholdering plan. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented while at the Costco Business Center last week, she noticed they carry compostable containers and straws. Mr. Fisher commented that speaks to what the region has been experiencing and cities that already have restrictions on food service items which has changed the market for the availability and durability of compostable products. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Edmonds' plastic bag ban still allows plastic bags for takeout. She referred to a Seattle Times article that plastic has been found at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest water in the world. Councilmember Tibbott said he just posted a video of a bag floating at bottom of the Mariana Trench on his Facebook page. He asked whether plastic coffee cup lids would be part of ban. Councilmember Teitzel answered not at this time, this was an incremental step, coffee cup lids could be a future step. Councilmember Tibbott commented at least one business in Edmonds has begun using composable cup lids; it would be a small step to require that as well. Councilmember Johnson thanked Councilmember Teitzel and Mr. Fisher for their excellent work, noting this is a baby step toward zero waste and she supported it 100%. She was heartened to see the young people speaking tonight and the different sectors of the community coming together. If Alaska Airlines and McDonalds take these actions, everything else will flow into place. Council President Nelson thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his leadership on this issue. He wanted to ensure there was outreach to the industries most affected by this, the food service industry. In talking with some of them recently, they noted if compostables are required, there is nowhere to dispose of them. He expressed interest in requiring composting for all Edmonds businesses and wanted to ensure that was implemented before a ban on single use plastic products was implemented. He noted Seattle requires businesses and residents to compost. Councilmember Teitzel agreed it will require working with carriers that provide composting service. Mr. Fisher said commercial composting is available at a separate rate. A number of restaurants and food service providers take advantage of that collection but it is not currently required. Often these items are take-out and it is up to the user to decide how to properly dispose of them. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his leadership, noting this is a first step and there are many things to be done to move this forward in next 18 months. She noted the need to include information in different languages. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1412, RESOLUTION STATING EDMONDS' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 119 INTENT TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC STRAWS/STIRRERS AND SINGLE USE PLASTIC CUTLERY PROVIDED BY THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF EDMONDS. Mayor Earling commented he was supportive of this but questioned how much staff time it would take. Councilmember Teitzel responding he is working with Mr. Fisher, the Climate Protection Committee and Development Services Director Shane Hope. The timeline includes identifying a stakeholdering plan and potential cost. The first step is to identify what is required this year to begin the stakeholdering process. Mr. Fisher said his responsibilities include managing the waste prevention and recycling programs and doing outreach to the community which would include efforts such as this, contacting businesses, holding workshops etc. Mayor Earling anticipated putting the pieces together this will require organization and money. He wanted to ensure this could be delivered without draining staff time and/or finances and requested further information regarding that issue. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At Councilmember Johnson's request, Mr. Fisher announced a Styrofoam recycling event in coordination with WSU Extension and their Sustainable Community Stewards Group and Republic Services on June 9 and July 14 at the Edmonds Public Works complex parking lot from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. 4. VOTE ON RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH PORT OF EDMONDS City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained a portion of the Marsh is owned by the Port of Edmonds; a right of entry from the Port is necessary for Windward to facilitate work that will be done by Windward Environmental. The exhibits to the right of entry include the Windward contract and an aerial photo identifying the Port's ownership of the Marsh on the outer northern border. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Due to late hour, this item was omitted. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling relayed according to My Edmonds News (MEN), there are a number of Edmonds athletic events including Edmonds-Woodway High School boys baseball team and the girls softball team who are in the playoffs and the Edmonds-Woodway and Meadowdale High Schools boys and girls tennis teams and boys and girls track teams at State tournaments. Further information regarding the schedules are available on MEN. Mayor Earling reminded of the Memorial Day service on Monday, May 28 at the City's cemetery on 9t1i Avenue at 11:00 a.m. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 120 4.5.c Councilmember Mesaros commented the Point Edmonds condominiums where he lives started offering compost service throughout the complex eight months ago. As efforts move forward to ban single use plastics, he suggested composting service be offered for residents and businesses as well. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the issue of gun violence, recalling a friend who is a retired major in military intelligence describe how he locks up his weapons in his home. If anyone handled their weapons responsibly it would be that friend. In thinking about what occurred in Santa Fe, he questioned why weapons are not locked up. He recalled being at an event where the police were handing out free trigger locks. If any gun owner did not have their weapons locked up and needed a trigger lock, they are readily available. He encouraged gun owners to lock up their guns, separate the ammo and keep them out of the hands of children. Councilmember Buckshnis displayed a brochure developed by the Tree Board, "Before You Grab the Chain Saw," that describes pruning options and the importance of trees. The brochure is available at the Frances Anderson Center and City Hall. Student Representative Noal Leonetti commented on the movement toward gun control and varying perspectives on the issue. The two main perspectives seem to be, 1) guns are the issue and guns need to go away, and 2) people are the issue and we need to make sure guns are not in the wrong hands. While he agreed with both, he was very frustrated with the way this issue has been handled and felt both perspectives could be addressed. People do not seem to want to work together on this issue and nothing is getting done. He urged everyone to stop fighting, throwing their perspectives out and thinking about politics and begin thinking about the issue — the safety of people, children and schools. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 22, 2018 Page 23 Packet Pg. 121 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Sound Transit Permit Parking Program Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Vehicle parking spaces at transit facilities are not free to construct or maintain. Yet until recently, Sound Transit has not charged drivers for parking at its stations. Now, at many existing transit stations, transit riders have to come early and just hope they can get a parking space, given that parking spaces are maxed-out during prime hours. Furthermore, additional parking facilities need to be built to serve future transit stations and services. Roughly a year ago, Sound Transit studied this issue and concluded that a program of paid permit parking for some of the spaces would help create more certainty for transit users. It would also better balance the public costs of vehicle parking. Staff Recommendation Consider the information and ask any questions Narrative A new program for paid parking permits applies to a number of Sound Transit stations. (Note: some parking spaces may still be available for non-paying users.) One of the new locations for the program will be at the Sounder station in Edmonds. Vehicle parking permits are starting to be sold for the Edmonds Sounder facilities. The effective date will be in April. More information will be presented by a Sound Transit representative at the City Council's March 5 meeting. (See attachment.) Attachments: ST.Parking_Edmonds_Council_ 030519 Packet Pg. 122 New Reserved Permit Parking Option at Edmonds Station Edmonds City Council March 5, 2019 a VSouNDTRANSIT Packet Pg. 123 0MWIIM High Parking Demand Across System: • 21 ST facilities > 95% occupancy (May 18) • Many fill before 7:00 AM Edmonds (Oct. 2018): • Station Lot: 156 spaces (95% occupied) • Leased Lot: 103 spaces (95% occupied) MYNkxe2 $!ally. ■log Ikm EVERETT MILL G34EE6 arr EdtnolWs LrpNwppa C Stalien pM6NRS 0 FAABANE TERRACE SHORELINE soTREL[ Norlhgale W60pl9NILLE r Padiq LC) O Garage M O KIRKLLN9 REDMOND 0 Mercer Et V 311 SEATTLE !.land PAR BELLEVUE ! ssac N RinN MERGER Tea.: lSLaNS Cee, 0 NEWEAtTIE O ■ IS WRITE G ITtp GE kTER 'a LLJ RENTON R,I RIFN � ■ T••�wILA � ■ iulhvila Twvila Inge rnS 1, Y Rlvtl ta1r n Slalion � Angle Laken xE5. d Slaliun ■"LENT ~ CUVINGIDN mot Gatap4 C FEDERAL W wr■ WHURN Federal ■ AA— Garage (i TACOMA way Tmn u fC Center Q Sumn.r PUYALLHP SWion Lakewted ■ Yuyal FPacket Pg. 124 Station &1aliun LAKEWOOD � 5.1.a r_ ■ 40 :Rome Ms Monthly HOV/Carpool Permits • Available at 25 ST and KC Metro facilities • Spaces reserved M-F during AM Rush Hours (midday: open to public first-come/first-serve) • Eligibility: 2+ regular transit riders (ORCA verified) Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) Parking Permits • Authorized at select high -demand facilities (90%+) in 2018 • Maintain "First -come, First -served" parking option at all stations (Max. 50% permitted) • Market -based pricing and performance -based management 0 LO 0 . we.. PERMIT N 'ARKING 0 WEEKDAYS W 4 AM- 8 AM Y L a (AUTHORIZED VEHICLES MAY BE TOWED c E a Packet Pg. 125 5.1.a LFi1T:��•ITM: • New reserved parking service • Provide certainty and reduce stress by ensuring reliable access throughout AM peak • Expand equity and access: Allow people with different schedules to access transit parking • Ensure parking is used by transit riders (ORCA verification) • Efficient Parking: Maximize transit ridership per parking stall • Efficient Transit: Spread transit demand throughout morning rush hour Packet Pg. 126 5.1.a rmit rarKing: ip P . AL.. ANNNN�. Rider priorities for program design (in order): 1. "Making sure there's always an open space — design programs to manage demand" (score: 4.3) 2. "Encouraging biking, walking, and carpooling... re- invest revenue in bicycle and pedestrian programs.." (score: 3.0) 3. "Making sure users pay a fair share ... pass along the cost of providing and operating parking to the people who are using it regularly..." (score 3.0) 0 r LO 0 M Sp1.4 �R� AR�1NG o� O 4ERM,RAN51� R�pER o FpR ou thtnk� � to SeU 4S �heedback abynd Pe"mtt � Shaje Y°aiktn9 4?ta ,u p dive, 4 ao5t E 4,°gtatt` ex4 a<tmm YpU ksnv s U1 MAN Y,anssn uy °me St S�SeeYo 5eedha 01 Co°n�Y 10, uan 5e'w°n C Sn and pan pa to a B,oP'' 4t and Met �ynd aa2 fC won eP of Saseryed Pe °came ,° ethesutveY �S,an ana4e d qa1 as W d kaakt,e5,tak orWA soN`+lS 3`°+awaY W`l ee es�'" rt kn99 Cn pt�18 lo�t,a°SR Pa �.�n4 �s VDti�HsP psdemaaasoV°daHtmS�c°st°me,s �4a °met,aot C look,n5 ccess t° ch as. o�q5 pesfi 5 lo'N",nc psa9 m deta+Vs xn .iide lots c°D1d lo' Soo drive venal . 'Nhich PaSk 8m,u c°°Ih mts l°t t� �� L m°d� Pe 1d 4"°i,iai� ats°°"d V • a�casPp6lQU�`taoat o��o4.8disict' �llpe se r In OwV�S a 1p Packet Pg. 127 5.1.a O Board Guidance for Permit Parftin I." Performance Based ManagementLO M O 1. Goals -' C • Maximize the number of daily transit riders per parking stall o U I • Prioritize availability of parking for riders seeking to access C transit throughout AM peak W I Y 2. Performance Targets • Utilization of permitted parking at <_97% (effective capacity) • Wait list for HOV or SOV permits <_15% of total number of permits issued a Packet Pg. 128 8119 11 :_= We Issaquah Transit Center 819 100% Mercer Island Transit Center 447 98% Tukwila International Boulevard Station 600 100% Tukwila Sounder Station 390 95% Angle Lake Station 1160 99% Kent Station 877 97% Federal Way Transit Center 1190 97% Sumner Station 302 92% Puyallup Station 364 95% Lakewood Station 601 96% Auburn Station 633 100% Mukilteo Station 63 105% Edmonds Station 259 94% Northgate Park & Ride* 450 n/a *Opens in Oct. 2018. Eligible for Proposed SOV Permit Program as a new facility serving Link light rail MR41182 $,a,lye 49 log Ikm 5.1.a EVERETT • MILL GRUK ROE EdmoMs uNNwano C Sultan pMbNN a VAUBAKE CO) iEPRRCE v SHORELINE NpruEu G! Nordiga,L Garagwe ParF, Q e i' M O KIRKLKNO REDMDNQ - -- c Mercer sl (� iR SEATTLE Irland PAR FIE LLEVUE tn� Rinx MEECFll Tram ISLAND Ced 0 xEWpAtlLE 0 IS E wxlTe )Rp GHTEF y -a w RENTON kl,I ISIFN Ewwila lnlerna[i�I, iulhvila Y 91vtl Stall n slain M Angle Laken xr:5 a Slaliun COONGTON fight GatiQE c FEDERAL wry wURev Federal ' !whore Garage K„1 TACOMA IvayrransN c0 Center � a Sumner PUYALLHP 9rarion l3kevlPed ■ Packet Pg. 129 Yq Station slali uu LAKEWOOD� 5.1.a D 0 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 0 r. • Permit parking in Edmonds in April 2019 • Permit sales/issuance began March 1 • Prioritize HOV/carpool parking permits • Discounted rate for ORCA Lift qualified households • Permit enforcement hours (4:00-8:00 AM) c 0 r LO O M O UI C 0 U I w C 0 W I Y L R Cd G L V Q Packet Pg. 130 Op EdmondsPermit Parking i:iir ow■ 7 5.1.a • On average, existing park and ride users have higher incomes than other ST riders • Permits provide new access for people who can't catch the first trains • Discounted permit fees for ORCA-LIFT-eligible riders limit cost -burden • No disparate or disproportionate impacts per Title VI analysis U) RIVER M SOVI p PARING CD • p OR�pN51� R��E ` U 0 :3 s w o" U,ink. 0 o��ee 4asm t�J'�Fe'� 5ha�e Y a�tiin4 a U) apio9�a ex4an6�p0.- �` � � W !!g Y I/S� vim/ �y a Packet Pg. 132 Thank you. I SouNnTiu►Nsir e soundtransit. org f W O 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 City Attorney Annual Report Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday Department: City Attorney's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Each year the City Attorney provides an annual report to the City Council. Staff Recommendation For information only. Narrative Jeff Taraday, City Attorney, will provide an annual report of the legal affairs of the City of Edmonds for the 2018 calendar year. Attachments: 2019-03-04 City Attorney Annual Report for 2018 Packet Pg. 134 CITY ATTORNEY ANNUAL REPORT 2018 March 5, 2019 Lighthouse L Law 5.2.a Ah WA c c Q m c L a L, r ` 1 A O L /jC, 1 Q,9V L 0 Q E m a Packet Pg. 136 Who is the client? RPC 1.13(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents. Lighthouse �.. Law The Attorney — Client Relationship Attorney Organizational Client Duly Authorized Constituents Lighthouse �.. Law Duly Authorized Constituents? • Individual City Councilmembers Council • Boards & Commissions Judge • Directors Mayor . Staff Lighthouse L. Law r-Packet What about your constituents, the citizens? City Council -�� Mayor Citizens I Judge Lighthouse L. Law r-Packet 140 Same concepts apply to all of these relationships • MN* MIA,cities lasur Bond Counsel City Prosecutor Lighthouse �.. Law 5.2.a Dversiq .IEAn : 11 Packet Pg. 142 Duty to investigate? RPC 2.1, comment 5: A lawyer ordinarily has no duty to initiate investigation of a client's affairs or to give advice that the client has indicated is unwanted, but a lawyer may initiate advice to a client when doing so appears to be in the client's interest. Lighthouse L Law Request to investigate The RPCs do contemplate that lawyers will be asked on occasion to investigate alleged violation of law. Lighthouse L Law What if lawyer knows of a violation? RPC 1.13(b): If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter ... that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization.... Lighthouse �.. haw r-,._ �. Reporting up RPC 1.13(b):... Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law. Lighthouse L. Law r-Packet Highest Authority RPC 1.13 [comment 5]: The organization's highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body. Lighthouse LJWPacket ., What if "reporting up" doesn't work? RPC 1.13(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d), if (1) despite the lawyer's efforts ... the highest authority ... insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law, and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization. then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. Lighthouse LLaw r-,._ Lawyer as decision -maker? RPC 1,13, comment 3: When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer's province. Lighthouse L Law Lawyer not decision -maker, but... ... when the lawyer knows that the organization is likely to be substantially injured by action of an officer or other constituent that violates a legal obligation to the organization or is in violation of law that might be imputed to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Lighthouse �.. Law Special rules for city attorney? RPC 1.13, comment 9:... in a matter involving the conduct of government officials, a government lawyer may have authority under applicable law to question such conduct more extensively than that of a lawyer for a private organization in similar circumstances. Thus, when the client is a governmental organization, a different balance may be appropriate between maintaining confidentiality and assuring that the wrongful act is prevented or rectified, for public business is involved. Lighthouse �.. haw r-,._ �. So you aren't the client... are your communications still confidential? RPC 1.13, comment 2: When one of the constituents of an organizational client communicates with the organization's lawyer in that person's organizational capacity, the communication is protected by Rule 1.6. Lighthouse So you aren't the client... are your communications still confidential? ... This does not mean, however, that constituents of an organizational client are the clients of the lawyer. The lawyer may not disclose to such constituents information relating to the representation except for disclosures explicitly or impliedly authorized by the organizational client in order to carry out the representation or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6. Lighthouse �.. Law Advisor In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation. Lighthouse LJWPacket ., The City Attorney Team Jeff Taraday ,� • City Council meetings • Elected Official Advice • Land Use • Litigation • Coordination / Special Projects • Office hours twice a week Lighthouse L Law The City Attorney Team Sharon Cates • Labor and Employment • Contracts and ILAs • Bidding and Procurement • Disability Board • Office hours once a week L Lighthouse LawPacket s-,._�, ., The City Attorney Patricia Taraday • Public Records Act • Code enforcement • Nuisance abatement • Office hours once a week L Lighthouse LawPacket s-,._�, ., The City Attorney Team Tom Brubaker 4. meeting backup Special Projects Lighthouse L Law Beth Ford If i Aw The City Attorney Team Research Writing Legal Memos Briefing Ordinance Drafting Other Litigation Work Lighthouse L. Law r-Packet The City Attorney Tea osa Fruehlin9 -Watson Council meeting backup - ,r Labor & employment support PRA support L Lighthouse LawPacket Pg. s-,._�, 160 The City Attorney Team Mike Bradley • Cable TV Franchises • Telecommunications Law • FCC Proceedings W. j Lighthouse L Law The City Attorney Team Angela Tinker Ooinedzo,9> Research Writing Legal Memos Lighthouse L Law Types of City Attorney Relationships • Elected • City Employee Appointed by Executive • Contract with Law Firm pursuant to City Council's Contracting Authority LLighthouse L aws In House vs. Contract • Hiring / Firing Authority: does this matter? • Intellectual Capacity: 8 brains vs. brains • Cost: depends on... — Level of service chosen ( )under each scenario — Who bears budget risk ' Lighthause L haw - - Cities within 20 miles with Appointed In House City Attorneys Edmonds is in WCIAActuarial Group 4. Total annual cost of Edmonds' contracts with Lighthouse ($575,568) and Zachor Thomas ($286,441) equals $862,009. Lighthouse Law - • Types of City Attorney Contracts • Flat Fee (status quo): all inclusive within predefined scope; the fee is both a ceiling and a floor — Availability and budget are highly predictable • Retainer: the fee is a floor, not a ceiling — Availability is predictable; budget is less predictable • Hourly: no floor or ceiling — Availability and budget are not predictable LLighthouse L aws Budget Risk • Flat Fee (current arrangement): Lighthouse assumes budget risk • Retainer: City assumes budget risk • Hourly: City assumes budget risk Lighthouse LM Law City Attorney Team Stats January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 • Lighthouse worked 3,930 hours for Edmonds • Earned flat monthly fee of $46,119.42 ($553,433 annually) for all civil work including litigation • _ $141 average effective hourly rate Lighthouse L Law ��I Comparing $141 to the hourly rates . paid by other cities in 2018 • Maple Valley (Lighthouse): $186-$258 • Lynnwood (Inslee Best): $175-$260 (with most at $190) • Mill Creek (Ogden Murphy): $225-$325 • Tukwila (Kenyon Disend): $155-$320 — Hourly rates apply to litigation work — Monthly flat fee of $46,436 apply to regular city attorney and prosecution services • Snohomish (Weed Grafstra): $185-$200 • Woodinville (Porter Foster): $200-$275 (with most at $250) ' L_i�hthause L haw - - October 2018 City Attorney RFP Responses to Lake Stevens Only two firms responded: • Ogden Murphy proposed hourly rates: — General Services: $210 to $275 (with most hours at $275) — Project/site-specific land use/ real estate legal services: $245 (associate) - $345 (member) • Kenyon Disend proposed hourly rates: — $165 to $350 (with most hours at $215) L_i3hthause Law - - December 2018 City Attorney Contracts Awarded Ogden Murphy as proposed: — General Services: $210 to $275 (with most hours at $275) — Project/site-specific land use/ real estate legal services: $245 (associate) - $345 (member) Weed Grafstra (outgoing City Attorney): — All except litigation: $225 / hour — Litigation: $245 / hour Lighthouse L Law ��I 2018's Top 10 Matters (by hours worked) 10. Development Sery (5) 9. Finance (NR) 8. Blomenkamp (4) 7. City Clerk (6) 6. Engineering (NR) 97 hours 114 hours 129 hours 176 hours 230 hours ' Li�hthause 2018's Top 10 Matters (by hours worked) 5. Joplin GMHB appeal (NR) 4. Police (7) I Human Resources (2) 2. City Council (1) 1. Ebb Tide (3) 247 hours 319 hours 333 hours 402 hours 1,430 hours Li3hthause Law - - 2018's Top 5 Litigation Matters (by hours worked) 5. Ronald Wastewater 4. Shippen (IC /Trespass) 3. Blomenkamp (LUPA) 2. Joplin appeal (GMHB) 1. Ebb Tide (Dec J) 36 hours 63 hours 129 hours 247 hours 1,430 hours ' L_i�hthouse L haw - • Other 2018 Highlights • Lighthouse led the efforts to renegotiate the police services contract with the Town of Woodway. Resulted in the hiring of an additional police officer and an increase in revenue to Edmonds from what had been roughly $50,000 per year to roughly $193,000 per year. Lighthouse Law - • Litigation completed by Lighthouse in 2018 and result • Joplin GMHB) • The Growth Management Hearings Board dismissed all of Joplin's claims Lighthouse Law - - Pending Litigation with Lighthouse • Shippen v. Edmonds L-andslide case. Parties engaged in discovery. • Edmonds v. Ebb Tide Declaratory judgment. City's Easement was ruled to be valid on motion for summary judgment. Parties are engaged in further summary judgment briefing to determine scope. Trial set for June 2019 to resolve any ambiguities that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. • Blomenkamp v. Edmonds LUPA and tort claim. Case has been fully briefed before the Div Court of Appeals. No date yet for oral argument. • Barnard v. Edmonds Former firefighter seeking additional pension benefits i Lighthouse L Law ��I MWM, citi:e:sl Coverage Claims arising from alleged: • Employment related action, e.g. retaliation and harassment • Police excessive force • Land use damage • Auto liability • Defective street or sidewalk • Sewer obstruction • Premises liability • Other negligence Lighthouse LM Law - - Questions? Lighthouse LJwPacket ., 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Land Use Permit Decision -Making and Quasi -Judicial Process Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016 expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that transfers the quasi-judicial decision -making role from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the hearing examiner, to the extent allowed by state law. The adopted resolution requests that city staff and the Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with this resolution. The Planning Board heard an introduction on this matter at its May 23, 2018 meeting and held a public hearing on July 25, 2018, after which the Board adopted a recommendation that was forwarded to the City Council. The City Council heard an introduction on this subject at the September 4, 2018 Council meeting and moved to hold a public hearing to receive public feed on the proposed amendments. The Council's hearing was held on October 2, 2018. On November 20, 2018, the City Council's meeting included consideration of potential amendments detailing a process where the Council would consider a request to file a judicial appeal on the November 20, 2018 Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Provide direction to staff on the Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions and direct staff to bring back for Council consideration an ordinance that is based on Council's guidance. Introduction During discussions on modifying the Council's role in quasi-judicial decisions, it was suggested that the City Council be able to initiate a judicial appeal of a hearing examiner or Architectural Design Board decision upon request of a citizen who believe a decision has been issued in error. Following the public hearing on October 2, 2018, the Council directed staff to bring back code amendments that would detail the process for the Council initiating a judicial appeal. At the November 20, 2018 Council meeting, staff presented potential code amendments (Exhibit 1 and outlined below) on the new process that would allow the City Council to initiate judicial appeals. Tonight, staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether the Council wishes to maintain its current role in quasi-judicial decisions or to move into a role as a potential appellant detailed in the potential code amendments in Exhibit 1 and outlined below. Exhibit 2 is a table prepared by the City Attorney which provides a comparison of various issues for the Council sitting in either role. In order to set up the discussion, staff will run through the Type III process for both the current closed record review process and the potential Council -as- appellant process. See the flow chart in Exhibit 3. Packet Pg. 180 7.1 Various other code amendments have been proposed during this review that relate to the City's decision -making process (see the October 2, 2018 Council agenda on this matter). Should the City Council ultimately decide to retain its role in closed record appeals, the remaining proposed code amendments should still be considered because these amendment clarify public hearing and appeal proceedings (New Chapter 20.06 ECDC), eliminate provisions that are not consistent with state law (Elimination of ECDC 20.100.040), and provide other clean-up and clarifications related to decision processes. Potential Code Amendments Detailing Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision The proposed code amendments contained in Exhibit 1 fall into three categories; 1) providing notice to the City Council on Type III applications, 2) adding language regarding the City's intent for Council judicial appeal, and 3) detailing the process for a citizen to request a Council appeal. Nnfire The first set of proposed code amendments would require that the City Council be emailed the Notice of Application, Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Final Decision on all Type III permit applications. These amendments would ensure the City Council is aware of a Type III permit application that is moving through the City's process. Staff reports for Type III decisions are posted on the City's agenda page and the City Council will be able to access the staff report one week prior to the public hearing. Another amendment in the notice section includes adding information as to how to inform the City Council of alleged errors in a decision in the Notice of Final Decision. Currently the Notice of Final Decisions contains information on available appeals. The proposed amendment would ensure that Notice of Final Decision also informs parties of record that they may request the Council to file an appeal on a decision that has been issued in error. City Council as Party of Record in Type III Proceedings The two paragraphs in this new subsection signal it is the City of Edmonds' intent that the City Council may appeal Type III decisions. These paragraphs are primarily intended to signal to the Courts that as trustees of the public interest, the City Council is a party of record, regardless of whether the City Council actively participated in the Type III decision proceedings, and retains the right to commence a judicial review under LUPA (Chapter 36.70C RCW). Informing the City Council of Alleged Errors in Type III Decisions This new subsection provides the details on how a citizen may request the City Council file a judicial appeal on behalf of the City. The citizen request must come from a party of record. The request should come after the party of record has already sought reconsideration of the decision and should be made within seven days of the decision on reconsideration; the request may be submitted in writing or verbally at a regular City Council meeting. This section also notes that the City Council may submit a judicial appeal on its own initiative regardless of whether a request for appeal was made to the City Council under this section. Packet Pg. 181 7.1 Next Steps After guidance is provided tonight about the Council's role in quasi-judicial proceedings, an ordinance (consistent with that guidance) would be prepared and presented to the Council at a future meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Potential Amendments to ECDC detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision Exhibit 2: Quasi-judicial Process Comparision Chart Exhibit 3: Type III-B Flow Chart - Comparison Exhibit 4: May 23, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 5: July 25, 2018 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 6: September 4, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 7: October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 8: November 20, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 182 7.1.a Potential Amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the Process for Council Appeal of a Type III Decision a ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) J H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City r- Council by email. .2 ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice of public hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, aka description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. For Type II, III and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the Snohomish County assessor. 2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by any means deemed reasonable by the director. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by Pmail_ 20.06.XXX City council as party of record in Type III proceedings. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor of having the ability to participate in such matters as a party of record at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the City's code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Type III applications are of particular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code Packet Pg. 183 7.1.a adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous TVpe III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the citv council shall be an official party of record in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties of record. The city council retains its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. 20.06.XXX. Informing the city council of alleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION) A. A party of record, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the City and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a Party of record should: 1. Have alreadv sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010: 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7) days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative/executive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting. B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. The provisions of this chapter allowing for City Council appeals of hearing examiner decisions are not intended to confer third -party beneficiary status upon other parties of Packet Pg. 184 7.1.a record: anv such aooeals broueht by the Citv Council are brought on behalf of the Citv. not on behalf of a party who might have requires such an appeal. E W a as 20.06.160 Judicial appeals. (MOVED FROM 20.07.006) The city's final decision on an application may be appealed by a party of record with standing to J file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed within r- 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 3817 § 6, ° N 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. .n Packet Pg. 185 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 7.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Risk to City of Damage WCIA indicates that its Little risk. Claim cities do not lose such cases frequently, but when they do, the damages can be in the millions of dollars. Risk of Personal Liability Little risk due to qualified Almost no risk. to Individual immunity, as long Councilmembers likely Councilmembers conduct is objectively protected by absolute reasonable. legislative immunity. Cost to Citizen Appellant $500 for administrative $0 if City Council decides appeal + subsequent to appeal and citizens possibility of $240 opts not to; $240 if City (LUPA) Council decides not to appeal and citizen appeals instead Accessibility to Pro Se May be perceived as May be perceived as less Litigants more accessible accessible Legal fees incurred by Overall appeal process is Overall appeal process is citizen Appellant longer, which could drive shorter, but moves to up legal fees; depends court faster, which could on whether lawyer be perceived as represents citizen at all increasing likelihood of stages legal fee exposure Ability to Evaluate Council would only be Council would be able to Hearing Examiner's reading decisions after observe and/or Performance the fact participate in hearing examiner hearings Councilmembers' Ability Council take direct action Council would ask to Correct Hearing to reverse the Examiner superior court judge to Examiner Errors reverse the Examiner in LUPA action Page 1 of 4 0 a .2 .y CY 0 0 E L a J U c .N �L CU CL 0 U 0 a c� N x w r a� E r r Q Packet Pg. 186 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 7.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Councilmembers' Ability None, except Type 3A Same as any other to Participate in Hearing citizen; can make written Examiner Pre -decision or oral comments to the Hearings Examiner before the Examiner renders decision Councilmembers' Ability No communication Unlimited to Communicate with allowed on subject of communication with constituents pending or potential constituents appeal, except during the quasi-judicial hearing Standards that constrain Council can only rule Council has broad Council's decision- based on evidence in the legislative discretion in making discretion record, and based on the determining whether to previously adopted appeal; OK to vote to decision criteria; Council appeal partially on the may not be able to justify basis of popular support; a vote for the popular Council must still have outcome good faith belief that Examiner erred What if the applicable City council may have City Attorney would city code is truly the leigh way to need to make argument ambiguous? interpret the ambiguous to court in the event that section as it sees fit; Examiner interpreted court would give ambiguous code appropriate level of incorrectly; Examiner deference to the would be entitled to council's interpretation appropriate level of deference Page 2 of 4 0 L a .y aY 0 0 r E L 0 a D J U 0 .N �L CU CL 0 U Cn 0 0 L IL c� N Z x w r c 0 E M U 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 187 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 7.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Considerations for Council to act as Judge Council to act as Prospective Appellant Costs to City Council has historically No additional legal fees retained separate under current City attorney to advise city Attorney flat fee council while City structure unless it is Attorney has necessary to retain represented staff; separate attorney to approximate cost $5,000 represent the Examiner's decision; no separate counsel needed; $240 LUPA filing fee Councilmember comfort- "I am comfortable acting "I would rather limit my zone like a judge sometimes" role to legislative and policy matters" Councilmember's role as "I protect the City's "I protect the City's trustee of City interest best by retaining interest best by reducing my ability to reverse the the City's exposure to Examiner when he errs." the risks associated with improper land use decision ma king." Some constituents ... want you to keep the ... want you to champion might... quasi-judicial role in their concerns in hopes that you will vote superior court the way you are pressured to vote Expertise needed Requires Spock-like Requires no particular analytic skill in the midst expertise; can simply of a sometimes charged express your sense as to political environment; whether an error was legal/judicial training made desirable, but not strictly necessary Page 3 of 4 0 L a .2 .y aY 0 0 r L a J U 0 N CU CL E 0 U 0 L IL c� N Z x w r E r r a Packet Pg. 188 Quasi-judicial Process Comparison Chart 7.1.b Component of Analysis Considerations for Council to act as Judge Considerations for Council to act as Prospective Appellant Space taken on council In a complex case with Would likely meet with agenda many issues and/or the City Attorney in many parties of record, executive session to could take a large chunk discuss merits of possible of multiple meetings; LUPA action; short action could end up remanding item in open session to to the Examiner for follow additional fact-finding and then having a second appeal Page 4 of 4 Q Packet Pg. 189 Type III-B Permit Review Process Staff Review Hearing Examine Review Written Arguements Council Review Current Closed Record Review Process * = Council Receives Notice *Council gets email notice at least two weeks before hearing *Council emailed staff report and agenda seven days before hearing Optional Councilmember participation at public hearing. Hearing Examiner decision issued 10 business days after hearing. *Council as party of record receives decision. Party of Record must file request within 10 calendar days (potential code update to 14-days). *Council as party of record receives request for reconsideration. Decision on reconsideration issued 10 business days after request for reconsideration. *Council as party of record receives decision on reconsideration. Potential Council Judicial Appeal Process *Party of record files appeal to City Council within 14 days of decision on reconsideration or original decision if request for reconsideration not filed. Optional. Written arguments, rebuttals, and surrebuttal 12 though 2 days before closed record hearing before City Council. May occur over a number of Council meetings. Council may affirm, modify or reverse Hearing Examiner decision. With agreement from applicant, decision may be remanded. Council Considers Request for Judicial Appeal rn m U 0 L IL .2 3 N R a c 0 as c Y R c 0 tv E L IL 0 N c 0 J c 0 rn •L a E 0 U R t U 0 U- m a� a M *Party of record makes request f Council judicial appeal within sev w days of decision on reconsideration. aD E t c� Y Y Council, City Attorney, and staf Q discuss merits of decision in _ executive session. Majority of Council decides in open sessior whether or not to file a judicial appeal. City Attorney prepares and file appeal if Council decided to appeal. Must be filed within 21 days after decision on reconsideration (or initial decision if reconsideration not requested). Any party of recor may also file a judicial appeal regardless of Council decision. Applicant or appellant may file judicial appeal. Packet Pg. 190 7.1.d Board Member Lovell pointed out that a public hearing on the draft Housing Strategy is scheduled for June 13"', followed by further Planning Board discussion on June 27. He asked why the hearing is scheduled prior to continued Board discussion. Director Hope responded that staff felt it would be useful for the Board to hear from the public prior to their continued discussion and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, the Task Force will also provide input and recommendations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there are very few opportunities for the development of multifamily housing on either public or private land in Edmonds, particularly given the current zoning and land use regulations. He asked if more work should be done in the strategic planning portion of the strategy to zero in more on areas within City that can be appropriate for these types of development. The narrative in the plan does not speak to the fact that Edmonds is a high -income, single-family, commuting community. The Board is being asked to do something about all of this; and based on his experience, he sees an awful lot of public concern as the action items are implemented moving forward. He expressed his belief that the plan is terrific and covers everything the City could possibly do, but implementation could become mind boggling. Director Hope recalled that the idea was to identify the things the City could reasonably take on, and it does not mean that every action item will lead to implementation. The action items are intended to provide a toolbox of actions the City could consider to address housing issues. Some of the action items will be implemented at a later time via code amendments, and others will be worked out during budget discussions. For example, the City Council set aside money to work on homeless services, and the City is a member of the Alliance for Housing Affordability. By sharing the resources of the jurisdictions that participate in the alliance, they may be able to provide gap financing for a non-profit developer to develop lower -income housing. These developments may not be located in Edmonds but would be nearby. Again, she said these details would be worked out after the draft Housing Strategy has been adopted. Board Member Crank recalled that the City Council set aside $250,000 in 2017 to study homelessness and the potential to partner with non-profit organizations to address the problem. With the budgeting coming up in 2018, there is a possibility that if the City, via the Planning Board, does not come up with some decision on the Housing Strategy, perhaps that money will be taken away and/or reallocated somewhere else. The importance of expediting the homelessness conversation, with involvement by Cohn Consulting, is to get something going so when it is time to talk about homelessness again during the next budget cycle it does not get pulled away because there has been no movement. Director Hope said the City Council had originally intended that the Housing Strategy be done by 2019, but they have since asked staff to speed it up. The goal is to complete the project in 2018. Board Member Robles recalled that one of the Board's suggestions was to stress "aging in place." The solution to aging in place is also the solution to affordable housing for rebound families, separated families, low-income families, etc. He is interested to see what the community input will be towards the draft Housing Strategy given that one solution will help solve both problems. As an example of this concept, Director Hope said the City has heard from some people who are concerned about how ADUs will impact their neighborhoods, but others would really like to promote that option. These concerns could be worked out at the code level. The issue before the Board is whether or not the draft Housing Strategy provides an appropriate toolbox for the City to work from. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that when the draft Housing Strategy is presented at the public hearing, it would be helpful for staff to provide a statement of recommendation for the Board to consider. Director Hope responded that this would probably not be available at the public hearing, where the idea is to listen to the public's concerns and ideas. However, staff could certainly provide a statement of recommendation when the Board continues its discussion on June 27`'. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having a statement of recommendation from staff helps the Board to focus its discussion. She appreciates when this information is part of the Board's packet. The Board took a short break at 9:25 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Board Member Crank left the meeting and did not return. PERMIT DECISION MAKING — OUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien provided a broad overview of the City's current decision -making processes and referred to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003, which lays out the framework for the different types of permit decisions within the City. He explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial and administrative Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 13 Packet Pg. 191 7.1.d decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial means "court like," which implies that the proceedings must be similar to those followed by a court. If the requirements are not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of due process such as the proper notice of the hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (no ex-parte contacts), an impartial decision maker free from bias and conflicts of interest (appearance of fairness), and the decisions must be based on the facts of the case and not on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the ECDC that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by state law. The resolution requests that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC that are consistent with the resolution. He explained that, as a legislative body, the City Council Members like to be responsive to their constituents. However, when quasi-judicial matters are brought before them, they cannot discuss the issues with their constituents without creating ex-parte communications and violating the Appearance of Fairness rules. In addition, the City Attorney has advised that having the City Council sit in a quasi-judicial capacity on land use matters presents a dilemma if decisions are not made based on code. A City Council Member could be held liable if for making arbitrary and capricious decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the City Council currently holds quasi-judicial land use hearings on the following: • Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the Architectural Design Board is required, conditional use permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, home occupation permits, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential development (PRD). • Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats, final PRD, site specific rezones, and variance applications from public agencies. Mr. Lien proposed the following amendments: • Remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decisions primarily involves eliminating the Type III-B permit process. Type III-B decisions would be moved to the Type III -A column and the "A" and "B" qualifiers would be removed. Staff has also conducted an electronic search of the code for Type III and removed all of the "A" and `B" qualifiers from the text. • Leave site -specific rezones (Type IV-B) as quasi-judicial decisions that require final approval by the City Council. Site -specific rezones are a mixture of legislative and quasi-judicial. Decisions are based on criteria, but because they require a change to the zoning map, they must be passed by ordinance before the City Council. Modify the subdivision (ECDC 20.75) and PRD (ECDC 20.35) chapters to remove the City Council from the final approval process. Currently, preliminary formal plat and PRD decisions are made by the Hearing Examiner, and the City Council approves final formal subdivisions and PRDs (Type IV -A). Typically, all of the subdivision improvements have been installed prior to application for final approval, and the City Council's final approval is simply based on whether or not all of the requirements of preliminary approval have been met. When the City Council originally adopted Resolution No. 1367, State law required the legislative body to make the final decision on formal plats. However, recently approved Senate Bill 5674 allows this legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel. • Eliminate the sentence from ECDC 17.00.030.0 requiring the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Variances are normally heard by the Hearing Examiner and decisions are based on criteria spelled out in the code for when a variance may be granted. Currently, public agency variances require a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed record hearing. As proposed, the Hearing Examiner would make the decision on all variance applications. • Remove ECDC 20.100.040, which is in conflict with the Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) but retain a section elsewhere in the code that allows the City to revoke a permit if the conditions of the permit are not Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 14 Packet Pg. 192 7.1.d being met. It appears that ECDC 20.100.040 was established in 1980, which is when the framework of the current ECDC was established. The Regulatory Reform Act and Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) were passed in about 1995. The Regulatory Reform Act limits the City to one open record hearing on a decision process. Because ECDC 20.100.040 could result in an endless number of public hearings, it is in direct violation of the Regulatory Reform Act. There are also inconsistencies with LUPA and the concept of finality. As per LUPA, once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed. However, ECDC 20.100.040 opens it up to where a permit does not have finality associated with it. ECDC 20.100.040 is also inconsistent with LUPA in that it allows for collateral attack. As per LUPA, projects that were not appealed cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process. Combine ECDC 20.06 (Open Records Public Hearings) and 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) into a single chapter. The titles of these two code sections do not match up with their content. For example, ECDC 20.07 has references regarding appeals, which can be open record appeals, and this tends to confuse people. The City Attorney has also recommended additional details regarding appeal briefings before the Hearing Examiner. Appeals before the Hearing Examiner are similar to a court proceeding in that people present their cases and the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. Currently, when people file appeals to the Hearing Examiner, they are not required to spell out what their arguments will be until they are made before the Hearing Examiner. The City Attorney has recommended that a briefing schedule for appeals should be added to this section to outline the process so that arguments are written out before an appeal goes before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said his intent is to have the specific code amendment language ready for the Board's review on June 27' with a potential public hearing on July 25' followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell clarified that the revisions are being driven by a specific request from the City Council via Resolution No. 1367. The Board Members have all been briefed in the past about the importance of quasi-judicial proceedings, so he questioned the need to have an additional study session prior to the public hearing. Chair Monroe asked about the original intent for the "review of approved permits" clause. Mr. Lien said he searched legislative history, and it appears it was tied in with larger code updates. There is nothing specific about its history and it is not possible to identify its intent. The City Attorney drafted a memorandum relative to the issue that will be included in the next packet. The clause was adopted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act, which lays out the decision -making process, and the provision has only been used once in the 10 years he has been with the City. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the chart provided by Mr. Lien to illustrate the various decision -making processes. It is clear that many decisions will still take place and the Architectural Design Board will still be involved in quasi-judicial decisions. The only change they are looking at per the City Council's request is to remove them from the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien agreed that is the main intent of the proposed amendments, with a few minor cleanup items as described earlier. He confirmed that he is working closely with the City Attorney to create the appropriate code language for the proposed amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendments do not represent significant changes. However, she suggested that both charts should identify who is responsible for making the final decisions. Mr. Lien said when the amendments come back to the Board, all of the proposed language, including the updated charts, will be available. However, he explained that the tables are intended to be different. One table describes the types of decisions and the other identifies who makes the final decisions, how decisions are made, and how decisions are appealed. The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on June 27' without an additional study session. Following the public hearing, the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA There was no discussion about the extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Minutes May 23, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 193 7.1.e review resulting in one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide. However, he received an email from the DOE on July 121, announcing new wetland guidance. He has since verified the City Council's intent to update the wetland regulations with the most recent guidance, which requires the Board to consider additional updates. The additional updates will be presented to the Board on August 22nd, and the Board will need to hold another public hearing before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the four sections of the CAO that were part of the update to be consistent with the 2016 guidance. He explained that the new 2018 guidance pertains primarily to the buffer sections and the wetland ratings would remain nearly the same. The 2016 guidance has four sets of wetland buffers based on habitat scores, and the 2018 guidance only has three sets of buffers and the habitat scores are calculated differently. In the 2016 guidance, the lower Category 5 habitat score was not much different than the Category 3 and 4 habitat scores, so it was combined with Category 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING -QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Mr. Lien reviewed that the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 (Attachment 1) in 2016, expressing the intent to adopt revisions to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) that will remove quasi-judicial decision -making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by law. The resolution requests that the staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council code revisions that are consistent with the resolution. Mr. Lien explained that the City currently has 5 decision processes as spelled out in the table in ECDC 20.01.003: • Type I are staff decisions with no notice and include lot line adjustments, critical area determinations, shoreline exemptions minor amendments to planned residential development (PRD), minor preliminary plat amendments and staff administrative design review. • Type II are staff decisions with notice and include accessory dwelling units (ADUs), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) determinations, preliminary short plats, land clearing and grading, revisions to shoreline management permits, administrative variances, and shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is not required. Type III are quasi-judicial decisions. Type III -A decisions include critical area variances, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is required, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required, shoreline variances, and shoreline conditional uses. Type III -A decisions are not appealable to the City Council. Type III-B decisions include outdoor dining, contingent critical area review if a public hearing is requested, shoreline substantial development permits where a public hearing is required and shoreline conditional uses and variances. Type III-B decisions are appealable to the City Council and include essential public facilities, design review where a public hearing by the ADB is required, conditional use permits and home occupation permits where a public hearing by the Hearing Examiner is required, variances, preliminary formal plats and preliminary planned residential developments (PRDs). • Type IV are quasi-judicial decisions that are appealable to the City Council. They include final formal plats, final PRDs and site -specific rezones. • Type V are legislative decisions that include development agreements, zoning text amendments, area -wide zoning map amendments, Comprehensive Plan amendments, annexations and development regulations. Mr. Lien explained that legislative decisions establish policies for future application and quasi-judicial decisions are the application of those policies. Quasi-judicial decisions have stricter procedural requirements that include proper notice of hearing, providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say, full disclosure of all facts being considered by the decision -making body, impartial decision makers free from bias and conflicts of interest, and decisions that are based on the facts of the case rather than on political pressure or vocal opposition. Mr. Lien reviewed that during the City Council's discussions relative to Resolution No. 1367, Councilmembers voiced frustration with the ex-parte contact prohibitions and concern about potential liability issues. They asked the staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward revisions to the code that would remove the City Council from quasi-judicial decision -making Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 194 7.1.e making responsibility. Some code changes have already been implemented since adoption of the resolution. For example, the City Council was removed from the appeal process for decisions related to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). He reviewed the current proposal as follows: • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would be modified by changing all Type III-B decisions that were appealable to the City Council to Type III -A decisions that are appealable to Superior Court and not the City Council. The Type III-B decision process would then be eliminated. • The Table in ECDC 20.01.003 would also be modified to make development agreements, which are currently listed as Type V legislative decisions, Type IV quasi-judicial decisions. As proposed the process for development agreements would be similar to the process for site -specific rezones. • A number of amendments are proposed to update existing code language to be consistent with the changes proposed in Table 20.01.003. These changes were identified via an electronic search of the entire code. • The proposal would move final plat approval for subdivisions and PRDs from being Type IV -A quasi-judicial decisions before the City Council to being Type I administrative decisions. Subdivisions and PRDs require a multi- step process that starts with preliminary plat approval by the Hearing Examiner who may identify a number of conditions. The next step is civil design and infrastructure work. By the time final plats and PRDs get to the City Council for final approval, all of the preliminary requirements have been met and often all of the improvements have been installed and there is very little the City Council can do to affect change. Consistent with recent Senate Bill 5674, which allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel, proposed amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would remove the City Council from the final approval process. • An additional change would be made to ECDC 20.75 to update the approval time periods. During the recent economic downturn, changes were made to extend the approval period for final and preliminary plats. However, this provision has expired and will be removed. • All references in the code to Community Development Director will be changed to Community Services Director. • ECDC 17.00.030.0 would be amended by eliminating the sentence that requires the City Council to review public agency variance requests. Currently, the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council holds a closed -record hearing and makes the final decision. This amendment would take the City Council out of this quasi-judicial process. • ECDC 20.100.040 is currently a problematic code section that is likely noncompliant with State law. It allows a property owner within a certain distance of a subject property to request that the permit be opened up again once it has been approved. Essentially, the provision could result in endless public hearings and was drafted prior to the Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, which limits the number of open record hearings to just one. The provision also runs counter to the Land Use Petition Act (RCW 36.70A), which states that once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer be judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved. It also prohibits projects from being collaterally attacked through other administrative permit review processes. Given these legal ramifications, staff is recommending that the provisions be deleted. However, to ensure that the City retains the right to suspend or revoke permits that fail to comply with conditions of approval or misrepresentations made in the application, a new section (ECDC 20.110.045) would be added. • There is confusion between Open Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.06) versus Closed Record Public Hearings (ECDC 20.07). Currently, appeals of Type II staff decisions reference ECDC 20.07 for the appeal process, but appeals of Type II decisions are heard before the Hearing Examiner in an open record public hearing. The proposal is to combine the two sections into a single chapter and provide additional details about the appeal format and procedures before the Hearing Examiner. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 195 7.1.e ECDC 20.01.003 currently identifies the approval process for development agreements as a Type V legislative action. The City Attorney has recommended that the approval process for development agreements be modified to a Type IV process with an open record public hearing before the Planning Board who would make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would hear the proposal in a closed record hearing format. Development agreements are similar to contract rezones and provide a way for the City to place more restrictive requirements on a project than the underlying zoning would allow. The development agreement review process should be generally consistent with the review process for other project permit applications that would likely be processed in conjunction with the development agreement. For example, a site -specific rezone is one type of project permit application that would likely be sought in conjunction with a development agreement. Therefore, it makes sense to use a similar quasi-judicial process. Board Member Lovell clarified that, as currently proposed, Type III decisions would require an open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien said that would be true in most cases, but the ADB would participate in the design review process for applications that require SEPA. He referred back to the Table in ECDC 20.01.003, which outlines the types of actions and their respective review processes. As proposed, all of the permits that are appealable to the City Council now would be changed to be appealable to Superior Court. The only exception would be site -specific rezones and development agreements, which would be appealable to the City Council via a closed record public hearing. Board Member Lovell asked if the City Council would have an opportunity to negotiate with the developer about what the appropriate conditions of a development agreement might be. City Attorney Taraday described how he envisions the development agreement process moving forward, starting with him working with the staff and applicant to craft a draft development agreement to present to the Planning Board in an open record public hearing. The Planning Board would accept testimony from the applicant and public and then forward a recommendation to the City Council as to what the terms of the development agreement should be. Following a closed -record public hearing, the City Council can adopt the development agreement exactly as recommended by the Board or they can modify it based on their discussion. Because the City Council's hearing would be closed record, they would not be able to solicit any new information or ask questions about things that are not already on the record. If the Board doesn't ask the questions and get all of the pertinent information into the record during its hearing, it cannot be added to the record at a later time as part of the Council's review. The Planning Board would be the finders of fact for the City Council. The development agreement process is similar to the process the City currently uses to review site -specific rezones. However, instead of voting on an ordinance to adopt a development agreement, the City Council would vote to accept or modify the terms of the development agreement that is put forward by the Planning Board. Board Member Rosen asked if there is a financial impact associated with sending appeals to Superior Court as opposed to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday answered that judicial appeals typically cost more than administrative appeals. However, it is important to keep in mind that not everything would remain the same. For example, taking the City Council out of the appeal process would liberate them to participate in the hearing process and to appeal decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and ADB to Superior Court. Currently, the City Council does not have the ability to appeal Type III-B decisions because they are the body who hears the appeals. If a judicial appeal is initiated for a Type III-B decision, the appellant would have to move the appeal forward with no help from the City. Under the proposed amendment, if the appellant and the City are aligned and have the same consensus, the City Council can appeal a Hearing Examiner decision on its own, saving the taxpayers and citizens a lot of money and time. Essentially, the City Attorney would be responsible to appeal the decision to Superior Court. He summarized that significant changes take place when you free up the City Council to appeal its own Hearing Examiner decisions. Mr. Lien advised that the fee for appealing decisions to the City Council is currently $500, and City Attorney Taraday added that the fee to appeal a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) decision to Superior Court is $250. The big cost difference is related to attorney fees, as many people do not have the ability to file appeals to Superior Court on their own. He also agreed that appellants are probably less likely to appeal actions to Superior Court than to the City Council. Mr. Lien pointed out that appellants often hire attorneys to present their cases to the City Council, as well. Chair Monroe recognized that Resolution No. 1367 mandates that the City Council be removed from the quasi-judicial decision - making process. He asked if staff believes the proposed amendments are the only way to implement the resolution. Mr. Lien said he does not know of any other way to accomplish the task other than altering the processes. City Attorney Taraday agreed Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 196 7.1.e that, from a high-level overview, there is no other way to accomplish the task, but the details of the process could certainly be modified, as well. He expressed his belief that the proposed changes represent what the City Council asked the staff and Planning Board to do. Board Member Lovell asked if the proposed changes would take the City Council completely out of quasi-judicial decisions that are made by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lien responded that would be true unless the City Council opposes a decision made by the Hearing Examiner and decides to appeal to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday explained that potential liability to the City and individual Councilmembers was a significant factor in the City Council's decision to adopt Resolution No. 1367. City Councilmembers are elected to be legislators and represent their constituents, not to be judges. It is difficult for Councilmembers, who are accustomed to being responsive to their constituents, to play the role of judge and judicially apply the code based on the record in front of them. Some are unable to fill this role, and they end up making arbitrary and capricious decisions that are not consistent with law or the record. When this occurs, the City could be subjected to millions of dollars in damages. These same risks would not be present if the City Council were to appeal a Hearing Examiner decision to Superior Court. While the City may not win the appeal, the risks would be minimized. City Attorney Taraday explained that, under the current process, City Council Members are unable to participate in public hearings for quasi-judicial actions because it would disqualify them from hearing an appeal under the Appearance of Fairness rules. If they no longer have to serve in this capacity, they could feel free to be a party of record and participate in hearings to represent their constituents' viewpoints. Vice Chair Cheung asked about the process the City Council would use to appeal Hearing Examiner decisions to Superior Court. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Council would probably meet in an executive session with their attorney to discuss the Hearing Examiner decision, as well as the pros and cons of moving forward with an appeal and the likelihood the City would prevail. Ultimately, the City Council would make a legislative decision about whether to appeal or not. No public hearing would be required, but the vote would need to take place in a public meeting. Vice Chair Cheung asked if the City would be responsible to pay additional attorney fees associated with the appeal. City Attorney Taraday answered that the City Attorney's Office is retained on a flat -fee basis. They get paid the same amount every month regardless of whether there is litigation or not. Mr. Lien pointed out that the City has incurred additional attorney fees for closed record appeals to the City Council when an independent attorney must be hired to represent the City's case while the City Attorney represents the City Council. Board Member Lovell asked how other cities have addressed this issue. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) pleads with cities to do this because it significantly reduces risk. Before the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1367 in 2016, the Executive Director of the WCIA asked them to please consider getting out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process because of the risk it creates to the City and the public. Chair Monroe reminded the Board that the purpose of the hearing is not to debate the merits of Resolution No. 1367, which has already been adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the hearing is to decide if the proposed amendments are the right way to implement the resolution. Gary Nelson, Edmonds, observed that this issue has been debated by many jurisdictions for a number of years. Three months following the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 1367, Proposition 4 appeared on the ballot to change the charter for Snohomish County. The issue had come before the County Council twice before and was defeated both times. The results of the ballot measure in Edmonds was interesting, as 57.7% of the precincts voted no. It appears that the majority of City residents have strong feelings about what their City Council and appointed officials are responsible to do. He said he is concerned that the proposed amendments would significantly increase the cost of appealing quasi-judicial decisions. In addition to a filing fee, appellants may have to hire an attorney to assist in the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Nelson commented that staff put a lot of thought into many of the proposed changes, and most appear to be very reasonable. However, it is not likely that the proposed changes to the quasi-judicial appeal process will be acceptable to the residents of Edmonds. While City Attorney Taraday suggests the changes will liberate the City Council and eliminate potential conflicts, most citizens of Edmonds expect their elected officials to carry on their current role and make responsible decisions regardless Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 197 7.1.e of their personal opinions. They have been elected to study the facts and make decisions based on law. He is disappointed with Councilmembers who say this responsibility is too difficult, and perhaps they should consider resigning their positions. The appointed officials are very responsible and capable of providing recommendations to the City Council, but the City Council should retain the right to make the final decision. Mr. Nelson expressed his belief that the current approach for appeals is accurate and responsible and the City should simply maintain this process and table the proposed amendments. However, he would like the other proposed amendments to go forward as presented. He referred to written comments (Attachment 8) he submitted prior to the meeting, including a list of LUPA issues. He summarized that although neighbors sometimes quarrel over issues, none of the issues are so difficult that appeals to Superior Court are warranted. He said he supports the current process of a Hearing Examiner decision that is appealable to the City Council. He pointed out that appealing decisions to the Superior Court can be costly and take significantly more time. In most cases, appellants have to hire an attorney to represent their case. He encouraged the Board to consider what is in the best interest of the citizens of Edmonds. They should strive to avoid increasing the financial impacts to citizens and prolonging the process of appeals. Sending appeals to the City Council is a timely approach that works. Board Member Lovell referred to Mr. Nelson's written comments (Attachment 8), which state that RCW 36.70C defines land use decisions as "a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals. " He expressed his belief that the Hearing Examiner meets this criterion. The Hearing Examiner has the background, experience and know how to make decisions based on all the facts and City regulations, and their decisions should stand. If someone wants to appeal, they should have to go to the higher authority, which he believes is the Superior Court. He said he supports the changes as proposed. Vice Chair Cheung asked how often quasi-judicial decisions are appealed. Mr. Chave reviewed that the permit review process was originally set up in 2009 to take the City Council out of closed record appeals, but it was put back into the process in 2010. Since that time, the City Council has only heard a few appeals. Vice Chair Cheung asked if there are any other appeal options the Board could consider other than City Council or Superior Court. Mr. Lien pointed out that appeals to shoreline permits go to the Shoreline Hearings Board rather than to Superior Court, but if the Council is removed from quasi-judicial decision making, Superior Court would be the next step for all other appeals. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the City Council is in the best position to make decisions for Edmonds. He questioned why the City Council does not want to retain this decision -making ability. He said he is a little leery of giving up the values of Edmonds into the hands of the Snohomish County court. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands that the City Council would prefer not to have to make these decisions, but the same could be said for citizens who are asked to serve on juries. He recognized that there are a lot more opportunities for ex-parte communications to occur with the current process, but these same concerns could be attributed to someone who is asked to serve on a jury. Mr. Lien explained that the amendments would not remove the City Council from the process. The City Council would still be responsible for establishing the policies and regulations that are applied to specific permits. Chair Monroe agreed but pointed out that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the role of interpreting the rules and policies. He understands why the City Council supports the change, but he is not sure it will benefit the citizens and the City. Board Member Robles cautioned that a certain balance must be made between risk and inherent risk and decisions should not be made based on monetary aspects alone. He recalled a recent rezone that came before the Planning Board. A lot of work was done by the applicant and staff, but the public was not properly notified of the proposal and were ill prepared to participate in the hearing. The developers seemed to have an advantage over the citizens and the Board was constrained by the facts and couldn't help represent the citizen's concerns based on the constraints of the quasi-judicial process. He asked if that is analogous to what the City Council would be faced with because they would be constrained to talk only about the facts of the proposal. City Attorney Taraday commented that the Board has more latitude in an open record public hearing than the City Council has in a closed record public hearing. The Board should never feel constrained in collecting the facts and information needed to make a recommendation. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 198 7.1.e City Attorney Taraday referred to Vice Chair Cheung's earlier comment comparing the City Council's role to that of a jury. He explained that for site -specific rezone applications and development agreements, the Planning Board would serve as the jury in the sense that the Board would conduct the hearing and collect testimony and evidence from witnesses. The Board gets to make factual findings based on everything they hear and see and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. The Hearing Examiner would play this same role in Hearing Examiner permits. Even with the current process, the City Council does not get to play that role because they are limited to the evidence collected by the Board or Hearing Examiner. He summarized that, in court, juries are not asked to make legal decisions or answer questions of law. The judge hears the legal stuff and the jury hears the factual stuff and they come together to make a decision. Currently, the City Council is frequently asked to make legal decisions when they are sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PUBLIC HEARING PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 25, 2018. Chair Monroe recognized that the City Council has already made the decision to remove themselves from quasi-judicial decisions via Resolution No. 1367, and the proposed amendments are intended to implement this earlier action. However, he suggested that the motion should include a recommendation that the City Council carefully consider the concerns that have been discussed by the Board before taking final action. Mr. Lien commented that the Board can recommend approval or denial of the proposed amendments or recommend changes, regardless of the Council's direction in Resolution No. 1367. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Lien's earlier comment about how the monetary impact of the proposed amendments would be less if you consider the overall process and risks. The real question is if you want the City Council to be more involved in the legislative role where they are able to represent the interest of their constituents. As pointed out by Mr. Lien and City Attorney Taraday, there are struggles that any City Council will encounter when they try to work both roles because it requires them to step out of one to be in the other. Councilmembers are elected to represent their constituents, and that is difficult to do when they are required to act as judge on quasi-judicial decisions. This conflict of roles is at the heart of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave commented that very few appeals end up before the City Council. If there are few appeals, maybe the risk isn't so high. On the other hand, if there are few appeals, the proposed amendments would not create a significant impact to citizens. As a staff person, he supports wanting the City Council to represent its citizens. They are most effective when they are able to develop and oversee regulations. Citizens are much better off having their voices heard during the legislative processes that establish codes and regulations. It is better for the City Council to make decisions at the rule level rather than at the end of the process trying to figure out how to not follow the rules in order to represent their constituents. Board Member Robles observed that one law of risk management is you want the entity that is best qualified to handle the risk to carry the risk. He asked what type of citizens would end up having to litigate their way back to wholeness if the amendments are adopted as proposed. In other words, he asked who would be impacted the most? Mr. Lien said it could be anyone, from major land owners to single property land owners. Everyone would be treated the same. He advised that in most of the appeals he has heard before the City Council, attorneys have been involved. Sometimes property owners pool their resources to get representation, but it is not a requirement. City Attorney Taraday said he can think of several LUPA actions (not more than 10) that have been appealed to the City Council during his tenure as City Attorney. In at least three cases the appellants were pro say. He explained that a LUPA action is on the record and appeals to Superior Court do not require witnesses or cross examination. The court simply reads the facts from a sheet of paper. The appeal decision is based on the same record that would be sent to the City Council for consideration. Board Member Robles asked how undue influence could play into a Councilmember's decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that anyone sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity is required to disclose relationships that could cause bias. A Councilmember who is strongly anti -development would not necessary be required to disclose this information but basing a decision solely on this strong bias could create liability for the City, and that is where the biggest risk lies. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 199 7.1.e Board Member Rosen said the severity of the situation appears to come from City Councilmembers who cross the line. It would help him to better understand the problems they are trying to solve. Is the problem based on exposure to risk they have encountered over the many years they have been doing quasi-judicial appeals, or were the amendments initiated based on feedback from the WCIA? Mr. Chave answered that in his tenure with the City he has seen things that concerned him in terms of how things play out at the Council level. This is not simply an academic discussion but based on real -life experiences. Board Member Rosen asked, in the scheme of risk, how does the Council's involvement in quasi-judicial appeals compare. City Attorney Taraday said the amendments are intended to manage but not eliminate risk. In his opinion, the amendments represent a very sensible way to manage risk. Divorcing politics from the land use issues, you get a better land use application process and better policies. It is important to understand that, while the City Councilmembers may have a better sense of the values of the City than a Hearing Examiner or judge, those values are not supposed to be expressed when processing land use applications. They are supposed to be expressed when adopting code regulations. Mr. Lien referred to City Attorney Taraday's 2016 memorandum stating that not only is it a risk to the City but individual Councilmembers could also be liable for decisions made in the quasi-judicial process. CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION. Chair Monroe voiced reservations about the proposed amendment to take the Council out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process, recognizing that it is nearly impossible to write codes that developers cannot eventually find loopholes around. He said he is shocked that the City Council wants to give away this power. He believes the proposed changes will eventually be adopted by the City Council but the Board should emphasize the need for the Council to take a hard and careful look at the pros and cons before making a final decision. CHAIR MONROE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THAT THE BOARD ADVISES THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE A HARD LOOK BEFORE GIVING AWAY THIS PUBLIC TRUST. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about turning over quasi-judicial decisions to a judge who may not be as familiar with the City's codes as the City Council. The City Councilmembers are accountable to their constituents. He understands the potential conflicts of interest but agrees the Council should carefully weigh the pros and cons before making a decision. It is different for petitioners to stand in front of a judge who would expect them to present their appeal in a more legal manner versus speaking before the City Council. On the other hand, it sounds like appeals are not common and most people who appeal are probably more experienced and have their own counsel. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Chair Monroe closed the public hearing. The Board took a 5-minute break at 8:32 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE AT 9107 AND 9111— 236TH STREET SW FROM RS-8 TO RM-1.5 Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. He reminded the Board of the appearance of Fairness Doctrine and asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All Board Members answered no. He also invited Board Members to disclose any ex-parte communications, and none indicated any. He asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner. None indicated a concern. Lastly, he asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one in the audience indicated a concern. All those who planned to participate in the hearing were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they give would be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Shipley presented the Staff Report and Martin Reimers was present to represent the applicant. Planning Board Minutes July 25, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 200 7.1.f implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience's objections. The Housing Director and the consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In his 30-year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la -la land. He questioned not having any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since 2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens' support, he asked that they be respected. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for council members o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 • Decision processes o Administrative Decisions ■ Type I - Staff decision no notice ■ Type II - Staff decision with notice o Quasi-judicial Decisions ■ Type III - Hearing Examiner/ADB ■ Type IV - Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone ■ Appeals of Type II and Type III-B - Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing - Type III-B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing o Legislative ■ Type V ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions Quasi-judicial Decisions o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial ■ Legislative decisions establish policies for future application ■ Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies o Strict procedural requirements ■ Property notice of hearing ■ Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 3 Packet Pg. 201 7.1.f ■ Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision -making body (i.e., no ex-parte contacts) ■ An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest ■ Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition • ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions with revisions ■ Move III-B decisions moved to III -A column, Type becomes III ■ Type IV -A moved to Type I column ■ Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type IV quasi-judicial ■ Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments • Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff • ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council • ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300 feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process ■ New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application • ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings • Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative, but must be consistent with local development code • Next steps o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 4 Packet Pg. 202 7.1.f o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on that agenda Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change, explaining it takes citizens' voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court. Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor's short subdivision when the hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council. Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that explains why this an appropriate role, "In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi- judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it's because the City Council can make better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then that's a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner's errors. There was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner's decision under LUPA. For example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council's behalf to convince the court that the hearing examiner's decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner's decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner's decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn't, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker." Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without jeopardizing Council decisions. Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven't been decisions overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about the matter very thoroughly. Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 5 Packet Pg. 203 7.1.f believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens' advocate by taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf of the citizens assuming the City Attorney's flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However, many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does not necessarily require hiring counsel. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board, specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City's appeal fees: • Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400 • Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500 • Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880 Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson's comments that state the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases, because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner's decisions but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood. With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner). Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner's decisions, not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council's interpretation versus the interpretation of one person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She agreed with Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 6 Packet Pg. 204 7.1.f it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the minutes. On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tern Nelson said they are no longer new. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex-parte contact prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been involved in, avoiding ex-parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens' part as well as the Councilmember's. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about; whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I'm concerned too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect. Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III-B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was filed following the City Council's action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City's way. Just because the City has not an adverse judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City's chances of always prevailing. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact - check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7% in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 7 Packet Pg. 205 7.1.f reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision because the Council determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner's decision, it would have gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City's behalf to convince the judge that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council or Superior Court reviewing appeals. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already vested. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi- judicial function. Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role. Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff. The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex-parte interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like. He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it outlined for the City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to read the cases so they understand the Council's role, anticipating staff could provide links to the information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 8 Packet Pg. 206 7.1.f fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex-parte contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation. She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex-parte contact and on occasion a Councilmember recused themselves. Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi- judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien's part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens; however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being involved in ex-parte contact before the appeal process even begins. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach. 2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to the Council. He reviewed: • Background o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016 o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06- 001 o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act ■ Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction ■ CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction o SMP Periodic Review • This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections o ECDC 23.50.010.13, Wetland Ratings. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands • History repeats itself (almost) o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018 ■ "If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update." • Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance o "We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores." Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables 2016 Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 9 Packet Pg. 207 7.1.g Councilmember Buckshnis referred to staff s recommendation, pointing out having the utilities become private was not one of the options. She asked if privatization of water and sewer was common in a city like Edmonds. Ms. McConnell answered it is not common. With a new subdivision with a private road where there is not a need for the City to own and maintain the utility system, a private sewer main may be installed via the development process. The water main would be in the City street and water service lines to individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for confirmation that staff was not recommending privatization. Ms. McConnell agreed staff was not. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City needed to protect environment. Councilmember Johnson referred to the applicant's BLA map, relaying her understanding there were two issues, first the lot line adjustment. It would be possible to create the amber and green lots in such a way that they could be built upon by allocating the northern portion of the amber lot to a different lot. If the intent was two building sites, one south of Excelsior Place and another north of Excelsior Place, both would be outside the critical areas and it would be possible build there. The second issue is the vacation of Excelsior Place. Although Excelsior Place serves as a private driveway, it is serving more than what a normal private driveway would serve, especially due to the northern, western and eastern sections. An improvement would be appropriate notwithstanding the current meandering onto private property. Since the Fire Department may require a 20-foot wide right-of-way, she concluded it did not make sense to abandon the public right-of-way so she will vote no. Duane Landsverk, applicant, asked Councilmember Johnson if she felt it was appropriate for the additional lots to the east, for them to suggest that they open the public right-of-way of Excelsior. First it would need to be constructed and then people would be sent to the end of Excelsior where they would trespass across neighboring lots to the east where there is no public access. Excelsior dead -ends and is only 20 feet wide. Councilmember Johnson said testimony has stated one can travel Excelsior Place and exit to the east. Mr. Landsverk said his private driveway meanders in and out of Excelsior; it is marked private and anyone using it is on private property. The public portion of Excelsior is 100% cut off. Councilmember Johnson asked if it was physically possible to drive to the east. Mr. Landsverk answered not without trespassing. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO VACATE WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN EXHIBIT 1. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PRnC'F,ggF,C Mayor Earling announced the Council would not discuss Agenda Items 8.1 and 8.2 tonight. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex-parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for councilmembers o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 15 Packet Pg. 208 7.1.g Council Quasi-judicial Decisions o Appeals (Type III-B): Essential public facilities; Design review (where a public hearing by the architectural design board is required); Conditional use permits (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Zoning Variances; Home occupation permit (where a public hearing by the hearing examiner is required); Preliminary formal plat; and Preliminary planned residential development. o Applications (Type IV -A and IV-B): Final formal plats; Final planned residential development; and site specific rezone. o ECDC 17.00.030.C: The City Council also sits in a quasi-judicial role for variance applications from public agencies. Potential Code Amendments o Type III-B o Type IV -A o ECDC 17.00.030 - Public agency variances o ECDC 20.100.040 - Review of Approved Permits o ECDC 20.06 (Open Record Public Hearings) and ECDC 20.07 (Closed Record Public Hearings) o Development Agreements ECDC 20.01.003 - Type III-B o Revisions to the table of land use decisions o Removing the City Council from appeal of quasi-judicial decisions could allow the Council to appeal on the behalf of citizens ■ Council would be provided notice of Type III decisions Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDS o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval of been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 would delegate City Council's role in review of final formal plats and PRDs to staff ECDC 17.00.030 - Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process o New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 16 Packet Pg. 209 7.1.g o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Likely process in conjunction with site specific rezone Mr. Lien said staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the proposed code amendments. Councilmember Teitzel commented there has been some incomplete information shared with the City Council from outside sources. There was an assertion that other City Councils have not gotten out of the quasi-judicial process. Mr. Lien displayed a survey of appeals to City Council from Municipal Research Center (MSRC) and City Attorney Jeff Taraday's list serve poll: No appeals to City Council Appeals to City Council • Bainbridge Is • Lynnwood • Bellevue • Bremerton • Marysville • Bellingham • Buckley • MLT o Only premilitary plats and variances related to plats • Clyde Hill • Mukilteo o All other decisions are Court appeals • Duvall • Snohomish • Ellensburg • Everett • Shoreline • Kirkland • Federal Way • Spokane Vly • SeaTac (considering getting out) • Lakewood • • Snoqualmie • Sumner Under review: Renton Councilmember Teitzel recalled there was a point made that Snohomish County Council had ballot measure Prop 4 several years ago that was similar to what the Council is considering. In reading the voters pamphlet and arguments for and against, he saw nothing about the Snohomish County Council having the ability to consider an objection by a citizen and potentially taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizen which is something the City Council is considering. He asked if Snohomish County Council had the option to appeal on behalf of citizens. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of 2016 Snohomish County Prop 4 was what he forward to Councilmembers from the voters pamphlet. He did not have any information that the Snohomish County was considering the process staff has suggested where the City Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner decision. There were similarities between this proposal and Prop 4 but they are not identical. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether any of the cities had gone from quasi-judicial to non -quasi- judicial. Mr. Lien said that would have taken a lot of research. Councilmember Buckshnis said this information only identifies cities that have appeals to City Council and cities that do not. It does not address other cities such as Edmonds that have changed. She hoped Edmonds would continue to have appeals to City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the cities that still have appeals to City Council and believed there were more. With regard to Councilmember Buckshnis' question, Mr. Taraday explained cities have only had Hearing Examiner authority since approximately 1977; most of those cities preexisted that date. One could assume most Council's had quasi-judicial capacity before 1977. Some cities may have abandoned quasi-judicial a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 17 Packet Pg. 210 7.1.g long time ago or more recently, but it would be a time-consuming exercise to determine who abandoned it and when. Councilmember Buckshnis commented politics were way different in 1977. What is going on now is relevant including that some large cities still use a quasi-judicial system. Mr. Lien said Edmonds switched to the Hearing Examiner process in1980 and appeals went to City Council. Prior to that, the City had a Board of Adjustment that heard variances and that was a quasi-judicial decision process. Board of Adjustment decisions were appealable to Superior Court. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said the quasi-judicial issue is important because, 1) it impacts more residents, 2) the action the Council takes will maintain the path of working together or begin to drive a wedge between certain groups, and 3) people outside Edmonds will make decisions about the community and how it develops instead of local officials. After researching this issue, she was opposed to the effort remove this from the Council. The main reason this issue was being brought up was lability concerns raised by some Councilmembers; by eliminating the quasi-judicial process from the Council, the risk to the City will be greatly reduced. This seems to be a weak reason because the Council has extensive legal representation as well as liability insurance that could be used to defend any decision reached by the Council that ends up in litigation. She pointed out the recent action taken by the Council to pass the safe storage gun ordinance and assumed legal counsel cautioned that passing such an ordinance might result in litigation. The Council did it anyway and now the City is being sued. She asked whether removing this process from the Council would benefit residents today or in the future, make it easier for residents to resolve disagreements or issues or make it more complicated, and whether it will keep the Council directly involved in Edmonds issues. She concluded abdicating this vital function would place a barrier between the elected officials and the citizens and will result in entities outside Edmonds making important decisions for Edmonds instead of local elected officials. She urged the Council to retain the Council in this process. John Reed, Edmonds, explained when making improvements to their home on 6' Avenue South in 1990, an issue arose regarding access to a deck they planned to add on the west side of their home. Their side setback was 5 feet but there was a 3'/2 wide deck stairway that extended part of the length of the house. They applied for a variance to extend the deck to the end of the home and then cut over to the required 5- foot setback. The Hearing Examiner denied their request so they appealed to the City Council under the quasi-judicial process in place at that time. They and their neighbors represented themselves at the City Council. One of the neighbors 25 feet away told the Council they had wild, late night parties and the deck would infringe on their privacy and ability to sleep and the Council denied their request for a variance by a 3-4 vote. They subsequently designed access to their deck from inside the home. They undoubtedly would not have paid a large fee, traveled to Everett and presented their request to Snohomish County Superior Court. Since 1990 the process was changed to require appeals to Superior Court and then in 2009 changed back to appeals to Council. He urged the Council to retain the current process because he believed it was what the citizens who elected them expect. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE), Mr. Reed referred to a letter, Exhibit 21 in the packet, highlighting ACE's support for retaining the quasi-judicial process at the City Council level because Edmonds citizens elect Councilmembers to represent them and the existing process retains that representation. It provides a less costly way for citizens to have their voices heard by the local residents they elect. While the basis for this change is the risk involved in quasi-judicial hearings, in fact all City Council decisions carry a degree of risk which is the reason for the City Attorney and why the City carries liability insurance. Very few land use matters are currently appealed beyond the Hearing Examiner and the Council spends little time on appeals. Councilmembers are familiar with Edmonds issues, but Snohomish County Superior Court and land use staff are not. ACE urged the Council to vote to retain the current process for quasi-judicial appeals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 18 Packet Pg. 211 7.1.g Gary Nelson, Edmonds, referred to his correspondence to the City Council and that Planning Board describing his opposition to moving from a citizen -friend approach to quasi-judicial matters to an unfriendly approach that requires an appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court. When the Council passed Resolution 1367 in 2016, the Charter Review Commission put Prop 4 on the ballot which essentially addressed the same idea of moving to a court appeal. There was little public discussion prior to the election; however, 57.7% of Edmonds voters voted no. His philosophy is the best government is the one closest to the people which is the City Council. The City Council acts as a jury on many of the appeals that would come to the Council under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). It does not require any specialized training; jurists do not have any training when they make a decision. Citizens rely on the City Council's judgment; the Council is presented material on the record and citizens expect the Council to use that judgment in the best interest of the City. He asked the Council to oppose this change and continue the process that has been successful for many years. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he participated in appeals while on the City Council; those decisions are important to people making the appeal. He felt privileged to serve the citizens as a judge and current Councilmembers should feel the same, that they are looking out for the citizens. This system has worked for a long time because the Council follows strict rules of behavior and have not gotten themselves into a lawsuit. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, strongly opposed these changes and feared this was another piecemeal amendment to the code. In March 2015 the City launched a major update of the development code including hiring Makers to assist with that process. He met with Makes and the City to describe his issues with the code; the code has been highly flawed for a long time. He recalled Duane Bowman saying in 2005 that the code needed to be updated. Consideration of this change should be done as part of a comprehensive, major update of the code. The City's webpage regarding the code update has not been updated since March 2016 so he had no idea where that update stands. He did not have faith in the City's Hearing Examiner system and if anything, the City Council should hear more appeals, not less. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of public hearing. Councilmember Tibbott referred to four cases brought to City Council prior to his being on the Council, two related to larger developers, one of which was Building 10. He asked how long it took for the Council to hear that appeal. Mr. Lien answered the Building 10 appeals took place over four Council meetings. There was one closed record review before the Council for the first set of appeals; that was cut short and remanded back to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to issue findings. The ADB issued findings, it was appealed again and the City considered the appeals over three meetings. Councilmember Tibbott said he was present for one of those and recalled the presentation to Council took over an hour. One of his concerns is the actual process the Council could look forward to. To him, there was a big difference between hearing a review for a neighbor adding on to their deck versus a large project like Building 10 or the Burnstead subdivision. He asked how long the Burnstead appeal took. Mr. Lien recalled it took at least 2-3 Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said Burnstead originated at City Council before he was City Attorney, went to the courts, the Court of Appeals remanded to the Hearing Examiner and then it came to the City Council on another administrative appeal. Councilmember Tibbott said he was sympathetic to the idea of listening to appeals from neighbors on personal issues but those cannot be separated from the larger appeals that take many days, have a great deal of detailed information and require a courtroom -like setting for presenting information. He recalled presentations to the Council from citizen groups and others presenting information with no opportunity to cross-examine and verify facts. The larger and more complex the issue, the greater the need for the Council to have the ability to cross-examine and verify information which requires more than a closed record review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 212 7.1.g Councilmember Tibbott explained when the Council is asked to review an appeal, the Council is asked to judge the Hearing Examiner's decision -making process, not the validity of the project. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the Council does not have any decisions where the Council holds the open record hearing. If the Council were holding the open record hearing, Councilmembers could cross-examine witnesses. The Council is not a jury, juries hear original testimony. The Hearing Examiner hears witnesses speak and has the opportunity to ask questions and play a fact-finding role. When appeals come to the Council, it is on record and the Council only hears what was already provided to the Hearing Examiner and no new information can be provided. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would be like for a citizen to take a request for an appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday recalled a couple citizens have filed their own LUPA appeals and represented themselves pro se. LUPA appeals are on the record, there are no witnesses, no new evidence, basically the petitioner writes a brief explaining to the court why the decision was erroneous. The City responds to that brief with an explanation of why the decision was correct and the petitioner is provided an opportunity for rebuttal to explain why the City's argument is wrong and there is some time for oral argument in front of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked how long reviews in front of a judge usually last. Mr. Taraday answered the oral argument in front of the court includes an initial hearing which is usually 10 minutes and the hearing on the merits lasts 20-60 minutes depending on the generosity of the judge. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would possible to retain a review process that is not a quasi- judicial review. For example, a citizen does not agree with a Hearing Examiner decision and wants to appeal it to Superior Court but has an opportunity to bring it to the City Council first. The City Council could hear the arguments and chose to appeal on the citizen behalf. Mr. Taraday said that is one of the ideas he and Mr. Lien are considering; that is the suggestion about providing notice of hearings to the City Council. The City Council would receive a notice of application whenever there was a Type III proposal and would have the opportunity to attend the hearing. Once the decision is issued and there is an aggrieved constituent who feels justice was not done, the system being contemplated would allow the City Council to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision in the name of the City on behalf of a constituent who feel it was unjustly decided. That decision could be discussed with legal counsel in executive session as potential litigation and Council could get a candid sense from the City Attorney on the merits of the Hearing Examiner's decision and the Council would decide in open session whether to appeal. That is a way of representing constituents in a manner that allow Councilmembers to talk to them and in a manner that was truly responsive to their concerns without being bound by the decision criteria when the Council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Councilmember Tibbott commented under that scenario, Councilmembers could walk a property, ask questions, etc. Mr. Taraday agreed, there would be no restriction on ex parte communication in that scenario; Councilmembers could talk with constituents, conduct site visits, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the Council could request an open meeting with citizens to address the issue with Council. Mr. Taraday said there are only 21 days to file a LUPA appeal. For example, if the Hearing Examiner's decision is issued on a Friday, constituents could come to the next Council meeting to ask the Council to appeal or one or more Councilmembers could inquire about it offline and/or discuss it in executive session. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the process whereby a citizen who felt aggrieved by a Hearing Decision could ask the Council to consider it and asked how a citizen would know that avenue is available to them. Mr. Taraday said the code language has not yet not finalized. If the City Council directed, staff could to develop that process. Councilmember Teitzel was not interested in forcing citizens to go to Superior Court without having that course available. If there was a less formal process whereby citizens could approach the Council to say the Hearing Examiner erred, the Council could consider it and determine if it had merit and appeal to Superior Court on the citizen's behalf. If that avenue did not exist, he supported retaining Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 213 7.1.g quasi-judicial authority. If that avenue exists, he was leaning away from the Council retaining quasi-judicial authority as long he was convinced that avenue was available and reasonable for citizens. Mayor Earling advised Agenda Item 9.1 would be moved to a future meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson pointed out staff s research included two appeals that required counsel for the City Council, Carol Morris. She asked how much was spent on the Burnstead and Pt. Edwards projects. Mr. Lien said he could research cost. The City utilized Carol Morris on three appeals; the only one where she was not hired was the fence appeal. Councilmember Johnson recalled there was advice two years ago from WCIA, MSRC and the City Attorney to move away from the quasi-judicial review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was interested in seeing in writing what has been discussed behind the scenes. She was not seeing much difference between the quasi-judicial process and that process which would still take time, Council involvement, attorneys and staff. She asked staff to return with that process in writing. Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was insinuating there have been private discussions on these matters. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified her request was for staff to return with a proposal for the Council to appeal decisions to Superior Court on a citizen's behalf. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an email stating the City has had four closed record reviews since 2009. Mr. Lien said there have been four closed record reviews on appeals since 2009, there have been other closed record reviews such as the public agency variance. Councilmember Buckshnis said those closed record review appeals were Pt. Edwards, Willowdale, Hillman and Burnstead. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said those were part of the normal part of a Councilmember's job. Councilmembers are not scientists, yet they make important decisions about the Shoreline Master Program. She did not see any reason to change the current process. Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he was trying to understand was changes in state law related to the review process such as only one closed record review and one appeal is allowed. He asked if there was a further process if those two are exhausted. Mr. Taraday answered administratively there is not, administratively the State allows one open record hearing and one closed record review. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a citizen could appeal the Council's decision on a Hearing Examiner's to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday explained the open record hearing takes place at the Hearing Examiner, the closed record review takes place at the City Council which is the end of the administrative work and there is either a final decision that no one appeals or there is a subsequent appeal that goes to Court. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, TO FORWARD THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA WITH A LONGER TIME FOR DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing this for a while tonight and there still seems to be a lot of questions. She would like to have time to discuss it so she recommended moving it to another meeting. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE WHEN THIS COMES BACK, DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS WHEREBY A CITIZEN COULD COME TO COUNCIL, PRESENT THE FACTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 214 7.1.g ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT A HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND THE COUNCIL COULD APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN. Mr. Lien said staff would return with code language regarding how the Council could appeal the Hearing Examiner or ADB decision on the citizen's behalf. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE REPORT Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda. 2. DISCUSSION ON PROHIBITING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS OR "STYROFOAM") IN FOOD PACKAGING Due to the late hour, this item was moved to a future agenda. 3. VIDEO STREAMING OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Council President Nelson commented this issue has been raised in a variety of ways. Previously all Council meetings were televised. Then the Council changed to a committee structure, committees meet in separate meetings and there is only an audio recording. Anyone wanting a copy of the audio recording must make a submit a request. What is accessible to citizens online with regard to committee meetings is minutes. He wanted the Council to do better job in terms of transparency; as Gary Council President Nelson said, the best government is one that is closest to the people. If the public is unable to attend a meeting, the next best thing is to watch it live. An op ed by Teresa Whipple on September 9t'', Let's Talk about Transparency, relayed her frustration in trying to cover Council committee meetings when she cannot be in three places at the same time. To that end, he invited a subject matter expert, Michelle Earl -Hubbard, Vice President of the Board of Washington Coalition for Open Government, a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring transparency and open government to speak to the Council. She is also a media law attorney. Ms. Earl -Hubbard introduced her daughter, a youth outreach ambassador, also interested in open government. Council President Nelson originally asked Toby Nixon, President of Washington Coalition for Open Government but he is a member of the Kirkland City Council which also meets on Tuesdays. She is an open government and media law attorney representing news organizations through Washington and in five other states and for the past 22+ years she has handled litigation involving open government laws. She urged the City to consider doing in committees what they already do in Council meetings. It is wonderful there are cameras in Council Chambers livestreaming the meeting and that there is downloadable, click on demand video available online. However, because committee meetings are held simultaneously in separate rooms, the public cannot watch them. She recognized the challenge for the press, they cannot be in all the places they need to be. In places like Edmonds that do not have large newspapers, television stations or media outlets, what happens does not get covered unless there are citizens like My Edmonds News. Ms. Earl -Hubbard urged the Council to add what they already do in Council meetings to their committee meetings because seeing is believing. A citizen could record a meeting themselves and put it on You Tube or their Facebook page, but it would be their version and may not be authentic or gavel -to -gavel and may be taken out of context. Therefore, it is always wiser for the government to control the mic and put it all out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 2, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 215 7.1.h City Engineer Rob English drainage currently runs down Bell Street to an existing infiltration facility that does not have the capacity to handle the runoff. In working with Public Works operations, the City's stormwater engineer identified a solution to take the line across 1015 Bell Street and connect to an existing storm drain in the alley north of Bell Street. There would be a 10-foot easement on the western side of the parcel to install the pipe. It was the consensus of Council to forward this to the Consent Agenda. 2. LAND USE PERMIT DECISION -MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien recalled the Council has previously discussed the Council's role in the quasi-judicial decision making process. Most of the discussion has been the Council's role in Type III decisions. Following the October 2nd public hearing, Council requested staff return with code language reflecting the Council acting on behalf of citizens by filing a judicial appeal. Mr. Lien reviewed potential amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code detailing the process for Council appeal of a Type III decision: • ECDC 20.03.002 Notice of Application (NEW SUBSECTION) H. For all Type III permit applications, notice of application shall also be provided to the City Council by email. • ECDC 20.03.003 Notice of Public Hearing (NEW SUBSECTION) F. For all Type III applications, notice ofpublic hearing shall also be provided to the City Council by email. • 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. (MOVED FROM ECDC 20.06.009) A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120 days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal, and a description of any available administrative appeals, and for all Type III decisions, information as to how to inform the city council as to alleged errors in the decision. 3. For all Type III decisions, notice of final decision shall be provided to the City Council by email. • 20. 06.= City council as party of record in Tyke III procee&gs_(NEW SUBSECTION) A. Intent. The city council has eliminated its role as the quasi-judicial decision -maker on administrative appeals of Type III decisions in favor ofhaving the ability to participate in such matters as a party ofrecord at both the administrative level and in the courts, through a LUPA action, if necessary. The notice provisions in ECDC 20.03.002, ECDC 20.03.003, and ECDC 20.02.007 reflect the interest of the city council in overseeing the decision -making process on Type III applications. City council oversight is intended to ensure that the CiU s code is being properly administered and interpreted by the Type III administrative decision -maker. Tyke III applications are ofparticular concern to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, and therefore are of particular concern to the city council, because they involve higher levels of discretion and can allow for variances from the Edmonds Community Development Code adopted by the city council. Because of the nature of Type III decisions and its interest in seeing its legislation properly applied, the city council would be prejudiced by an erroneous Type III decision. To ensure that erroneous Type III decisions can be corrected swiftly. the city council shall be an official party ofrecord in all Type III proceedings, whether its members participate in the Type III process or not. B. Exercise of Party of Record Status. As a trustee of the public interest, the city council is not required to participate in the Type III process to satisfy the exhaustion (of administrative remedies) requirement that applies to other would-be parties ofrecord. The city council retains Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 19 Packet Pg. 216 7.1.h its party of record status throughout the administrative process, even where it does not participate. The city council may ask the Type III decision -maker to reconsider its decision, but not doing so in no way diminishes its party of record status for the purpose of seeking judicial review under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting. Mr. Taraday said one of main reasons for the addition of 20.06.XXX.B is to satisfy LUPA standing requirements so if the matter reaches Superior Court, it can stay in Superior Court. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to reference to "the City Council" filing a judicial appeal and asked who is responsible as there are seven members. Mr. Lien said that is addressed in the next section. Mr. Lien continued his review of the potential amendments: • 20. 06.XVC Informingthe he city council ofalleged errors in Type III decisions. (NEW SUBSECTION A. warty ofrecord, as defined by ECDC 20.06.030, may bring alleged errors to the city council's attention and request that the city council appeal a Type III decision on behalf of the citizens and the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. To make this request, a party of record should: L Have already sought reconsideration of the decision pursuant to ECDC 20.06.010; 2. Make the request to the city council within seven (7days of the decision on reconsideration; and 3. Make the request by: i. Submitting it in writing to the Council's legislative%xecutive assistant and the Development Services Director; or ii. Verbally requesting it at a regular City Council meeting B. The city council's decision to appeal or not appeal a Type III decision in response to such a request is a legislative decision that is not subject to review under LUPA. Making such a request has no impact on the time within which one would be required to commence a LUPA action. C. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventingthe he city council from appealing a decision on a Type III application in the absence of an appeal request made pursuant to this section. Mr. Lien advised staff is only seeking input tonight, not a decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the statement, "Any decision by the city council to seek reconsideration or to commence a LUPA proceeding shall be made during an open public meeting." and asked if that meant the Council would debate the merits of an appeal at the dais. Mr. Taraday said likely the Council would discuss the merit of a case in executive session under potential litigation and make a decision in open session. The Council could have that discussion in public, but he did not recommend it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the public will not know the basis of the decision if the Council discussed the matter in executive session. Mr. Taraday said the request from a citizen is the primary basis for the appeal. Even if the Council were sitting in an appellate capacity, he would also not publicly discuss a close question of law. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented as the appellate body, the Council currently has discussions in public. Mr. Taraday said court proceedings would be public, the same as the Council's current appellate decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if the Council missed the 7-day appeal timeframe. Mr. Taraday said the 7-days was "should" not "shall." If someone made a request on the 8t1' or 10'1' day, the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 20 Packet Pg. 217 7.1.h Council has a reasonable basis for saying no, but the Council still has the ability to appeal. He clarified the Council is not restricted to the 7-day timeline but is subject to the same 21-day LUPA deadline. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what currently ensures a case is heard by the Council within 21 days. Mr. Lien explained the appeal to City Council is an administrative appeal. Currently the Council's decision is the final decision and that starts the 21-day period for a LUPA appeal. If the Hearing Examiner's decision is the final decision by the City, that starts the 21-day period. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Council is informed of an appeal request. Mr. Lien answered in the current process, the Council is informed when an appeal is filed. Under the proposed process, Council will receive notice of the Hearing Examiner's final decision. Mr. Taraday explained it was a "belt and suspenders" approach: the belt is the ability for citizens to come to Council and request an appeal and the suspenders are Councilmembers can raise a concern. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the total cost to a citizen. Mr. Lien said currently if a citizen appeals a Type III decision to the City Council, the fee is $500. Under the proposal, a citizen files a request for reconsideration which costs $250 and the Hearing Examiner issues their decision on reconsideration. The citizen could then ask the Council to file a judicial appeal. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized the City Council was interjecting themselves as a legislative body to appeal to Superior Court on behalf of a citizen. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if some Councilmembers did not agree with filing an appeal. Mr. Lien said it would require a majority of Council to initiate an appeal. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the proposed process changes the City Council's role; instead of a quasi-judicial, the Council would essentially become an appellant. Mr. Taraday clarified the phrase, "on behalf of a citizen," the citizen would not be a party to the LUPA appeal unless they fled their own appeal. Filing on behalf of a citizen means the City of Edmonds as directed by the City Council is appealing the Hearing Examiner decision. The citizen may benefit if the City wins and the decision reversed, but he would not be representing the citizen in Superior Court. Councilmember Buckshnis commented fortunately the City currently has a flat rate attorney; if the City returned to an hourly attorney, a lot of money could be spent on this process. Mr. Taraday said the Council could also change the process if they returned to an hourly attorney. Councilmember Teitzel said his interest was not making this harder for citizens and although it sounds very complicated, it actually makes it easier for a citizen to pursue an appeal because they would not have to hire an attorney and the filing fees are less than appealing to the City Council in a quasi-judicial capacity. Mr. Lien said currently, if a citizen files an appeal to City Council, the cost is $500 and the cost to file a judicial appeal at Superior Court is $240. Petitioning the Council to appeal removes a step in the process for the citizen. Councilmember Teitzel commented it also obviates the need for the citizen to hire attorney. Mr. Lien said a citizen can represent themselves pro se in an appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City Council appeals, the City Attorney's office would represent the City. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Teitzel asked if the proposed process was simpler and less costly for a citizen. Mr. Lien answered it takes one step out of the process, the closed record appeal to City Council, and eliminating a step makes it simpler. Mr. Taraday said it eliminates a step if the Council agrees to appeal which should not be presumed. It is possible there will be citizens who request the Council appeal and the Council will decide not to. Mr. Lien said even if the Council does not agreed to appeal, it still eliminates a step before the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Councilmember Teitzel said under the quasi-judicial process, the Council hears the case and renders a decision and the citizen can appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Taraday advised the judicial appeal never goes away but the administrative appeal goes away on Type III under this proposal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 21 Packet Pg. 218 7.1.h COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Tibbott asked how and when a citizen would make their case to the City Council. It appeared it would be in writing for discussion in executive session but if it was at a City Council meeting, how did the citizen get on the agenda. Mr. Lien reviewed the timing, a citizen had seven days following the reconsideration decision. The Hearing Examiner typically issues decisions on Fridays. If a citizen chose, they could come to City Council on the following Tuesday. The request would not be in the packet, but the Council would have received the notice of final decision on reconsideration. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the notice to Council would include all the documentation presented to the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration. Mr. Lien said the notice of application and notice of public hearing, staff report, and all materials associated with the application are included with the Hearing Examiner agenda. The Council could be added to receive the Hearing Examiner and ADB agendas. If a citizen disagreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision, Councilmember Tibbott asked how they would get on the Council's Tuesday agenda. Mr. Lien said they would not have to be on the agenda; they can make their request by, 1) in writing to the Council's legislative assistant and Development Services Director, or 2) verbal request at a regular City Council meeting during audience comments. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the three -minute audience comment would be their only opportunity to request the Council appeal. Mr. Taraday said it would be up to the Council President if he/she wanted to allow more than three minutes. If a citizen requests an appeal during audience comments, the Council has several options including amending the agenda to add more time to hear from the citizen at the same meeting or the next meeting, scheduling an executive session at that meeting or the next meeting, etc. Councilmember Tibbott said one thing that was compelling to him about the proposed process was it offered the Council an opportunity to walk a site, get more information from the parties, etc. which the Council was not able to do in the existing quasi-judicial review. He asked at what point more exploratory analysis could be done. Mr. Taraday said one of the advantages of the notice provisions was they were designed to invite the City Council into the process at the earliest possible stage. For example, after seeing a notice, a Councilmember could decide to attend and/or testify at the Hearing Examiner hearing, talk with the neighbors, etc., because there are no concerns with ex parte communication that exists in the current process. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Councilmembers could attend the reconsideration hearing. Mr. Lien explained there is no hearing for reconsideration. The Council will receive the request for reconsideration and the concerns raised regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision. With regard to the seven days, Councilmember Mesaros said there are four times a year when there is a fifth Tuesday where the Council does not meet for ten days. The citizen could still submit a written request but the opportunity to make a request at a Council meeting could expire during those ten days. He noted that was especially true in December when the Council does not meet for a period of time due to the holidays. Mr. Lien said the Hearing Examiner meets on the second and fourth Thursday of every month and he has 10 business days to issue a decision, typically the Friday following 14 days. He agreed there were instances there would not be an opportunity to make a request in person and the citizen would need to file a written request. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel said the objection he has he heard to moving away from the quasi-judicial was it may erode the ability of Council to be advocates for their constituents. However, it was his understanding Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 22 Packet Pg. 219 7.1.h this revised process may actually improve the Council's ability to advocate for their constituents. Mr. Taraday agreed, because as judges the Council cannot advocate on behalf of one of the parties. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling said he has reason to believe the political dynamics in Washington, D.C. are shifting with the knowledge of another party taking over authority within the House of Representatives. Sound Transit has been trying break loose $1.2B in funding to get light rail to Lynnwood and that was recently accomplished. Sound Transit will also be receiving a $650M low interest loan. In speaking with one of Congressman Larsen's aides, he mentioned for the first time in two years they are getting more return emails when asking questions within the administration which the aide viewed as real progress. Mayor Earling was hopeful many things could be moved along. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel said this week is a time to be thankful. He was thankful for the opportunity to live in the most beautify city in the state, for being able to serve on Council and enacting policies to keep Edmonds beautiful, for his family including his wife and daughters and for being a graduate of Washington State University. He said Go Cougs. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was thankful to be Packers' fan, for people who support the environment and for all the help staff provides. She urged everyone to spread kindness. Councilmember Johnson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and said go Cougs. Council President Nelson wished a Happy Thanksgiving to all. Councilmember Tibbott wished a Happy Thanksgiving, offered his condolences to Cougs and said go Huskies. Councilmember Mesaros wished a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she spent the past week on the hill in Washington, D.C. and she agreed a new-found energy was resurging. She wished everyone a nice Thanksgiving and go Huskies. Mayor Earling said go Cougs. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 20, 2018 Page 23 Packet Pg. 220 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 PSRC Vision 2050 Planning Process Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History The four -county area (Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap), which comprises the central Puget Sound region, plans together for certain issues through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). The broadest current regional plan that applies to our area through PSRC is VISION 2040, adopted in 2009. (See online at: https://www.psrc.org/vision-2040-documents.) It is being updated to become VISION 2050. The update process includes issuance of a draft and final supplemental environmental impact statement. Staff Recommendation Consider the information and ask any questions Narrative An open house on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for VISION 2050 will be held at Edmonds City Hall. Brackett Room, on Tuesday March 12. Attendees can drop in anytime between 4:00 and 6:00 pm. Open houses will also be held in several other communities during the month of March. For those who can't attend in -person, other participation is available at: https:www.psrc.org/vision. The VISION 2050 DSEIS reviews the environmental effects of three regional growth alternatives for distributing growth in unique patterns throughout the region. By 2050, about 1.8 million more people and 1.2 million more jobs are expected in the central Puget Sound region. When finalized, the supplemental EIS will help in the selection of the best alternative --or more likely, a combination of alternatives --so that VISION 2050 can effectively guide planning for our region's future. Concurrence so far is that VISION 2050 will build on and update VISION 2040. (An example of an intended update is more attention to climate change.) While the drafting of some components of VISION 2050 has begun, more work is needed on other components, such as the preferred growth pattern. All components will be fleshed out and presented as a draft for public comment this summer. An update on key 2050 growth pattern choices, along with the DSEIS process, will be presented at the City Council meeting on March 5th. (See attachment.) Attachments: Packet Pg. 221 7.2 PSRC Vision Overview 2019-02-27 rev Packet Pg. 222 V S ON 2050 Growth Management Planning Council February 27, 2019 - — = `_. ���,���►,�,, � �t� ,Y �;,� .._.�_� +ems; _ �� i•i � �' � — �! 4 d11 l�'tII N 0 N 111� U 2 Packet Pg. 223 VISION 2040 VISION 2050 j Iry • • i c } r lran.oael 3 `' farms,1 NortM19 a I(irklMtl1Jn51 S hertlale I1nir�ay Jie p i s HiIY and Overlak[i aoad Nal+- � Inge er_�-,e o s m cao 9 u ' IiI � I Jj HIII I �f" ( s � � � -Re�onalfzoaM Ce•:er _MameFsnai®Ind— Ce— _ � OtlNan GaoxaiArea 7.2.a co a. ti ® O 2 0 a t r�. Packet Pg. 224 2050 Population Forecast The long-range forecast is for continued growth - The region is projected to grow by about 1.8 million people between 2017 and 2050 The region is projected to add about 1.2 million jobs between 2017 and 2050 Actual Forecast 2000 2010 2020 2030 • Population • Employment 7.2.a 5.8 Million P'eol o r 0 N 3 i' 3.4 Million JQ o> O U o: U) a c as 2040 E r Q Packet Pg. 225 Who will be living here? In 2050, the region's residents will be: Older 18% of the region"s population will be over the age of 65 by 2050, up from 14% today. More diverse Between 2000 and 2016, 81% of the region"s population growth was people of color. 7.2.a 4 N N O In smaller households N 0 A In 2050 there will be 2.36 >i people per household on average, down from 2.50 today. a Packet Pg. 226 a. 1 Tt MLA '?•:� �a : t °� C ' [ t i �+ �, "'6' 1.•� `•' �yy� •�,x\ �1l" q t . 4rL r yy � �1-.y�{��'� �"_� © �i, .. L �� �1: � c''c:. ♦ l�FmY`y�. Paz SEPA vtr I iew 44 k, I�. �% I fib: �.ea ,� �._ k i �' �t� � v��" � ��''• ..:pi C;. -,.''y .. L err �., Ikt ; n i •�wt' ✓ 1E1 r ,1•.. 3 '% .. F i i ! 'v .e v Sys �� -�� s�� aid f ,,,<<.e?+ . l,l Environmental Process VISION 2050 SEPA Process Final EIS � p- • g `I issued for Supplemental Process to i Issue Draft I VISION 2040 EIS select I SEIS, , alternatives I comment I I periodSpring 20 8 Spring I 2018 , I I I I Select preferred alternative Issue draft VISION 2050 plan 7.2.a U a a� L Issue Fina o> SEIS, adop .0 VISION 205 >� U W C d E z v ca Q Packet Pg. 228 Scoping: What We Heard • Housing supply and affordability top concerns • Growth strategy should be ichievabie and reflect known trends • Address climate, access to jobs, equity, and health • Revisit the role of urban unincorporated areas • Perspectives on implementation • Need accountability and incentives to implement • Strategy should provide local flexibility VISION 2050QV Scoping Report 7.2.a -44 U U) d L N N O CD r N 3� 0 0 An U a. M 2 a Packet Pg. 229 7.2.a CO) m L 4iternativEm 0 0 N 3� ! d O 0 .N >� v IL F i E Packet Pg. 230 Growth Alternatives .. If Stay the Transit Focused Course Growth Growth focused in More compact growth Metropolitan and Core cities focused in high capacity transit (HCT) areas i + s Bow r, _ n` AA! 7.2.a Reset Urban Growth Growth more distributed throughout the urban growth area U U) a L I N N O 0 N I 3 m 0 C 0 N I U U) d C as ci r a Packet Pg. 231 Growth Alternatives Stay the Cour n Compact growth focused in Metropolitan and Core cities with regional growth centers • Maintains current adopted strategy • Largest shares of growth to Metropolitan cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Bremerton and Tacoma • Directs more growth to cities and less growth in urban unincorporated and rural areas 7.2.a U U) a Snohomish C—ty JJ � L CV CV o O CV Hin9 Ci O U) &,g a ` Pierce Courtly c� C papc90 i Populallo f+ 25x ? Packet Pg. 232 Growth Alternatives Transit Focused Growth Accelerated growth near existing and planned high capacity transit investments • Goal for 75% of the region's growth to occur near high capacity transit • Less growth in rural and unincorporated areas without high capacity transit Uses 2017 OFM population distribution, +5% shift of employment to Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties 7.2.a U U) CL Snohomish C—ty > Kilsao county KIn9 CIIIIL, L N N 0 o r O N 3� 0 O Y ILL c� Pierce County E papc90 i populallo f+ 25x ? ® SOS tOW Packet Pg. 233 Growth Alternatives Reset Urban Growth More dispersed growth throughout the urban growth area • Assumes a large share of growth to Metropolitan and Core cities • Growth for other urban areas based on current land use capacity • More growth in rural and urban unincorporated areas Uses 2017 OFM population distribution, +5% shift of employment to Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties 7.2.a �P, U d Snohomish County ' Hi�9 Co,,�ir L N N o ` o N m C Y t'- O tv/ _ y 1 Pierce Courtly \ Populalio � z,. a .. 5L01 2V�U Packet Pg. 234 Growth Alternatives Common to all alternatives Average drive times and distances will be less, but time spent stuck in traffic will increase Transit ridership more than doubles Air quality will improve and greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced All require about 830,000 new housing units Redevelopment will increase the threat of displacement, which will require mitigation to be avoided 7.2.a U W U) a L I N N O 0 N I d 0 r- 0 An U a. M 2 a '� Packet Pg. 235 Environmental Impacts 7.2.a 440 U Stay the a Transit Focused Reset Urban L� Course Growth Growth N (plan extended) o a� Vehicle -C7 o 3� delay 31 hours 29 hours 32 hours 0 00 Job access by biking, walking, substantial increase U or transit a. .Q. YYM `Jj11y�/IL/ 1jl�yr E U Greenhouse gas V IJ a 41,000 tons per day CO2 39,600 tons per day CO2 41,400 tons per day CO2 emissions equivalent equivalent equival Packet Pg. 236 Environmental Impacts Moderate = density housing (moderate=townhome, triplex, low-rise MF) Displacement risk 7.2.a U d L N N 0 CD 0 N �I m 0 r_ 0 .y I U a r E 2 Jobs -housing a Improved balance balance Packet Pg. 237 Stay the Course (plan extended) 15% moderate -density 46% high -density 39% low -density Elevated risk Transit Focused Reset Urban Growth Growth 4 1�7 19% moderate -density 13% moderate -density Equity Analysis • Equity Analysis to accompany release of DSEIS • Measures impact on concentrated low income and minority communities • Displacement risk analysis and updated Opportunity Mapping � Prg«e County 7.2.a :9unly L) V) L �I N N O CD o � O N 31 m 0 C 0 An I m E U Fetle�al MParkaForMllllary (� 3ntl iesiiq Ar �2W Are3s OU—GrOYMARe Access to Opportunhy �ry iaw Packet Pg. 238 VISION 2050 Policies - 7.2.a Key themes: 04 Compact, walkable places o Leverage our transportation investments _ ® N m Promote affordable housing in all development o Preserve open space and farmlands N -- it Social equity & displacement w a Four -Part Strategy to address climate changefee, ~ ; a Packet Pg. 239 How to Comment Draft SEIS Review: Feb 28-April 29 Open houses: • March 12 from 4 — 6 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall • March 13 from 4 — 6 p.m. at South Tacoma Public Library • March 18 from 4 — 6 p.m. at Bothell Police Community Room • March 19 from 4 — 6 p.m. at Bremerton City Council Chambers • March 21 from 12 — 2 p.m. at PSRC More info at: www.psrc.org/vision W �A0.y{t :S n ' { - \° f'R.r"a { M is M. �l'1�.,� '.N i' {. 1 rv�, o}+ ,�•..1..',r J �1,'�' K. rha n k you - Liz Underwood-Bultmann, AICP Principal Planner a LUnderwood-Bultmann@psrc.org`,_.;: r ., V. Growth Alternatives 35% 28% Population Growth 2017-2050 36% 18% 9% Stay the Course 6% 4% Transit Focused Growth 31% 25% 18% 12% 8% 1111 F Reset Urban Growth 7.2.a Q ■ Metropolitan Cities ■ Core Cities ■ HCT Communities ■ Cities & Towns ■ Urban Unicorp. ■ Rural Packet Pg. 242 Growth Alternatives 44% 36% Employment Growth 2017-2050 44% 12% 5% 03% Stay the Course 35% 13% 4% 0 2% 1% = Transit Focused Growth 41% 32% 12% 6% 6% 1111 2% Reset Urban Growth 7.2.a Q ■ Metropolitan Cities ■ Core Cities ■ HCT Communities ■ Cities & Towns ■ Urban Unicorp. ■ Rural Packet Pg. 243 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/5/2019 Council Discussion of Homelessness Assessment Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Beginning in the spring of 2018 Kone Consulting, in collaboration with the City Council Homelessness Response Steering Committee, conducted a rapid assessment of homelessness in Edmonds. They completed the identified tasks and compiled findings and recommendations in a 65-page report available now on the City Council webpage. Kone Consulting presented their findings to Council on 2/26/19. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative In order for the City Council to make informed decisions on how to invest Homelessness Response funds based on the identified community needs, the Kone Consulting Homelessness Assessment report will be discussed by Council. Attachments: Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 02262019 Opt Packet Pg. 244 REPORT Edmonds Homelessness Assessment PREPARED FOR City of Edmonds February 2019 Ct ) D n kone'o I • consulting Packet Pg. 245 GROWING IDEAS INTO SUCCESS koneconsult 7.3.a kone UL consulting Executive Summary In December 2017, the City Council allocated $250,000 in the City's 2018 budget for a Homelessness Response Project. A small portion of the funds were used to hire Kone Consulting (KC) to conduct a rapid assessment of local homelessness in hopes that City Council can make an informed decision on how to invest the remaining funds based on the identified community needs. This report presents KC's findings and recommended next steps. The environmental factors currently impacting homelessness in Edmonds include rising housing costs, stagnant wages, and cost -burdened households. Economic and population growth continue to be on the rise, while housing costs increase at a faster pace than wages and leave lower income residents with difficult choices between paying for housing, food or medicine and putting individuals and families at risk of displacement and homelessness. Many of the community leaders and experts we interviewed expressed appreciation for the Edmonds City Council's investment in further understanding the issue of homelessness in Edmonds. Visible homelessness is less common than hidden homelessness in Edmonds so it's less obvious to the community that there are homeless people here. The community may also have misperceptions about the homeless —who they are, how they live, and why they don't have housing. When homeless people in Snohomish County were asked why they were homeless in a 2018 survey, family crisis was the most frequent reason cited'. This conflicts with a common misperception that most people are homeless because they have behavioral health issues. Another common misperception of people experiencing visible homelessness in Edmonds is that they immigrate here from outside the region. The data shows the majority of people who are homeless in Snohomish County are from here originally. There are limitations to quantifying homelessness because homeless people are difficult to find so they can be counted or surveyed. This often leads to underestimation in homeless data. The best estimate of homelessness in Edmonds is data from the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). DSHS asks on their application form for medical, cash or food assistance if anyone in the household is homeless and records that information in their computer system. KC was able to obtain several years of data on individuals who received benefits. DSHS is the most reliable data source because it represents everyone on their caseload (it is population -level data) and can be disaggregated by zip codes 98026 and 98020, minus Woodway. (Esperance cannot be disaggregated from zip code data.) Based on DSHS data on individuals receiving benefits, there are currently approximately 230 Edmonds residents experiencing homelessness, meaning they are without housing (ex. unsheltered or car camping), homeless with housing (ex. short-term hotels or couch surfing) or in an emergency shelter or domestic violence shelter. ' Snohomish County 2018 Point -in -Time (PIT) survey Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 2 of 65 Packet Pg. 246 7.3.a kone UL consulting The number of individuals experiencing homelessness in Edmonds follows a similar trend with poverty rates overtime, confirming the relationship between poverty and homelessness. However, in recent years poverty rates are decreasing while the number of people who are homeless is higher than in 2010 when poverty rates were last around 6%. This is another indication that an increase in the numbers of cost -burdened households as the most relevant current trend that could explain the rates of homelessness. Edmonds appears to have a somewhat different housing dynamic than Seattle. Cost burdened households are more commonly homeowners in Edmonds, as opposed to Seattle where renters are more cost burdened. Edmonds renters have also become more cost burdened, given rising rents and stagnant wages. The City Council has an opportunity to focus on homelessness prevention efforts with homeowners and renters now, so the homeless crisis doesn't reach the same level as other Puget Sound cities have encountered. Efforts should focus especially on issues of equity and inclusion as African Americans are over -represented amongst the homeless in Edmonds and Seniors are most at -risk of becoming homeless. Based on an inventory of homeless services and conversations with a broad group of stakeholders and individuals who are experiencing homelessness, service gaps in south Snohomish County include no emergency or cold -weather shelters in Edmonds. The cold -weather shelter that previously existed in Edmonds has been moved to Lynnwood due to construction at the Edmonds Senior Center and is only open during freezing weather. Currently people experiencing homelessness in Edmonds have to travel to Everett or Seattle to seek emergency shelter. Edmonds is the only city we profiled in the region that does not fund human services directly. There is opportunity for Edmonds to develop community services infrastructure that is commonly seen in city governance such as a dedicated staff person and dedicated funds to support community members who are experiencing hardship. In Edmonds, more so than in other surrounding communities, faith -based organizations provide almost all of the supportive services for homeless Edmonds residents. Faith -based organizations do their best to meet the needs when they see them, but without support and collaboration with professional service providers these efforts aren't as streamlined or as effective as possible, and Edmonds is missing opportunities to gather data from those providers to better inform future efforts. When it comes to addressing homelessness, the community members we interviewed said the most common-sense solution is more affordable housing. More community engagement, additional behavioral health services, and an emergency shelter were the next most common suggestions for additional services. Washington State's homeless housing systems are funded by an estimated $196 million annually in private, federal, state, and local government funding. The City of Edmonds has an opportunity to attract funding to prevent and address homelessness through grants and providing City matching funds to other organizations seeking grants. Examples of actual and potential funding sources available to address homelessness in Edmonds and south Snohomish County include: Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 3 of 65 Packet Pg. 247 7.3.a kone G consulting The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) funding of $655,000 in a Housing Trust to be used by nonprofit agencies, public housing authorities and cities or towns within Snohomish County to create housing for homeless households. • Matching funding from existing grant opportunities and directly funding services through City contracts with community -based organizations (CBOs) who could use City funds as match to pursue grants themselves. • Snohomish County's funding of $14 million per year from the one -tenth of 1 % sales tax for mental illness and chemical dependency services. $755,000 of that money is allocated to capital construction of affordable housing for those experiencing mental illness and substance use disorders. Homelessness is affecting many communities throughout the region, state and nation and there are lessons to be learned from communities who have been able to move the needle on homelessness. KC conducted interviews with managers from other cities about best practices in addressing homelessness. The themes from our interviews include the importance of: • A regional collaborative response; • Housing preservation and homelessness prevention; • Ongoing data collection, monitoring and improvement, and • Seeking new funding sources. The City should conduct community education and outreach to share information on homelessness and get more input from community members on the specific initiatives the City should undertake to prevent and reduce homelessness. These efforts would begin with sharing what was learned in this assessment, addressing misperceptions of homelessness in Edmonds and providing an opportunity for residents to share experiences and suggestions for projects. The City should increase collaborative efforts with providers, neighboring cities and Snohomish County. Homelessness is a complex and expensive problem which no community can solve on their own. The importance of regional collaboration is a well-known best practice and providers, surrounding municipalities, coalitions, and advocates are eager to have more representation from the City at the table. The City should work to preserve already existing affordable housing and prevent displacement of Edmonds residents and increased homelessness. Preventing homelessness, though difficult to measure, is the more cost-effective approach and results in less disruptions in the lives of those affected and the community at large. The City should increase quality of data reporting to monitor the community needs and measure outcomes of services. Understanding the needs of the community through ongoing data monitoring can guide decisions on where the City should invest resources and also measure the impact of the Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 4 of 65 Packet Pg. 248 7.3.a kone UL consulting investment. The most cost-effective way to gather data is by providing grant funding with data reporting requirements to local service providers. The City should pursue additional funding streams through state, federal, or private grant opportunities to increase resources to meet the needs of the community, and leverage City funding to make the most impact. And finally, the City should ensure it has enough community services staff and consultation support to carry out the other recommendations. Edmonds needs dedicated resources to support the sustained efforts required to have a positive long-term impact on the issue of homelessness in Edmonds and the region. The City of Edmonds is in a unique position to develop a proactive approach to address existing homelessness and prevent Edmonds residents from becoming homeless before the prevalence of homelessness increases as it has in neighboring communities. Edmonds has untapped resources and is in a position to be a leader in addressing the issue of homelessness and other related community needs. To do so, we believe it is important for the city to consider the following recommendations. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 5 of 65 Packet Pg. 249 7.3.a kone consulting Table of Contents Introduction and Background................................................................................................................8 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 9 MajorTasks........................................................................................................................................ 9 DataGathering Activities................................................................................................................... 9 Selected Edmonds Population, Demographic, and Housing Estimates...........................................11 Housing Characteristics..................................................................................................................14 Cost Burdened Households.............................................................................................................14 Extent and Types of Homelessness in Edmonds..............................................................................17 Extent of Homelessness...................................................................................................................17 Limitations to Quantifying the Homeless....................................................................................17 Extent of Homelessness in Edmonds...........................................................................................18 PIT in Municipalities Surrounding Edmonds in 2018.................................................................. 21 Demographics of People Who Are Homeless................................................................................... 22 Types of Homelessness................................................................................................................ 29 Visible Homelessness and Hidden Homelessness.......................................................................29 Inventory of Homeless Services in Edmonds and Seven Surrounding Cities ....................................... 35 Funding Sources for Homeless Services..............................................................................................41 ActualFunding.................................................................................................................................41 Private Funding Partners.................................................................................................................42 PotentialFunding............................................................................................................................43 BestPractices....................................................................................................................................... 49 Importance of Regional Collaborative Response............................................................................. 49 Housing Preservation and Homelessness Prevention...................................................................... 51 Ongoing Data Collection, Monitoring and Improvement................................................................ 52 Seeking New Funding Sources........................................................................................................ 52 Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 57 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 6 of 65 Packet Pg. 250 7.3.a kone consulting Appendices w Appendix 1: Cities, Agencies, and Organizations Contacted.......................................................... 60 Appendix 2: Edmonds Population Demographic Charts.................................................................. 61 Appendix 3: Edmonds School District McKinney-Vento Data ......................................................... 63 Appendix 4: Edmonds Homeless Data............................................................................................. 65 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 7 of 65 Packet Pg. 251 7.3.a kone UL consulting Introduction and Background In December 2017, the City of Edmonds slated $250,000 in the City's 2018 budget for a Homelessness Response Project. A small portion of the funds were used to hire a consulting firm to conduct a rapid assessment of local homelessness in order to help the City Council to make an informed decision on how to invest the remaining funds based on the identified community needs. In April 2018, Kone Consulting, an Edmonds based, woman owned small business was retained as part of the Homeless Response Project to conduct an assessment and develop a report designed to determine the type and extent of homelessness in the City of Edmonds, as well as services available, opportunities for leveraging funding, and best practices for addressing homelessness. In collaboration with the City Homelessness Response Steering Committee, Kone Consulting has completed the identified tasks and compiled the findings and recommendations in this report. As part of our initial proposal, we suggested a second phase to the City's Homelessness Response Project which would include opportunities for public input and community engagement prior to deploying Project funds towards addressing homelessness. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4- 8 of 65 Packet Pg. 252 7.3.a kone UL consulting Methodology Major Tasks • Identifying the Type and Extent of the Homelessness in Edmonds • Inventorying Current Homeless Services in Edmonds and Seven Surrounding Cities • Identifying Actual Funding Sources for Current Homeless Services and Potential Funding Sources to Address Edmonds -Area Homelessness • Best Practices Research Data Gathering Activities Kone Consulting utilized a mixed -methods research approach in which qualitative methods - key informant interviews - supplement the available quantitative data by adding value and deeper context. Both quantitative and qualitative research approaches have limitations; however, when used together, mixed -method strategies can offset these limitations by allowing for both exploration and analysis in the same study, providing a multi -dimensional portrayal of a given issue or topic. Quantitative Data. Quantitative data was compiled and synthesized from the following sources: the American Community Survey Census data, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Edmonds School District - McKinney Vento, Snohomish County Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), Snohomish County Point -in -Time report, and 2-1-1 data and reports. Qualitative Data Through Interviews. Kone Consulting sought a diverse cross-section of the community in its qualitative interviews, reflected in 63 people across 47 interviews including leaders in neighboring municipalities, faith -based service organizations, human services agencies and providers, healthcare providers, emergency responders, public/private partnerships, schools, the library, a motel, and grocery store managers. A standard interview protocol was employed wherein individuals were provided the report's objective outlined by the Edmonds Homelessness Response Project committee and asked for their insight and experience in serving those facing homelessness and housing/food insecurity, their thoughts on highest needs or service gaps, and potential funding and collaboration opportunities. The qualitative results from interviews were converted into a quantitative format through coding, which counts the number of times a topic or word occurs to transform responses into quantifiable themes. Kone Consulting also interviewed representatives from five cities that are known to homeless experts for promising and best practices in addressing homelessness in their communities. Personal Stories. To capture the voices and experiences of those most likely to need or utilize services which address homelessness, the consultants rode along with emergency providers, visited service providers and faith -based organizations, and conducted outreach in public places to survey people about where they are getting services, where they are sheltering, what barriers they face to Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 9 of 65 Packet Pg. 253 7.3.a kone UL consulting finding or keeping housing, and the services they think would help them overcome those barriers. In exchange for agreeing to be interviewed, individuals were offered a gift card to a local grocery store. It is important to capture the perspective of those who are interacting with homeless individuals and families on a regular basis. Those interviewed for this assessment represent a broad range of perspectives which can be seen in Figure 1 below. 211 Senior Services Housing / Shelter Food Bank / Hot Meals Police Fire and Medics Courts Behavioral Health Hospital/Clinic Faith -Based Organization Advocate Foundation Grocery Store Library Motel Community College Public School City/Municipal County Figure 1: Representation of those interviewed for Edmonds Homelessness Response Project 1 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 10 of 65 Packet Pg. 254 7.3.a kone UL consulting Overview of Edmonds Selected Edmonds Population, Demographic, and Housing Estimates Known for its picturesque waterfront and charming historic downtown, Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, approximately 15 miles north of Seattle. Originally established as a mill town, Edmonds has grown in population, having been recognized as a viable commuter town for those regularly travelling to Seattle, Everett and Bellevue. The city of Edmonds begins at the King - Snohomish County line to the south, is framed by the Puget Sound to the west, spans Highway 99 to the east, with meandering boundaries joining Woodway, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, as well as encompassing Esperance, a 0.7 square -mile area of unincorporated Snohomish County residences and businesses. While public transportation is plentiful north and south along Highway 99, as well as east - west along 196th Ave. (State Route 524) to the north, and Edmonds Way (State Route 104) to the south, access to the "bowl" area of Edmonds— its waterfront and historic downtown - is more limited. Geographically, these thoroughfares create two distinct areas, known as "The Bowl" (west of 76th to the waterfront) and the "Highway 99 Corridor" (east of 76th spanning State Route 99). The former containing a majority of single -residence homes and the historic business and waterfront district, while the latter contains more high -density housing and a retail corridor made up primarily of strip malls and national chains. A 4 City of Edmonds Washington f .r Woodway Esperance -- 4 �J Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 11 of 65 Packet Pg. 255 7.3.a kone UL consulting The total population of Edmonds is estimated to be 41,309, with approximately 21 % of residents over the age of 65 years old. Edmonds has a higher rate of seniors when compared to Snohomish County (12%) and to Washington state (14%). Edmonds is predominately white (82%) with the next highest represented races Asian (8.5%), "Other" (2%) and Black/African American (1.1%). The median income of a household in Edmonds is $82,697, a more affluent community when compared to Snohomish County $78,020 and Washington state $66,174. Population data comes from the 2016/2017 American Community Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau designed to gather information more frequently than the long -form census which occurs only every 10 years. Unless otherwise noted, this data is restricted to the City of Edmonds. See tables in Appendix 2 for more details. Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Household income (including benefits) 3 1000 2000 3000 4000 Figure 2: Household income in Edmonds. American Community Survey.201612017. U.S. Census Bureau Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 12 of 65 Packet Pg. 256 7.3.a kone UL consulting The unemployment rate in Edmonds was estimated to be 4.3% (of population 16 years and older) in 2017, which is lower than the 5% benchmark used to signify a healthy labor market and lower than Snohomish County (5.4%) and Washington state (6%) rates. Unemployment county -wide has decreased 0.7% in the last year and remains lower than statewide.2 Employment status Population 16 years and over 35,088 In labor force 22,706 Civilian labor force 22,685 Employed 21,512 Unemployed 1,173 Armed Forces 21 Not in labor force 12,382 Table 1: Employment status of Edmonds residents. American Community Survey. 201612017. U.S. Census Bureau There is a relationship between employment and homelessness, including the contribution of unemployment, underemployment, and low wages to homelessness. This was most apparent during the recession which lead to significant increases in unemployment and homelessness nationwide. Just based on the higher median income and relatively low rates of unemployment in Edmonds, one would expect low levels of homelessness when compared to some neighboring communities and the region at large. That said, a growing economy and low unemployment rates can mask a number of reasons why homelessness persists. These reasons include stagnant wages and less securejobs with fewer benefits, while cost of living increases. Countywide, median wages have slightly declined and become stagnant at around $25 after having steadily increased for over a decade and peaking in 2014.3 The percentage of Edmonds residents whose income is below the poverty level is 6.1% compared to 8.8% in Snohomish County and 12.2% in Washington state. Current poverty rates in Edmonds are equivalent to what was seen in 2010, before increasing to around 9% from 2012-2014 and have been steadily decreasing since. 2 December Economic Update. The Investor Insight. Economic Alliance of Snohomish County. January 2019. https://www.economicalliancesc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Copy-of- EASC_Economic_Dashboard_v.2018.12.pdf 3 Median hourly wage. Snohomish County. Washington State Employment Security Department. https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/median-hourly-wages Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 13 of 65 Packet Pg. 257 7.3.a kone Gr consulting Housing Characteristics The total number of housing units in Edmonds is 18,683 and the majority of housing structures are single family homes (61.7%).4 Approximately two-thirds of Edmonds residents are home -owners and one-third are renters as of 2015.5 1-unit, detached 1-unit, attached 2 units 3 or units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 20 or more units Mobile home Boat, RV, van, etc. Housing in Edmonds by Type of Structure 11,528 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 Figure 3: Number of housing units by type of structure. 2002-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. U.S. Census Bureau Average cost of housing in Edmonds Cost Burdened Households It is important to understand the relationship between housing costs and income and how this relationship can contribute to homelessness. National research released as recently as December 2018 indicating that cities where many people are cost burdened (spending more than 30% of their income on housing) are more likely to experience homelessness crises. Renters that are cost 4 Edmonds, Washington. Housing Characteristics. American Community Survey. 2016/2017. U.S. Census Bureau. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/osf/pages/community facts.xhtml 'Housing Indicators Dashboard: Edmonds. Alliance for Housing Affordability. http://www.housingallies.org/hi- snoco/hi-edmonds/ Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 14 of 65 Packet Pg. 258 7.3.a kone UL consulting burdened are particularly vulnerable as there are higher rates of eviction amongst cost burdened households, which makes them more vulnerable to homelessness.',' According to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) data Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) there were 3,420 (19.4%) cost burdened households and 2,195 (12.5%) severely cost burdened households in Edmonds between 2011-2015.8 Since median home prices have increased since this data was compiled and wages have remained stagnant, cost burdened households have likely increased. Edmonds Snohomish County Seattle King County Owners 11.4% 12.2% 7.3% 9.6% Cost Burdened Renters 8.0% 8.2% 12.3% 9.8% Total 19.4% 20.3% 19.7% 19.4% Owners 7.6% 6.9% 4.8% 6.2% Severely Cost Burdened Renters 4.9% 7.2% 10.5% 8.6% (>50%) Total 1 12.5% 14.2% 15.3% 14.8% Table 2: Percentage of households that are cost burdened and severely cost burdened in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Seattle, King County. Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy. HUD.9 In general, Edmonds home owners are more cost -burdened than Edmonds renters, likely due to large number of single-family homes with households of only one or two members.10," As of 2015, the rates of cost burdened households were the same (approximately 20%) for Edmonds, Snohomish County, Seattle, and King County. The biggest difference when comparing cost burdened households 6 American Families Face a Growing Rent Burden. High housing costs threaten financial security and put homeownership out of reach for many. The Pew Charitable Trusts. April 19, 2018. httDS://www.Dewtrusts.orci/en/research-and-analvsis/resorts/2018/04/american-families-face-a-arowina-rent-burden ' Housing cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. A cost -burdened household is spending over 30% of their income on housing costs, while a severely cost -burdened household is spending over 50% of their income on housing. 8 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy for Edmonds city, Washington. Year Selected: 2011-2015. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) tabulations of American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.htm1#2006-2014 data ' Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is "select monthly owner costs", which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. 10 Housing Indicators Dashboard: Edmonds. Alliance for Housing Affordability. http://www.housingallies.org/hi- snoco/hi-edmonds/ " Homelessness Rises Faster Where Rent Exceeds a Third of Income. Chris Glynn —Alexander Casey. Zillow Research. December 2018. https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 15 of 65 Packet Pg. 259 7.3.a kone UL consulting between these cities and counties, is that there are higher rates of cost burdened renters in Seattle (12.3%) in comparison to Edmonds and county -level data (8-10%). Rates of severely cost burdened households are slightly lower for Edmonds (12.5%) when compared to Seattle and county -levels (approximately 15%). Edmonds homeowners are more severely cost burdened than Seattle's and the reverse is true for Edmonds severely cost burdened renters (4.9%) when compared to Seattle's (10.5%). Edmonds renters have likely become more cost burdened since this data was compiled, given rising rents and stagnant wages, and are important points to consider when thinking about preventing the same degree of affordable housing and homeless crisis that Seattle has encountered. Washington State reports the increased investments in homeless housing systems since 2012 appear to be overwhelmed by the housing cost increases based on the number of people becoming homeless. Rising rents make overall progress more difficult by both increasing the number of people needing homeless housing and increasing the cost of each housing intervention. Addressing the causes of rent increases is a critical part of reducing the count of people experiencing homelessness. Additional investments and system improvements are critical and should be a focus of state and local governments.12 Housing issues caused by increasing costs are exacerbated by the associated issue of very low vacancy rates. In Edmonds, out of approximately 18,700 housing units, 17,500 were occupied and 1,200 were vacant. Vacancy rates below 5% are generally considered too low and lead to housing price inflation. This is evident for Edmonds where homeowner vacancy rates are low (0.5%) and the cost of home ownership continues to increase. This makes it extremely difficult to buy a home in Edmonds. Low rental vacancy rates make it difficult for renters, even those who have sufficient income or rental assistance to pay market rates, to find a rental unit. Edmonds rental vacancy rates are at 6.3%. Having slightly higher than 5% rental vacancy rates may be helping to mitigate homelessness here for now. That said, if a homeowner can't afford to live in their home any longer, there are very few options to continue homeownership in the current housing market. This may lead them to become renters instead, decreasing the rental vacancy rates and leading to a shortage of affordable rental units. Housing Vacancy Rates Edmonds Snohomish Cou Washington Homeowner vacancy 1 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% Rental vacancy 1 6.3% 3.7% 3.8% Table 3: Homeowner and Rental vacancy rates. Selected Housing Characteristics. 2013-2017American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 12 Why is homelessness increasing? State of Washington Department of Commerce. January 2017. http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hau-why-homelessness-increase-2017.pdf Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 16 of 65 Packet Pg. 260 7.3.a kone consulting Extent and Types of Homelessness in Edmonds Extent of Homelessness Limitations to Quantifying the Homeless Varying visibility, types of and system definitions of homelessness all add to the challenge of quantifying how many people are experiencing homelessness. People who are experiencing homelessness are transient by nature. Many homeless people are in transition and moving between communities because they are looking for services, or a new place to stay, or because they are asked to leave the area by authorities. The transient nature of homeless people makes it difficult to gather accurate data about the extent of homelessness and the need for services. This is especially true in a suburban area where municipal boundaries don't have geographic boundaries. The boundaries surrounding the city of Edmonds (as seen in the map above) were noted as difficult to discern even by residents, providers, and emergency responders during interviews. Most homelessness population data are not city -specific unless the city has invested resources towards efforts to capture and analyze data. We chose to use data from the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for our estimate of the extent of homelessness because it is the most reliable and representative of the population. DSHS applications for assistance include a question about homeless status, so KC was able to get data on individuals who reported being homeless who received cash or food benefits in zip codes 98020 and 98026, excluding the city of Woodway, over the past 10 years. The DSHS programs included: Basic Food; Aged, Blind, or Disabled Cash Assistance (ABD); the Consolidated Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP); Diversion Cash Assistance (DCA); Housing and Essential Needs (HEN) Referral; Pregnant Women Assistance (PWA); Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA); State Supplemental Payment (SSP); and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This data is pulled from the Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) Data Warehouse and includes the following definitions of homeless: homeless without housing, homeless with housing or more commonly referred to as "couch surfing", emergency shelter and domestic violence shelter. Before determining that DSHS data was the best for estimating homeless trends in Edmonds, we also considered other data sources, examples of which can be seen in Appendix 4, including: • The annual Point -in -Time Count (PIT), which is reported at the national, county (Continuum of Care), and sometimes at the city level. The PIT results are an indicator of overall trends in visible homelessness rather than a definitive number of those experiencing all types of homelessness at any given time. The PIT methodology used also has some inherent limitations and can be affected by external factors such as weather and varying levels of coordination efforts from one community to the next. In Snohomish County, the PIT has been Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >><(- 17 of 65 Packet Pg. 261 7.3.a kone G consulting conducted on a single night in January since 2006 as required by Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is conducted by mapping five separate districts in the County. District leads and trained volunteers conduct outreach efforts targeting known areas such as encampments, food banks, and community meal locations by canvassing the streets to interview people. Homelessness data is reported at the national level by HUD which maintains data in Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) that is collected by local Homeless Continuums of Care (CoQ such as Snohomish County. HUD in turn releases reports such as the Annual Homeless Assessment Report and the Housing Inventory County which provide information on the extent and nature of homelessness and the number of shelter beds and homeless housing units in each CoC. The data is reported at the county -level, making it impossible to disaggregate to data on just the city of Edmonds. Because of the limitations in accurately counting unsheltered homeless people, rates of homelessness are believed to be 20% higher than HUD estimates. • Edmonds School District students experiencing homelessness are identified and receive services from the district through the McKinney-Vento Education of Homeless Children Assistance Act and Washington State's Homeless Student Stability and Opportunity Gap Act. KC chose not to use McKinney-Vento data because it only represents families with children enrolled in school, and it cannot be disaggregated to the city of Edmonds. Edmonds School District schools and their corresponding McKinney-Vento data may be found in Appendix 3. Extent of Homelessness in Edmonds The most reliable data on the number of homeless people in Edmonds comes from DSHS data. It is the most reliable because it is population data and representative of those with residential addresses in Edmonds because it can be disaggregated by zip code (98026 and 98020 minus Woodway).13 Based on that source, there are currently approximately 230 Edmonds residents experiencing homelessness, meaning they are homeless without housing (unsheltered, car camping), homeless with housing (hotel, couch surfing) or in an emergency shelter or domestic violence shelter. It is important that Edmonds knows homelessness exists here. 13 It is not possible forth is data to be disaggregated in order to remove Esperance residents. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 18 of 65 Packet Pg. 262 7.3.a kone • consulting Homelessness trends in Edmonds over the past decade are represented in Figure 4 below. The number of homeless Edmonds residents was at its lowest of 71 in August 2008 and the highest was 363 in November 2014. DSHS benefit programs caseloads fluctuate over time, therefore this trend data is more meaningful when expressed as a percentage of DSHS clients residing in Edmonds who are homeless. Though the number of homeless people (along with the caseload) has been declining since 2014, the proportion of the caseload who are currently homeless is 10.1%, which is trending back up towards the historical high of 10.7% in February 2016. This could be because people who are housed are leaving the caseload at a higher rate than homeless people, or because more new applicants are homeless. Whatever the cause, the incidence of homelessness amongst the most vulnerable Edmonds residents is increasing. More detailed data on subpopulations based on this data can be found later in this report in the section titled Demographics of People who are Homeless 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Homeless Trends in Edmonds over time r� n W X W W M M M M O a a a i1 4 a1 c1 N N N N M M M M�* �t �* M M M M lO lO lO LO n n n n WW O O O O O O O O O O IV r- a --I '_ I ci ri a --I '_ I ci 1- 1 i IV a --I a --I 1 i ri r- r- ri ri r- r- ri 71 a --I r- 1 i 41 4J 4J 41 41 41 N N N 0 0 f6 Q 7 f6 Q 7 f0 Q 7 f6 Q 7 N Q 7 N Q 7 CO Q 3 = Q 7 O N Q 7 o n Q 7 o n Q O� Q— O= Q— O� Q— O� Q Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � Y � U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� U� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� � Number of DSHS clients in Edmonds reporting homeless Percentage of DSHS clients in Edmonds reporting homeless Figure 1: DSHS Cash/Food Benefit Recipient Self -Reported Housing Status. Homeless trends in Edmonds over time 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% The second most reliable source of data is McKinney-Vento data from the school district because it is also population -level data. District -wide, there are 498 homeless students who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence. In addition to the typical types of homeless, this definition can Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 19 of 65 Packet Pg. 263 7.3.a kone UL consulting also include sleeping in a car, foster children waiting to be placed (less than 10% of McKinney-Vento students are in foster care), or multiple families housed together. We estimate there are closer to 120 McKinney-Vento students who likely reside in the city of Edmonds. We arrived at that number by dividing the total by each of the District's four quadrants, and then dividing data from schools serving students in Edmonds and another municipality by two (typically Edmonds/ Lynnwood). A breakdown of types of housing/shelter represented by the 498 students served appears in the Appendix. Additional sources of data gathered to determine the extent of homelessness in Edmonds can be found in Appendix 4. Approximately 80 people found shelter at the Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church Car Camp in the year 2017.2-1-1 reported referring 32 Edmonds residents to Coordinated Entry for housing in 2017. Snohomish County Coordinated Entry data on self -reported location in order for providers to be able to outreach them in outdoor encampments in Edmonds totaled 11 during a six-month time period in 2018. The Police embedded Social Worker conducts outreach to people who are homeless in Edmonds when she receives a referral from the Police Department. At the time of her interview she was tracking 10 unsheltered homeless people in Edmonds on her list for outreach activity. The Edmonds Police Department make referrals for outreach by completing a form. The Edmonds Court probation officer reports an estimated 5-10 homeless individuals on probation at any point in time. Snohomish County PIT reported four unsheltered homeless individuals in Edmonds. 14 The Edmonds Food Bank reported 79 people who are homeless in the most recent 2017/2018 service year. The food bank prioritizes Edmonds residents but accepts non -Edmonds residents. The south Snohomish county food banks track who has accessed services to prevent duplication of services between food banks. The extent of homelessness in municipalities surrounding Edmonds is limited by the availability of city -specific homelessness data. The PIT should be the best source of data for this, however it is not collected/reported at the city level for Brier, Lake Forest Park, Mukilteo, Shoreline or Woodway. The next geographic level PIT data that is reported on is for Snohomish County, which reported 858 homeless people counted in 2018. Of those, 378 people were unsheltered, 364 were staying in emergency shelters, and 116 were in living in transitional housing. The PIT for North King County includes the cities of Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, and Woodinville and in 2018 totaled 251, a considerable increase from 58 in 2017. The magnitude of people who are homeless without housing living on the street in Edmonds seems to be relatively low, both measured by the 2018 Edmonds PIT15 that counted four individuals, and as reported by first responders and other community service providers. First responders estimated there may be as many as 10 people who are known to be living unsheltered in Edmonds on a routine basis. One type of homelessness that is more visible in Edmonds is the practice of car camping, a common step down for someone with a vehicle when they first lose their housing. The most reliable data we 14 2018 PIT efforts were limited to the efforts of one volunteer counting in Edmonds 15 Edmonds 2018 PIT was conducted by one volunteer. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 20 of 65 Packet Pg. 264 7.3.a kone G consulting have of the prevalence of car camping is the Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church that served about 80 people in their car camp in 2017. People sleeping in RVs and cars in non -sanctioned areas of Edmonds is evident but not well documented. PIT in Municipalities Surrounding Edmonds in 2018 Municipality Number Brier Edmonds 4 Lynnwood 22 Lake Forest Park Mountlake Terrace_ Mukilteo Shoreline Woodway Snohomish Countv North King County 7 858 251 Table 4: 2018 PIT counts16,17 *Not collecting/reporting data. North King County includes the cities of Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline, Woodinville, Unincorporated areas. 16 Seattle/King County Point -In -Time Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness. 2018. Count Us In. All Home. http://allhomekc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FINALDRAFT-COUNTUSI N2018REPORT-5.25.18.pdf "Point -in -Time Count Summary. For the night of January 22, 2018. Snohomish County. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/54339/2018-Point-In-Time-Report-PDF Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 21 of 65 Packet Pg. 265 7.3.a kone L consulting Demographics of People Who Are Homeless Sometimes the public's perception of people who are homeless —who they are, how they live, and why they don't have housing —is different than the reality. For instance, family crisis was the most frequent response when people who are homeless in Snohomish County were asked what contributed to them becoming homeless, despite a common perception that most people are homeless because they have behavioral health issues. Another common misperception of homeless people is that they end up in Edmonds coming from another part of the region. The Snohomish County PIT data shows that the majority of people who are homeless in Snohomish County are originally from Snohomish County.18 Many of the service providers and community members we interviewed told us one of their concerns about homelessness in Edmonds is the misperception that it doesn't exist here because Edmonds residents are wealthy. Homelessness impacts people across all demographic groups. The 230 people experiencing homelessness in Edmonds are people of all ages, genders and race. They are seniors and students, families and single adults, U.S. citizens and refugees. What they have in common is a lack of money and housing. Homelessness in Edmonds by Race Race Not Reported, 5% Hispanic, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% White, 66% A0 Black/African American, 11% Native American, 3% Two or More Races, 2% Table 5: Self -reported homeless status among DSHS benefit recipients as of June 2018 18 PIT survey respondents were asked to identify the factors which contributed to their household becoming homeless, where they stayed the previous night and last city of permanent residence. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/54339/2018-Point-In-Time-Report-PDF Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 22 of 65 Packet Pg. 266 7.3.a kone consulting Like other communities, people of color are disproportionately impacted by homelessness in Edmonds. Though white people are 82% of Edmonds population, they represent 66% of homeless Edmonds residents. People who are Asian make up 8.5% of Edmonds population and 4.8% of Edmonds homeless. Black/African Americans make up 1% of the population in Edmonds and 11% of the homeless. Native Americans make up 0.50% of the population and 3% of Edmonds homeless. Hispanic make up 5% of the population and 8% of the Edmonds homeless. Homeless Seniors June 2018 DSHS data indicates there are 77 homeless Edmonds residents who are elderly, blind or disabled, representing 20% of the DSHS caseload for those receiving Aged, Blind or Disabled Cash Assistance, Housing and Essential Needs assistance, or the State Supplemental Payment for aged, blind, and disabled individuals on SSI. Edmonds residents age 65 and older represent 21% of the Edmonds population while only representing 2% of the homeless population as shown in Figure 5 below. Homelessness in Edmonds by Age 65 or older 2% 55-6141 alhk 11% 16% 45-54 18-24 16% 10% 35-44 25-34 20% 25% L Figure 2: Self -reported homeless status among DSHS benefit recipients as of June 2018 Many of those interviewed believe that Edmonds seniors are the most at risk of becoming homeless The reasons for this include that many seniors are living on a fixed income such as social security, while housing costs, property taxes and healthcare expenses such as prescription costs are increasing. For example, a 68-year-old retired teacher wrote Edmonds Lutheran Church a letter asking if he could get on the waitlist for an affordable housing project they are sponsoring. He Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 23 of 65 Packet Pg. 267 7.3.a kone consulting explained that his rent has been going up 10% a year while his Social Security income only goes up 2% a year. By doing the math, he knows he soon won't be able to afford to live in his current housing Emergency responders and providers at the hospital see seniors who experience a fall or a medical crisis and are unable to return to living independently in the housing they have. Sometimes patients linger in hospital or nursing home settings, waiting for options such as Adult Family Homes to become available. But even those resources are not enough to meet the growing demand and often located outside of Edmonds and away from community support. With baby boomers aging, seniors are a subpopulation that is rapidly growing, including amongst the homeless population in many communities. it If they pay for medication, then they can't cover rent Senior housing options are very limited and one waitlist for senior housing is said to be two years long. Low-income seniors with a subsidy have difficulty even renting a shared room in Edmonds. Rental housing for seniors is also increasing, an example of that being a 55+ apartment that recently raised rent by $120 a month. Some interviewed believe that people falsely assume Edmonds has sufficient funding and service systems in place to take care of seniors, but even the resources the City does have are not enough to meet the growing need. Edmonds has an opportunity to help seniors age in place and prevent the risk of more seniors becoming homeless in the community. Homeless People and Behavioral Health Mental health and substance use, jointly referred to as behavioral health, has a complicated, two-way relationship with homelessness. Mental illness and substance use can strain relationships, disrupt capabilities of self -care, and interrupt the routine of employment, which are all factors that can lead to homelessness. Homelessness can in turn exacerbate mental health, substance use and chronic medical conditions. A person can become chronically homeless19 when their health becomes increasingly destabilizing and stable housing becomes too difficult to access or maintain without support. 19 Chronic homelessness is a total of 12 or more months continuously or four separate occasions totaling 12 months over the last three years— as definied by HUD. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 24 of 65 Packet Pg. 268 7.3.a kone consulting Nationwide, 20% of homeless people reported having a serious mental illness and 16% reported having a chronic substance use disorder.20 For people who are homeless and struggling with behavioral health issues, navigating homeless services is more difficult, especially when the evidence -based wrap around services that are essential to recovery and accessing housing are limited in south Snohomish County. r Trauma, Domestic Violence and Substance Use Lori and Anne, living in a van k *M Sheltering in a van and struggling to find jobs or connect with services, Lori and Anne spoke hesitantly and in hushed tones about lives with trauma and domestic violence. Lori said she'd been "homeless for a quite a long time," and neither knew what day it was. Anne had more recently become homeless, having left an abusive relationship. A life of trauma has led to drug use. Parked in a lot just north of the King -Snohomish County line off Hwy 99, the two said they were from the area a few miles away. They have been looking for work, but without adequate shelter, food or laundry services, have been unsuccessful in landing jobs. "I would like to know how it is determined who gets help and who doesn't," said one of the women. Preventing homelessness or keeping episodes of homelessness short is particularly important with people who have behavioral health issues as they are more likely to become chronically homeless, are more vulnerable to experiencing trauma while living unsheltered, and are at higher risk of chronic health conditions and dying on the streets. Focusing on homelessness prevention and shorter episodes of homelessness also decrease the use of expensive systems such as emergency rooms, medical detox and jail. We know that the longer people are homeless, the higher the chance of developing mental illness or chemical dependency. 20 HUD 2018 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations. https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/reportmanagement/published/CoC_PopSub_NatITerrDC_2018.pdf Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 25 of 65 Packet Pg. 269 7.3.a kone UL consulting Homeless Low-income or Single -parent Families DSHS data shows there are 62 homeless Edmonds families receiving one of the cash assistance programs21 for families with dependent children, which is about 18% of the DSHS caseload in Edmonds. Cash benefits for families are available for a limited time to those who meet income and resource requirements. Families are also required to participate in the WorkFirst program unless they qualify for an exemption, such as domestic violence. Some low-income single -parent families may have housing but are housing insecure while others may couch surf or car camp before finding a shelter that has space available. Children lose stability when their parents cannot afford housing and must move frequently. Homeless Working Poor DSHS data shows 229 people in Edmonds who were receiving Basic Food assistance (formerly known as Food Stamps) reported they were homeless. In order to be eligible for even a minimum benefit of $15 a month in Basic Food, individuals must have income below 200% of the federal poverty level, which in 2018 was $47,800 a year for a family of three. At the national level, over half of adults on food assistance who are able to work are working, and over 80 percent had a job before applying for assistance. It is likely that some of the 229 homeless individuals receiving Basic Food in Edmonds are working and still cannot afford housing. There is a strong connection between food insecurity, hunger and homelessness. Food and housing are two basic needs that must be met daily. Therefore, low-income people sometimes have to choose between paying rent and buying food. On the other hand, that means providing food assistance like Basic Food and emergency food through food banks, like the Edmonds Food Bank, can help to prevent homelessness. As long as housing costs rise more quickly than wages, people will continue to be at risk. Edmonds homelessness trends over time follow a similar trend line to poverty rates and can be seen in relation in Figure 7 below, confirming the relationship between poverty and homelessness. What is most significant about this figure, is that even though poverty rates are declining there are still more people experiencing homelessness than when poverty rates were similar in 2010. This 21 Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Diversion Cash Assistance (DCA), Consolidated Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) and the Pregnant Women Assistance Program (PWA) Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 26 of 65 Packet Pg. 270 7.3.a kone G consulting emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the rapidly rising cost of housing and homelessness. Edmonds Homelessness and Poverty Rates Over Time 400 9.0% 8 9% 9.1% 10% 350 8.3 % 7.8% 9% 7.1% 8% 300 6.2% 6.1% 7% 250 6% 200 5% 150 4% 3% 100 2% 50 1% 0 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 � Number of People who are homeless Poverty Rate Figure 3: Homeless trends based on DSHS data in relation to ACS poverty rates overtime Homeless College Students Local news stories in the past ti A year have highlighted Edmonds Community College (EdCC) students who are homeless. The Everett Herald reported that 18 EdCC students had lived in rX �y 1l� Shepherds Village, a sanctioned tent encampment hosted by the Good Shepherd Baptist Church in Lynnwood over an 18-month ' period. The Shepherd's Village was created to provide a home for Edmonds Community College I students experiencing homelessness.22 In November 2018, the Village opened 6 pallet -built tiny -homes to students. "Just 22 Giordano, Lizz, "Lynnwood ponders tiny houses for homeless college students", The Everett Herald, July 27, 2018. httos://www.heraIdnet.com/news/homeless-edcc-students-hose-for-more-stable-temoorarv-housina Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 27 of 65 Packet Pg. 271 7.3.a kone G consulting having a roof over my head and a door I can close makes studying so much easier," said one resident in a November 2018 My Edmonds News report.23 it You can't learn if you're cold, wet and wondering where your next meal is coming from. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 28 of 65 Packet Pg. 272 7.3.a kone U(-- consulting Types of Homelessness Visible Homelessness and Hidden Homelessness Visible homelessness is homelessness that you see in public areas, such as tent encampments, or where people are sleeping in doorways, parks, greenbelt areas or along the waterfront. This is otherwise referred to as people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Unsheltered homelessness has increased in Snohomish County about 10% since 2013 as shown in PIT counts but decreased between 2017-2018. The municipal breakdown of PIT data indicates three unsheltered homeless individuals surveyed identified Edmonds as their last permanent residence and four unsheltered individuals identified Edmonds as where they slept the night prior. Based on other quantitative and qualitative data compiled for this report, this number would likely be higher and more accurate with more robustly coordinated efforts to survey people who are unsheltered homeless in Edmonds.24 Although unsheltered homelessness exists in Edmonds, it is the least common type. "We don't have large encampments here like in Everett," reported a first responder, "more like one or two people independently sleeping in a park or doorway." Senior center volunteers reported there have been occasional homeless people sleeping on the nearby grass or in cars in the adjacent parking lot. People are sometimes seen sleeping on benches in Brackett's Landing. More people who are visibly homeless in Edmonds are seen panhandling along Highway 99, near supermarkets and other thoroughfares. A lack of significant unsheltered homelessness in Edmonds, coupled by residents quickly alerting police to respond to panhandlers and trespassers in the Edmonds bowl area, makes visible homelessness, and homelessness in general, anecdotally appear less significant an issue than reported by stakeholders. Homeless people really try to stay hidden here. 23 Vogel, Larry, "Ribbon Cutting for Lynnwood village aimed at helping homeless students finish college", My Edmonds News, November 2018. htti)s://mvedmondsnews.com/2018/11/ribbon-cut-for-Ivnnwood-village-aimed-at-heloing- homeless-students-finish-college/ 21 Point -in -Time Count Summary. For the night of January 22, 2018. Snohomish County. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/54339/2018-Point-In-Time-Report-PDFFPDF Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 29 of 65 Packet Pg. 273 7.3.a kone consulting "Everyone thinks homeless are drug users and that's not the case." Tim, sleeping in o pork Tim, a 51-year-old white male, grew up in Edmonds. He had a good job when he was younger and was able to save money. He has been homeless for eight years and had spent the night in a sleeping bag in a local park. He has a bicycle and trailer in which he keeps is belongings. A devastating moment. Tire shared that his parents were killed in a car accident; their funeral took all of his savings and retirement. Mourning and without a safety net, Tim became depressed and began drinking heavily, resulting in losing everything. Tim would like to see more hot meals offered, especially as cold and wet weather approaches. Although Tim is receiving Basic Food benefits, he says it doesn't go very far. He really struggles the last week of the month, especially as food prices have risen and Basic Food benefits have not kept pace. Although he uses food banks goes to church meal services, his food and nutrition choices are limited as he hz nowhere to cook. Tim prefers to keep to himself and feels safer close to home (Edmonds). Althoui Tim has looked for Section 8 housing and tried to apply for the Housing and Essl Needs (HEN) program through DSHS, it is hard to find help. Ultimately, Tim wou like to find employment and have a roof over his head, "it would be nice to haur a place to go to be warm, safe and dry." When people run out of options for housing, they often resort to sleeping in cars or RVs, more commonly referred to as car camping. Cars and RVs provide minimal shelter as well as much needed transport for those still employed or accessing services, however with maintenance and fuel costs, abandoned and/or broken-down cars and RVs are inevitable. Private RV Parks often require RVs be no more than 10-15 years old, significantly limiting the places where RV owners may park long-term. Hence, RVs are seen overnighting in public parks and parking lots, grocery lots and other public places. Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church in Esperance provides the only sanctioned car - camping site near Edmonds. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 30 of 65 Packet Pg. 274 7.3.a kone consulting No Place to Park and Few Services Maria and Andy, Living in an RV At 49, Maria is open to sharing her story and ideas for helping those in a similar situation. Together with her partner, Andy, they bought their RV to travel and visit grandchildren. She explains she is a single mom with three adult children. Her 01 education includes three years of college. f-h. Maria's partner, Andy (58), is a former business owner, and is disabled due to a botched neck surgery. He now suffers from seizures, constant tremors, and communicates with slow, slurred speech, painstakingly retelling the story of his surgeries and illness. "I refuse to lie (about having an RV) in order to get services," shared Maria, "we are not considered homeless because we have an RV." And despite applying for Social Security, they both have been waiting four years for approval. The couple have tried to access services/vouchers in the past by arriving (at providers) on the first of the month by 8 am, only to be told all the funds are already gone." No address and no place to park. Maria explained most RV parks won't allow RVs manufactured before 2408 or pets, requiring the couple to constantly drive around to different parking lots, curbsides and parks for overnight shelter. "Gas and RV repairs are expensive," said Maria. Although Andy has Compass Health, without a permanent address, he is unable to receive medical transport when he needs critical services. Often, when RVs break down, people are forced to shelter in cars or live on the street. Many unmet needs. "Most of the homeless RV population are older couples," observed Maria, "we need more support for homeless with disabilities, like a homeless wellness center." Gas vouchers are always needed and appreciated, as would be access to a social worker who could directly deposit funds into rent Oaccounts or provide resource navigation. And more RV parks, which Maria thinks could include access to a community work source bank based on skills of the individual (e.g. bakers, mechanics, etc.) so goods and services may be bartered. Maria is eager to participate in creative solutions and feel part of a bigger community, "most importantly, we want a safe place to stay," Andy shared s Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 31 of 65 Packet Pg. 275 7.3.a kone r• consulting No Address Sarah and Tom, living in van, sleeping at library In their mid-20s, Sarah and Tom have lived in their van for four years, often overnighting in a library parking lot. Prior to living in their van, they rented a home, however the landlord would not make necessary repairs, and ultimately evicted them even though they kept current on their rent. Without savings, they were unable to find another rental. Severe Health Challenges. For the past 3.5 years Sarah's mother has lived in the van with them as well. She has diabetes and kidney failure. Both women have applied for Social Security, one utilizing legal assistance for her disability application, however, when she refused to lie as suggested by her legal counsel, she was dropped by her lawyer for being uncooperative. Nowhere to cook. Sarah explained they receive Basic Food (SNAP) benefits and that food banks are helpful but reported "there is nowhere to cook except barbecues in the park during daylight hours." No address means limited or nonexistent services. "We have been turned away for some support services because we don't have an address," explained Tom, "and I'd like to find work, but without a permanent address we're considered transient everywhere." "Being homeless is not a choice for us. We'd like to be given a chance because not all homeless are bad people. We're not drug or alcohol abusers," Tom said. In the absence of permanent housing, the couple would like to see an "urban rest stop" with accessible showers (no stairs, wider stalls for people with disabilities), laundry facilities, and a safe place to park. it People are homeless now that never expected to be homeless 3-5 years ago. Hidden Homelessness. Another kind of homelessness in Edmonds is less visible when individuals have support from friends or family, or still have some resources, like an automobile or RV, or enough funds to stay in a motel for part of the month. These types of homelessness are more common than visible homelessness in Edmonds and explain the range in data between three and 230. Households in these situations may live on a fixed income or are employed but not making enough money to afford the cost of housing - particularly costly of move -in deposits that most landlords require. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 32 of 65 Packet Pg. 276 7.3.a kone consulting People experiencing homelessness sometimes utilize all resources available to them within one month- transitioning between shelters, hotels, couch surfing and unsheltered homeless situations- in order to have the stability of a community. Unfortunately, there is sometimes a progression of homelessness. Many of the providers and emergency responders spoke to these steps along a pathway that may ultimately lead to living on the streets more permanently after bridges are burned with support systems or resources dry up. it There are homeless people who have a job but not enough money to have a place to live. An example of hidden homelessness in Edmonds includes couch surfing or doubling up. Edmonds residents who don't have permanent housing may rely on friends and family for a place to stay. Also, families containing multiple generations or extended family in need of housing will sometimes pool resources and live in a home beyond its intended capacity. Families who are homeless are sometimes forced to split up, sending children to stay with friends or family while parents stay in vehicles or at shelters. HUD definitions of homelessness do not include couch surfing, preventing people in these situations from being able to access any HUD funded services until they have exhausted family and friend supports. Another important category to consider when discussing homelessness in Edmonds is that of people who are housing insecure or experiencing housing instability and at risk of becoming homeless. People who are housing insecure are typically living on fixed or low -incomes, like the elderly or disabled, and may be making choices every month to pay their mortgage or rent but then have inadequate funds for food, utilities, healthcare and clothing or find themselves living in subpar conditions due to aging and unsafe housing stock. These people spend most of their incomes on housing costs (cost burdened) and are living one check or life problem — a layoff, illness or even car trouble -away from becoming homeless. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 33 of 65 Packet Pg. 277 7.3.a kone If consulting Single Mom Working Multiple Jobs Wendy, unable to heat home and no health insurance From health challenges to heating bills, Wendy has managed to keep a roof over her and her daughter's heads — barely. Working for the school district (on a contract - basis) and taking on additional part-time or temporary jobs, Wendy says one of the challenges in finding safe, affordable housing is lacking credit history [due to her divorce]. "In a good month, my income is $2,600," explained Wendy, "we were renting a house for $2,500 that had aluminum windows and the original ❑il furnace. I quickly discovered it cost $600 every 5 weeks to refill the furnace —so we stopped heating the house." When the landlord told Wendy they'd be selling the house, she and her daughter were very close to moving into a friend's RV. Fortunately, they were able to rent a house through a friend of a friend. The cost t❑ move was $7,000. Six -thousand dollars for first/last month's rent and a deposit, plus a U-haul. And deposits to utility accounts because of credit issues. And discovering a rat problem upon moving in added to the stress. Wendy has a roommate wh❑ helps offset the cost of rent, and her daughter qualifies for the free and reduced lunch program — a federal program which, in addition to nutritious breakfast and lunch offered on -site at school, als❑ provides waivers for SAT/SAT testing, qualification for college bound scholarships, textbooks for running start students, and free flu shots among other health care benefits. Those benefits were at risk, however, when Wendy's aging mother moved out of the house — dropping their eligibility based on the number of family members under one roof. Wendy's daughter will graduate high school and receive her AA degree in 2019, having placed on the Dean's High Scholar list. "People ❑n the outside, don't see the reality. If they learn too much, then they think you're making bad decisions or asking for a handout," Wendy shared, "without our friends (who help occasionally), I don't know where we'd be." 6h. it Families are living just one event away from a crisis —a car breakdown, medical emergency — just one thing. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 34 of 65 Packet Pg. 278 7.3.a kone consulting Inventory of Homeless Services in Edmonds and Seven Surrounding Cities The following is a summary of services available to people who are homeless in Edmonds. A more complete but not thoroughly exhaustive list of services available in south Snohomish County for people who are homeless can be found in Table 7 below. Notably, basic need services for people who are homeless in Edmonds are mostly being provided by area faith -based organizations, the Senior Center/Homage Senior Services, and the Edmonds Food Bank and primarily include warm meals, food, and hygiene services. The South Snohomish County cold -weather shelter, historically hosted by the Edmonds Senior Center where up to 50 people could sleep when temperatures reached below freezing, is now hosted by Maple Park Church in Lynnwood due to pending re -construction at the Edmonds Senior Center. Annie's Community Kitchen, as a service of Edmonds Lutheran Church has provided hot meals once a week on Wednesdays for 14 years, currently cooks 200 meals per week and periodically has a mobile health outreach van. Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church Car Camp offers up to three months of parking for eligible applicants and features ten overnight car camping spaces and two temporary spots. Vehicles may be parked from 4:00 pm to 9:00 am. The site accepts families with children under 18 and single women (men and couples without children are not eligible). The church has a Car Camp Team which processes applications, manages a waiting list and ensures the on -site exterior portable toilet is maintained. The application process includes a criminal background check and personal interview with two members of the team. Once accepted, campers complete an orientation featuring policies and regulations, information on area services, and a dashboard permit. The team has provided information and training to other churches interested in creating a similar program in their respective communities. YMCA vouchers are available to car campers enabling recreation and hygiene opportunities. Trinity Lutheran's Neighbors in Need is located less than a mile east of the Edmonds city limits in Lynnwood. They have served a Saturday community breakfast for ten years which includes a food pantry, clothing, and hosts volunteer mobile hygiene/shower and mobile laundry facilities. The program currently serves 200-225 breakfasts (plates) with 125-130 people registering each week. A volunteer with the program estimates as many as one-third to one-half of the families served live in Edmonds; the rest are from the Everett to Seattle corridor. The church property is the future site of a Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 35 of 65 Packet Pg. 279 7.3.a kone consulting neighborhood service center through a partnership with Volunteers of America, Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County and Rick Steves, and will provide care and services to those in need. Other local churches providing support include Edmonds Westgate Chapel Food Bank who offers a food and clothing bank once a week on Thursdays between 11 am — 2 pm. Maplewood Presbyterian Church/Korean N.E.S.T. Mission provides a community dinner on Fridays. Holy Rosary Church/St. Vincent de Paul offers a small food pantry, some financial assistance and hotel vouchers to people in need. The Edmonds Food Bank at the Edmonds United Methodist Church provides food to approximately 1,500 households a year as well as distributing 60 food bags to Trinity Lutheran every week. Of households served in 2017-2018, 79 were homeless while many others are living on the margins of homelessness and utilizing the food bank as a way to put food on the table and prioritize household funds towards housing costs. The relationship between food insecurity, hunger and homelessness is important to emphasize, especially in the context of preventing homelessness. The food bank is open limited hours Mondays and Tuesdays. Access to the food bank is not confined to Edmonds residents, however services are tracked between Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace food banks to prevent duplication. 25 The Edmonds Senior Center provides reduced cost/free lunch to seniors during the week and has a social worker on staff to assist seniors by providing information on resources, and referrals to services based on their needs. This often includes connecting seniors to Homage Senior Services to assist aging in place and fielding requests for information on housing options for seniors on fixed incomes come often. The social worker will also assist people occasionally found sleeping outside or sleeping in their cars in the parking lot. The Verdant Health Commission serves south Snohomish County residents through Edmonds Swedish Hospital and funds programs that serve low-income and underinsured residents. Their programs include a Community Wellness Center (located in Lynnwood) where a 2-1-1 Community Resource Advocate can provide information and referrals to basic needs services, and a Community Social Worker provides free care coordination for clients in south Snohomish County with multiple health and social service needs. Verdant also funds the South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue 25 Photo copyright Edmonds Food Bank Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 36 of 65 Packet Pg. 280 7.3.a kone UL consulting Community Paramedic Program, the first program of its kind in Washington State, which assists at - risk residents in accessing services they need instead of calling 911. Medical and dental care may be accessed through the Community Health Center of Snohomish County which has an Edmonds location on Highway 99. Services are offered on a sliding payment scale. The Center includes an urgent care walk-in clinic which is open seven days a week. Behavioral health options for homeless people in the Edmonds area are limited, with Catholic Community Services providing mental health and case management services to the broadest population, including eligible children and families, veterans and incarcerated individuals. Aurora House in Edmonds, offering psychiatric services and residential treatment to Medicaid eligible persons, is a program of Compass Health, a non-profit community -based healthcare agency. It was reported that despite these and other options, many people experiencing homelessness are not enrolled in services or eligible for Medicaid. The Foundation for Edmonds School District's Nourishing Network provides weekend, holiday and summer meals with plans to add clothing, rent assistance, transportation and student mentoring to their services; and Washington Kids in Transition serves homeless students in the Edmonds School District with 250 after -school small food bags per day. Stories shared of informal supports for basic needs included the Edmonds Library where people may receive a shower pass to the next -door Francis Anderson Center, as well as utilize the library's computers and other public resources; Facebook groups such as Edmonds Moms where posts requesting hygiene items or food and snacks are met; and individual citizens and businesses who see a need and fill it. Agency 2-1-1 Coordinated Entry System x Annie's Kitchen, Edmonds Lutheran Church x x Bethesda Lutheran Church, Mountlake Terrace x Catholic Community Services x x x Center for Human Services, Shoreline x x Christ's Heritage Church, Lynnwood x Community Health Center x x x Community Paramedics x x Compass Health Center: PATH x Concern for Neighbors Food Bank, Mountlake Terrace x Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 37 of 65 Packet Pg. 281 7.3.a kone consulting Dispute Resolution Center (VOA) x Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, Everett x x x Edmonds Community College x x x Edmonds Food Bank, Edmonds Methodist Church x Edmonds Library x Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church Car Camp x Edmonds Senior Center x x x Edmonds Westgate Chapel Food & Clothing Bank x x Evergreen Recovery Center x Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, Lynnwood x Good Shepherd Church/Shepherds Village, Lynnwood x Holy Rosary Church/St. Vincent De Paul x x x Homage Senior Services x x x x Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) x x Housing Hope x x x x Lynnwood Food Bank x Maplewood Presbyterian Church/Korean N.E.S.T. Mission x Mercy Housing Northwest x x x Nourishing Network/Foundation for Edmonds SD x x Neighbors in Need, Trinity Lutheran x x x New Life Church, Lynnwood x Puget Sound Christian Clinic x x Snohomish County Office of Neighborhoods/MSW x Snohomish County Veterans Assistance Program x x x South Snohomish County Cold Weather Shelter x VOA Homeless Prevention Services x x Verdant Health Commission/Swedish-Edmonds x x x x Veterans Services Washington Kids in Transition (Edmonds School District) x x x YWCA - Pathways for Women x x x Table 6: Services available to people who are homeless in Edmonds and south Snohomish County "Other" category includes employment services, life skills, etc. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 38 of 65 Packet Pg. 282 7.3.a kone G consulting A reoccurring theme discussed by interviewees was the underrepresentation in Edmonds and surrounding communities of human services, namely availability and proximity of such services in relation to homelessness, and county -wide homeless services are predominately located in Everett, the county seat. County -wide, the top service needs based on call volume to 2-1-1 are emergency shelters or hotel vouchers, hygiene services, rent and utility assistance, transportation and legal assistance. This corresponds with themes from those interviewed as seen in Figure 8 below. Services needed to address homelessness in Edmonds Affordable housing and low income housing Community engagement Behavioral health services Emergency shelter Homelessness prevention services Day centers � Housing access support/services � Inpatient treatment � City role in coordinating social services � Inadequate funding Reducing barriers to services Transportation Wrap around services Figure 4: Coded themes from key informant interviews 61 The need for affordable housing was the most common response, by a large margin when asking stakeholders and people impacted by homelessness what the biggest need is for addressing homelessness in Edmonds. There is no emergency shelter in Edmonds- the closest facility in Everett The cold -weather shelter currently operated in Lynnwood is insufficient because it only operates in the cold -weather months. Mentioned by providers and homeless people alike is the need for day centers, particularly in south Snohomish County— a service that offers a safe place to be during the day, hygiene services, meals, information and referrals or case management. An example is the City of Vancouver, Washington that opened a Navigation Center in November 2018 where people who are homeless are able to shower, do laundry, store personal belongings, collect mail, charge phones, and receive clothing as well as access mental health counseling, case management, job search assistance and more.21 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 39 of 65 Packet Pg. 283 7.3.a kone UL consulting Misconceptions about homelessness and homeless people in Edmonds was a significant concern expressed by the community members we interviewed. The second most common need identified is for more community education and engagement to give the public an opportunity to understand the nature of homelessness in Edmonds and suggest efforts to reduce the risk of homelessness in Edmonds. Those interviewed also see a need for a City role in coordinating social services and collaborating efforts within the city of Edmonds and between levels of government, nonprofits, faith - based organizations and private entities. This would ideally be a dedicated staff position with expertise in social services and would increase potential for the City to tap into additional resources to support what is viewed as inadequate funding for community services in Edmonds. There is also an increasing need for housing retention and homelessness prevention services to keep those in Edmonds who are at risk of homelessness housed. This category of services typically includes rent assistance, utility assistance, rental inspections, housing repairs program, legal assistance, landlord engagement & mediation and general renter advocacy education. Residents, especially those renting, are hesitant to raise concerns or issues about maintenance for fear they will be evicted, sometimes resulting in sub -par or unhealthy living situations. Some of these services are being provided by the Dispute Resolution Center in Everett, including tenant dispute resolution, education, and negotiation with landlords, flex funds to help with partial rent payment, and the creation of behavior contracts. The Dispute Resolution Center received about 100 referrals per month in 2017 and saw an increase to more than 140 in 2018. Ultimately, the Center strives to help landlords and renters reach agreements and avoid evictions. Another gap identified are services and policies around housing access and services to aid in securing housing. Barriers to securing housing range from income requirements, credit and criminal background checks, amassing funds for moving costs, first month's rent and deposit. These hurdles, coupled with low vacancy rates, inhibit those attempting a fresh start or who are newly employed to find housing. One interviewee explained that a person with a soft criminal background who now has a job and has become a productive member of society, will be turned down when attempting to rent an apartment. Another area where there are gaps in housing access is in the Section 8 housing program that provides vouchers to low-income participants. Numerous respondents mentioned seven- to eight -year waiting lists for Section 8 housing, which could be alleviated if more landlords were willing to rent to Section 8 participants. Participants we interviewed also suggested another way to increase housing access in Edmonds is to change zoning to allow more detached or attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs). There is also a need to reduce barriers to services for those who are homeless. A difficulty cited by homeless people when attempting to access services was the requirement for a permanent address, something a person who is homeless typically does not have. Also mentioned were those subpopulations likely to be screened out of service eligibility due to complex behavioral health or medical needs. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 40 of 65 Packet Pg. 284 7.3.a kone UL consulting Access to and availability of behavioral health services was also identified as a service gap. Behavioral health services can be difficult to navigate, offer limited inpatient options, especially for those with substance use disorders, and have barriers to eligibility, even for those on Medicaid. Transportation is also a significant barrier for people who are homeless. There are limited regular and connecting public transportation routes to Edmonds historic downtown area where the Edmonds Municipal Court and civic offices are located, which makes conducting business and accessing city services or complying with probation more difficult for those with limited resources. 16 See these efforts as more of a preventative thing —if we do nothing or don't address the needs, then this area will see much more of an impact from homelessness. Funding Sources for Homeless Services Actual Funding According to the Washington Department of Commerce, homeless housing systems are funded by an estimated $196 million annually in private, federal, state, and local government funding.27 Document recording fees, collected by county auditors, are the largest single funding source of the homeless housing effort. Sixty-six percent of the fees are retained by local governments for homeless housing, and 34 percent are remitted to the State Home Security Fund (administered by Commerce) for homeless service grant programs. The Snohomish County Affordable Housing Trust Fund is financed exclusively by the first $10 of the document recording fee and the remainder of the fee funds services for the homeless. The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) recently announced the availability of $655,000 in Housing Trust Fund ($650,000 through the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 2 and $5,000 from the town of Woodway) to be used by nonprofit agencies, public housing authorities and cities or towns within Snohomish County to create housing for homeless households. 27 Overview of the Homeless Housing System and Funding. Department of Commerce. Washington State. http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/hau-overview-homeless-housing-system-2017.pdf Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 41 of 65 Packet Pg. 285 7.3.a kone G consulting Snohomish County receives millions in HUD funding for several types of programs -the Continuum of Care (CoC), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grants Program, Emergency Solutions Grand (ESG), and HOME. See table 8 below for details. Snohomish County raises approximately $14 million per year from the one -tenth of 1% sales tax for mental illness and chemical dependency services. $755,000 of that money is allocated to capital construction of affordable housing for those experiencing mental illness and substance use disorders and the remainder of the tax revenue is used to support programs and personnel that serve people with mental illness or substance use disorders. Verdant Health Commission is a program of Public Hospital District No.2, Snohomish County, and works to provide support and opportunities to improve health and well-being. Verdant has a Community Wellness Center which also houses a 2-1-1 Community Resource Advocate and provides grant -funding to programs that provide supportive services to south Snohomish County such as the Community Paramedic Program (funded January 2016 - December 2018) and the Behavioral Health Prevention Program at Therapeutic Health Services (funding renewed July 2017 -July 2019). Private Funding Partners Building Changes, a nonprofit partner of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been focused on ending family homelessness in King, Pierce and Snohomish County. They have funded multiple programs in Snohomish County including Catholic Community Services of Western Washington, Cocoon House, Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, Edmonds Community College, Everett Housing Authority, Everett Public Schools, Housing Hope, Snohomish County Human Services Department, Snohomish County Legal Services, Volunteers of America of Western Washington, Workforce Snohomish and YWCA Snohomish. Building Changes is currently focusing strategic granting on diversion - a homeless prevention strategy being utilized to help families out of homelessness quickly, including a pilot in Pierce County. One of the community engagement strategies of the Employees Community Fund of Boeing is to aid military veterans and their families with recover and rehabilitation programs as well as the transition to civilian life. Boeing Employees Credit Union (BECU) has supported homeless housing programs such as Housing Hope, including a grant totaling $200,000 over three years supporting housing and children's services as well as HopeWorks employment programs. The Hazel Miller Foundation is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the citizens of Edmonds and south Snohomish County, awarding approximately $500,000 annually to charities and non-profit organizations working in the areas of education and youth services, poverty alleviation and hunger, civic and community services and amenities, the environment, diversity, culture, and the arts. The Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 42 of 65 Packet Pg. 286 7.3.a kone G consulting Hazel Miller Foundation has also provided some funds to Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church Car Camp. The Whitehorse Foundation funds organizations working to improve the quality of life for residents of Snohomish County. The foundation focuses on programs that address prevention of problems and community challenges rather than later inventions in response to the full range of child, youth and family needs. Potential Funding The City Council has an opportunity to attract additional funding for homelessness prevention and supportive services by investing in either of these two strategies: • Attracting additional funding for the community from existing federal, state, and philanthropic grant opportunities, requiring additional staff or consulting time to pursue, win and monitor grants; and/or, • Directly funding services through City contracts with community -based organizations (CBOs) who could use City funds as match to pursue grants themselves. Funders often require that a grantee "match" some portion or all of the grant funds provided to make sure costs are fairly shared across jurisdictions or with the private sector. Funders, especially the federal government, specify what sources and types of matching funds are allowed. For example, the federal government prohibits any federal funds from being used to match a federal grant (See table 8 below for more information), sometimes making it difficult for non-profit organizations to meet the match requirement. For this reason, CBOs highly value "match -able" sources of funding- like City contracts- even if the total amounts are modest. We recommend the City Council experiment with both strategies. Funding could be allocated for a limited period of time- like 24 months- for a staff person or consultant to work with the City Council to pursue funding for additional homeless prevention and supportive services. This person could also represent the City in regional coordination efforts. Table 8 below has examples of funding sources and whether or not that funding has been drawn down in our region recently. We also recommend the City Council experiment with providing contracts to CBOs to provide some limited homeless prevention or supportive services. The contracts should be performance -based and should require a limited amount of demographic data reporting to enhance the City's understanding of the homeless and at -risk population in Edmonds. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 43 of 65 Packet Pg. 287 7.3.a kone UL consulting Possible Funding Sources for Homeless Prevention and Supportive Services Funding Stream Description Recent Grant Award in Match Req'd? WA Nearest Org. Contact Info Projects for PATH is a federal Substance Yes- $1 for Yes- North Lori Youngquist Assistance in Abuse and Mental Health every $3 multiple Sound Transition Services Administration awards RSN- Lori.voungguist(acompassh.ora from (SAMHSA) formula grant across Compass Homelessness program that provides state Health, (PATH) financial assistance to states Everett, to support services for WA homeless individuals who have serious mental illness or serious mental illness and substance abuse. Treatments The goal of this federal No Yes- Seattle- Jessica Knaster Wasse for SAMHSA program is to $499,930 King Individuals increase capacity and provide County Experiencing accessible, effective, Public Homelessness comprehensive, coordinated, Health integrated, and evidence- Dept based treatment services, peer support and other recovery support services, and linkages to sustainable permanent housing. Grants for the GBHI is a federal SAMHSA No No n/a n/a Benefit of competitively awarded grant Homeless program that enables Individuals communities to expand and (GBHI) strengthen their treatment services for people experiencing homelessness. Grants are awarded for up to five years to community - based public or nonprofit entities. Runaway and The federal SAMHSA Basic Yes-10% Yes- Friends of Homeless Center Program helps create $200,000 Youth, Youth- Basic and strengthen community- in FY2017 Kirkland, Center based programs that meet the WA Program immediate needs of runaway and homeless youth under 18 years old. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 44 of 65 Packet Pg. 288 7.3.a kone G consulting Funding Stream Description Recent Grant Award in Match Req'd? WA Nearest Org. Contact Info Runaway and The federal SAMHSA Yes-10% Yes- Cocoon Homeless Transitional Living $973,630 House, Youth- Program supports projects in FY2017 Everett, Transitional that provide long-term WA Living residential services to Program for homeless youth. Young Older people must be between the Homeless ages of 16 and 22 to enter the Youth program. Runaway and The federal SAMHSA Street Yes-10% No n/a n/a Homeless Outreach Program enables Youth- Street organizations around the Outreach country to help young people Program get off the streets. The program promotes efforts by its grantees to build relationships between street outreach workers and runaway, homeless and street youth. Community The Community Services Yes Karen Dunn, CSBG Program Services Block Grant funds a network Manager, Dept. of Commerce Block Grant of community action agencies that provide Karen.dunn@commerce.wa.gov services and activities to reduce poverty, including services to address employment, education, better use of available income, housing assistance, nutrition, energy, emergency services, health, and substance abuse needs. Family This federal ACF grant assists Yes- $2.1 Domestic www.dvs.snoco.orq Violence state agencies, territories and in FY2016 Violence Prevention Indian Tribes in the provision Services of and Services of shelter to victims of family Snohomish Formula violence and their County, Grants dependents, and for related Everett, services, such as emergency WA transportation and child care. Child Care Administered by the Office of No- Block and Child Care (OCC), is a multi- grant Development billion dollar Federal and Fund State partnership that Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 45 of 65 Packet Pg. 289 7.3.a kone G consulting Funding Stream Description Recent Grant Award in Match Req'd? WA Nearest Org. Contact Info promotes family economic self-sufficiency and helps children succeed in school and life through affordable, high -quality early care and afterschool programs. 2014 reauthorization added ability to use CCDF funds for outreach to homeless families. Community HUD provides grants to states $3 million Human Jackiem.anderson@snoco.org Development and localities to provide to Services of Block Grant decent housing and a suitable Snohomish Snohomish living environment, and to County in County expand economic 2018 opportunities, principally for low- and moderate -income persons. Emergency HUD provides grants to $246,064 Human Jackiem.anderson@snoco.org Solutions localities for street outreach, to Services of Grants emergency shelter, Snohomish Snohomish Program homelessness prevention, County in County rapid re -housing assistance, 2018 and HMIS. Continuum of HUD funding to provide $880,000 Office of Stenhanie.wong@snoco.org Care permanent housing, to Homeless transitional housing, Snohomish and supportive services, HMIS County in Community and sometimes homelessness 2017 Services, prevention. Snohomish County HOME HUD provides grants to $2 million Human Jackiem.anderson@snoco.org localities for building, buying, to Services of and/or rehabilitating Snohomish Snohomish affordable housing for rent or County in County homeownership or providing 2018 direct rental assistance to low-income people. Basic Food The Washington State Basic Yes- 50% Edmonds (SNAP) E&T Food Employment and reimbursement Community 50/50 Grants Training (BFET) program College, provides employment Lynnwood, readiness opportunities to WA Basic Food (SNAP) recipients Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 46 of 65 Packet Pg. 290 7.3.a kone G consulting Funding Stream Description Recent Grant Award in Match Req'd? WA Nearest Org. Contact Info who are not participating in Housing the Temporary Assistance for Hope, Needy Families (TANF) Everett, WorkFirst program. Services WA are provided through contracted community & technical colleges and/or community -based organizations (CBO). Table 7: Funding for Homeless Prevention and Supportive Services Programs that Support Individuals or Families Program Description Benefits Means- tested? Nearest Service Delivery Office Contact Info Temporary Temporary Assistance Monthly cash Yes Alderwood Assistance for for Needy Families assistance; CSO, Needy Families- (TANF) provides employment and Lynnwood, WorkFirst temporary cash for training services WA families in need. Some families participate in the WorkFirst Program. The WorkFirst Program helps participants find and keep jobs. Basic Food (food The US Department of Monthly benefit Yes Alderwood stamps) Agriculture (USDA), allotment CSO, Supplemental Lynnwood, Nutrition Assistance WA Program (SNAP), called Basic Food in Washington, helps low income people make ends meet by providing monthly benefits to buy food. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 47 of 65 Packet Pg. 291 7.3.a kone UL consulting Nearest Service Means- Delivery Program Description Benefits tested? Office Contact Info Apple Health- Medicaid, called Washington Yes Swedish Judy McKee Medicaid Apple Health in Apple Health has Medical iudv.mckee( swedish.org Washington, is a a number Center, jointly funded, of benefits and Edmonds federal -state health services insurance program for dedicated to certain low-income providing health and needy people. care coverage for low income residents. Covered services under Apple Health are available through managed care or fee -for -service. Apple Health for The Children's Health Same benefits as Yes Swedish Judy McKee Kids- Children's Insurance Program Apple Health. Medical 6udy.mckee(@ swedish.org Health Insurance (CHIP) isjointly Center, Program financed by the Edmonds Federal and State governments and is administered by the States. In Washington, Apple Health for Kids provides free or low- cost health insurance if income eligible. Table 8: Programs that Support Individuals or Families Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 48 of 65 .r a Packet Pg. 292 7.3.a kone UL consulting Best Practices Homelessness is affecting many communities throughout the Puget Sound region, Washington State and the nation. There are lessons to be learned from other communities that have addressed homelessness and have been able to decrease or prevent homelessness. Based on the recommendations of experts, we talked to multiple cities that are viewed as model communities in their approach to homelessness. The top themes from these best practice interviews include the: 1) Importance of regional collaborative response; 2) Housing preservation and homelessness prevention; 3) Ongoing data collection, monitoring and improvement; and 4) Seeking new funding sources. Importance of Regional Collaborative Response No one city can solve homelessness on their own and homelessness does not easily fit within municipal or even county boundaries. Homelessness is a complex and expensive challenge to address. Lessons learned in other cities begin with having a shared vision and collaborative regional response. One State/County/City collaborative identified as utilizing promising and best practices in addressing homelessness is the state of Minnesota, Minneapolis & Hennepin County. The emphasis of their efforts is on coordination and staff support. Minnesota's statewide plan, "Heading Home Together" provides a framework for addressing homelessness, along with managing some of the systems change initiatives. Hennepin County is the top tier governing board and the city of Minneapolis provides funding and regular collaboration meetings and calls with the Mayor's office. Having a Human Services Coordinator has been a key part of the city's role due to their ability to coordinate between city, county, and state eligibility, case management, and child welfare colleagues. This has been key in some of the innovations that Minneapolis has been able to implement as well as obtaining resources. An example of this level of coordination is bringing in child welfare with housing and homeless services so that families have a provider who can work with them and navigate child welfare which is very rule bound and focused on risk management and risk aversion. This requires building trust over time, developing a deeper understanding of each other's approach, the kind of services available, and the constraints they are facing. Minneapolis also underscored the importance of bringing everyone to the table, including academic and philanthropic partners. They worked with academic partners who looked at risk factors for Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 49 of 65 Packet Pg. 293 7.3.a kone G consulting evictions and those that lead to homelessness and piloted an eviction prevention program in north Minneapolis based on what they learned. When working with the philanthropic sector it is important to have a strategic direction and approaches that are proven to work through pilots and can be scaled up through their investment and impact in a meaningful way. Collaborative efforts to address homelessness in Salt Lake City, Utah included a state driven initiative that was then coordinated throughout the valley and the City using a Collective Impact approach and included a broad range of shelter providers, first responders, foundations, housing providers and resource centers. A city closer to Edmonds that has made progress in addressing homelessness is Spokane, WA. Spokane has two boards— Community Housing and Services Board and a CoC Board 28. The CoC board is relatively new and has been greatly expanded to include representatives from all other service sectors that need to interface with the system like healthcare and education. Spokane recently made improvements in how they conduct the PIT, which prior to January 2018 had not been a truly regional effort. Having regional partners at the table from the very beginning of PIT planning to discuss how the count would be conducted was instrumental in improving efforts and therefore the quality of data collected. After the count, they made sure to share what they learned with as many regional agencies, groups, and boards as possible. Spokane emphasized homelessness must be approached as a regional issue with pooled resources. Converting compartmentalized services into a truly focused housing response program (coordinated entry) was also instrumental. It is important to provide pathways for folks to get through the system. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) is a nationally recognized partnership of King County and 14 East King County cities who have joined together to assist with preserving and increasing the supply of housing for low- and moderate -income households in the region. The coalition is a diverse array of cities ranging in size from Bellevue and Kirkland, to Bothell, Medina and Clyde Hill. ARCH is an example of an innovative approach that includes a consortium of jurisdictions as they work with member governments, local organizations and private developers to create housing policies, strategies, programs, and developmental regulations to support the creation of affordable housing for low- and moderate -income households. The cities pay membership dues and in return the Coalition does all the housing data collection, administration, and assists people looking for rental housing or home ownership. Another example of regional collaboration to address homelessness is the South King Housing & Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP). SKHHP was started in 2015 to bring together a network of South 28 Snohomish County's CoC board is the Partnership to End Homelessness (PEH). The PEH's goals are to promote community -wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness in partnership with nonprofit providers and local governments. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>��>> 50 of 65 Packet Pg. 294 7.3.a kone G consulting King County stakeholders on issues related to affordable housing and homelessness. SKHHP works with cities, nonprofits, developers, faith communities, businesses, civic clubs, and others. SKHHP goals are to maintain and improve healthy affordable housing, increasing funding for affordable housing development, increase local and state tenant protections and decrease displacement, provide emergency homelessness services, improve awareness and connections between housing and other key issues and to build public awareness. SKHHP aims to regularly convene, organize, and expand the network of stakeholders working to end homelessness and address affordable housing needs in South King County; improve the alignment of county and state affordable housing and homelessness interventions and funding opportunities with South King County interests and provide technical assistance to support the implementation of comprehensive plan policies; improve South King County stakeholders' understanding of promising practices and their potential for local impact, and determine and implement strategies that achieve program sustainability. Housing Preservation and Homelessness Prevention The goal of what gets rolled into the category of housing preservation and homelessness prevention or sometimes called homelessness diversion - is to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness by providing more prevention -oriented services that either keep people in the housing they already have or more quickly help people out of homelessness. The cost of reentering housing once it's lost is very high. Spokane has incorporated homelessness prevention as one of their main strategies to reduce the incidence of homelessness by providing diversion or direct financial assistance to families and individuals at -risk of becoming homeless. There are benefits to both people and costs when people are prevented from entering the homeless system. Strategies include providing case management and funding so households can avoid being evicted and providing funding for emergency services through CDBG funds. Minneapolis, Salt Lake City and Beaverton, OR also have housing prevention efforts. The City of Beaverton funds rental assistance, rehabilitation loans for home repairs and has hosted "Know Your Rights" housing forums where information on tenant rights is shared with the community. ARCH works with community partners to preserve already existing housing through minor repair programs and rental inspections, and to prevent homelessness through tenant and landlord education, dispute resolution, and rental and utility assistance. The Alliance for Housing Affordability plays a similar, if slightly less robust role for Snohomish County, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County and 13 Snohomish County cities. One example of how preserving affordable housing has already worked in Edmonds is a building downtown that was purchased by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO). Most of the tenants continue to live there but rent has remained affordable rather than increasing as it likely would have in the private rental market. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 51 of 65 Packet Pg. 295 7.3.a kone G- consulting Ongoing Data Collection, Monitoring and Improvement Spokane emphasizes the importance of collecting, monitoring and improving upon data in order to measure outcomes. Spokane has a system performance dashboard that allows them to analyze different intervention types and how they are performing. It helps them to figure out a better way to support the people coming through the homeless system. Spokane is continuing to develop and share the dashboard with partners on a quarterly basis, including talking with Snohomish County about the benefits of the dashboard. We are constantly analyzing what is working and what isn't. The City of Beaverton also tracks measures, though not in a sophisticated dashboard like Spokane. They track American Community Survey data and have completed a Housing Needs Analysis to guide decisions on what types of housing are needed in order to create a mixture of housing for all incomes The data compiled into this report serves as good baseline for tracking changes in homelessness in Edmonds. Data is important to monitoring performance and outcomes, and it is also helpful in bringing funders to the table. Seeking New Funding Sources There is a bottom line to both collaboration and data collection for Minneapolis in that it brings more money into the community, allows for more services, and allows for greater efficiency and effectiveness of resources already in the system. Using this cycle of best practices more than justifies their existence and has allowed them to lead the way in some major change initiatives. Spokane also mentioned the collaboration, data, and funding as inter -related best practices. They each play a role in grant applications for funders, reports to local stakeholders, and legislative decisions on investments. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 52 of 65 Packet Pg. 296 7.3.a kone G-- consulting City Comparisons City Population Median Household Income Median Rent Vacancy Rate: Homeowner (Rental) Dedicated Human Services Funds City Staff solely dedicated to human services Beaverton, OR 89,803 $64,619 $1,172 1.4 (1.7) $300,000 Yes Bothell, WA 44,082 $89,477 $1,565 1(3.5) $350,000 No Burien, WA 50,729 $60,732 $1,109 1.5(3) $370,000 Yes Edmonds, WA 41,309 $82,697 $1,275 0.5 (6.3) None No Issaquah, WA 35,629 $100,844 $1,756 1.8(6) $371,500 Yes Lynnwood, WA 35,836 $58,852 $1,114 1.4 (3.3) $100,000 No Minneapolis, MN 382,578 $55,720 $941 1.8 (3.1) $6 million Yes Salt Lake City, UT 194,188 $54,009 $881 2.2 (3.8) $13 million Yes Shoreline, WA 53,007 $76,271 $1,287 0.6 (1.4) $500,000 Yes Spokane, WA 212,982 $44,768 $805 2.4 (4.7) $5 million Yes Table 9: City Data. 2013-2017. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Funds and staffing confirmed via city website or key informant interview Information on comparable cities was compiled to look at other efforts in the region. Bothell, WA is located both in Snohomish and King Counties and is only slightly more populated than Edmonds. Bothell dedicates $350,000 annually in grants to human services providers. The City also provided land to create affordable senior housing and have housing complexes operated by the King County Housing Authority. Burien, WA is south of Seattle in King County and where about 50,000 people reside. Burien allocated $370,000 towards human services funding in their 2019-2020 budget, including $6.50 per capita and close to $45,000 from the federal Community Government Block Grant Funding. The City has a Human Services Manager who is responsible for planning, facilitating and funding depending on the need, as well as a Human Services Commission which is an advisory body to the City Council and responsible for providing advice and recommendations related to the human services issues. Issaquah, WA is located in east King County and is slightly smaller than Edmonds at about 36,000 people. The City allocated $371,500 in the 2017-2018 budget towards human services and recommended an allocation of $495,000 in 2019-2020. Issaquah has a Human Services Commission which advises the Mayor and City Council on matters concerning human services planning and funding, including studying emerging issues and concerns in the human services area to ensure that the basic needs of Issaquah residents are met and that support systems are in place to help people through economic and personal crisis. The City's Sustainability Director is currently serving as a staff liaison while they are in the process of recruiting for a Human Services and Social Sustainability Coordinator. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4- 53 of 65 Packet Pg. 297 7.3.a kone UL consulting Lynnwood, WA directly borders Edmonds to the east and is slightly smaller in population, however the city sees almost 100,000 people commute in everyday due to the number of jobs, retail stores and restaurants in and around the mall. Lynnwood has a Human Services Commission which acts as the advisory commission for Lynnwood's lower income residents, the homeless, seniors, veterans, victims of abuse, youth and others in need. They also prepare the Lynnwood Human Services Plan for adoption by the City Council and evaluate program success in meeting service goals. The grant program served 2,000 Lynnwood residents over the past year with services they wouldn't have otherwise received. Shoreline, WA directly borders Edmonds to the south with a population about 10,000 more residents than Edmonds. Shoreline dedicates approximately $500,000 in human services funding every year and has a Human Services Manager who manages contracts with service providers in the City and pools funds with some other King County cities. In partnership with North County Coalition the City provides funding for a homeless outreach worker. They also have a utility assistance program and home repair program. Spokane, WA is significantly larger than Edmonds at over 200,000 people but has some aspirational approaches to homelessness. Their strategy includes a coordinated entry system, targeted prevention and diversion assistance, temporary shelters, rapid re -housing, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and stable, independent housing with vouchers. 29 29 https://my.spokanecity.org/endinghomelessness/about/fags/ Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4- 54 of 65 Packet Pg. 298 7.3.a kone G consulting ...I COMPASSION _ -- ji .,iilt 111. [ Signifiram p press has been made toward meetiryl the needs of homeless persons in Spokane_ Partnerships at aLl levels have improved m r ination and fesaunxs_ increased the number of beds available to stabiUze homeless persons, increased mar ability to prevent homelessness and greatly irproved nu systems for outreach and plaremem of homeless persons enterinR our system ofmre. HorneLessness remains persistent in our comnImnity. and much remaZ to be ac plishedinmeeting our goalofuWmatelyendinghomelessness Sinrin, ramllles, Thera is a head 1a• arerfe • Nominr sYs1am for tvplh aid rvvnr+dul I 4rle� end Youth xhiph indudela_rdinrlyd wry, rewu�oe [eMen, eir alpprovrlrea ,Met eha srMm hoxlim op6—. end s boos on pravo.don for Mwa -? In m6mlanr zdss He —QrM1 Outreach and Engagement 11 Targrtsi, h ueilimm vt svrtern rtso.�ror:� Beaverton, OR has a population approaching 90,000 and is 7 miles and 20 minutes outside of Portland. Beaverton was a bedroom community of homogenous and predominately middle-class residents. Rising housing costs in Portland displaced many residents to neighboring communities such as Beaverton, especially those who were lower income. Beaverton is rapidly changing and becoming increasingly diverse both economically and racially. Based on McKinney Vento data from the school district, homelessness has recently reached the highest rates ever. Many families are doubling -up or housing insecure. Car camping, tent encampments and panhandling have all increased. Beaverton allocated $202,000 for FY 2018-19 for social services. A community services program was created in the mayor's office in 2016 and consists of a Community Services Coordinator and a Community Services Specialist. Beaverton also has a Social Services Funding Committee that makes recommendations on the basis of several criteria, including a set of priority areas for the fiscal year. Funds are used for rental assistance, tenant education and advocacy, senior housing and housing repair for seniors and those who fall under certain income limits. Beaverton opened a severe weather shelter for the first time in January 2017 and is currently developing a Safe Parking Pilot Program in partnership with neighborhood associations which will include portable toilets, storage and case management services. Beaverton created an Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >><(- 55 of 65 Packet Pg. 299 7.3.a kone G consulting interdepartmental team to create their Housing Implementation Strategy. It includes shelter, zoning, affordable housing and development. They are rapidly developing new housing for a range of incomes- including permanent supportive housing through a regional bond and 4,000 units of housing for 30% or less Area Median Income (AMI). Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4- 56 of 65 Packet Pg. 300 7.3.a kone UL consulting Recommendations Economic and population growth continue to be on the rise in the region, while housing costs increase at a faster pace than wages and lead to difficult household choices between paying for housing costs, food or medicine and putting individuals and families at risk of displacement. Interviewees were very pleased to hear the City of Edmonds is conducting this assessment and developing a response to homelessness. The following are areas of opportunity for the City to take action: A. Community Education and Outreach The most common theme that emerged from the over 50 interviews KC conducted is there is a misperception of who is homeless in Edmonds. Oftentimes perspectives on homelessness are limited to who can be seen in public or urban spaces when the more common experience of someone who is homeless in Edmonds is a someone who may be working but not earning high enough wages to keep up with increasing housing costs. Other cities have found that efforts to share information on homelessness and the stories of people who are experiencing homelessness, as well as providing a space for community engagement are helpful to dispel misperceptions and share experiences, and ultimately to find creative solutions. For example, Beaverton worked towards educating decision makers, housing providers, and developers and over time developed "Voices of Beaverton".30 They learned they needed dedicated staff resources to conduct community engagement and hold regular meetings with varied stakeholders over an eight -month period of time where relationships were built between the housing authority, for -profit developers, nonprofit developers, advocates, etc. The group established core values around what it looks like to develop housing, which then gave them the space to be innovative and try new approaches. Beaverton is now working on the next iteration of Voices of Beaverton, called "Heads, Hearts, Minds" and will be utilizing speakers and vendors at a fair. It is also important for community members to better understand the scope of what a city can or cannot do in response to homelessness. For example, based on a federal appeals court ruling, cities cannot prosecute people for sleeping outside if they have no other reasonable place to be. B. Increase collaborative efforts with providers, neighboring cities and Snohomish County Lessons learned from other cities were very clear about the importance of regional collaboration in addressing homelessness and the county, surrounding municipalities, providers, coalitions and advocates are eager to have more representation from Edmonds at the table. Increasing collaboration includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: ao https://www.beavertonoregon.gov/2083/Voices-of-Beaverton Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 57 of 65 Packet Pg. 301 7.3.a kone G consulting • Coordinating existing community services and faith -based organization efforts in Edmonds and providing information and referrals to Edmonds residents who call when experiencing hardship. • Participating in regional collaborative efforts with neighboring municipalities (including Shoreline), Snohomish County leaders, the School District, HASCO, Housing Consortium, Verdant Health Commission, and others. • Drawing down matching funds to enhance community services through grants and partnering with the philanthropic sector. • In -reaching with other City departments to provide information, support, and coordination. Other cities advise being thoughtful about which department to position a community services manager (i.e. Parks Dept. vs Planning). • Working with Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and transit partners to better understand transportation models and applying them to housing in preparation for the light -rail expansion. C. Preserve already existing affordable housing and prevent displacement of Edmonds residents and increased homelessness • Support the protection of current affordable housing stock. Consider partnering with HASCO again. • Consider implementing a rental inspection. People in rentals where there is black mold or lead exposure are not motivated to report it for fear that they could be asked to move and not be able to find housing at the same price. • Consider funding a minor repairs program to help low-income and disabled residents stay in their homes. • Fund homelessness prevention services through piloting city grant funding. Start with enhancing food bank and senior center services so Edmonds residents don't have to make hard choices between having a place to live or putting food on the table. • Consider increasing rental assistance and utility payment programs to prevent Edmonds residents from being displaced or becoming homeless. • Consider opportunities to support Edmonds seniors in aging in place. Other cities are supporting Accessory Dwelling Unit development so seniors can move into ADU's and rent their larger home or vice versa. Support the development of senior companionship programs through senior services. • Enact and support local tools and policies that seek to prevent displacement by assessing the impact of development. • Provide information on tenant protections and fair housing. Provide information and referrals to dispute resolution services, tenant rights services. Provide training for landlords, including information on working with rent subsidy programs such as Section 8. Require distribution of federal fair housing information to tenants by landlords. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 58 of 65 Packet Pg. 302 7.3.a kone UL consulting D. Increase quality of data reporting to monitor the community needs and measure outcomes of services • Get better data - work with providers to monitor and collect data to continue to track needs and for performance measurement purposes. Grantees can require data through the granting process. • Work with faith -based organizations to provide technical assistance and support in collecting data to better understand the service gaps they are filling. • Increase coordination efforts with Snohomish County to conduct a more robust Point -in -Time count in 2020 and collect better data on homelessness in Edmonds. E. Pursue additional funding streams through grant opportunities and philanthropic giving • Write grant proposals to increase funding streams for services that meet the needs of the community Leverage general City funds for potential federal or state matching funds F. Ensure the City has enough community services staff or consultant resources to carry out the other recommendations The City of Edmonds is in a unique position to develop a proactive approach to address homelessness early enough to prevent what has become an overwhelmingly tragic and visible challenge in other cities nearby. Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>4. 59 of 65 Packet Pg. 303 7.3.a kone UL consulting Appendices Appendix 1: Cities, Agencies, and Organizations Contacted Area Municipalities Snohomish County Agencies and Departments City of Brier 2-1-1 Coordinated Entry System City of Edmonds Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County City of Everett Everett Safe Streets City of Lake Forest Park Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) City of Lynnwood Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) City of Mountlake Terrace Partnership to End Homelessness City of Shoreline Snohomish County Health District Town of Woodway Snohomish County Human Services Snohomish County Office of Housing & Community Development (OHCD) Emergency Services Edmonds Police Department Snohomish County Opioid Response MAC Group Lynnwood Police Department Snohomish County Veteran's Assistance Program South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue WRAPS - Housing Liaison Services Swedish Hospital Edmonds Emergency Department School District/College Community Partners Edmonds Community College Community Health Center Snohomish County Edmonds School District Compass Health, Project for Assistance in the Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Compass Health, Project for Assistance in the Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Faith -based Organizations Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition (EHIC) Edmonds Lutheran Church/Annie's Kitchen Edmonds Senior Center Edmonds United Methodist Church/Food Bank Foundation for Edmonds School District/ Nourishing Network Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Church/Car Park Housing Consortium of Everett/Snohomish County Holy Rosary Church/St. Vincent de Paul Housing Hope Trinity Lutheran/Neighbors In Need Hazel Miller Foundation National Health Care for the Homelessness Council Informal Community Supports South Snohomish County Cold Weather Shelter Edmonds Library Verdant Health Commission Rodeo Inn Volunteers of America, Disability Services Safeway Volunteers of America, Dispute Resolution Center Washington Low Income Housing Alliance Courts YWCA Edmonds Municipal Court Snohomish County Public Defender Association Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 60 of 65 Packet Pg. 304 7.3.a kone G-- consulting Appendix 2: Edmonds Population Demographic Charts Under 5years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 to 84 years 85 years and over Age of Edmonds residents 0 1,750 3,500 5,250 Ethnicity of Edmonds residents 1 7,000 I White 35,305 Black or African American 1,010 American Indian and Alaska Native 591 Asian 4,9 16 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 422 Some other race 1,041 1 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>��>> 61 of 65 Packet Pg. 305 7.3.a kone G consulting Selected monthly owner costs (SMOC) are calculated from the sum of payment for mortgages, real estate taxes, various insurances, utilities, fuels, mobile home costs, and condominium fees. Housing units by selected monthly owner costs (SMOC) with a mortgage Less than $500 $500 to $999 $1,000 to $1,499 $1,500 to $1,999 $2,000 to $2,499 $2,500 to $2,999 $3,000 or more 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Housing units by selected monthly owner costs (SMOC) without a mortgage Less than $250 52 $250 to $399 175 $400 to $599 1,1 5 $600 to $799 1,482 $800 to $999 7,15 $1,000 or more 796 Median (dollars) 690 0 400 800 1200 1600 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 62 of 65 Packet Pg. 306 students in Edmonds School District Doubled up 303 Shelters *;` Hotels/Motels Foster children so ip 47 awaiting placement 1sU141r1g Couch surfing 18 Un-sheltered Hppeildix 3: Edmonds School District McKinney-Vento Data McKinney-Vento Students Types of Homelessness Doubled up 61% Shelters 17% Hotels/Motels 9% 7.3.a Foster children awaiting placement 8% Couch surfing 4% Un-sheltered 1% Doubled up 303 Shelters 86 Hotels/Motels 43 Foster children awaiting placement 42 Couch surfing 18 Un-sheltered 6 Total McKinney-Vento served homeless students in Edmonds School District 498 1 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment 63 of 65 Packet Pg. 307 7.3.a kone consulting mcrcinney-vento nomeiess smaents oy scnow Alderwood Early Childhood Center 8 Madrona K-8 1 ECEAP Pre School 9 Maplewood Parent Cooperative 3 Beverly Elm. 22 Edmonds Heights K-12 4 Brier Elm 3 Alderwood Middle 21 Cedar Valley Elm 23 Brier Terrace Middle 15 Cedar Way Elm 27 College Place Middle 24 Chase Lake Elm 15 Meadowdale Middle 25 Challenge Elm 3 Edmonds Woodway HS 30 College Place Elm 25 Lynnwood HS 14 Edmonds Elm 7 Meadowdale HS 34 Hazelwood Elm 4 Mountlake Terrace HS 23 Hilltop Elm 6 Scriber HS 20 Lyndale Elm 10 Voice 1 Lynnwood Elm 13 Career Access 3 Martha Lake Elm 13 el -earning 4 Meadowdale Elm 12 Mountlake Terrace Elm 19 Oak Heights Elm 4 Seaview Elm 7 Sherwood Elm 13 Spruce Elm 11 Terrace Park Elm 7 Westgate Elm 15 Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 64 of 65 Packet Pg. 308 7.3.a kone G consulting Appendix 4: Edmonds Homeless Data Compiled quantitative data sources on the extent of homelessness in Edmonds. Various sources are defined and noted in table. *Not a disaggregate of the DSHS data. Data Definition Data Source Timeframe Number of People Cash/Food Benefit Washington As of June, 2018 231 Recipient Self -Reported Department of Housing Status Social and Health Services (DSHS) McKinney Vento data Edmonds School 2018-19 school year Approximately 120 disaggregated by District Edmonds schools Number of individuals Edmonds Unitarian 2017 81 served at car camp Universalist Church Homeless individuals Edmonds Food Bank State FY 2017-18 79 served at food bank Number of calls to 2-1-1 2-1-1 2017 32 referred to Housing Coordination Homeless individuals Snohomish County January- 11 who received services Coordinated Entry August 2018 through provider outreach Homeless people in Police Embedded As of June, 2018 10 Edmonds on caseload of Social Worker social worker Homeless offenders on Edmonds Court Point -in -time 5-10 probation at any given Probation Officer time estimate Homeless individuals Snohomish County 2018 4 counted in the annual Annual Point -in - PIT Time Edmonds Homelessness Assessment >>>> 65 of 65 Packet Pg. 309