Cmd060920ED M ONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 9, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir.
Jessica Neill Hoyson, FIR Director
Pamela Randolph, Treatment Plant Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Thom Sullivan, Facilities Maintenance Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original
inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who
since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
AUDIENCE COMMENTS {SUBMITTED TO PUBLICCOMMENT(iDEDMONDSWA.GOV]
See Attached.
7. ACTION ITEMS
WATERFRONT CENTER PUD EASEMENT
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser explained even with COVID related delays,
construction of the new Waterfront Center has resumed with completion slated for October 2020. Once
finished, the public -private partnership between the City and Edmonds Senior Center will provide an
approximately 26,000 square foot community facility for public programs and rental space. She explained
tonight's objective is Council's consideration of approval of both the release of an existing easement and
authorization of a new PUD utility easement for the Waterfront Center. This was originally scheduled on a
March agenda but was delayed due to the COVID situation. Installation of the power utilities is dependent
on approval of the easement. The project is in the PUD Utility installation queue; if the easement is delayed,
there is possibility this project could be lowered in PUD's queue. The 2.7 acre parcel is owned by the City
and the Waterfront Center is owned by the Edmonds Senior Center.
Ms. Feser reviewed:
• Existing PUD Easement
o Authorized in 1977
0 7-feet wide
o Straight line connection from the power pole to the previous building
o Easement no longer functional so it should be vacated
Drawings of aerial view of former Senior Center building and new Waterfront Center site plan
o Reason for new easement is revised layout of the site and the new location of the transformer
Proposed PUD Electrical Easement
o 5-feet wide
o Underground easement from pole to transformer
o Parking lot location
o Minimizes landscape impact
Councilmember Olson commented there has been a great effort by the City to ensure the wires were
undergrounded and she wanted to ensure there was no language in the easement that changed how that was
executed now and in the future. One of the whereas clauses still contains "over," so she planned to make a
motion to amend that.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked staff to address Councilmember Olson's comment. Public Works
Director Phil Williams said he forwarded a question from Councilmember Olson to Henry Schroder, the
City's project manager on construction of the City's facilities and very familiar with the Waterfront Center.
He stated the easement was for buried utilities and there was no allowance for overhead utilities in the new
easement. As Mr. Schroder was convinced, Mr. Williams said he was as well.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 2
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why that was not written into the contract. Mr. Williams said he
had nothing to do with negotiating the easement and had no other information beyond what Mr. Schroder
stated. Ms. Feser said the language has been revised to address this issue. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said
when he received the proposed easement from PUD, he removed all the language related to overhead; one
reference was missed in the whereas clause that Councilmember Olson highlighted. He said there was no
issue with underscoring the City's intent regarding this easement to make it crystal clear this was not an
easement for overhead utilities.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if it could be changed as a scrivener's error. Mr. Taraday said he
preferred the Council take action as he is generally reluctant to unilaterally make such changes without
Council direction.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE WATERFRONT CENTER PUD EASEMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
AMEND TO REMOVE THE LAST REMAINING REFERENCE TO "OVER" IN THE WHEREAS
CLAUSE ON PAGE 81, 8TH LINE FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. AMENDMENT
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Williams introduced Pamela Randolph, WWTP Manager; Lonn Inman, Ameresco; and Dave Parry,
technical consultant hired by the City. Mr. Williams advised that a significant amount of literature that Dr.
Parry authored or co-authored had been forwarded to Councilmembers that illustrates the depth of
knowledge he has in this area and places around the country that are going through the same evaluations as
Edmonds with regard to replacing an incinerator or at least looking for newer and greener biosolid
management options. Mr. Inman will be the project manager for Ameresco; Ameresco has the contractual
relationship with Department of Enterprise Services to deliver this work and provide the appropriate
guarantees. Ms. Randolph has been working hard on this project for several years, working up to this
particular project, incinerator replacement and carbon recovery project.
Mr. Williams reviewed:
• Overview of the ESCO project delivery approach
o Guaranteed Maximum Price
o Guaranteed Performance
o Guaranteed Energy Savings
• Edmonds WWTP has been working since 2013 to save energy and revamp its solids handling
systems
o Replaced a too large, inefficient blower with anew turbo -blower —reduced 345 tons CO2E
o Put in fine bubble diffusers and another high-tech blower for more energy efficient 02 transfer
o Replaced Belt Filter Presses (messy, inefficient, old) with new screw presses
o Net results— 1,146 Tons/yr. CO2E reduction + annual savings of $201,182
• Phase 6 (proposed) Incinerator Replacement & Carbon Recovery Project
o Add Pyrolysis/Gasification system produced by Ecoremedy
o Save an additional $123,468 in electric costs and a total of $341,247 in O&M expense and
recover an additional 577 tons CO2E
■ The existing incinerator needs to be replaced sooner rather than later
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 3
o It is past any reasonably expected useful life by at least 7 years (runs 18-20 hrs./day for 32
years)
o Maintenance costs are climbing quickly and several major sub -components are running on
borrowed time as well
o It is nearing the 50% replacement threshold requirement set by USEPA
o To make any additional major investments to extend its life will trigger replacement
o We must complete construction in one low -flow summer period or face much higher costs for
hauling & disposal
o Lead time on the major equipment package is 9 months — further delay risks carrying the project
over to 2022, a full year postponement.
• Ecoremedy is the best option for Edmonds
o The option of Anaerobic digesters in Edmonds is just not realistic
o A new incinerator is more expensive upfront AND has higher O&M costs long term, doesn't
make a useful product
o That leaves the "greener" options of Pyrolysis and Gasification
• Pyrolysis
o A perfectly good technology and two great companies Centrisys/Bioforcetech
o Pyrolysis only (Bioforcetech) was significantly more expensive to build and commission
($3,000,000+)
o Their project did not have a positive energy balance so would likely not have been eligible as
an ESCO project
o It required a new building which wasn't particularly popular
• Gasification/Pyrolysis
o Ecoremedy
A better choice for Edmonds on many fronts. Cheaper initially by $34M, will save an
estimated $341,000 every year thereafter in operations and maintenance expenses, does not
change the appearance or profile of the WWTP (neighbor friendly), and also produces a
"green" biochar end -product. Moving to this project is a win for the City and is the result
of the City's additional due diligence.
• Contract documents presented in Agenda Packet:
Total Funding $26,275,016
ESCO Professional Services Total
$7,174,554.64
ESCO Measurement and Verification Total
$7,176.00
ESCO Construction Total
$18,794,558.36
DES Energy Program Project Management Services Total IAA
$298,727.00
• Final Contract Documents
Total Funding $26,121,040 - Savings of $154,000
ESCO Professional Services Total
$5,315,264.08
ESCO Measurement and Verification Total
$647,496.00
ESCO Construction Total
$19,861,303.20
DES Energy Program Project Management Services Total IAA
$296,967.72
■ Disadvantaged business participation - Current plan as of 6/9/2020
State of Washington/
Anticipated Percent
Anticipated Dollar
State certification category
Agency Goals
of Contract Amount
Value of Contract
Goals
Amount Goals
Minority -owned businesses
10%
5%
$750 000
Women -owned business
6%
3%
$450,000
Veteran -owned business
5%
2%
$300,000
Small/mini/micro business
5%
2%
$300,000
Total
$1,800,000
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 4
Mr. Williams relayed Mr. Inman has discussed looking at local businesses who could work on this project
as well. Those may not be minority, women or veteran owned but there is an advantage to using local
businesses on a project. More information may be provided later.
Council President Fraley-Monillas read an email received at 5:30 p.m. from one of the staff representatives:
Good evening. In the Council's Council packet tonight, on the action item regarding the WWTP, I believe
the City Council should publicly acknowledge that it intends to make its decision to use gasification
technology provided by one small sole vendor - a proprietary technology - without all the information in
hand. Please note that on packet page 156, City management staff rejects a replacement of the current
sewage sludge incinerator while noting this option has not been fully evaluated for energy and operational
costs." She asked Mr. Williams for a response. Mr. Williams said they do not agree with the statement. He
has not seen the email; the author did not copy their manager or department head. Council President Fraley-
Monillas clarified it was only sent to Council.
Mr. Williams said they have told Council everything they know about replacing the existing worn out
incinerator with a new incinerator. It does not meet any of goals the Council has set for energy savings
and/or other environmental goals in. the City. A new incinerator costs more than the other available options.
A new incinerator was considered; he referenced an email he sent today with the cost of a Suez incinerator
done in 2017 that it did not include demolition, sales tax or modifications to the Edmonds property to host
that technology so all the numbers were much smaller. He summarized, relatively speaking, an incinerator
is still more expensive.
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her concern with the statement, this is proprietary technology
provided by one small, sole vendor; and asked if that was accurate. Mr. Williams answered all the
technologies are proprietary; they have a technology to sell and they protect that technology. That would
be true of Bioforcetech, Ecoremedy as well as anyone selling an incinerator as they have patents on the
aspects of their projects. Proprietary is buzz word. He was unsure where the author was getting their
information, it certainly was not from management team because no one has asked any questions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified, the email was from their representative Liz Brown. Mr.
Williams said he has seen that email and responded to it; he did not agree with her conclusion. Her
viewpoint seemed to be that these technologies are not that well proven on biosolids. There is some truth
to that; there is one really good operating example of a straight up pyrolysis project that has the Bioforcetech
in it in California and one with the Ecoremedy package operating in Pennsylvania. Those are on biosolids,
but those technologies have been around for years and there is nothing new about the theory of gasification
and pyrolysis. He recalled Dr . Parry answered the question last week, if these technologies are that
promising, why haven't they been in wider use on biosolids.
Dr. Parry explained pyrolysis and gasification have been around for decades, but it is a new and emerging
technology. The reason why there are more now is the change from disposal of solids to recovery of solids,
particularly biochar. There's a realization of the value of minerals and nutrients in the biochar, instead of
just burning it and producing an ash, to be able to produce a renewal source and the market is growing for
that. He agreed there were very few pyrolysis gasification systems installed in the U.S.; there are more in
Europe but it is not prolific and is still very select. With the limited space in Edmonds, it is the ideal
application of such technology. The only other technology would be to remain with incineration which
although there are more incinerators around, there is a trend toward going away from incineration and
toward pyrolysis gasification or digestion. Digestion has come up several times; it is the first technology
that is considered, but it requires space and costs money. It is not an either or, digestion can go with
incineration and pyrolysis. Like the Bioforcetech technology in Redwood City, it follows digestion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 5
However, due to Edmonds' limited space and the attention to cost, in this case the technology of pyrolysis
and gasification and not installing digestion makes more sense.
Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Williams if Dr. Parry's credentials could be made available to the public.
Mr. Williams suggested Facebook, the City's website, etc. or anywhere she thought people could access it.
Councilmember Olson suggested the City's website under Public Works and also on Facebook. Mr.
Williams suggested having it on the front page of City's website for a week or so.
Councilmember Olson commented this a big purchase and she understood citizens being wary. She has
been following this for longer than most and as a result has a level of comfort. She also had a level of
comfort with Mr. Williams as well as Ms. Randolph who is amazing and has done a lot of research and is
totally behind this concept. This has something to do with the identity of the City; if Edmonds is committed
to the environment, we do not want another incinerator where the waste products are in excess of what
we're supposed to be doing environmentally. Although she would prefer that the incinerator did not need
to be replaced and to wait 1-3 years when others have replaced their incinerators with this technology, but
that is not the scenario the City is in. Especially due to ESCO's involvement, that insurance takes a lot of
the burden off the City in this project and the people who are behind it should give citizens a lot of comfort.
She invited the public to dig into who has been involved in studying and making this recommendation and
ask more questions of Councilmembers and Mr. Williams this week to get comfortable. Councilmembers
and citizens should feel ready to proceed but she understood there were concerns due to the amount of
money that would be invested in this project. She thanked the team for considering local businesses.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she asked Mr. Williams for the white paper and information from Dr.
Parry which he provided; she had not had an opportunity to read the information. She agreed with
Councilmember Olson's suggestion to make that information available to the public. She relayed some
citizens are concerned with the biosolids aspect that do not go through pyrolysis and gasification. She was
also concerned because it is a lot of money and she wanted to ensure all the WWTP partners are involved
even though Edmonds is leading the project and it will be installed on the City's property.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the agreement between Edmonds and its partners had been signed and
if the partners agreed with using gasification. Mr. Williams answered the agreement does not discuss
gasification, pyrolysis or any particular biosolids technology. The agreement is a financial document that
describes things that the City, as the managing partner, feels are necessary and how they will be paid for.
Staff has regular discussions with the partners about why they do things, what they are doing, what will be
done in the future and they are provided a capital forecast a year in advance so they can include it in their
budget which has worked well. He agreed this was a significant investment that the partners were aware of
as it is discussed at every quarterly meeting with the partners.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that Edmonds runs the show because it is the City's land and asked if
the City would have any liability if one of participants decided they did not want to use gasification and
would rather have an incinerator. Mr. Williams answered he could not see how; it is the City's site, the
partners cannot do something on the City's site that the City does not want. The liability would be if a
partner did not pay their share, they would be in breach of the existing and the new agreement.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled WPPSS a long time ago with nuclear plants in the Richland area where
one entity took on all the debt and everyone bailed. There has not been a discussion about financing; if the
Council commits to this project, it is also committing to financing the City's share or the entire project. She
asked what happened if one of the partners did not pay. Mr. Williams answered that was a good question
without an answer. For example, if Mountlake Terrace, whose entire wastewater flow comes to the W WTP,
quit paying their bill, Mr. Taraday would facilitate enforcing the contract. It wasn't like a huge cork could
be put in the pipe to stop their wastewater flows; their wastewater would continue to come to the Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 6
WWTP. In 35 years of being partners in the WWTP, that has never happened so he did not see it as a
realistic development. However, if it did, it would require a legal solution.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the lack of public participation and the public's anxiety that the
City has not dealt with the financial aspect. Last week staff said the Council had until July Is' and now are
saying a decision needs to be made tonight. Mr. Williams said a decision needed to be made by July I".
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had a number of conversations with the public today. She thanked
staff for emailing the information, noting she had not yet had an opportunity to read it all. She preferred to
wait a week and make the information Dr. Parry available to the public as there is only one plant operating
that is in Pennsylvania.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she also was comfortable with Ms. Randolph's involvement. The Council
needs to discuss the entire package include the finances, whether the City plans to finance the entire amount,
etc. She recalled indications that pyrolysis was $18 million, but last year $30 million was included in the
CFP. Mr. Williams said he sent out information using 2017 numbers; without including expensive things
that would apply to all three technologies. Cost estimates were done on incineration, pyrolysis and
gasification. Incineration was the most expensive, pyrolysis was the second most expensive and gasification
was the cheapest at that time. He provided that to the Council so they could see that incinerator is not some
low cost option; it is the highest cost option, it does not do anything environmentally and it has high O&M
costs and very high energy costs.
Mr. Williams explained there was no real reason that he could think of to spend any more time on
incineration. Of the commercially available, proven to some extent, greener technologies, the ones they
have confidence in and the ones that appear to work out best from a cost and environmental standpoint, the
team recommends Ecoremedy because it hits the mark on all those elements. The team is confident in it,
excited about it and he believed it would prove to be good decision. Borrowing is an important issue;
packaging it up right can save money and the City's bond advisor Scott Bauer has suggested an interest rate
of 2.7% for a 20 year bond may be available. The issue of financing is the same regardless of the technology
that is selected. He preferred to focus on a technology choice knowing that once that choice is made, there
is time to put together information regarding financing, to work with the partners and to get their Councils
and the Edmonds City Council of one mind, and then pull the trigger later this year on financing.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was trying not to disagree with Mr. Williams; she spent an hour talking
to a scientist today who calmed down when he realized Project B was gasification. She sent him Dr. Parry's
papers. When/if the Council says yes, they are committing to $23 million so they need to look at everything.
She also wanted to allow citizens to get up to speed; it has been very frustrating for many citizens because
they are not able to make public comment or are not getting the data. It would be advantageous to step back
and answer questions that are nagging people. Mr. Williams suggested when Councilmembers receive an
email from someone interested in this topic and asking questions, that they forward them to him and he will
be happy to respond. He has not seen any emails other than the one from Mr. Neff that Councilmember
Buckshnis provided today which he responded to.
Councilmember Buckshnis said although the book he read is dated, that does not mean it is not viable
information. Some people are anxious that the City spent $2.1 million in utility funds last year for a project
that everyone thought would move forward and now is not and now the City is on to a new project. There
are people $2.1 M for project through move forward on, not moving forward and now on a different project.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council meeting via Zoom is causing people to wonder. They want to
know why now and she has asked them whether they want the incinerator to break down. She will suggest
Mr. Neff call Mr. Williams tomorrow. His email expressed his concern about biosolids and provided several
references. Mr. Williams said the date of the book Mr. Neff read and commented on was published in 2014,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 7
the only thing he could have been looking at was more conventional biosolid solutions in the U.S. such as
anerobic digestion, land application, and other things that were the norm not that long ago. They all have
issues and are expensive and there are issues with putting biosolids on agricultural land such as PFAS and
heavy metals. That is not the proposal. Councilmember Buckshnis said it would be advantageous to
postpone this for 1-2 weeks to make Dr. Parry's work available on web and to look into the financial aspects.
Ms. Randolph said pyrolysis and gasification have been around a long time, Ecoremedy has been in
existence since the early 90s and have installations all over the country and in Australia. She shared a
conversation she had with an EPA person last year that they thought the solutions with biosolid projects of
yore were the future and now they are realizing they boxed themselves into a corner and are looking at new
technologies as well. Dr. Parry said the key thing is looking at the product itself and what is used with it.
For decades, 60-100 years, the discussion has been regarding stabilized solids, digested solids, and land
application and the benefits and getting the energy from it. Recently there have been concerns with PFAS
and PFOS. Pyrolysis can reduce and even eliminate that contaminant in the biochar. A lot of the naysayers
and concern with application of biosolids on land is due to the difficulty proving a negative, that the low
concentrations are not a problem. Clean biosolids and Class A biosolids can still contain PFAS.
Dr. Parry said one very important thing that gives him comfort with gasification and the option of pyrolysis
is that with Ecoremedy's system, the fact that either a biochar can be produced for land application or
energy (higher value for land application), but if that becomes a problem, Edmonds would have the option
to not produce biochar and produce concentrated minerals. Having that flexibility with the regulations is
huge. Half of the biosolids in the U.S. are land applied. Having the option to produce biochar or
concentrated ash would not force Edmonds into having to distribute biosolids or biochar on a land
application which is a huge risk mitigation. As good as Bioforcetech's system is, they produce a nice
biochar that has been shown to be low on PFAS, that's the product that's produced versus Ecoremedy which
can do either a biochar or a concentrated ash. That flexibility is a risk mitigation which is the reason for the
trend more toward gasification. Many facilities, particularly those that already dry biosolids, have in their
risk mitigation that they would be triggered if other contaminants that can be removed by pyrolysis or
gasification become more prevalent. Right not it is not banned or regulated, it is only being studied. But if
that become issue, their plan would be to put in pyrolysis or gasification in addition to the drying they are
already doing. Edmonds would be a step ahead of that; Edmonds is basically jumping ahead of the
technology which he acknowledged was newer because it has not been in demand in the past. There are
successful systems including the Morrisville, Pennsylvania Ecoremedy facility, the Bioforcetech facility in
the Silicon Valley and the dewatering facility in Redwood City.
Councilmember Paine commented last week's presentation and tonight's presentations were very thorough.
She asked a hypothetical question, if the City was looking at this project 2-3 years in the future, would there
were any pending technology, environmental or outcome improvements that could be foreseen or anything
that was coming up in near term that Edmonds should know about. Otherwise, she said this was very cool
technology and agreed the Council needed to look at financing and payment terms. Dr. Parry responded he
stays up on and researches new technology. Although he cannot forecast the future, from the patents that
have been filed and new technologies, they take years to develop. Looking at a crystal ball, in a few years
he would see more Ecoremedy systems installed in the U.S. including more for manure, biosolids and
industrial waste. He could also foresee more Bioforcetech and more pyrolysis added onto existing
successful systems. With regard to digestion, there is a lot of progress on getting more digesters and getting
3-4 times out of the footprint. He is doing research on digesting the recalcitrant carbon that doesn't get
digested in conventional digesters so there is more gas and more reduction. Even with that breakthrough, it
would not be enough to make digestion viable in Edmonds. He expected there to be some great progress.
Dr. Parry explained another thing that is trending is the combination; in one of his presentation, he called it
biothermal systems, the combination of biological, whether it is digestion and then thermal, incineration,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 8
gasification, pyrolysis are combined. That is being seen more; not either or but complimentary. Edmonds
is combining a thermal process with a biological wastewater process. Another thermal drying process to
produce a product is being tested in Brisbane, instead of using energy to dry, they are using a chemical
exothermic reaction and adding chemicals. With wastewater, they try to do it biologically, and if it can't be
done biologically, they use chemicals or a combo and if that can't be done, they look at thermal. What is
happening is an integration rather than development of new technology. Some exotic technology was
proposed 20 years ago that is still being studied; once physics are involved, high enough temperatures and
pressure can convert anything to elemental carbon. He saw a trend with gasification pyrolysis as there are
several on the horizon around the world. The only difference he could foresee was a greater comfort and
Edmonds would be one of several rather than the second.
Ms. Randolph said in 2013 the City had an opportunity to work with Envirocare who was developing a
mercury module due to a new regulatory processes for mercury removal in incineration. Envirocare did
testing in the Edmonds facility which allowed Edmonds to be one of first to use this technology and saved
the City millions. She saw that as a possibility due to Ecoremedy returning for a couple years and doing
onsite optimization. Ecoremedy will continue to be engaged and when improvements are available, they
want Edmonds to be successful because if Edmonds is not successful, they will not be successful. If the
project is delayed 1-2 years, more money will be put into repairing or replacing the incinerator.
Councilmember Paine clarified she was interested in whether there were any technological advances in the
near term. Dr. Parry said the short answer was he did not know of any that would change the outcome,
noting if he did, he would speak up.
Councilmember Paine commented it was great to know the City will have technical assistance for years.
Mr. Williams said it was somewhat like having a computer at a mid-life crisis and deciding whether to
replace it and get the benefit of the new technology or waiting. He commented there will probably always
will be new developments or twists. Councilmember Paine said she would hate to miss out some upcoming
transformative technology.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled the statement that the WWTP must meet new source performance
standards for air emissions by the USEPA at the point that the total investment exceeds 50%. She asked
what the differences in performance standards for air emissions are. Mr. Williams answered the City is
permitted as an existing incinerator and the operation is being scrutinized and requiring improvements in
incinerators that don't or can't meet the new source performance standards. The goal of the regulations is
to push facilities into meeting the standards or to adopt a different technology. USEPA does not want to
see more incinerators or even the existing ones continue to operate. They will allow existing incinerators
to operate under strict guidelines, one of which is the investment trigger.
Ms. Randolph said the City's incinerator cannot meet the new source performance standards and is barely
meeting regulations now. The new regulations will probably require carbon filter, more odor control or
scrubbing equipment, probably a two -stage scrubber. The City is teetering on meeting pH limits so that
would require modifications. The City is also having trouble meeting minimum and maximum temperatures
and would need retrofits for pH probes. A new incinerator would be required as the existing incinerator
cannot be modified. Dr. Parry said it would put Edmonds in a terrible situation. If there was a major
breakdown that triggered that, the City could not just make repairs to get it running because the WWTP
would be unable to get the air permit to operate without installing the additional equipment. That is the
dilemma, if permitting triggers the new requirements, much more money would be required to be spent to
meet the new source performance standards, putting money into an incinerator that needs to be replaced.
Mr. Williams summarized that would force the City to throw good money after bad or put lipstick on a pig.
Ms. Randolph added that a new incinerator would not fit in the existing space.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 9
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to understand what happens if the WWTP exceeds 50% of
the original cost after factoring inflation. Dr. Parry it would trigger a requirement for additional controls on
the equipment; the City could not just fix what broke, but would have to install more emission controls to
meet the more stringent standards before a permit would be granted. Mr. Williams said there would be an
order from USEPA to come up to standards and a compliance schedule, some regulatory action would be
taken that would force the City to do what the regulation require. Councilmember K. Johnson asked where
the replacement fits with that; if the WWTP exceeded those limits during the time period before the
replacement project and would the fact that the City has entered into a 2-year process satisfy regulators. Dr.
Parry compared it to a consent decree in negotiations; at that point, the City could say they were planning
a replacement that would reduce odors and meet the standards or in the meantime the City operates at the
high expense of hauling off solids or be fined, etc. The USEPA recognizes that City needs to do something
and it would be possible to negotiate.
Ms. Randolph said the City has been working with the local Region 10 EPA representative for about two
years. Approximately 1'i2 years ago EPA contacted the City about a permit limit; staff told the EPA about
the City's project. Edmonds was first on his list to talk to and after the conversation about the City's project,
the City moved lower on his list. The EPA has denied monitoring petitions and are working with the WWTP
on a new monitoring plan which also requires modifications. For example, instead of 6-7 original
monitoring positions on the incinerator, there are now 9 and EPA wants a couple more. She believed EPA
was working with City knowing a project being considered; if the City does not move forward with a
project, the permit will be issued fairly quickly.
Mr. Williams said the current incinerator will need to be replaced with something that will cost between
$25-30 million, regardless of the technology. That is an expense the City will have to incur and the cost
will increase the longer you wait at a rate that usually exceeds the rate of inflation. At the same time, the
City would not be getting the advantage of the $350;00/year savings with the new technology due to higher
O&M costs. The City has the ability to do this project now, the interest rates are very attractive, the
technology is plenty proven enough and ESCO provides guarantees. If there are any doubts about the
technology, in an ESCO delivery system, those risks are passed onto the ESCO company and they have to
be convinced this technology would continue to deliver the performance that is guaranteed.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the ESCO guaranteed the $2.1 million spent to date. Mr. Inman
answered so far they have not been contracted to build a project; so far they have been contracted to develop
design documents, energy calculations, etc. There is nothing to guarantee yet, there is no performance or
equipment delivered. The guarantees apply to the equipment performance that would be installed in the
project the Council is considering. The way that the guarantees works, if the project is built for less than
the G-max cost, any savings go back to the City. For example, if the cost was $1 million, and the project
was constructed for $900,000, the City keeps $100,000. If the project goes over the G-max price, that is on
Ameresco.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed there was no guarantee for the design phase that the City entered into
last year; the guarantee is if the City contacts with the company for the project. Mr. Inman said the guarantee
in the current contract is a fully developed design package has been produced, but a system has not been
installed. Dr. Parry explained the design is wrapped into a constructed project; the $2 million spent to date
provided confidence in Project B going forward and those design cost are included in the final product
when built. Mr. Inman referred to Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about switching to a different
project after spending $2.1 million, advising much of what done in the design phase of Project A carried
over into Project B. There would not be a Project B developed at this point without the design and discovery
work done over the last three years in Project A as a lot of the design carried over. It was not really switching
to a different project, it was switching to a slightly different technology from Bioforcetech which was
strictly pyrolysis to the Ecoremedy system which is pyrolysis and gasification. Councilmember K. Johnson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 10
thanked him for that explanation, commenting that was not clear before when Projects A and B were
compared and it was good to know that that work was meaningful and moved the project forward.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked staff and Ameresco for updating the number and expressed his support
for including local businesses. With regard to the expected tax exemption from the Washington State
Department of Revenue, he asked when a determination regarding that exemption would be made, before
the project or after construction and biochar is being produced. Ms. Randolph answered staff is working
with Lighthouse Law on an evaluation. Once a go-ahead is given, there will be a business case evaluation
to determine the best end source for the product, whether it is to create biochar and take it to eastern or
western Washington, or is it better to produce concentrated minerals until the sources in western
Washington are developed to reduce trucking costs. That answer will be available after the analysis has
been completed and working with Lighthouse Law and the Department of Revenue who will issue a tax
exemption. At this point, there is a tax exemption, basically the fertilizer value, if the solids are distributed
in eastern Washington. Once there is a product to sell, the City can request a tax exemption. The analysis
will determine the best place to take the product, the most economical and the lowest trucking costs. Mr.
Inman relayed his understanding that the Ecoremedy project in Pennsylvania did qualify for the sales tax
exemption. Ms. Randolph said the tax exemption is on the production train; it could apply to polymer costs,
the equipment that produces the end product, etc.; most of the equipment package would be tax exempt,
estimated at $1.5 million.
Mr. Williams said if the Council is interested in waiting a week, he will post the materials on website. He
invited Councilmembers who have received emails to forward them to him for response. It is not critical
that the Council take action tonight but it would be good to take action next week. He did not anticipate any
more would be discovered about the technologies in the next week and invited the Council to identify any
information they would like for next week's discussion and action.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested it would be beneficial to wait until next week and she would
even be amenable to scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. She noted this is fairly new and this is only the
second time the Council has heard about this. Mr. Williams answered it was the second time a G-max price
and details had been provided. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the project has changed since
last year. She reiterated it would be preferable to schedule action next week so that any other burning
questions can be answered.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with moving it to next week and recommended looking at the financial
aspects. The City has utility bonds maturing in 2031, callable bonds in 2021 and the current interest rates
are great. She recommended including Dr. Parry's published papers that are directly related to pyrolysis
and gasification in the packet. She also recommended solidifying the arrangement with the WWTP partners,
identifying the partners' percentage, and clarifying that they are okay with the project. She summarized it
is interesting technology and will be great.
Councilmember K. Johnson did not support having approval on the Consent Agenda. She recommended
holding a public hearing to get input from all constituents. She was not concerned about the technology
which she felt would be good for the environment and for the City, but was concerned about the financial
condition that Edmonds and its partners were in and whether this was the right time. She was less concerned
about the July I" window and more concerned about making a good decision and giving everybody the
information and opportunity to participate in this decision.
8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FACILITIES LEAD JOB DESCRIPTION
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 11
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this was approved as part of the 2020 budget. It is an internal
promotional opportunity and is not an additional FTE. If Council is supportive of the position, the job
description will be presented to the union.
Facilities Maintenance Manager Thom Sullivan explained this internal promotional support position would
formalize an existing position as backup to the facility manager. Currently, when he is absent for a certain
amount of time, the senior facility technician or building operator assumes his role and makes a differential
pay. Over the last several months, facility conditions during COVID-19 have extenuated the need for
support of his position. He is working half-time or more in the EOC which has illustrated that any slight
condition change in the work environment could leave staff very short handed. Having someone in
somewhat of a leadership role to execute daily work assignments in his absence is very crucial.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if this was a reclassification of an existing position. Ms. Neill-Hoyson
answered it would be a reclassification of a facilities position but not an additional FTE. Someone in
facilities will apply for this and be promoted. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if it would result in an
additional position to backfill that person's job. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there will be no backfill.
Councilmember K. Johnson recommended in the third line of the position purpose, there should be a comma
between roofing and electrical. In required skills, she asked about the need to have "participating in
scheduling assignment, reviewing and performing of street and drainage maintenance facilities" when street
and drainage were in a different category in Public Works. Mr. Sullivan answered that is related to working
in facilities such as the Parks maintenance building, which although it is not on the street, is very close to
the marsh, and staff works with the stormwater division in maintaining and doing the right thing in parking
lots and parks. Public Works Director Phil Williams added they work in City buildings after normal
business hours so when there are heavy rains or they see water where it does not belong, they are the on the
front lines and will take immediate action and call the appropriate division to respond further.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to essential functions and responsibilities, and asked if the new person
was expected to design and draft blueprints. Mr. Sullivan said facilities does minor building renovations so
this position will draw up minor renovations for submittal to the building department for review.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if this position would be a direct report to Mr. Sullivan, an internal
promotion and a non-exempt FTE. Mr. Sullivan answered yes.
Councilmember Olson referred to the hiring freeze as a result of the pandemic and asked if that was not an
issue because this was an internal promotion and not a new hire. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the Council
is approving the job description. There will be discussions whether it is appropriate to fill the position at
this time. Councilmember Olson observed it would then come back to Council.
Councilmember Paine asked whether the assignment to this job title would be temporary if Mr. Sullivan
was assigned to a different duty. Mr. Sullivan answered that was how it currently operated; the senior
building operator, after he is absent a certain number of hours, begins earning a pay differential and when
he returns, that person returns to their normal wage. In the 4 years he has been with the City that is happening
more and more and there is a need for someone for the custodians and maintenance operators to turn to for
immediate answers.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this would not come back to the Council if the hiring freeze
is lifted because it was authorized in the 2020 budget. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that was correct. She
explained normally this would be discussed by the Personnel Committee who would give approval to move
forward with contacting the union and then the job description would come to full Council for approval. If
the Council approved the job description, she asked if the job description needed to come back to Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 12
once staff speaks with the union. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained any action that occurs during
committee of the whole is action by a Council committee, not the City Council. Even if the committee
tonight completely greenlights the job description, the Council has taken no action.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she received a public comment that she forwarded to Ms. Neill-Hoyson.
Ms. Neill-Hoyson said if the committee supports the job description tonight, she will present the job
description and proposed pay to the union before returning to Council.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO MOVE THE FACILITIES LEAD JOB DESCRIPTION FORWARD BY
SENDING IT TO THE TEAMSTERS BARGAINING UNION AND UPON THEIR APPROVAL,
BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR ACTION.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the position will be posted as usual. Mr. Sullivan yes, internal
only. Council President Fraley-Monillas was glad it was promotional opportunity for staff as Edmonds staff
tend to stay with the City long term.
Councilmember Olson clarified in the earlier discussion about bringing this back to Council, her question
was in the context of the hiring freeze.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, recalling Mr. Taraday's statement that the Council
cannot make motions. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council cannot take action because this is not a Council
meeting, it is a Council committee meeting. The committee can take the type of action that committees
ordinarily take, for example, moving an item to the Consent Agenda. He said Councilmember K. Johnson's
motion is appropriate given that the Council is meeting in committee and the motion contemplated approval
would come back to the Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson restated the motion
TO MOVE THE FACILITIES LEAD JOB DESCRIPTION TO DIRECTOR NEILL-HOYSON TO
COORDINATE WITH THE BARGAINING UNIT WHICH IS THE TEAMSTERS FOR
POTENTIAL RETURN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ACTION.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if Council approval was required since it was approved in the
budget or if it only needed to come back to Council if there was a hiring freeze. Ms. Neill-Hoyson answered
final approval of the job description does need to come to Council. The motion will approve moving the
job description forward through the process by contacting the union and bringing the final job description
to Council for approval. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it could potentially return to a
committee. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed that if there were changes to the job description, it could be returned
to a committee but if there were no changes, she will forward it to Council for approval.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PRESENTATION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE DAYTON STREET PUMP
STATION PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English relayed the City received $515,000 from the State legislature last year for the
Dayton Pump Station project. The grant agreement outlines a 2% administration fee required by the
Department of Commerce to administer the grant so the amount available to the City is $504,700. The grant
agreement needs to be approved for the City to bill for expenses and be reimbursed for the construction
work that has been completed to date.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 13
Mr. English provided an update on the project, relayed it has gone relatively well. The project started in
late 2019 and all the infrastructure in now place. There was potential for major utility conflicts but there
have been very few, only minor surface restoration. The one delay was related to the COVID-19 pandemic
when two of the manufacturing plants related to the pump control panel and the generator shut down so
that equipment was delayed. It was his understanding those plants are coming back online and the
equipment will be delivered in July or August. Staff recommend moving the grant agreement to the Consent
Agenda for approval next week.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
MOVE THE GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE DAYTON STREET PUMP STATION PROJECT
TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. 2021-2026 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss displayed the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), advising a public hearing and Council approval will be required. The Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) requires that each city update their TIP by July 1 st. The document contains all significant
transportation projects that a city possibly plans to undertake in the next six years. In accordance with City
of Edmonds policy, the TIP is financially constrained for the first three years; the last three years are not
constrained. Federal Grants, State Grants, and Local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP
projects
Mr. Hauss explained the TIP includes approximately 45 projects. Projects in red text are new projects not
in the 2020-2025 TIP, projects in red text and green background are new projects not in the 2020-2025 TIP
and have recently submitted grant applications, black text with blue background have secured grant funding
and were included in last year's TIP, and projects in red text with blue background have recently secured
grants and are not shown in last year's TIP.
Preservation/Maintenance Projects
1. Annual Street preservation program
• Funding from Funds 125 and 126
2. 761h Ave W Overlay from 196"' to Olympic View Drive
• Secured federal grant
■ Street half in Edmonds and Lynnwood
o Lynnwood will provide funding for their portion of the project
• Funding available in 2021
o Design will begin in 2021 with construction complete in 2022
3. Main Street Overlay from 6t' Ave to 8tn Ave
• New project with a recently submitted federal grant application
• Low pavement condition
• If grant is secured, funding will not be available until 2023
o Design in 2023 and construction in 2024
4. Citywide signal improvements
• Included in previous TIPs
■ No funding available
5. Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
• Included in previous TIPs
• No funding available
6. 100th Ave. W @ 238th St. SW Signal Upgrades
• Included in previous TIPs
• No funding available
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 14
7. Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades
• Included in previous TIPs
• No funding available
Safety/Capacity Projects
8. SR-99 Safety Improvements (Phase 1)
• Raised Median
• HAWK signal between 228th & 238"
• Gateway features
• Secured funding from Connecting Washington and local funding
• Submitted a federal grant application for $2 million
9. SR-99 Revitalization
• Entire project $184 million
• Project will be done in sections
• Submitted a grant application for section between 2201h and 224'
10. 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
• Secured funding for design
• Submitted grant application for $550,000 for right-of-way acquisition with $130,000 local match
11. 228th St. SW Corridor improvements from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W
• Included in previous TIPs
• Application submitted to Sound Transit
o $40 million allocated for Mukilteo and Edmonds for access improvements to Sound Transit
stations
• Widen roadway to add two-way left turn lane along stretch
• Install sidewalk and bike lanes
12. SR 524 (196"' St. SW) @ 88' Ave W. Intersection Improvements
• Included in previous TIPs
• Significant cost will require a grant
13. Main St. @ 9th Ave
+ Included in previous TIPs
• Significant cost will require a grant
14. Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
• Included in Highway 99 project
15. Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements
• Included in Highway 99 project
16. Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
• Included in Highway 99 project
17. SR-104 ITS Adaptive System
• New project to improve traffic flows between 226" and 95"' (1 t/4 miles with 4 existing signals plus
1 new signal added as part of a different project)
• Submitted federal grant application for design
18. SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements
+ Identified in SR-104 study
• Will be addressed once funding becomes available
19. Westgate / SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection Access Management
• Identified in SR-104 study
• Will be addressed once funding becomes available
20. SR-104 @ 95th Pl. W Intersection Improvements
■ Identified in SR-104 study
• Will be addressed once funding becomes available
21. SR-104 @ 238th St. SW intersection improvements
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 15
■ Identified in SR-104 study
■ Will be addressed once funding becomes available
Pedestrian Projects
22. Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St.
• Walkway on the west side of Sunset Ave. w/ various utility upgrades
■ In out years of TIP, no secured funding
23. Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
• Design almost completed
• Install Ilashing pedestrian beacons at 7 intersections/crossings
• New HAWK at intersection of 196th & 84"
• New signal at SR-104 & 232nd
• Advertise in June, construction begin in August, suspended in winter and completed in 2021
■ Secured a $1.5 million grant with local match
24. Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
25. Maplewood Walkway from Main St. to 200"' St. SW
■ Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
26. Elm Way Walkway from 8t" Ave. S
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
27. 80"' Ave W Walkway from 212t" S. SW to 206"' St. SW
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
28. 80th Ave. W Walkway from 188'11 St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
29. 95"' Pl. SW Walkway from 224"' St. SW to 220t' St. SW
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
■ No funding source
30. 232nd St. SW From 100'h Ave. W to SR-104
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
31. 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to 97th Pl. W
■ Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
32. 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238"' St. SW to 2334"' St. SW
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
■ Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 16
33. 2nd Ae. S Walkway from James St. to Main St.
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPS
• No funding source
34. 218"' St. SW Walkway from 76" Ave. W to 84"' Ave. W
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
35. 216" St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72°d Ave W
• Identified in Transportation Plan and ranked high
• Included in recent TIPs
• No funding source
36. 4t" Ave. Corridor Enhancement Walkway
• Create corridor improvements to encourage pedestrian activity along 4"' Ave. N from Main St. to
3Td Ave. N
■ Potential open house regarding cross section designs
37. ADA Curb Ramps Improvements
• Construct citywide ADA compliant curb ramps
• Included in TIP as a priority
38. SR-104 @76t" Ave. W Non -motorized transportation improvements
• Create safer connections
o Extend bike lanes
o ADA curb ramps
o Pedestrian improvements
• Intersection owned by Shoreline, potential joint project with Shoreline and Edmonds
39. Pedestrian Safety Program
• Complete pedestrian safety improvements at pedestrian crossings such as RRFBs, flashing LEDs
at stop signs and signage
■. Examples in past years
o Flashing LEDs at Main & 7"' near Frances Anderson Center
40. Downtown Lighting Improvements
• Install additional streetlights on both sides of Dayton St. and other locations within proximity to
Edmonds Transit Station
• Identified for funding from Sound Transit access improvements
41. SR- 104/Pine St. Walkway: SR-104 from mid -block crossing — 400' north of Pine St. to Pine St. and
Pine St. from SR-104 to 9t" Ave S
• Complete sidewalk missing links to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity to Edmonds Transit
Station
• Identified for funding from Sound Transit access improvements
42. Citywide bicycle improvements
• Install bike lanes along 100"' Ave. W/9t" Ave. W from 244"' St. SW to Walnut St. and along
Bowdoin Way from 9" Ave. W to 841" Ave W
• Secured $1.6M Sound Transit grant
Traffic Calm in on -motorized Transportation Saft Projects
43. Traffic Calming Program/Non-Motorized Transportation Safety
• Traffic circles, speed cushions, radar feedback signs, bulb -outs, etc.
• Included in prior TIPs
Ferry/Waterfront Projects
44. Ferry Storage Improvements from Dayton St. to Pine St.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 17
• Provide additional ferry storage area closer to the ferry terminal (through striping revisions/C-curb
addition)
• State completed striping revisions south of Dayton to provide additional queuing
Traffic Planning, Projects
45. Citywide ADA Transition Plan
• Plan identified all ADA deficiencies
• Required to be updated every 5-6 years, next update is 2023
46. Pavement Rating Study
• Done approximately every three years, goal is to complete in 2023
47. Transportation Plan Update
• Last updated in 2015
• Updated every 6-7 years, goal is to complete in 2022
Councilmember Paine asked if there was a program in the TIP for Safe Routes to Schools. Mr. Hauss
answered there is currently a call for Safe Routes to Schools projects; applications are due in mid -July.
Some of the projects such as 25, 26 and 27 would be good candidates for that funding source.
Councilmember Paine referred to Project 42, plans for a public hearing in the future and the community's
interest in parking accessibility and bike routes, and concern with bike lanes on the 9"V100' corridor and
on Bowdoin. She asked if there would be more parking studies on those corridors. Mr. Hauss answered
once the project is approved by Sound Transit, parking studies will be done on the corridors. The section
on 9`/100' north of SR-104 and Bowdoin contain parking so there will need to be a parking study. Once
the parking studies are completed, there may be stretches identified where parking should be maintained
and alternative cross sections will be considered. He recalled a previous project that converted the roadway
to one lane in each direction with a 2-way left turn lane and a bike lane by removing parking on both sides
in areas where parking was not in high demand or there was parking available on cross streets. In sections
where parking cannot be removed, the 2-way left turn lane would potentially be removed for short sections
and/or sharrows instead of bike lanes for short segments.
Councilmember Paine commented the Main & 9' Street intersection is ripe for a roundabout or a traffic
signal. She asked about a small roundabout, whether it would be roundabout with stop signs or a true
roundabout, commenting the smaller the roundabout, the more confused people get. Mr. Hauss responded
it would work like a roundabout with yield signs but the center would be much smaller. Mr. Williams
offered to forward a drawing that had been created. Councilmember Paine said she regularly sees drivers,
likely visitors, who are confused at the fountain intersection.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not see any projects on Highway 99 south of 220`h. Mr.
Hauss answered that is included in Project 9 and C-curbs are included in Project 8. The expenditures from
2023-2026 total $26 million which is only a small part of the $184 million for the entire corridor.
Improvements in the entire corridor will occur after 2026.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was primarily interested in Highway 99 south of 220"'. She
asked if there were any bicycle lanes or other project on the east side of Highway 99. Mr. Hauss answered
there are existing bike lanes on 228"'that connect to the Interurban Trail as well as the Mountlake Terrace
transit center. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there were any neighborhood projects such as
streets, lighting, sidewalks, etc. east of Highway 99 or are they all on the west side. Mr. Hauss answered
not in the TIP; there are some in the Transportation Plan. There may be better candidates for the Safe Routes
to Schools than are included in the TIP such as 236"' from Highway 99 to 76"'
Council President Fraley-Monillas advised there are no schools on the east side of Highway 99 in Edmonds.
Mr. Hauss said any project within two miles of a school is eligible for Safe Routes to School. Another
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 18
possible funding source is the Pedestrian Bicycle Program that does not require a two-mile radius. He has
been considering a couple locations on the east side of Highway 99 for funding. Council President Fraley-
Monillas said she was interested in projects on the east side of Highway 99 that are in the TIP compared to
the rest of the City and downtown. She acknowledged it was a much smaller slice of Edmonds but it was
still Edmonds.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed his appreciation for the focus on pedestrian, bicycle, and multimodal
projects, especial safety oriented projects. Although it may be unrealistic for this year's TIP, he suggested
including an appendix with maps of the projects so Councilmember and residents can see the existing
infrastructure and future projects that connect bicycle networks and/or sidewalks.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been bothered by a basic philosophy ever since Sound Transit made
a presentation to the City about the need for more parking and their refusal to consider a boutique parking
structure because it was too expensive, yet Sound Transit is giving the City money but still not addressing
the issue of parking. She relayed her impression that Edmonds would get $30 million from Sound Transit
and Mukilteo would get $10 million. She did not agree with splitting it 50-50 between Edmonds and
Mukilteo when Edmonds ferry has much more of an economic impact. She was unsure if this needed to be
included in the Transportation Element or TIP, but was hopeful parking for Sound Transit riders could be
considered.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented bicycling is a wonderful sport and it was great to be able to bicycle
around, but there were issues with installing bike lanes in major business areas. She referred to an email
she received today that stated the City recently eliminated 29 surface street parking spaces used by 13 long-
established businesses on 84t'' Avenue by the Five Corners business district. She urged extra caution when
considering bicycle lanes by taking away parking spaces, pointing out that without a parking structure,
business that need parking could be impacted. She recommended considering whether Edmonds was really
a bicycle town and whether to move in that direction. She recalled a former Portland mayor was voted out
of office because he expanded outside the Portland metro area.
Councilmember Buckshnis said many citizens are concerned about parking and businesses surviving when
bike lanes and sharrows are added. She suggested looking at what happened at Green Lake and other areas
in determining whether bicycle lanes are necessary. She acknowledged grant funds were available but
questioned whether bike lanes were necessary. With regard to the Sound Transit funding split between
Edmonds and Mukilteo, Mr. Hauss said the amount allocated to Edmonds will be higher than Mukilteo,
possibly $26 million for Edmonds and $14 million for Mukilteo. Sound Transit is working on parking
improvements near the station; Sound Transit is talking to WSDOT about acquiring property on the
northwest corner of Main & SR-104 for Sound Transit parking. Sound Transit is also considering other
properties.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when she asked about a boutique parking structure which can be
constructed for less than $10 million, the Sound Transit representative said it would be too expensive. She
commented Anacortes has parking structures that do not even look like parking structures. As the City
continued to grow and flourish, parking continues to be a problem. She was hopeful Sound Transit would
talk to the City's new administration, commenting in the past it seemed like the decision was already made.
Councilmember Olson recommended Project 26 on Elm Way be a higher priority, noting she does not live
on that street or in that area. Since the intersection was changed from a stop sign to a traffic light, the traffic
is very fast because drivers are not slowing for the stop sign. Drivers come down the hill at significant
speeds in an area with low visibility and no sidewalks, a very dangerous situation and just a matter of time
before a horrendous pedestrian accident occurs. She was surprised by the focus on Main & 9" instead of 9tn
& Caspers, noting it was extremely difficult to turn left from 9t' & Caspers, taking up to five minutes in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 19
morning. With regard to lighting in Lake Ballinger, she was surprised how dark it gets there at night because
there is no overhead lighting in the entire neighborhood. She suggest that be on the City's radar as a priority
project.
Councilmember Olson suggested figuring out the City's identity. In the context of bike lanes, she gave a
shout out to Edmonds citizens Brad Shipley and Ranya Khalik, amazing role models who ride their bikes
everywhere. However, unless there is separation and people feel safe, she was concerned bike lanes would
not be used. In addition, there is marginal weather for a good part of the year, a lot of hills and with Edmonds
demographics, not everyone is as likely to ride their bikes instead of driving. Giving up lanes for bike lanes
is a concern to her and she hoped it could be fully vetted with a lot of community input to determine what
the citizens of Edmonds want. Mr. Hauss advised the City's application to Safe Routes to Schools for the
Elm Way project was unsuccessful last year but staff plans to submit an application again this year. He
agreed that stretch would benefit from a sidewalk.
Councilmember K. Johnson complimented Mr. Hauss on the success of the grant applicants. She suggested
summarizing the approved and pending grants for the public hearing as well as the local match. She also
requested an 11x18 printout of the TIP in the packet.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Project 41 and asked if that was on Pine Street from SR-104 to 9"'
Avenue. Mr. Hauss answered yes. Councilmember L. Johnson said many people use that street to get to the
ferry. She recalled a couple years ago several residents expressed serious safety concerns with drivers
ignoring the stop sign, an extremely narrow portion of the roadway as well as there being a ballfield and a
playground. She asked if there would be any safety features in addition to the sidewalk. Mr. Hauss answered
the existing curb to curb width varies, in some areas it is 40 feet. A sidewalk would reduce the roadway
width which serves as a traffic calming measure. A parking study will be done in some areas where the
roadway is much narrower to determine whether parking could be removed. Rectangular rapid flashing
beacons (RRFB) were added at that intersection but were vandalized a week later and were removed and
not reinstalled. The installation of RRFB may be considered again.
Mr. Williams recalled there were some interesting and animated meetings regarding that block. There is
22' of pavement curb to curb with parking on one side and essentially 2-way traffic which does not leave a
lot of options within the existing right-of-way. Staff suggested the best safety feature would be to add a
sidewalk, but that would require purchasing additional property which most residents at the meeting were
not interested in. Sidewalks could be installed for most of that alignment except for that one area where it
would require purchasing property. An improved pedestrian amenity from 9' to SR-104 would be a
wonderful east -west corridor for pedestrians and bicycles.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOPERATIVE LEASE TERMS AMENDMENT
Councilmember Paine advised as is an owner of the Solar Cooperative, Slice, owning less than 1 %, she will
recuse herself from voting.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City has a 10-year contract with the Edmonds
Community Solar Cooperative that expires on July 1, 2020 to lease space on the Frances Anderson Center
(FAC) roof. Staff has had one really good conversation with the group leaders that identified three options
that will require further discussion, 1) extend the agreement for a period of time with essentially the same
terms or some renegotiation of the terms but with the Edmonds Solar Cooperative still in the lead, 2) the
City purchase and/or take ownership of the system and operate it, and 3) remove the equipment from the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 20
FAC roof and disband the project. Although the options have been discussed, there was not time to explore
them in detail. He requested a six month extension with an option for another six months while staff and
the Cooperative work on a longer term plan.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO EXTEND THE LEASE WITH THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR
COOPERATIVE FOR SIX MONTHS.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday asked if the intent was to move this to the Consent Agenda or to Council for
full discussion. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it should come back to Council in six months. Mr.
Taraday explained the Council committee cannot authorize a six month extension; that requires Council
action.
Council President Fraley-Monillas restated the motion:
TO SCHEDULE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR
COOPERATIVE LEASE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-0),
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE VOTE.
5. EDMONDS CARES FUND
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained The Federal CARES Act
has allocated $1,265,100 in reimbursable funds to Edmonds for expenditures associated with response and
recovery to the COVID-19 health and economic crisis. These funds may be used to cover a local
jurisdiction's expenses related to measures, actions, purchases necessary to the function of government in
response to the crisis, as well as to cover expenses associated with the provision of economic support in
connection with the COVID-19 crisis. The federal guidelines expressly offer the example of "grants to
small businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures."
In light of the provisions of the Federal CARES Act, the Administration proposes to create the Edmonds
Cares Fund, with the following two intended programs:
Reimbursement of City Expenses - $465,100 in Edmonds CARES Fund monies will be used to help defray
the mounting, unbudgeted costs associated with the City's functions, services and support in response to
the COVID-19 outbreak, including such things as: extra custodial staff to be in place when public buildings
reopen and facilities must be sanitized multiple times each day and other additional temporary staff
requirements, additional maintenance and security measures for parks facilities, PPE gear for all public -
facing city staff (specialized eyewear, gloves, wipes, etc.), the creation of extra signage, portable restroom
rentals, etc. Preliminary estimates as a result of an initial inquiry with departments is $350,000 to $475,000.
Business Support Grant Program - $800,000 in grants (in the form of forgivable loans) of up to $10,000 for
eligible businesses.
r Eligibility criteria include:
o Retail, restaurant/cafe, personal service, entertainment establishments - with particular
consideration of businesses owned by people of color, women, veterans, and other minorities
0 2 to 30 employees
o At least 30% loss in business/revenue year over year in April and/or May
o At least one year in business as of April 1, 2020
o Not already recipients of State or County business support grants
■ Geographic distribution across the City will also be a consideration in the implementation of this
grant program.
■ In order for the loan to be forgiven (and become a grant), recipients will be required to stay in
business for at least four months after receipt of the funds.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 21
While most businesses have suffered during this economic crisis, storefront businesses that
typically rely on walk-in customers and foot traffic, including those owned by people of color and
women, have felt the pain the worst. Business revenue has dropped - in some cases by up to 90%.
These retail, restaurant/cafe, personal service and entertainment establishments provide hundreds
of jobs in our community for entry-level and lower -skilled workers who earn less than $20/hour.
By receiving grants that will help them stay open, these businesses will be able to help local
employees get back to work and earn a living. This, turn, will help lower -income households in
Edmonds who have suffered financially during this crisis.
Mr. Doherty explained selection criteria is being developed, similar to criteria that was developed for the
State grant opportunity for which the County economic development organizations requested cities provide
a recommendation. There were over 240 applications from Edmonds for that program and it was likely only
20 grants would be awarded. Businesses that applied were ranked using selection criteria that awarded
points for businesses owned by people of color, women, veterans, and other minorities; creative sector
businesses, etc. Using that process, the City identified a top 25 and the State awarded 17 grants. A similar
selection process is proposed with potentially extra points to businesses outside the bowl area; businesses
owned by people of color, women, veterans, and other minorities; creative businesses; number of employees
and the amount of business loss.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PAINE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson said her challenge when considering this was not having any concrete
information and that there has not been widespread community input. She knew a number of businesses
and individuals have received some relief in the form of various funds and grants but others have been
unable to access the funds. Additionally, some of the relief funds are still coming in so the current need
may be less next month. She wanted to use the funds to help the City's small businesses who are struggling
to pay rent, pay employees as well as safely reopen and staff reopen. However, she also wanted to help
families who are struggling to pay their bills and stay in their homes. The question is who has the most
need, what is the best use and will have the widest and most lasting impact. Without information that
question cannot be answered and different groups have different perspectives.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the City could take the federal government's approach and roll the funds
out as fast as possible but that would leave some behind and she questioned who was speaking for them.
The safest approach seems to be a 50-50 split but hundreds applied for the Snohomish County funds and
the City prioritized those. She asked whether a decision needed to be made on who the priority was right
now and assign an amount or could an application process be started first to determine how vast the needs
are and then determine how best to use the funds to fit the priorities and have the widest impact on the
community.
Mr. Doherty explained an entirely different approach had been considered since the Administration knew
there would be an allocation from the CARES Act, one of them was entirely focused on residents which is
a very large pool of people. For example, the lowest level of income measured is people making less than
30% of the County median income; that equates to 1,663 households. If the entire $800,000 was distributed
to them, that would be a one-time check of $480. The philosophical approach was a one-time check was
not a lasting, sustainable change for a household. However, investing in businesses where they may have
jobs or may be able to seek jobs is potentially a more lasting, sustainable approach. The City is already
helping households; the application process for the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program has been
launched that will provide $1,000 grants to some households. The City has also been funding the Edmonds
Food Bank and the Edmonds Senior Center, both of which have been reaching households with lower
means.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 22
If the Council approved this approach, Mr. Doherty acknowledged the City did not know in advance what
type of response it would elicit. However, it's valuable to tell people the criteria upfront so they can self-
select based on the selection criteria. Although the selection criteria is not exclusionary, it helps businesses
know so they don't go to the trouble of completing an application and hope they will receive money
compared to if they had known the selection criteria. Having gone through a process with Snohomish
County for the State funds, staff is informed about what makes sense. Councilmember L. Johnson asked
how much County money went to businesses. Mr. Doherty said the State had a program that was
administered by the County economic development program; the County also has a $25,000 grant program
but it will not cover that many businesses. The application would inquire what programs business have
applied for and what they have received.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received phone calls from business owners and she has been in
business community in different areas of City. She was concerned that information get distributed outside
the bowl area. Edmonds is built on small businesses and many of them are struggling and some will not be
reopening. She asked why 2-30 employees was selected which did not include sole proprietors and why
non -profits like Driftwood Players and Phoenix were not included. Because the City will only be able to
fulfill a limited number of requests, she wanted to ensure the process was transparent and the criteria was
well known. She asked who will make the selection. Mr. Doherty answered the proposal was not to include
businesses with only one employee as there is a preference for businesses that have more employees so
there is a greater impact and it creates a bigger pool. With regard to non -profits, he said they could be
included, but the problem is they required a different analysis about their loss of revenue and how it affects
their future which can lead to more difficult decision making. He said theoretically there could be a work
around for that. Councilmember Buckshnis commented non -profits can receive donations.
To Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about reaching businesses outside of downtown, Mr. Doherty
said in the effort to have an objective rather than subjective process with numeral scores and ranked criteria,
he ranked 15 imaginary businesses for whom he randomly included numbers for their business loss, whether
they were women or minority owned, located inside and outside the bowl, etc. In his random exercise, there
was a clear top 7; 2 businesses outside the bowl, 2 creative sector business, 3 businesses downtown, 4
minority owned businesses, 2 with under 5 employees, 2 with 5-10 employees, 2 with 15-20 employees and
businesses losses ranging from 30% to 75%. Even in his random exercise, there were a variety of businesses
as a result of the criteria.
Regarding the business support grant program, Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the selection criteria
quantify the sales tax contribution of the business in the previous 12 months to provide an indicator of how
successful the business was. She also suggested extending the period of time to six months so it was through
the holiday season. With regard to reimbursement of City expenses, she pointed out the reimbursements
can be for all expenses through October 31, 2020. It was in the best interest of all taxpayers, citizens and
small businesses, for the City to be made whole again and to be reimbursed for the impacts of the COVID-
19 epidemic. Her preliminary analysis identified a $384,447 subtotal which includes $99,999 to the
Chamber of Commerce, $50,000 to the Edmonds Food Bank, $50,000 for the Senior Center, $108,839 for
6% hazard pay, $27,527 for 3% hazard pay, an unknown amount for standby pay, and $48,082 for supplies
including sanitation supplies. She was told the City could not get reimbursement for the $100,0000 Housing
and Supplementary Relief Fund because it was transferred from another fund. The total amount does not
include standby pay, extra custodial care, maintenance and security measures for park facilities, personal
protection equipment for staff, extra signage, portable restrooms, etc. In conclusion before the Council
decide how much money to give in grants to small businesses, it should make sure the City is covered and
made whole again due to COVID-19.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 23
Mr. Doherty responded in asking departments about their projected expenses through October, he did not
include the $200,000 amassed by savings identified to fund the Community and Economic Relief Program.
The reason he did not include that was because those funds were already budgeted expenditures, although
not for that purpose but technically could be recouped by the CARES Act. Including the hazard pay and
other factors from departments such as equipment, supplies, extra custodial staff, the amount ranged from
$433,000 to $479,000 which fits in the $465,000 proposed to be set aside for the City.
Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated Mr. Doherty's response, pointing out it excludes the $200,000
eligible reimbursement for the contribution to the Food Bank, Senior Center and Chamber of Commerce as
well as excludes hazard pay. Mr. Doherty said the number he cited includes hazard pay. Councilmember
K. Johnson said adding the $200,000 brings the total to $637,000 at the low end. Mr. Doherty said the
$480,000 is unbudgeted, unexpected expenditures; the $200,000 was budgeted but reallocated so it is
technically reimbursable but is not in excess of what the City expected to expend in 2020. Councilmember
K. Johnson said it was reimbursable by the CARES Act.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the narrative refers to businesses not already recipients of State or
County business support grants; she asked about receipt of federal grants. Mr. Doherty said he will add
federal grants to the criteria. Council President Fraley-Monillas said a large group of businesses have
received federal grants. Mr. Doherty clarified the intent was not to disqualify businesses who received other
grants, but to inquire how much they received or expect to receive and that amount will assist in the selection
process. For example, if someone received a $1000 WISH grant, which is not money but services, versus
someone receiving $20,000 may affect their point calculation.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was leaning toward a 50-50 approach. She had some concerns
regarding citizens with low income or low, low income. A committee consisting of Councilmember Paine,
Mayor Nelson, Mr. Doherty and she talked about how to divide the funds. At 60% AMI citizens would earn
$52,000 or less; at 45% AMI they would earn $43,000 or less and at 30% of AM, they would earn $26,000
or less. At that time Administration wanted to do 60% AMI and she pushing for 45%. Her notes also state
the median income in Edmonds is $88,000, the average income is $115,000. She realized there was a great
argument to be made about minimum wage workers who work in restaurants and other business; but a
majority of low income or low, low income people do not work in Edmonds and if they work, they work in
other cities.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has been talking with residents who have been laid off and
received minimal unemployment; they need help with utilities, daycare, food, and medical costs due to the
COVID pandemic. One resident she spoke with is now three months in arrears in their rent and although
the governor passed orders prohibiting evictions and encouraging rents to be negotiated, this person was
concerned with how they would pay three months of back rent because they had spent their money on food
and utilities. She recalled during last year's elections, everyone was talking about low income and people
in Edmonds who need support, pointing out this is that opportunity. A lot of businesses have received grants
from various sources.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said approximately 400-450 businesses in Edmonds operate from their
homes. She relayed a conversation with one home -occupation business who indicated $10,000 would not
do her any good because she has a $40,000 payroll in a month and that the funds the City provides should
be given to the most in need. In looking at the businesses who received WISH grants, two of them are in
Lynnwood and only two of the Edmonds businesses were on Highway 99, a restaurant and a CPA, and the
rest were "concentrated down below." She was not confident that the outreach to business would reach
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 24
businesses that are most in need of the funds. She proposed a 50-50 split and trying to help people wo are
starving and have bills to pay. She understood businesses were struggling too but while a couple downtown
businesses have closed, half a dozen on Highway 99 have closed indefinitely because no one offered them
money or worked with them.
While she understood there was a ranking system, Council President Fraley-Monillas found it interesting
that the ranking system provided one point for businesses outside the bowl as well as businesses in the
Creative District. She noted most of the downtown businesses are in the Creative District. Mr. Doherty said
a postcard is being sent to all the businesses to inform them about the new Business Resources webpage in
response to the COVID-19 crisis and will include information about grants that are available and
encouraging them to check the webpage for other grants. Another round of the multi -language flyer is being
contemplated and using staff to distribute them. With regard to point system, points would be provided for
creative sector businesses, not necessarily businesses in the Creative District. There are many businesses in
the Creative District that are not creative sector businesses. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed
concern a committee was formed and now the proposal is not to provide funds to people living in Edmonds
but to businesses. This is a perfect opportunity to provide funds to citizens and that is not the proposal.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to his lengthy email to Mr. Doherty and thanked him for answering
his questions. In goggling what other cities and counties doing with their CARES money, overwhelmingly
every city and county is allotting at least a portion to human and social services to take care of residents
most in need. Everett did a 50-50 split ($500,000 to each), Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace are both in
discussions, Snohomish County allotted $27 million or 37% for economic relief and $10 million or 14%
for human and social services. Pierce County allotted 15% to human and social services and even Stanwood
allowed funds to human and social services, albeit a lower amount because their CARES funding was lower.
Staying away from specific comments on the criteria, he would like to see direction as Council President
Fraley-Monillas stated that involves residents most in need. Obviously, economic relief is needed for small
businesses and he appreciated the focus and point system related to some of the underutilized businesses,
but he supported a significant portion going to low or low, low income residents.
Councilmember Distelhorst said the Chamber WISH Fund has only used about $35,000 in the 2 months
that program has been operating so maybe there is an opportunity to shift the second $50,000 from that
program into this program. He expressed interest in an updated proposal that includes funding for residents.
He was concerned about the trickle down and although he understood the job preservation argument, he
wanted to ensure the funds really reached the residents that need support.
With regard to outreach to outlying parts of Edmonds, Councilmember Olson said a much better job has
been done than ever before. She was not the only volunteer, and she personally she handed out 120 multi -
language flyers to businesses outside the bowl on Highway 99, Perrinville, Firdale Village, and Fire Corners
in addition to the outreach the City did on social media and other resources. She gave a shoutout to the
Edmonds of Chamber. To Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about the importance of non -profits such
as Driftwood Players, they also employ Edmonds residents although she recognized Mr. Doherty's
comment that there is not enough money to go around. The Chamber's support of businesses has been
incredible and she was concerned about their ability to maintain their staff of three who move mountains
in the City every year with unbelievable civic events that everyone counts on and enjoys. It is not possible
to mobilize hundreds of volunteers with no full-time staff. She was uncertain that anything could be done
for the Chamber with the CARES funds, but if that was possible, keeping the Chamber in business would
be a great gift to the community. The Chamber projects they are about $75,000 short. She invited citizens
to join the Chamber of Commerce to show their support and to keep them in business.
With regard to the human services side of things, Councilmember Olson reiterated the $480 that would be
provided directly to someone via that that approach would have very little impact. She acknowledged that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 25
every little bit helped, but in her opinion that was a very short-sighted approach. To ensure funds provided
to a business had the anticipated trickle down, she recommended they be required to rehire their employees
and to maintain those jobs for a period time the Council selects. Business owners in the community donate
to auctions, participate in events, come through for the residents and have a huge amount invested in their
business. Every time a business fails, it not only affects the owner's job but also their investment.
With regard to the governmental mandates for closure, Councilmember Olson said it needed to be done
because there were so many unknowns, but some also feel that the closure lasted longer than was prudent.
To the extent the businesses can be supported with the funds available and have a significant impact in the
business community so there are not empty stores not generating sales tax revenue will lessen the impact
on next year's budget. She supported grants to businesses versus a one-time $480 payment to low income
residents.
Councilmember Paine asked about the deadline for distributing the funds. Mr. Doherty said all expenditures
through October 31s' are eligible and invoices for reimbursement must be submitted to the state by
November 15".
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine asked if there were different criteria for businesses to receive the funds versus
residents. Mr. Doherty said the CARES Act criteria states businesses can be offered grants to help them
recover from the business loss they have experienced and it is broad enough to allow grants for household
expenses, food, rent, etc.
Councilmember Paine commented sole proprietors offer a lot and some are in -home businesses. It seems
unfair to have an arbitrary cutoff as some of them do not have the opportunity to participate in federal and
state opportunity. She was dismayed the proposal did not look at ways to support neighbors close to the
economic edge via a 50-50 split of the balance with a faster delivery system. She referred to data from the
Senior Center, the Food Bank and the Chamber's WISH Fund, noting she was surprised it had not been
overly subscribed and she hated to see money left on the table. For the next discussion, she requested some
thought be given to why it has not been as well subscribed and whether there was any bias in the analysis
or how it was delivered that was creating the lack of subscription.
Mr. Doherty relayed the Food Bank is spending the most money to address a growing population and are
likely to use up their allocation. The Food Bank indicated there are a lot of people in need who do not see
themselves going to the food bank. The Senior Center is also expending more money but have not submitted
invoices. With the WISH Fund, many businesses just want money not a service. Councilmember Paine said
the construction of that fund may be why the money has dribbled out rather than in full effect. Mr. Doherty
anticipated there would be numerous application for the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program.
Councilmember Paine acknowledged that will offer other data points. She appreciated the data analysis
emphasis, but wanted to ensure the City reaches residents who do not have much cushion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she glad hear that multi -language information would be distributed
on Highway 99 as she has spoken with half a dozen businesses on the corridor who knew nothing about
this. She expressed concern that two businesses in Lynnwood were received money from Edmonds via
services from the Chamber's WISH Fund. Mayor Nelson Chamber explained the Chamber is also raising
money for the WISH Fund; the money raised by the Chamber can provide services to businesses in
Lynnwood. In accordance with the contract between Edmonds and the Chamber, none of the money
Edmonds provides can go to businesses outside Edmonds. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 26
not aware the Chamber was raising money for the WISH Fund and had assumed it was all the City of
Edmonds' money.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mayor Nelson for that information, relaying she had spoken to Greg
Urban at the Chamber. She donated her April paycheck to the PCF fund. Mr. Urban has expressed concern
that there are not a lot of people who need a service like website, web design, marketing, advertising, legal,
financial planning, etc.; small businesses are interested in money. She agreed the City may want to
reallocate some of the money provided to the Chamber.
Mr. Doherty said he will take the Council's input into consideration and bring this back next week for
further discussion and possible action.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson announced the Edmonds Police Department is taking the first step in pursing body cameras
for patrol officers and starting a pilot project. The Police Chief has been in contact with neighboring
agencies on how they went about it. He hoped to have the Police Chief talk with Council about the process
in the near future.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis congratulated all the 2020 graduates, noting Councilmember Olson has a 2020
graduate in her family. She commented on the graduation event on Main Street. She thanked Mayor Nelson
for reopening the dog park; there were 3,061 hits on the dog park's Facebook page. Everyone is happy and
every precaution possible is being taken. She reported the New York Stock Exchange had an 8 minutes and
46 silence today. She expressed her appreciation to Chief Lawless for describing what the Police
Department does and she looked forward to working with the Police Department as the community works
through these very stressful and racially charged times.
Councilmember Paine commented tonight was a nice meeting and the CARES discussion was very, very
timely. Adding to discussion about equity in the media, she said this is time when people need to focus on
awareness of biases, where they can do better and she was eager to get that underway. She was glad the
Police Department would be looking at cameras for the police officers, anticipating they would be very
helpful. She recognized it was an interesting and expensive process but would provide reliability and
accountability. The Edmonds Police Department does a good job but cameras offer another layer of
visibility.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this has been very difficult time for everyone, a worldwide
pandemic, economic uncertainty and civil unrest. Our democracy is not perfect but it will endure with the
open mind and cooperation of everyone. Everyone can listen and learn and continue to do better, be kind
and generous and work to help each other through these scary times. She reassured businesses and residents
that they can move through this difficult time.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked everyone who has made signs, attended events, done sidewalk chalk
art, contacted Councilmembers and stepped up for racial equity in the community. It was inspiring and it
gave him confidence looking toward changes that are needed both in the City and beyond. He highlight
news releases, first, the City has officially launched in partnership with Washington Kids in Transition and
Wellspring Family Services, the Edmonds Housing and Supplementary Relief Program related to COVID-
19. This program, which was approved by Council, will provide funds to eligible Edmonds residents to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 27
help with rent, utilities, food, medical costs or childcare for families impacted by COVID-19. A link is
available on Facebook and the City's website to apply for that aid. Second, Mayor Nelson is seeking
applicants for the Equity and Justice Advisory Task Force. He urged everyone to apply to ensure there were
voices from all over Edmonds to make it successful. He urged the public to continue wearing cloth face
coverings, noting case counts are rising in many areas that have reopened, even counties within Washington
State.
Council President Fraley-Monillas echoed Councilmember Paine comments regarding equity, advising she
attended rallies at PCC and QFC. She emphasized the need to be aware of white privilege. She congratulated
Mayor Nelson for pursing body cameras for the Police Department. Council President Fraley-Monillas
inquired about the use of a particular hold and Mayor Nelson said effective immediately the Police
Department is prohibited from using a carotid restraint.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported after a meeting with the Health District today, it appears
Snohomish County may go into Phase 3 the first week of July if everything stays the same or goes down.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TWO MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed effective next Tuesday, citizens can provide live comment via
Zoom. There will be a press release tomorrow with the number for citizens to call.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Distelhorst' comments, relaying it has been incredibly
inspiring to see so many people come out to support the Black Lives Matter movement and to recognize
what has always existed in this country. It has been especially inspiring to see that many have been youth -
led, noting there are parents raising some incredible leaders. She urged the public to wear masks, it is
something we all can do. She commented it was striking to see in Shoreline where upwards of 4,000 to
5,000 gathered and 99% were wearing marks.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 28
help with rent, utilities, food, medical costs or childcare for families impacted by COVID-19. A link is
available on Facebook and the City's website to apply for that aid. Second, Mayor Nelson is seeking
applicants for the Equity and Justice Advisory Task Force. He urged everyone to apply to ensure there were
voices from all over Edmonds to make it successful. He urged the public to continue wearing cloth face
coverings, noting case counts are rising in many areas that have reopened, even counties within Washington
State.
Council President Fraley-Monillas echoed Councilmember Paine comments regarding equity, advising she
attended rallies at PCC and QFC. She emphasized the need to be aware of white privilege. She congratulated
Mayor Nelson for pursing body cameras for the Police Department. Council President Fraley-Monillas
inquired about the use of a particular hold and Mayor Nelson said effective immediately the Police
Department is prohibited from using a carotid restraint.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reported after a meeting with the Health District today, it appears
Snohomish County may go into Phase 3 the first week of July if everything stays the same or goes down.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR TWO MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed effective next Tuesday, citizens can provide live comment via
Zoom. There will be a press release tomorrow with the number for citizens to call.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Distelhorst' comments, relaying it has been incredibly
inspiring to see so many people come out to support the Black Lives Matter movement and to recognize
what has always existed in this country. It has been especially inspiring to see that many have been youth -
led, noting there are parents raising some incredible leaders. She urged the public to wear masks, it is
something we all can do. She commented it was striking to see in Shoreline where upwards of 4,000 to
5,000 gathered and 99% were wearing marks.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m.
� I
MiCHAEL NELSON, MAYOR
PASSEY, CITY CL K
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 28
Public Comment for June 9, 2020 Council Meeting
6/9/20 Finis Tupper, Subject: June 9th Meeting proposed Resolution for the City Council
PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Prohibiting Non -disparagement Clauses for City of Edmonds Employees. Whereas, contracts
and policies prohibiting or limiting workers from speaking about their employment have drawn
greater scrutiny from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in recent years; and Whereas,
in early 2013, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that non -disparagement provisions
incorporated in employment agreements violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act (NLRA) by restricting employees' rights under Section 7 of the NLRA; and Whereas, section
8(a)(1) restricts employers from interfering with employees attempting to exercise their Section
7 rights; and Whereas, under Section 7, employees have the right to choose to engage in
"concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,"
such as discussing wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of work with other
employees; and Whereas, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced
in its 2013-2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan, that it would "target policies and practices that
discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination
statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts" including provisions
that prohibit filing charges with the EEOC; and Whereas, the EEOC has filed a series of federal
court actions around the country challenging numerous provisions that commonly appear in
employment separation and release agreements including non -disparagement clauses that
prohibit employees from making any disparaging statements about the organization and its
officers, directors and employees due to the assertion that such provisions are contrary to public
policy as they lead employees to believe that participating in an investigation or testifying in a
proceeding in which they will be critical of the employer would breach the severance agreement;
and Whereas, in 2016 OSHA enacted a new policy to not approve a "gag" provision that
prohibits restricts, or otherwise discourages employees from participating in protected activity,
whether in confidentiality or non -disparagement clauses or otherwise.; and Whereas, the use of
a non -disparagement clauses in the departure of a high ranking public official are an
unacceptable affront to Freedom of Information and open government principles; and Whereas,
in the public sector, non -disparagement clauses do not reflect public sector transparency, or the
spirit of open government; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of
Edmonds: That for purposes of this resolution, "public employee" means any person engaged in
service to a public employer in a business of such public employer, and "public employer"
means the City of Edmonds, the Mayor and City Council, including, without limitation, any
board, department, commission, institution, or agency of such entities. Be It Further Resolved
that the City shall not seek termination, suspension, or separation agreements that contain any
provisions prohibiting or restricting public employees from disclosing or discussing any aspect of
such public employee's employment, termination, suspension or separation or any policies,
actions or programs of such public employer, except as otherwise required by law.
6/9/20 Liz Brown, Subject: Facilities Lead Job Description and other Lead Positions, Action Item
8.1
My name is Liz Brown and I am a Business Agent for Teamsters Local 763, the union that
represents the City's Parks and Public Works employees. The Facilities Lead position would be
a promotional opportunity for one of our members. As a union, we are gratified to see the City
address a real need and create a position in which our members can gain leadership
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 29
experience. This is a sensible approach for direction and work flow. Even more important,
promotional positions are part of an employer's replacement and succession planning, building
a strong workforce now and into the future. We applaud this. However, it is disappointing that
even as the City Council creates a new Lead position within our bargaining unit, next week the
Teamsters and the City of Edmonds will square off in an unfair labor practice hearing over a
charge we were compelled to file over direct dealing by management at the Waste Water
Treatment Plant. Instead of filling the Operations Lead and Maintenance Lead positions at the
WWTP, the City has tried to coerce our members into agreeing to altered job descriptions that
would strip away a bargained benefit in exchange for finally filling these positions. The
Operations Lead position has been vacant for more than a year and the Maintenance Lead
position has been vacant longer. Currently, we have two Leads in the Street and Stormwater
division; two Leads in the Water and Sewer division; one Lead in the Parks division and a Lead
Custodian. The WWTP, which operates 365 days a year, has no official Leads. Our members,
however, continue to perform the work without compensation. Even as we support the new
Facilities Lead position, we must voice our strong objection to the manner in which critical
functions at the WWTP remain unfilled, especially as the City considers embarking on a
proposed gasification project. Sincerely, Liz Brown Business Agent Teamsters Local 763
6/9/20 Liz Brown, Subject: Waste Water Treatment Plant Gasification Project
Good evening: In the Council's packet tonight, on the action item regarding the WWTP, I believe
the City Council should publicly acknowledge that it intends to make its decision to use
gasification technology provided by one small, sole vendor --a proprietary technology --without all
the information in hand. Please note that on packet page 156, City management staff rejects a
replacement of the current sewage sludge incinerator while noting that this option has not been
fully evaluated for energy and operational costs. Why not? Sincerely, Liz Brown Edmonds
resident
6/9/20 Justin Reeder, Subject: Support for small business
I was able to take part in the PPP program but, had I not, I have just 2 employees and hope that
your proposal to support businesses would include businesses of less than 5
employees! Thank you! Justin Reeder Edmonds Vitamins & Herbs 420 5th Ave S #101
Edmonds, WA 98020 425-774-0747
6/9/20 Sheila Cloney, Subject: Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association Support for Cares
ACT Grant Program
Attached please find a letter from the Downtown Merchant Association (DEMA) for submittal to
the record of the Tuesday, June 9, 2020 Council Meeting. Respectfully, Sheila Cloney DEMA
President
Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association c/o Sheila Cloney, President 529 Dayton Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020 Sheilacloney@gmail.com
June 8, 2020
Mayor Mike Nelson City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: Grant program funded by the CARES Act.
Dear Mayor Nelson, The Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association (DEMA) supports the letter
to Council from the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (Ed!) which is strongly in favor of Mayor
Nelson's proposal for a Business Support Grant program funded by the CARES Act.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 30
Additionally, DEMA would like to request that the criteria for funding be amended to 1-30
employees. As you know, many of the small businesses in Edmonds are run by one person,
the owner. Many owners who are classified as "self-employed" have yet to receive relief from
Washington Employment Security and/or the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). We hope
you will see the value in providing this opportunity for support to all local businesses in need.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like additional information, or materials/data to
support this request. Respectfully, Sheila Cloney, DEMA President Cc: Edmonds City Council
Edmonds Downtown Alliance Patrick Doherty, Edmonds Economic Development
6/9/20 Val Stewart, Subject: Public comment for tonight's meeting
Dear Mayor Nelson and City Council, I wish to have someone read this comment tonight at city
council meeting. Thank you kindly. Respectfully, Val Stewart
June 9, 2020
Dear Mayor Nelson and City Council members, I appreciate the difficult work you are all doing
during these uncertain times. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and commitment to the
wellbeing of Edmonds' citizens. I have been paying attention to the online meetings these past
couple of months. Most of you know me from my two terms on Planning Board and other
committees. For those who don't, I look forward to meeting you in person one of these days
when all this settles. I wish to speak to the importance of enabling the public to have their
voices heard. I am aware that inperson attendance is not allowed under the Governor's order
put into place on March 24th. I noticed that there is an email address to which citizens can send
comments. That's all good but there haven't been any read recently at the meetings so the
public, Mayor, and Council can hear them all at once. Also in real time, I think that citizens
should be able to register in advance of the meeting and connect by phone, especially if they
wish to deliver a timely comment orally. In contrast, the community I am now living in, Port
Townsend, does read comments that are sent during their meetings. They are read during the
citizens' comments agenda item and public hearings. The 3 minute time limit is honored and
often responses are given to the comments during the meeting. To go further, citizens have the
option of dialing into the meeting not just to listen but to potentially speak during public comment
periods. They must register in advance and sign up for the appropriate comment period if they
wish to speak. I'm bringing this up as an example because I feel that you are not allowing the
democratic process to play out. You all remember how so many citizens came to meetings and
many also came up to the podium and spoke. They can't do that now so they really need a
viable alternative that's easy and accessible. It's important for citizens to hear what others have
to say and for you to consider that when you are making decisions. Discussion and
consideration of all public comments should be apparent on the dias as you prepare to vote. If
citizen comments go into a dark hole, or worse if they don't get a response from a council
member, then what's the point of writing the comment in the first place. None of you should be
deciding how you'll vote before a meeting. Your mind can be changed by listening to the public
and to each other as you discuss pending legislation and action. There were so many times
when I was leaning one way on an issue and changed my mind after listening to others. Given
these uncertain times, I understand that expediency is important but not to the exclusion of
hearing all comments that are thoughtfully written and delivered to you. So I ask you going
forward, to please read my comment aloud at the next meeting and read others as well. Also
please set up a system for citizens to participate in real time. It is so important that every citizen
have an opportunity to be heard. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Val Stewart
Former Edmonds resident of 30+ years Current taxpayer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 31
6/9/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comment for June 9, 2020 City Council Meeting
For years I have expressed that City of Edmonds government promotes different
rules for different people. I've asked: "Where is the outrage?" I've asked: "Why don't the
current elected officials have the will to address historical wrongs and start to rebuild
trust?" I've said: "The choice by the current elected officials to not address this and the
huge harm caused is wrong and unethical." I've said: "A City must have integrity. It must
be consistent in how it treats people. A City should not have different rules for different
people."I've said: "Without a will for liberty and justice for all, current elected officials are
wrong and unethical to allow citizens of Edmonds to be subject to the Hearing Examiner
system." I've said: "Proclaiming that Edmonds is a "safe city" does not make it a "safe
city." I've said: "I believe the City's need to rebuild trust is critical and it requires strong
action. The City can't just simply ask for more trust — the City needs to take bold action
to earn more trust. I believe such requires courageous, ethical leadership." I've said: "So
this concept that the 'city government does not get to choose who it will or won't help' is
extremely dangerous and misleading. There may be citizens out there that will rely on
this representation and ignorantly trust that the City will be just and treat all citizens
fairly and equally under the law. History shows that this is not true — this is not how City
of Edmonds government always conducts itself. Citizens need to know that Edmonds
will push issues rather than just applying its laws fairly and equally." After saying all the
things above and seeing no changes, my opinion is that City of Edmonds
government has never been very interested in voluntarily promoting equity, fairness, and
justice for all citizens of Edmonds. The February 20, 2018 Hearing Examiner Annual
Review was painful to watch. I got to listen to current Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts
express concern for the Loft restaurant's available funds to deal with code compliance
related to something that wasn't their fault — they just bought it that way! I got to listen
to Mr. Olbrechts express concern about not obstructing the restaurant's operations. I
also found out that despite the fact the restaurant's code compliance issue related to a
safety hazard, the City worked with the Loft restaurant for 4 years before finally issuing a
notice of violation. Wow — what a City government! In the code compliance case involving my
family, there were no safety issues related to the issue that existed when we bought our
home. Our code compliance issue could have been easily addressed by the City simply
admitting either of the following: 1. Per Nystrand, reasonable, non -interfering use of unopened
public street easements by abutting landowners is exempt from prohibitions on use and fees by
municipalities. The Reidy family did not even need an encroachment permit to make efficient
use of our fee title property. 2. Per Ordinance 3696, the former City Attorney and City Staff
knew that "Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from
neighbor states it was there prior to 1981". The above 2 simple solutions were available —
but the City chose to harass the Reidy family with multiple code enforcement orders
instead. Think of the harm caused by that harassment — harm that still impacts us every
day. Even if the 2 simple solutions above were not available, the City could have easily
addressed the Reidy family's code compliance issue by simply having us apply for an
Encroachment Permit - a 3rd simple solution. In his email dated August 17, 2007, Duane
Bowman said: The issue we are now faced with is that your clients have an accessory building
located within the alley right-of-way. As 1 see it there are three potential options:
1. Move the building out of the right-of-way, or
2. Obtain an encroachment permit for the structure, or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 32
3. Work with the property owners abutting the alley right-of-way and petition the city to
vacate the entire alley right-of-way.
We chose option 3 and history shows what City of Edmonds government surprised us with at
the last moment under that option. Had we chosen Option 2, our experience could have been
much different. In City Staff notes dated November 17, 2009, Ann and Jeanie discussed issuing
the Reidys an encroachment permit that would be void once the Temporary Construction
Easement was void. Despite both the above items that prove an encroachment permit was an
option, former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice went out of her way to state in her February 19,
2010 Findings, Conclusions, and Order that:Had the Applicant applied for an encroachment
permit, it would have been denied. Why would former Hearing Examiner Rice say such a
thing? Why would she speculate that an application for an encroachment permit would have
been denied? Why would she incorporate her speculation into her Findings, Conclusions, and
Order? What was going on here?!?! Please look again at the attached document: November
17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting At the bottom of the notes, it clearly says: (3) Building
permit for alteration of shed andto permit lean-to.*encroachment to be issued in
conjunction with bldg permit. >clearly state encroachment permit VOID once easement is
VOID Up above on the right-hand side of the notes, one can clearly see: >Reidy to submit (#3)
at same time Please appreciate: Ann and Jeanie clearly knew that the Reidy family could be
issued an encroachment permit!So again - Why would Ms. Rice speculate that?: "Had the
Applicant applied for an encroachment permit, it would have been denied." Why would
she incorporate her speculation into her Findings, Conclusions, and Order? What was going on
here?!?! This is yet another reason the Hearing Examiner System does not work in
Edmonds. A System that allows for Hearing Examiner speculation while staff who know
better sit by quietly - must be terminated. Please do so before other citizens can be harmed
like the Reidy family was! It might be different if elected officials would support their constituents
harmed by such conduct. Sadly, elected officials have clearly shown for many years that they
do not have the will to do so, instead allowing harm to continue for years and years. The
following FACTS should be very easy for current elected officials to verify, understand and
value: 1. It is FACT that the former City Attorney, former Mayor and City Staff never informed
the Reidys of City Ordinance # 3696, the Ordinance that grandfathered our setbacks. This
FACT is true even though former City Attorney Scott Snyder and City Staff discussed the new
Ordinance that grandfathered structures constructed prior to 1980 in a meeting/phone
conference on July 31, 2009. This meeting/phone conference took place 189 days before
Reidy's Code Enforcement Hearing in front of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on
February 4, 2010. 2. It is FACT that City Staff knew that "Setbacks will be grandfathered by
Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981". This
FACT was known for at least 80 days before Reidys' Code Enforcement Hearing in front of
former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010. Please see attached
PDF document: November 17, 2009 Ann and Jeanie Meeting - PLEASE NOTE -THESE
NOTES WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL ARE PART OF THIS PUBLIC COMMENT.
3. It is FACT that neither the former City Attorney or City Staff included ECDC 17.40.020(H) or
Ordinance #3696 as "Relevant Code Sections" in their "BUILDING DIVISION & ENGINEERING
DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER" dated January
27, 2010. ECDC 17.40.020(H) was relevant as the City knew it could grandfather
Reidys' setbacks.Please pause here and consider for a moment how egregious the City's
Conduct was related to FACT #3 alone. The City Attorney and City Staff knew about and
discussed a relevant code section for months before the Reidys' Hearing but still choose
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 33
to leave the critical information out of the City's REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER!! How can any reasonable person trust the Hearing Examiner
System in Edmonds? 4. It is FACT that the Reidys discovered City Ordinance #3696 before
our Code Enforcement Hearing in front of former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4,
2010. 5. It is FACT that neighbor Finis Tupper declared under penalty of perjury on January
30, 2010 that he remembered seeing the entire structure as far back as 1968. 6. It is FACT that
the City objected to the admission of the Finis Tupper Declaration & Brief document on
relevance grounds. The City objected even though the City had known for a long time that
"Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states
it was there prior to 1981". 7. It is FACT that former City Attorney Scott Snyder represented to
former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice on February 4, 2010 that: Grandfathering applies
to legally initiated uses only, not illegal uses. As a
Edmonds. Edmonds has created exceptions. Ordinance # 3696 is one example of an
exception as is Ordinance # 3962 which grandfathered AT&T's illegally initiated wireless facility
that was not permitted upon its establishment. 8. It is FACT that former Hearing Examiner
Sharon Rice represented that the Finis Tupper Declaration & Brief document was
"undated". The document was clearly dated so it is highly alarming that Hearing Examiner
Sharon Rice missed this and made a point to represent that the document was "undated". 9. It
is FACT that that former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice represented that the testimony and
declaration of witness Finis Tupper addressing the duration of the existing accessory structure
in its current configuration was not relevant. Per Ordinance #3696, the declaration was
relevant. Once the evidence was provided, former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice and the City
were required to conclude that the structure was presumptively nonconforming. This was
MANDATORY per ECDC 17.40.020(H). 10. It is FACT that Ordinance #3696 grandfathered
Reidys' setbacks, just as it did for Straub et al as documented in Kernen Lien's letter dated
August 30, 2010. Please ask Vourself why the City of Edmonds did not provide this same
information to the Reidys or to former Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice! Please see
attached document: August 30, 2010 Kernen Lien letter to Straub et al - PLEASE NOTE -
THESE NOTES WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL ARE PART OF THIS PUBLIC
COMMENT. The factual information documented above is brutal to say the least... years of
harm and suffering caused by the City's harassment of the Reidy family. Like the Loft
restaurant, we just bought it that way! There were 3 simple solutions available — but the City
chose to harass the Reidy family with multiple code enforcement orders instead. Why?
The straw that breaks the back of the Hearing Examiner System in Edmonds, however, is the
City of Edmonds government's choice to not voluntarily address all these great wrongs. I
believe it is very wrong and very unethical to not address these great wrongs and then go
forward as if the Hearing Examiner System can be trusted and is fair to citizens of
Edmonds. History proves Fact #11: The use of the Hearing Examiner system cannot be
trusted to lead to justice in Edmonds because history proves the City is willing
to provide incomplete_and/or false information to the Hearing Examiner. Compounding
this problem, history also proves elected officials have not had the will to address this
improper conduct and the great harm caused by the City's conduct. Without a will for
liberty and justice for all, City of Edmonds government is wrong and unethical to allow
citizens of Edmonds to be subject to the Hearing Examiner system. Please turn the
corner and show a will to voluntarily promote equity, fairness, and justice for all citizens
of Edmonds. Please end the practice of different rules for different people. My hope is
that elected City officials will choose to take bold action to earn more trust. I believe
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 34
ending the practice of different rules for different people requires courageous, ethical
leadership.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 9, 2020
Page 35