Loading...
2020-07-14 City Council - Full S Agenda-2618o Agenda Edmonds City Council SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 14, 2020, 6:00 PM CITIZENS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUDIENCE COMMENT PORTION OF THE MEETING MAY CONNECT VIA ZOOM AT ANY POINT BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE AUDIENCE COMMENT PERIOD. CITIZENS WILL SIT IN A VIRTUAL WAITING ROOM UNTIL THEIR TURN TO SPEAK. WHEN THE CITIZEN ENTERS THE LIVE COUNCIL MEETING, THEIR TIME WILL BEGIN. THE CLERK WILL BE THE TIME KEEPER AND PROVIDE A 30-SECOND WARNING AND A FINAL WARNING WHEN THEIR TIME IS UP. THE CITIZEN WILL BE REMOVED AND THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED IN. CITIZENS MAY CONNECT WITH A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE AT: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/S/4257752525 OR JOIN THE MEETING BY PHONE AT: 888 475 4499 (TOLL FREE) OR 877 853 5257 (TOLL FREE) MEETING ID 425 775 2525 CITIZENS NOT WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN AUDIENCE COMMENTS MAY CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE LIVESTREAM ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, CABLE TV, OR TELEPHONE BY CALLING (712) 775-7270, ACCESS CODE 583224. "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. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 5. CLOSED SESSION: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STRATEGY PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(A) (60 MIN.) 6. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION Edmonds City Council Agenda July 14, 2020 Page 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2020 2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2020 3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2020 4. Boys and Girls Club Lease Agreement 5. City Attorney Annual Report - 2019 6. EPOA Commissioned Collective Bargaining Agreement 1/1/20 - 12/31/23 9. ACTION ITEM 1. Edmonds CARES Fund Budget Amendment (5 min) 10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda July 14, 2020 Page 2 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 06-16-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 8.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES June 16, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Pamela Randolph, Treatment Plant Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine 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 BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD A NEW ITEM 4.1 TO THE AGENDA ENTITLED "MOTION TO ALLOW LIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Agenda was approved at the end of the following agenda item.) 1. MOTION TO ALLOW LIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HEAR LIVE, VIRTUAL PUBLIC Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 COMMENT STARTING TONIGHT WITH AGENDA ITEM 5 AND CONTINUE TO TAKE WRITTEN COMMENTS VIA EMAIL THAT ARE UP TO 450 WORDS, ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO 3 SPOKEN MINUTES. Councilmember K. Johnson said she had a discussion; she did not think we should limit written comments as that had never been done in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was an amendment. Councilmember Olson asked if the written comments will be read into the record or if they will strictly be written. Councilmember Distelhorst answered his intent was to include the written comments in the minutes as the Council has been doing. Personally, he did not feel it was appropriate for a Councilmember to read a citizen's comments because if someone tuned in, there was the potential for a misunderstanding that those were a Councilmember's words. Councilmember Olson said she would support that amendment if it were made regarding not limiting them. Councilmember K. Johnson said on occasion in the past, Councilmembers have read written comments at a Council meeting so they are part of the record. She was okay with including written comments in the minutes. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed support for Councilmember Distelhorst's amendment, specifically to allow for written comment and also supported the 450 words which was equivalent to 3 minutes because the amount a citizen was able to communicate and included in the minutes should be equal to what was allowed during public comments. The public still has the ability to email Councilmembers any amount. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Councilmember Distelhorst's motion to allow the Council to take written comments ongoing, assuming it was not just during the virus. Research of surrounding cities and Snohomish County found they all do it slightly different. She also supported the 450 words because public comment was intended to discuss what was on the agenda now, what just happened in the past or in the future. She did not believe allowing the public to submit 5-6 page letters to circumvent process was the best thing. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Council has already been accepting written comments via the public comment email address with no limit on the word count for several weeks. She asked if there would be any OPMA issues with the Council limiting written public comment to 450 words or could the Council continue to accept unlimited length written comments until the pandemic is over and address this issue in the future. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there was no requirement in the OPMA that the Council devote part of the meeting to public comment and there is also no requirement that emails sent to the Council be included in the Council meeting minutes. That was done on a temporary basis to try to replicate the live public comment process where citizens can hear other citizens' comments. Now that the Council is resuming live public comment, the purpose of including written public comments in the minutes is no longer necessary. He clarified it was certainly not legally necessary, the Council could choose to include them if they wished but that raises another question of whether the Council should include every single email they receive from any citizen in the Council minutes. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that emails to the public comment email address were the only emails that were included in the Council minutes. Some of the public did not realize the Council would be taking public comment today via the Zoom meeting and contacted her inquiring where that was on the agenda so she called the City Clerk. She wanted to be clear if the intent was to remove the written public comment aspect because live public comment would now be allowed and if Councilmember Distelhorst's motion was to continue that. Councilmember Distelhorst said a more equitable approach would be to also give the public an option to continue to submit written public comment in addition to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 8.1.a taking live comment given the current circumstances and potentially in the future because people work at night and Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. was not always a great time for all residents to participate in the democratic process. Councilmember Buckshnis said because the Council did not vote on 4.1, it appeared 4.1 and 5 were being combined. Agenda Item 4.1 is adding public comment via the Zoom meeting and Councilmember Distelhorst's motion was to allow written comment to continue. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council is currently considering Item 4.1 which is Councilmember Distelhorst's motion. If approved, the motion would allow live public comment to occur this evening. If the motion is not approved, the Council will not have live public comment this evening. Councilmember K. Johnson said her experience over the past eight years during live meetings was citizens speaking at the podium were limited to three minutes. Speakers' comments sometimes exceed three minutes and they provide a written statement to the City Clerk and/or supporting documents that the City Clerk distributes to the Council which she felt was a good process. She supported limiting written comments that were included in the minutes to 450 words during COVID, but she would not support the motion if it limited the ability for citizens to provide longer comments to the City Council in writing. The written comments do not have to be included in the minutes and can be transmitted in whatever way the City Clerk feels is appropriate. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified the motion to add agenda item 4.1 entitled Motion to Allow Live Public Comment to the agenda was passed and Councilmember Distelhorst then made a second motion to accept written comments up to 450 words. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating the addition of 4.1 was adding it to the agenda. Mayor Nelson agreed action had not been taken on Item 4.1. Council President Fraley-Monillas apologized, stating it was her understanding the vote was to allow it. hi response to Councilmember K. Johnson, Councilmember Distelhorst said there would be no limit on the documentation or comment provided via the regular Council email address. His proposed motion would only be in regard to the specific public comments that would be included in the minutes along with the live public comments. Councilmember K. Johnson said she withdrew her amendment as Councilmember Distelhorst had assured written comments to the Council would not be limited. Councilmember Buckshnis said she withdrew her second. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson stated the Council would proceed to Agenda Item 4.1. Mr. Taraday pointed out there was only one motion pending; Item 4.1 was passed and the Council is proceeding to Public Comment. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating the Council had not approved the agenda after it was amended. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLICCOMMENT(a)EDMOND S WA.GOV) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 8.1.a Mayor Nelson invited commenters to join the meeting and described the procedures. Julia Hughes, Edmonds, said she wanted to attend Council meeting, but had no comments. Pam Stuller, Edmonds, Walnut Street Coffee, expressed support for the CARES Act funding. She requested the Council consider an employee base from 1 to 30. These funds are an important bridge to maintaining a vibrant downtown and she appreciated the Council's support. Kevin Smith said making Edmonds' CARES Act funds available is fantastic and will help many individuals and small businesses in the community. He is a CPA and business adviser; the last three months have been the most trying times of his career as he looks through myriad laws trying to help small businesses clobbered during the economic fallout of COVID-19. The funds will help a lot of businesses hurt during the downturn. He advocated for consideration of new businesses, those that may not have been established for a full year because in many cases they have not gained a strong hold in the City but have leases so they feel the economic damage. Brent Malgarin said Patrick Doherty has proposed that grant funds are not distributed to businesses with less than 2 employees. If passed as proposed, this limit on business participation for grant money due to the COVID pandemic can be generalized as overtly unfair. Setting a threshold of two employees will disenfranchise hardworking business owners who would then be forced to shoulder the entire financial hardship all while funds are granted to the City. Almost all business owners who would be exempted by that proposal are the same businesses that were mandated to be closed for months with no curbside cashflow. There are no valid reasons for not distributing grant money to all business owners across the board equally. Business owners invested in Edmonds and it would reinforce to them that the Edmonds City Council respects their investment. He proposed four guidelines: 1. Respect the investment of all business owners in Edmonds by giving every business owner the same opportunity to survive without bias and discrimination. 2. The only requirement for a grant is they stay in business for the length of time as the harm imposed by the shutdown. Any amount of funding is more community based than no funding at all. To state otherwise would be outwardly discriminatory. 3. There should be no disproportionate grant distributions to selected business owners. No business owner is more important than another. Edmonds does not discriminate. 4. Require the process be simple; a distribution not an application, passed within days not weeks and equally equitable and fair to all business owners. Mayor Nelson advised the public can still email the Council at publiccomment@edmondswa.gov. Council President Fraley-Monillas said this is why the ability to submit written comment is continuing because the process via Zoom is not perfect. (Written comments are attached to the minutes) 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REMOVE ITEM 6.5, EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOPERATIVE LEASE TERMS AMENDMENT, FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR A SEPARATE VOTE AND TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2020 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 8.1.a 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION CONTRACT 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE DAYTON STREET PUMP STATION PROJECT 7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1. EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOPERATIVE LEASE TERMS AMENDMENT (Previously Item 6.5) COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SOLAR ENERGY FACILITY SITE LEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE VOTE. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. EDMONDS CARES FUND Economic Development/Community Services Director Doherty explained the Federal CARES Act has allocated $1,265,100 in reimbursable funds to Edmonds for expenditures associated with the 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, etc. 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 as well as emergency financial assistance to individuals and families directly impacted by a loss of income. In light of those provisions, the Administration proposes to create an Edmonds Cares Fund, with three intended programs, as outlined below. This is a revised proposal since the City Council's initial consideration and discussion of the Administration's original proposal, presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting on 6/9/20. The proposal has been revised to reflect Councilmembers' concerns, suggestions and additional information: A. Reimbursement of City Expenses - $265,100 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, hazard pay for employees, etc. While current estimates from City departments project up to $450,000-480,000 in such expenditures, it is also estimated that approximately $265,000 of these expenditures are eligible for FEMA reimbursement. The proposed $265,100 is projected to be sufficient to reimburse City expenditures not eligible for FEMA reimbursement. B. Business Support Grant Program - $700,000 in grants (in the form of forgivable loans) of up to $10,000 for eligible businesses via application process. Here are the eligibility criteria: i. "Storefront" -type business, including restaurants, caf6s, retail shops, galleries, personal -service establishments, entertainment venues, etc. ii. Two to 30 employees (part-time and full-time combined) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 8.1.a • Creates an application pool to which a great percentage can be responded to with grant • Preference for bolstering businesses have the potential to save a highest number of jobs iii. A demonstrated year -over -year business/revenue loss of at least 30% in April or May 2020; iv. In business in Edmonds at least one year as of April 1, 2020; v. Declared intent and expectation remain in business for at least 4 months after receipt of the grant In addition, given the likelihood of a competitive grant award process, the following, nonexclusive selection criteria will be employed: i. Particular consideration will be given to businesses owned by people of color, women, veterans, and other minorities; ii. Particular consideration will be given to those businesses that have received, or expect to receive, no or relatively lower amounts of other government assistance; iii. Greater consideration will be given to those businesses that have experienced relatively greater business/revenue loss year -over -year in April or May 2020; iv. Geographic distribution across Edmonds' various business districts will be given particular consideration in the award of these grants; iv. Particular consideration will be given to creative -sector businesses within the State -certified Edmonds Creative District; 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/caf6, 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, in turn, will help lower -income households in Edmonds who have suffered financially during this crisis. C. Housing and Supplementary Relief Program. $300,000 will be allocated to the "Housing and Supplemental Relief Program," together with reallocation of up to $50,000 initially earmarked for a potential second round of funding for the Chamber Foundation WISH grant program. Added to the $100,000 already allocated by City Council to the "Housing and Supplemental Relief Program," a total of $450,000 will be available to this program, providing grants of up to $1000 to individuals, households and families suffering economic loss and/or distress and potential homelessness. lays out the provisions described here. Mr. Doherty highlighted provisions in the proposed draft ordinance in the packet: • Section 1 — The City of Edmonds accepts the allocation of $1,265,1000 which is administered by the Department of Commerce in the form of reimbursable funds and authorizes the Mayor to enter into the contract with the Department of Commerce for administration and disbursement of those funds • Section 2 — Authorizes the Administrative Services Director to create and number a new fund to be known as the Edmonds CARES Fund • Section 3 — The Edmonds CARES Fund will be administered by the Administrative Services Director under the direction of the Mayor • Section 4 — Necessary books, accounts and records will be kept by and under the direction of the Administrative Services Director and describes the division of funds into the three programs • Section 5 — Authorizes the end of the program by December 31, 2020. Funds can be expended no later than October 31, 2020 and final invoice due November 15, 2020 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 8.1.a Section 6 — Requires at a minimum that any organizations that assists the City in providing aid and assistance provide written reports by December 31, 2020 Section 7 — Severability clause Section 8 — Declaration of Emergency. The City Council declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council Councilmember L. Johnson referred to packet page 142 (second page of the agenda memo) which states, "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%." She referred to small businesses such as landscaping, housekeeping or construction that do not have a storefront and are operated from a resident's home, business owners and residents of Edmonds, envisioning they would experience a similar reduction in business. She asked why the proposal was to limit the grants to storefront businesses. Mr. Doherty explained if a grant were given to all the businesses in Edmonds, it would be approximately $300 each. The intent was to identify a subset of businesses for whom a substantial grant, up to $10,000, could be provided to assist them in recovering from this crisis. Many storefront businesses were entirely closed or suffered very substantial reductions in the business they could conduct during the shutdown. Conversely essential businesses, grocery stores, hardware stores, etc., remained open and may have done even better. Storefront businesses was proposed for three reasons, 1) they have suffered so much and to create a subset of a consistent type businesses, 2) they constitute the public face of the City — the downtown, neighborhood business districts and Highway 99 — businesses that front the street which when boarded up can lead to blight, and 3) they often provide entry level and lower income jobs for community members. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if consideration had been given to instead of specifying a certain subset of businesses, increasing the percentage of loss from 30% to 40-50% to identify the businesses that have struggled the most. Mr. Doherty answered the proposed selection criteria has different numerically ranked ranges of business loss, 30% would be the minimum. For example, businesses that lost 40-45% would rank lower than businesses that lost 75%. In response to what he assumed Councilmember L. Johnson's question, creating a subset of businesses based on the amount of business loss they have experienced was not the proposal. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the phrase "particular consideration will be given," and said as a numbers person she wanted to know exactly how the matrix will be created. She agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson that the program should consider all businesses and the amount they have lost. The criteria has been softened with the use of the phrase "particular consideration" rather than a point system; she asked how the applications will be reviewed. Mr. Doherty answered the administration of the program, down to the details of the scoring matrix, was not included in the ordinance. The intent is to have a scoring systems that produces the relative consideration. For example, while the eligibility criterion would be 30% business loss, if there is a range of applications, a business with a 30-40% loss might receive a score of 1 in a matrix and a business with a 50% or 75% loss would receive more points, essentially brackets of loss with an associated number. In a criterion related to geographic distribution, businesses outside the bowl might receive an additional point in the scoring matrix. In a criterion related to number of employees, the proposal gives preference to more employees due to its increased impact on the community and providing more jobs so for example, a business with under 5 employees might receive 1 point with points given for brackets up to 30 employees. All the criteria will be coded with numbers and applied to a spreadsheet of the applications. Mr. Doherty explained this was exactly what was done in helping administer the State's $10,000 grant program. It was divided up among all the counties' economic development agencies including the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County (EASC). The EASC was overwhelmed with application and sent Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 8.1.a the applications back to the originating cities. Edmonds had 243 applications. All the cities' Economic Development Directors decided on a similar scoring matrix with ranges, a very objective numerical ranked system. The applications were then reviewed, scored and ranked and a clear top 20 applications were identified that were provided to EASC via a non -subjective numerical based system. Councilmember Buckshnis said she does scoring for WRIA 8 applications and was aware there can be some level of subjectivity. She wished the scoring system had been included in the packet and requested the point system be send to her. She wanted to ensure the scoring was objective because similar to WRIA 8, people will ask to see the scoring criteria. She asked who would be evaluating the criteria and whether it would be truly objective in term of numbers so there was no subjectivity at all. Mr. Doherty referred to the 243 applications that were reviewed for EASC; there was agreement on the criteria and he worked with Finance staff to develop a matrix and the matrix was completed with information from the applications. He anticipated the same would be done with this City's program. The application form will have fields that correspond to the selection criteria numeral ranking field. Councilmember Buckshnis asked who was the numbers person. Mr. Doherty said that had not yet been decided; there was a great partnership with Finance staff in the EASC process and he planned to talk to Acting Finance Director Dave Turley about a similar process. With regard to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that would be managed the same way as had been approved by Council for the first $100,000 using two agencies. Mr. Doherty answered that was the proposal; there are currently two agencies, Wellspring Family Services and Washington Kids in Transition, who are working in a partnership. Notice was provided to the public a few days ago, there is an application portal for Edmonds on the Wellspring website. That application similarly has fields for information related to criteria. They have already received 94 applications. He envisioned if the City were able to announce a more robust program for the community, more applications would be received and the City would be able to help more families. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about adding another agency. Mr. Doherty answered that was up to the Council. Administration spoke with six agencies and selected two. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if another agency should be added if the amount was increased to $400,000. Mr. Doherty answered that could be considered if the Council wished, noting with a larger amount and more applications there would be justification for considering the addition of another agency. Councilmember Olson said in previous discussions with Mr. Doherty, he said any charity could refer people to the agencies administering Edmonds' grants. Regarding particular consideration of other grant sources, she asked if there could be a requirement that funding via Edmonds CARES be returned if someone were successful in receiving another grant prior to the date the Edmonds CARES money had to be expended so it could be granted to someone else. Mr. Doherty said consideration had been given to that; there are different grants and amounts available, for example, the WISH grant which is $1000 or less, PPP grants may be large and State grants that are up to $25,000 (decisions begin coming out June 24th). The proposal to have brackets, applicants sign an affidavit, the application asks about funding they have applied for and what expect to receive; that information would be considered in the matrix. For example someone who has receive nothing or very little will likely receive a higher score than someone that received $25,000 or more. The person that has received more is not ineligible from applying but they likely would not score as well in the scoring matrix. He agreed it was possible a business could apply and then receive other funds. Councilmember Olson said she did not want to disadvantage someone who applied for grant because they may not get it. However, if they do receive the other funds, it would be great to be able to help another business. Mr. Doherty said it would be difficult to know how that would affect a business because of the timeframe of when they receive another grant. For example if they receive $10,000 and they used it for an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 8.1.a immediate need and then 2-4 weeks later they received $25,000, they may not be able to give back the City's $10,000. Councilmember Olson suggested they could give the City back the $10,000 from the $25,000 they received. Mr. Doherty said he has heard from some business who are deciding whether to continue in business and to incur additional expenses on the hope they ultimately will be able to defray those expenses with income. A first grant may get a business over a hump and allow them to try continue to move forward and if they receive another grant they may have incurred more expenses during a time of lower business volume and it could potentially hurt them to give the money back. He summarized there are so many variables in every business' financial structure, he was unsure a requirement to pay money back was sound. Councilmember Olson asked whether the Council has the option this week to approve the dollar amounts for the different accounts but not approve the eligibility and selection criteria. She said there have been quite a few alternatives posed that also have real merit and there has not been enough opportunity for that collaboration based on the timing. She was not talking about the Council having meetings that were not open to the public, but Councilmembers talking one-on-one and trying to flesh out the smartest, best, most justifiable approach to the eligibility and selection criteria. She suggested the Council identify the amount to be allocated to each fund and flesh out the eligibility and selection criteria next week. Mr. Doherty answered that was an option, but that was not the Administration's proposal as the Administration wants to move forward with the urgency they believe exists. The ordinance is proposed as an emergency ordinance to get the money out in the community as soon as possible. The proposal has six criteria with different ranges and ranking; he envisioned it would be a difficult exercise for the Council to develop criteria and decide on the ranking brackets. He summarized Administration has a proposal that makes sense but ultimately it was the Council's decision. Councilmember Paine referred to Section 3 of the proposed ordinance which states, The Edmonds CARES Fund shall be administered by the Administrative Services Director under the direction of the Mayor," noting the Administrative Services Director was Mr. Doherty. Mr. Doherty clarified the Finance Director was actually the Administrative Services Director. Councilmember Paine asked what was meant by "administering the Edmonds CARES Fund," whether it was the financial aspects, the distribution, etc. Mr. Doherty answered similar to the EASC grant process, his staff collaborated with Finance staff to develop a matrix, Finance staff did the number crunching and it was sent back to the EASC. When this is approved, staff will confer with Finance staff who will create a fund number and prepare a budget amendment, and discuss review of the applications. The goal is to create an objective system that Finance staff can implement. When the grants are awarded, there will also be contract work to get awards out to the awardees. Councilmember Paine referred to forgivable loans that turn into grants and asked if the matrix for decisions and the scoring rubric will be published for transparency. Mr. Doherty answered they could be, the process had not yet reach that level of administrative detail. Councilmember Paine said Councilmembers are all getting questions from the community about the fund, the matrix and the scoring rubric. Due to the importance of transparency, she wanted an opportunity to review the matrix and the scoring rubric before it was published to the community to ensure it reflected the shared input that the Council provided to the Administration about distributing the CARES funds. Mr. Doherty said the proposed selection criteria is included in the packet. The actual point system for each criterion is being developed; he created a working version so it could be beta tested with 400 ghost businesses to see how they would score. Each of the criterion are either binary (yes/no answer with a 0/1 point) or have a range for which points would be awarded such as the percentage of business loss. The matrix and scoring rubric can be included on the application and shared with the community. Councilmember Paine agreed with providing the matrix and scoring rubric which will provide clarity to the community. Councilmember Paine recalled the Snohomish County grants used FTE of 1-20 employees and asked why the proposal was 2-30 in Edmonds' proposal. Mr. Doherty said that experience led him to propose a higher Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 8.1.a number of 2-30. When the criterion was 1-20, there were 243 applications from Edmonds, but only 17 grants. A lot of business went through the process of completing an application when at the end of the day, they probably wouldn't receive a grant. The idea was to slightly reduce the eligibility given the desire that these grants be significant. Councilmember Paine said she was more curious about the top number, why 30 was chosen versus 20. Mr. Doherty answered there are a lot of businesses in the proposed category with 20-something employees and the goal was to make the storefront category as inclusive as possible. There are few storefront businesses with more than 30 employees, but the limit of 30 includes more businesses than the limit of 20. Councilmember Paine asked whether there was data on how many Edmonds businesses employ Edmonds residents. Mr. Doherty answered not easily; there is dated census information that provides gross numbers such as the number of people who live in Edmonds and work in Edmonds. There is no way to tie those people to type of jobs. Councilmember Paine wondered whether restaurants or homebased businesses hire local people. Mr. Doherty answered there are no homebased businesses with employees because they are not allowed to have employees on site. The proposed subset of storefront businesses tend to have lower wage jobs and tend to pull from a tighter trade area than higher paid jobs. For example, people in higher paid jobs may be willing to commute further and people in lower paid jobs tend to find jobs nearer their home and not incur excessive commuting costs. Councilmember Paine commented that was a lot of assumption. Mr. Doherty agreed it was a general observation and not a fact. Council President Fraley-Monillas said lower/minimum wage workers cannot afford to live in Edmonds unless they live with their parents or in another similar living situation. She relayed her plan to begin making motions and any further questions can be answered after motions are made. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order; according to Roberts Rules of Order, Councilmembers are not to make motions until all questions have been asked. Mayor Nelson answered point taken and supported Councilmember K. Johnson's point of order. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson and Mr. Doherty for listening and incorporating last week's Council feedback, noting last week's proposal was significantly different. With regard to businesses, he asked whether business names would be included in the matrix and scoring rubric or would the applications be numbered or lettered or that the business name would not be included in the matrix. Mr. Doherty answered that could be done. Councilmember Distelhorst said that would be a more objective way to do the scoring and avoid any subconscious bias to favorite restaurants, stores, etc. Councilmember Distelhorst asked the criteria for determining the amount of up to $10,000, whether it was maximizing the number of forgivable loans or maximizing the amount. Although there was a lot of criteria for selecting businesses, there was no criteria for selecting the up to monetary amount. Mr. Doherty said the State grant administered by the EASC began with $10,000 grants. The State quickly realized they would receive a lot of applications and requested applicants indicate the amount they needed; some businesses requested less than $10,000. He said if there are a lot of applications, that will be a question, whether to adhere to up to $10,000 based on their stated need or offer slightly less to spread the money further to reach more businesses. The initial proposal was up to $10,000 assuming some businesses will not ask for $10,000. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the State program had a clause relate to franchise or chain businesses which was not included in the Edmonds CARES program. Mr. Doherty answered that was not included because the EASC process discovered most chains and franchises area owned by someone who has franchise right to use that brand/name and are independent in the sense they do not get a bail out from the corporation. In the EASC process, applicants were asked to indicate that on their application. He Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 8.1.a summarized there were few franchise business that either were not essential or not owned independently but that could be added to the eligibility criteria. It was not felt necessary given the subset that was proposed. With regard to the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the same criteria in the other program would be used such as 60% AMI. Mr. Doherty answered it would be smoother and better in the public call for applications if the same criteria was used and to simply add funding to that program. In adjudicating the disbursement of awards, while 60% AMI may be the entry level eligibility criterion, there will be applications from people with much lower incomes. The triage that the social workers from the two agencies the City has contracted with starts at the bottom and goes up, starting with people with no money and those who are far from 60% AMI. Given the limited funds, disbursement of the grants will be to much lower income levels than 60% AMI. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the 94 applications received so far were inclusive of both agencies. Mr. Doherty answered they come in through one portal at Wellspring and then are triaged; applicants with students in the Edmonds School District go to Washing Kids in Transition. The agencies were very busy today and he was unable to get a breakdown between the number that are families, single people, etc. He said 94 applications in a short period of time shows a lot of interest. If all those households were eligible, the $100,000 would nearly be exhausted. He noted the entire $100,000 cannot be distributed initially because it was allocated 1/3 in the first month, another issue for the Council to discuss. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the EASC eligibility criteria, observing it excluded any business that was suspended or barred from use of federal funds. She asked if should be an eligibility criteria for the Edmonds CARES grants. Mr. Doherty said that could be added to the application form. Councilmember L. Johnson said another criterion that EASC had was excluding any business facing any pending or actual legal action. Mr. Doherty answered a version of that may make sense; any legal action is very broad, the State was concerned about anything that could incumber the money via action, claim, bankruptcy, etc. He envisioned that could be "fine print" eligibility criteria that could be added. Councilmember K. Johnson said the EASC grant program had various ways to evaluate the applications including dividing costs into three categories, 1) salaries and benefits, 2) facility costs and goods, and 3) general and administrative costs. Mr. Doherty said the proposal did not go to that level of detail on the use of the grant funds. Councilmember K. Johnson said the EASC grant requested counting employees/FTE as of 1/1/20 and as of 5/1/20 which she said seemed to be a good way of demonstrating a year-to-year business loss of at least 30% in April or May. Mr. Doherty observed some businesses received PPP which allowed them to continue paying employees. Edmonds' proposal is that businesses provide proof of their business loss in April or May year-to-year. Employee count is not necessarily a direct relation to how much the business lost. Councilmember K. Johnson asked what time period the PPP covered. Mr. Doherty answered it was through June 30. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not know how that program worked but maybe it should be a factor somehow. She asked when the governor closed non -essential businesses. Mr. Doherty answered March 23'. Councilmember K. Johnson said it may make more sense to cover the period of Phase 1 rather than April or May. Mr. Doherty said the proposed business subset, unless they were essential, were not able to open until Phase 2 which was in June. The reason for April or May was business losses varied by business. Some saw significant losses in the first month after closure before they could figure out online sales, pickup, curbside pickup, etc. and business may have improved in May. Conversely other businesses may have had the most losses in May. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 8.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with other Councilmembers' comments about ensuring there was an objective, rational process. The purpose has not been entirely stated; in her opinion, there were two purposes, to save as many businesses in Edmonds as possible in order to maintain sales tax revenue and to maintain as many jobs as possible to keep people working in Edmonds. She suggested the competitive grant process include sales tax from the pre-COVID period such as the year 2019, and the post-COVID period to help the businesses that have been most successful and are the most likely to be successful. She did not support including the number of employees in the eligibility criteria, preferring to rank businesses using other criteria. She asked if Mr. Doherty was able to test that in his beta analysis. Mr. Doherty answered he did not have the pre and post-COVID sales tax information at the business level. Quarterly sales tax information provided to the City is in broad categories, not by individual businesses. If a business states their revenue is down by 50%, their sales tax contribution is down a similar amount. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the application ask the sales tax amount in the first quarter of 2019 and 2020. Mr. Doherty asked if Councilmember K. Johnson's proposal was a business that generated greater sales tax would rank higher. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was her proposal. Mr. Doherty said that was significant change and he was unsure whether that needed to be voted on. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to giving particular consideration to creative sector business within the State certified Creative Business District and asked what were creative sector businesses. Mr. Doherty answered there is a long list of businesses from the State Office of Creative District that fit in the creative sector; they range from galleries, stores that sell art -related supplies, design firms, photography studios, food and drink establishments, breweries, distilleries, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what was not considered a creative sector business within the Edmonds Creative District. Mr. Doherty answered retail establishments that sell wholesale goods (compared to a retail establishment that sells artifacts, handcrafts or items such as jewelry or clothing made by artisans), a law firm, CPA firm, financial planning firm, insurance company, real estate company, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the City contracted with two agencies, Washington Kids in Transition and Wellspring, an organization out of Seattle. She preferred the additional $350,000 for the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program go through a Snohomish County non-profit such as United Way of Snohomish County. She feared if citizens went to Wellspring which is in King County, Wellspring would not necessarily be able to refer them to free services in Snohomish County because they may not know about them. United Way serves all people with needs and could point individuals to organizations in Snohomish County who provide assistance. Mr. Doherty responded the process of triaging applicants that both Washington Kids in Transition and Wellspring are using includes starting with the most need but also requires individuals and households to enroll in the 211 system, enroll in utility assistance programs, connect with a local food bank or delivery option, students attend school, etc. He advised the Wellspring Family Services CEO and COO live in Edmonds so they are very aware of the community. That was one of the reasons Administration was comfortable with what may feel like a King County organization. United Way of King County, which is strapped with many requests for assistance, has turned to Wellspring to administer the CARES funding for King County. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it was great that Wellspring CEO and COO could afford to live in Edmonds; she was interested in who could do the best job. Wellspring's website prioritizes kids and families which is similar to Washington Kids in Transition. She planned to recommend utilizing an organization within Snohomish County that could provide more resources to applicants in addition to the grant. If a business receiving other grants such as PPP was used as a qualifier to receiving funds, Councilmember L. Johnson agreed there needed to be a qualifier if they received funds after. If a business received funds before completing the application, they were at a slight disadvantage for receiving Edmonds CARES funds, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 8.1.a but if they received it after, there was no balance. Mr. Doherty anticipated the application would ask how much a business received and how much more they have applied for and expect to receive. Depending on the time between awards of other grants, it may be just enough to keep a business afloat and he was unsure whether it would be desirable to take back the City's grant. Councilmember L. Johnson asked the deadline for PPP grants. Mr. Doherty answered application are being accepted until the until end of the month and may be retroactive. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there was a process to check whether someone receiving funds via the Housing Supplemental Relief Program received it from the other non-profit administering the grants. Mr. Doherty answered the agencies are cross-checking; both organizations have social workers who review the applications and do follow-up calls and other verification research. Their selection criteria is much more complicated than the business grants and asks about other assistance they are receiving. The City contracted for a specific scope of services with both agencies, recognizing this is somewhat different from their typical work. They are doing the work without compensation and it has been clear that individuals, non -family households, younger, older, seniors, veterans, etc. are all equally eligible applicants and not just families with children. Councilmember Paine said it seems rather invasive to collect sales tax information for specific businesses. Mr. Doherty answered the State is hesitant to give out sales tax information. The State will readily provide that information by category or for an area of a city, but information for individual businesses is on a need - to -know basis. The Finance Director may be only one who can request that information and must sign a waiver stating the information will be used only for the reason stated. If a resident qualified under the matrix for the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program due to reduced income and was also a business owner, Councilmember Paine asked whether they could access both funds. Mr. Doherty answered the residential program is only up to $1,000 so it is an immediate need response program and not to set someone up for the future. Councilmember Paine asked if there would be a prohibition on accessing both fund from both programs. Mr. Doherty said he viewed a household and a business separately. If someone shared they had received a $1,000 grand from the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program, that is a very minimal amount. In the ranking criteria, he anticipated receipt of $0-$5000 would be a permissible amount compared to receipt of amount above that. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. Doherty said the Finance Director can get the sales tax information and that it can be kept confidential. Mr. Doherty said that was his understanding; he has been told the requester must demonstrate to the State a legitimate need and purpose for the information. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND CREATING A NEW EDMONDS CARES FUND WHICH SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. Amendment 1 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION, IN THE CASE THAT THERE ARE ANY UNSPENT FUNDS IN THE EDMONDS CARES ACT ALLOCATION WITH ONE WEEK REMAINING BEFORE THE DISBURSEMENT DEADLINE, THAT THESE FUNDS BE USED TO PURCHASE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FOR USE BY THE CITY AND/OR FOR DISTRIBUTION TO DIRECT SERVICE COMMUNITY BASED CARE CENTERS. Councilmember Distelhorst asked where in the ordinance Councilmember Paine envisioned that would be placed. Councilmember Paine answered between Sections 4 and 5. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 8.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson asked what a Community Based Care Center includes. Councilmember Paine answered a retirement living center where people live within a community such as Edmonds Landing or other care facilities, people who are frail or with disabilities living in a community. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that included group homes or medical facilities. Councilmember Paine answered care centers are not medical centers. It would include a group home for people with disabilities or adults who live in a family care situation. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the date for distribution of those items. Councilmember Paine answered the disbursement deadline is October 315t so it would be a week in advance of that. Mr. Doherty related his understanding that if funds remain a week prior to the October 31't deadline for expenditures, the funds be used to purchase PPE. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested that be part of Councilmember Paine's amendment. Councilmember Paine answered she use "disbursement deadline" in the event that the date changed. Councilmember Olson suggested stating it would be unspent money from any of the three funds or all of the CARES Act funds. Councilmember Paine referred to Section 1 of the ordinance that referenced the City of Edmonds' Federal CARES Act as rationale for the language in the amendment. Councilmember Olson supported the amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson said she had a similar idea, that the City of Edmonds use some of the CARES Act funds to purchase disposal masks and hand sanitizers in bulk for disbursement to businesses. She has done some preliminary estimates. Action on Amendment 1 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CHANGE THE SUM IN ACCOUNT B, HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF PROGRAM, FROM UP TO $300,000 TO UP TO $100,000 ACCOUNT C, EDMONDS BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT PROGRAM, FROM $700,000 TO $900,000. Councilmember Olson said it was critical to add sole proprietors to the grant program. As stated in Council commentary as well as in My Edmonds News and the Beacon, a lot of the sole proprietors are Edmonds residents, some working from home, some not. She did not want to exclude them entirely and increasing the Business Support Grant Program to $900,000 would provide an opportunity to dedicate more money to include more sole proprietors. She was not swayed by the choices that other cities have made and the amounts that other cities have dedicated to direct human services because the City has funded those earlier from other funding sources compared to other cities. The amount other cities are allocating from their CARES Act funding may be the only money they are dedicating to those things, whereas Edmonds provided $100,000 of the $200,000 in the Mayor's Relief Funds directly to human services, the food bank and the senior center and another $100,000 from the Homelessness Relief Fund reallocated to human services via Wellspring and Washington Kids in Transition. This is not an issue of whether the Council cares about people or businesses, but whether they care for people via a one-time stipend or through employment which also helps the business as well as the City. With regard to the $200,000 in expenditures from the Mayor's Relief Fund, Councilmember Olson pointed out those funds came from previously budgeted items that had been approved by the past Council and impacted projects like fire hydrant maintenance and a desperately needed code revision. She can accept what won't get done this year, but in thinking ahead to what won't get done next year, those items are financed by property and sales taxes. In the macro picture, the City can help people and help businesses which ultimately helps the City. If the City finds itself in a bind, there is still $150,000 in the Homelessness Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 8.1.a Relief Fund that could potentially be considered for more human service funding if the additional $100,000 wasn't adequate. Council President Fraley-Monillas requested the Council not support the amendment to increase the Business Support Grant Program instead of the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program. Business were eligible for county, state and federal grants including PPP funds that allowed them to retain their employees. Now more than ever, people are about to be kicked out of their homes due to inability to pay their rents because they were laid off as a result of the pandemic. The majority of minimum wage workers cannot afford to live in Edmonds unless they live with their parents. The people who are left behind and are the most impacted by COVID and layoffs, inability to afford medical care, etc. are communities of color, communities along Highway 99 and in working class neighborhoods. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with adding sole proprietor businesses to Account C (Edmonds Business Support Program). Given the extraordinary demand in the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, including maxing out that funding source in 4-5 days with very little communication to the public, he anticipated a great need and feared with only $100,000, it could be allocated in only 4 days. He anticipated this will continue to be a slow building financial pain for many residents. He did not support the amendment to move funds out of human services. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the amendment. Rather than let the $100,000 that the Council set aside in 2018 sit in the Homelessness Fund, it was time to utilize it. As Council President Fraley-Monillas said, those funds could be used to pay for housing or rent so residents do not become homeless. The Council can always replenish the Homelessness Fund when there is more data. She recalled during a previous downturn when downtown Edmonds turned into a ghost town and Old Mill Towne had a fence around it for a couple years. She expressed support for including sole proprietors. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed opposition to the amendment for the reasons stated by Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Distelhorst. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how much money was left in the Homelessness Fund. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered there was $125,000. Councilmember Paine appreciated the Council's support for sole proprietors, commenting that will be very important for the health of the community. There are families struggling who may qualify for both. She did not support the amendment, but would support an amendment to include sole proprietors. Councilmember Olson said she had attended Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Business Improvement District and Chamber of Commerce meetings via Zoom, few businesses are receiving funds so they will need help. Amendment 2A COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO REDUCE ACCOUNT B FROM $300,000 TO $175,000. Councilmember K. Johnson said there is $125,000 remaining in the Homelessness Fund that could be transferred to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, bringing it back to $300,000. That way the Council could increase the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program as well as increase the Business Support Grant Program. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, that there is already an amendment on the floor. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 8.1.a Councilmember Olson withdrew her motion. Mr. Taraday advised Councilmember K. Johnson's amendment is proper because it modifies Councilmember Olson's amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not hear Councilmember K. Johnson say amend the amendment. She withdrew her point of order. Councilmember Olson said she would let her amendment stand. Councilmember K. Johnson explained her amendment would accomplish two things, the Council could add $125,000 to Account C, bringing the $700,000 to $825,000 and the intent is to supplement the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program with $125,000 from the Homelessness Fund. Councilmember Distelhorst made a distinction between the Homeless Response Fund and the CARES Act funds. The $125,000 in the Homelessness Respond Fund is in the General Fund and requires Council approval to use it. If the Council uses up that money, money will have to be moved from other General Fund areas to replenish it. CARES Act funds are refundable, federal funds so the City is basically a pass - through to support families most in need which should be the number one priority. It does not impact the City budget and helps vulnerable residents. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the money left in the Homelessness Fund was intended to go toward the purchase a building; the Council put funds aside when the City of Lynnwood was interested in purchasing the Rodeo Inn for homeless families, but that later fell through. Lynnwood is still looking at buildings. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order that Councilmember Olson withdrew her motion and did not restate it which was not proper. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support Councilmember K. Johnson's amendment until there was a clear decision regarding what to do with the funds in the Homeless Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order that she did not hear Councilmember K. Johnson state amendment to the amendment. Once Mr. Taraday clarified what was said, Councilmember Olson changed her decision about pulling her amendment. Councilmember Olson said the CARES Act funds that the City received do impact the City's budget. If the Council supports residents through businesses, that will impact the City's budget and if the Council does not, it won't. These are very trying economic times. Action on Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT SO THAT COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON'S MOTION CAN BE THE MAIN AMENDMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said the City has had the Homelessness Fund for several years. If the Council spends it now during the COVID crisis, the Council can budget additional funds in the future if the City of Lynnwood identifies a project or there is some other need. Therefore, the objection to moving those funds in future was not pertinent. Councilmember Paine asked if the Homelessness Fund was being used for the new human services position. Mr. Doherty answered the human services position was approved by Council as a new part-time position funded via the General Fund. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 8.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis agreed Fund 018 was a specified fund and was not part of the General Fund similar to the Marsh Restoration Fund. The Council voted to use $100,000 from that fund a month ago. She agreed these were troubling economic times and the Council was trying to make everybody whole. She proposed a month ago using it all and supported the use of it now because the Council could always budget additional funds in the future. Sole proprietors, businesses and citizens need money now and there was no reason for the money to sit in that fund drawing minimal interest. Council President Fraley-Monillas urged Council to vote no on Councilmember K. Johnson amendment. The Homelessness Fund is money the Council set aside to deal with the poor living in the community, many of who live in the working class neighborhoods along Highway 99 and include people of color. She encouraged the Council to maintain that fund until there was a good reason to spend it. The City is not actually in a fiscal crisis at this time although she acknowledged there may be a fiscal crisis in the future where all the funds will be considered. Action on Amendment 2A UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Amendment 3 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE SIXTH WHEREAS ON PAGE 145 OF THE PACKET TO READ, "...FUNDING GRANTS OF UP TO $1,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS OF 2, AND $1,500 FOR HOUSEHOLD OF 3 OR MORE." Mr. Doherty said whereas clauses are statements of fact of something the Council did, leading to the therefore clause in the ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson said the $1,000 is not addressed in the Now Therefore because that addressed the Housing and Supplemental Relief Fund and the Housing and Supplement Relief Fund states $1,000. She wanted the ordinance to state that grants would be to $1,000 for individuals households of 2 and $1,500 for households of 3 or more. In addition, if a household of 3 or more previously received $1,000 grant, they would be eligible to receive an additional $500. Mr. Doherty suggested what Councilmember L. Johnson was proposing could be an addition to Section 4.B, the only place in the ordinance that discusses the Supplemental Relief Program by incorporating it into the new fund. Councilmember L. Johnson proposed adding a line vi under Section 4, to allow up to $1,500 for households of 3 or more and if someone previously qualified for $1,000 and was a household of 3 or more, they could receive another $500. Mr. Doherty said because the application period has not ended and no decisions have been made on this program, that would not be necessary as the Council's new direction would take place immediately. Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion: $1,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS OF 2 AND $1,500 FOR HOUSEHOLD OF 3 OR MORE. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification regarding where that would go in the ordinance. He suggested it could be added to the end of Section 4.B (page 148 of the packet). Councilmember L. Johnson agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 8.1.a Councilmember Paine expressed support for amendment as larger families cost more. Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion: ALLOW UP TO $1,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS UP TO 2 AND UP TO $1,500 FOR HOUSEHOLDS OF 3 OR MORE. Action on Amendment 3 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember L. Johnson said the following motion was in the interest of helping all businesses in Edmonds. Amendment 4 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND STARTING ON PAGE 144, STRIKE "STOREFRONT' KEEP "BUSINESS," STRIKE FROM "INCLUDING TO GALLERIES, ETC.", KEEP THE REST OF IT AND THEN IN THE FIRST WHEREAS ON PAGE 145, STRIKE THE ENTIRE WHEREAS AND IN THE SECOND WHEREAS ON PAGE 145, STRIKE "STOREFRONT." Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, recalling Mr. Doherty said it did not make sense to edit the whereas clauses because they reflect the action of Council. Mr. Doherty responded if the gist of the motion was to change the eligibility criteria, that it was not only storefront type businesses, he would agree the whereas clauses should not support that conclusion. Councilmember L. Johnson added to the motion: DELETE SECTION 4.C.i ON PAGE 148. Councilmember Olson commented on the possibility of THE Council voting tonight versus giving the Council another week to bring back what they want to discuss and support with regard to the criteria. She said making amendments related to eligibility and selection criteria were only relevant if the Council did not support them. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested that would be a separate motion, to discontinue discussion, not during the discussion of individual amendments. Councilmember Olson recalled Mr. Doherty saying it was an option for the Council to vote on the amounts and agree on eligibility criteria later. She preferred taking the time to be thoughtful and vet all ideas and she did not think there would be the ability to do that tonight in the time available. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion as she felt storefront businesses was too limiting and this adds clarity that all businesses are important to Edmonds. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment and reminded that making these tough decision is the Council's job and the Council has had two weeks to mull over this and send questions to staff. It is important to get this moving so the program can get started because people are waiting for the funds. She encouraged Councilmembers to support Councilmember L. Johnson's amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested retaining the whereas clauses. Councilmember L. Johnson said that was not her amendment. She restated the amendment: IN THE LAST WHEREAS ON PAGE 144, REMOVE "STOREFRONT, KEEP `BUSINESS" AND REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM "INCLUDING RESTAURANTS" TO `GALLERIES, ETC.", ON PAGE 146 STRIKE THE FIRST WHEREAS, AND ON THE SECOND WHEREAS REMOVE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 8.1.a "STOREFRONT," THIRD WHEREAS REMOVED "STOREFRONT" AND UNDER THE THEREFORE ON PAGE 148, REMOVE THE FIRST SUBSECTION UNDER ITEM C. Councilmember Buckshnis said whereas clauses are statements about various things happening in the economy and as she read the whereas clauses, they could be correct. Mr. Taraday explained whereas clauses explain the reason why the Council is doing what it is doing. He suggested focusing on the language following "Now Therefore" and then come back and figure out to what extent the whereas clauses need to be edited later. He was not suggesting that whereas clauses could not be amended, but it was a bit of cart before horse because until the Council knew what it was doing, it was hard to say why they were doing it. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it felt like the Council was doing this backwards. Normally the Council would make comments on the agenda memo and then an ordinance would be written based on the Council's direction. She asked if staff could listen to the Council amendments and come back with another ordinance next week. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council whether to adopt an amended ordinance tonight that would be effective immediately which was staff s proposal, or for staff to do clean up and return with a clean ordinance or to hold a special meeting. If a majority of the Council want to get this done tonight no matter what, then that can be done. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if Councilmembers should continue making amendments on the ordinance itself. Mr. Taraday answered yes, especially if the Council wanted to pass it tonight. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO NOT VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT SO THAT WE CAN CLEAN UP THE ELIGIBILITY AND SELECTION CRITERIA. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, that there was already a motion on the floor. Mr. Taraday said to the extent that Councilmember Olson was offering to either table or defer to a date certain, either of those motions would be in order. Councilmember Olson restated the motion: COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, THAT WE BRING THIS BACK NEXT WEEK WITH INPUT FROM COUNCIL. City Clerk Scott Passey advised a motion to postpone to a date certain is not debatable; a motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Doherty said removing the specification of storefront businesses raises 2-3 concerns. It expands the business sample size to about 2,200 businesses that would qualify which will set up a lot of people for disappointment by inviting a large number of people to apply with a much smaller number who will be successful. The focus on storefront businesses was because they tend to have lower wage jobs that help families that are struggling the most; a lot of businesses such as law firms, financial planners, real estate firms, etc. while they are all struggling, they, 1) do not necessarily employ the people that are in the most need right now and 2) do not occupy the storefronts that if they fail would become boarded up buildings in the City's neighborhoods, downtown and on Highway 99 and boarded up buildings are part of the definition of blight that leads to disinvestment and a downward spiral. Councilmember L. Johnson disagreed with the statement that storefront businesses employ more of the lower wage workers, pointing out housekeeping and gardening are possibility as well. The program as stated sets up a lot of homebased businesses for disappointment as well; either way people will be disappointed. She was interested in setting this up so those most in need were the ones served, regardless Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 8.1.a of business type. Having been both a sole proprietor as well as the owner of a C corporation without a storefront and not in Edmonds, she would find that challenging. She summarized the City needs to serve and help all businesses. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment, recognizing it would be hard work and more businesses would apply. She pointed out not every business will apply because not all of them were impacted by pandemic or would meet need the criteria of need and some businesses were surviving including several on Main Street. Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion: IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSES, IN THE THEREFORE CLAUSE ON PAGE 148, UNDER C, REMOVE THE FIRST ONE, "STOREFRONT" -TYPE BUSINESS, INCLUDING RESTAURANTS, CAFES, RETAIL SHOPS, GALLERIES, PERSONAL - SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, ENTERTAINMENT VENUES, ETC." Action on Amendment 4 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Amendment 5 COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND UNDER SECTION 4.C.ii, CHANGE "TWO" TO "ONE" SO IT WOULD READ, ONE TO 30 EMPLOYEES (PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME COMBINED). Councilmember Distelhorst said the intent of the amendment was to include sole proprietors. Councilmember L. Johnson wanted to ensure that sole proprietors qualified as an employee. Councilmember Distelhorst asked whether a business owner was counted as an employee of the business. Mr. Doherty answered not always, that would need to be specified. Amendment 5A COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ADD "SOLE PROPRIETORS." Councilmember Distelhorst requested Council President Fraley-Monillas read Section 4.C.ii with that amendment. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her amendment was to add sole proprietor to indicate it included a one person business. She suggested "Sole Proprietor to 30." Councilmember Olson asked if there was merit to changing the language to "30 employees or less" which would cover sole proprietors. Mr. Doherty said not all business owners are employees. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested "individual business owner," noting a business could be a partnership. She asked how it could be stated to ensure it was not limiting a type of business ownership. Councilmember Olson suggested "businesses that employ 30 or fewer people." Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out a sole proprietor is not necessarily an employee and neither are partnerships. Mr. Doherty suggested "businesses with or without employees up to 30." Mr. Taraday suggested, "businesses with 0-30 employees." Action to Amendment 5A COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Distelhorst restated the amendment: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 AMEND SECTION 4.C.ii TO READ, "0 TO 30 EMPLOYEES (PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME COMBINED). Action on Amendment 5 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 6 COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO AMEND SECTION 4.0 IN THE SECOND SET OF ROMAN NUMERALS, UNDER SELECTION CRITERIA, SECTION ii, TO READ, "PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE NOT RECEIVED FEDERAL, STATE OR COUNTY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, AND SECONDARY CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT RECEIVED LOWER THAN REQUESTED AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL, STATE OR COUNTY ASSISTANCE." Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with the first statement, "particular consideration will be given to those businesses that have not received federal, state or county government assistance" but did understand the second part. Councilmember Distelhorst repeated the second part, "and secondary consideration will be given to those businesses that received lower than requested amounts of federal, state or county assistance." He said the existing language is vague about splitting up businesses that had not received any money versus businesses that have received money but maybe less than they requested. The intent of the amendment was to prioritize businesses that have not received PPP or other funds and then a secondary level for businesses that have received assistant at other government levels but maybe less than requested. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if Mr. Doherty and Mr. Taraday understood the second half of the amendment so it would be clear when implemented. Mr. Taraday said the way he understood it, for example if someone applied for $10,000 in aid and they received $1, they would still be eligible but would get secondary consideration compared to if someone applied for $10,000 and received nothing, they would be in the primary consideration group. Mr. Doherty agreed. Councilmember Distelhorst said that was his intent. Action on Amendment 6 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 7 COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 8 BETWEEN THE SECTION BEGINNING "ANY ORGANIZATION ASSISTING..." AND THE SEVERABILITY SECTION, THAT READS, "THE ADMINISTRATION SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL AND GENERAL PUBLIC A WRITTEN REPORT BY DECEMBER 31, 2020 ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF AID PROVIDED BY THE CITY, THE PURPOSE AND CRITERIA BY WHICH IT WAS DISTRIBUTED, THE REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING SECTION 4.C, THE EDMONDS BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT PROGRAM." Councilmember Distelhorst explained this would mirror the section on the Housing Relief and Supplementary Aid Program. Ordinance 4186 included a requirement for a monthly reporting which was included for the CARES Act funding and having a public report in this ordinance would be beneficial to Council, Administration and the public for increased transparency. He recalled instances of less than transparent support during this pandemic at the federal level and providing transparency at the City level about how the funds were spent would be beneficial for everyone. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was a monthly report or just a yearly report on December 31, 2020. Councilmember Distelhorst answered the way the amendment is stated, it would be a yearly report the same as the section above it regarding the Housing and Supplementary Relief. Amendment 7A COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO ADD MONTHLY REPORTS. Councilmember Olson agreed having monthly reports so if the criteria were not working, there would be an opportunity for feedback. Councilmember Paine wanted to ensure the criteria for decisions and scoring was established and well understood before the end of the year. Councilmember Distelhorst said his intent was only for funds disbursed which Mr. Doherty said can be provided. Councilmember Paine said she was satisfied if it was strictly related to funds already disbursed but wanted to be 100% clear that the scoring criteria matrix were developed in advance. She agreed it will be interesting to see how distribution lines up with the matrix. Action on Amendment 7A AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Action on Amendment 7 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. Before the meeting was extended, Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to know if the agenda would be amended, what items will not be covered, and whether the Council planned to stay until 1 a.m. or was the plan only to finish this item and then have Council comments. Council President Fraley-Monillas deferred to Mayor Nelson, citing the remaining items, Contract Change Order for the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project (15 minutes), Wastewater treatment Plan Incinerator Replacement Project Update and Recommendation (45 minutes) and Community Services Resource Guide (10 minutes), advising the Resource Guide Agenda Item 8.1 could be postpone but she was uncertain about the other items. Mr. Williams said both have a timeliness dimension, an answer is needed very quickly regarding the Contract Change Order and an answer is also needed related to the Incinerator Replacement Project. He suggested doing the Change Order which was pretty straightforward and then reevaluate. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to defer the Wastewater Treatment Plan Incinerator Replacement Project and possibly scheduling a special meeting as there were a lot of questions. She recalled Mr. Williams saying the Council has until July 1st to make a decision. Due to the number of questions and the financial aspects of the project, she anticipated that item would take much longer than 45 minutes. Mr. Williams said he could reduce the length of his presentation and he has the financial information. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested it may be most efficient if Mr. Williams sent the questions and responses from last week to Councilmembers and any further questions be forwarded to him before next Tuesday's meeting. She agreed it likely would take 45 minutes and maybe longer. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Nelson if he wanted to let staff go as the Council had not completed the Edmonds CARES Fund agenda Item. Mayor Nelson conferred with staff; Mr. Williams said there were four people on the call who were being paid and it would be nice to go through at least four Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 8.1.a slides to give the Council information regarding the financials and the contracts which have been the topic of most of the questions. Then if the Council wished, they could postpone action to next week and send him follow-up questions. He anticipated the Contract Change Order would not take very long. Councilmember Paine suggested the Council at least discuss the Contract Change Order. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested since there are consultants present for the WWTP item, the Contract Change Order be considered next week. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Williams to address the necessity of the Contract Change Order. Mr. Williams said that needs to be done tonight. City Engineer Rob English said the contractor need that direction otherwise there will be delay costs. Mr. Williams advised consultants Lonn Inman and Dave Parry they could leave the Zoom meeting. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, questioning whether the discussion on the Edmonds CARES Fund could be paused and return to after the other items. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was not generally done. Amendment 8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND TO INDICATE THE $350,000 BE ALLOCATED TO A PASS THROUGH FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY INSTEAD OF KING COUNTY AND ONE THAT SERVES ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE THAT MAY BE IN NEED OF SOME ASSISTANCE. Councilmember Olson asked where in the ordinance that would be included. Council President Fraley- Monillas was uncertain where it would fit and said it may need to be a separate section. She wanted to ensure the $350,000 the Council was allocating to citizens be handled by a group in Snohomish County, noting there were a number of groups that do that sort of work. Mr. Doherty suggested it could be added to Section 4.B. Council President Fraley-Monillas restated the motion: INSERT IN 4.B THAT THE MONEY BE ALLOCATED TO A SNOHOMISH COUNTY NON- PROFIT. Mr. Doherty explained the City has two existing contract with Wellspring and with Washington Kids in Transition who serves Edmonds School District. He asked if Council President Fraley-Monillas' intent was the entire additional money can only go to a new, as yet undefined, Snohomish County -based agency or that that the totality should include a new Snohomish County -only based agency. Council President Fraley- Monillas answered she was interested in doing it either way as long as it was a Snohomish County -based agency. In her research, Wellsprings seems to be a good group but their focus is families and children. She was aware Wellspring offered to assist Edmonds in resources for others. However, for example, the United Way of Snohomish County actually serves the entire population and would know different types of no -cost organizations that perhaps people should apply to within Snohomish County. She did not think Wellspring or Washington Kids in Transition were well educated regarding the various resources in Snohomish County. She would be satisfied if the entire amount was allocated to a Snohomish County -based organization or split between Washington Kids in Transition and another Snohomish County -based organization, as long as it was in Snohomish County and not King County. Amendment RA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT THAT THE BALANCE OF THE FUNDS GO TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY NON-PROFIT THAT SERVES A BROAD BASE OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY NEEDS TO INCLUDE SENIORS, VETERANS AND THE DISABLED. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 8.1.a Councilmember Paine said it was important to have a broad range of services that are well-known within Snohomish County. Action on Amendment 8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if funds have already distributed. Mr. Doherty answered no funds have been distributed as the program is in the first application phase. He commented the amount of funding would be more than tripled and even with $100,000, the two agencies felt they needed to collaborate to deal with applications. If the proposal is for a new, unnamed third agency to take on all the applications and distribution for another $350,000, he feared that would overburden one agency. He recommended adding another Snohomish County -based organization that covered the populations identified and have them triage among the three agencies. He feared one agency would be unable to take that on. Councilmember Buckshnis said this an administrative issue, the Council can suggest what they want, but aren't the agencies and the selection process part of the administrative process? Mayor Nelson answered it is in pretty much every other city in Snohomish County that has been doing this. Councilmember Buckshnis supported what Councilmember Paine was saying, but preferred the Council simply say they wanted two or three and to include one Snohomish County and allow the Administration to figure it out, recalling that was what was done with the original $100,000. Councilmember Paine was hopeful and assumed there was a 10-15% overhead fee and possibly lower. She acknowledged Wellspring was probably a well-meaning group and she knew a lot about United Way of King County, but she agreed there needed to be a large, broadly resourced group in Snohomish County. Council President Fraley-Monillas said organizations like the United Ways distribute millions of dollars in a year; this would be small chump change to them. She was not necessarily suggesting United Way, but she preferred an organization in Snohomish County because they seemed to have a better feel for opportunities in Snohomish County versus a group in King County that would not necessarily have that ability. She did not have any vested interest in which organization, but knew that Wellspring was King County -based and it should have probably been a Snohomish County -based organization to begin with. She encouraged the Council to support Councilmember Paine's amendment. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the intent in stating "the balance" in the motion was for the entire $350,000 be allocated to a single Snohomish County organization. Councilmember Paine said her intent was the $350,000 could be split amongst other Snohomish County -based organizations. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with having the funds allocated by Snohomish County organizations. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed that Councilmember K. Johnson is offline due to computer issues. She requested Mayor Nelson forward her the code to the Zoom meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis she had provided Councilmember K. Johnson the phone number to participate. Mr. Taraday said because Mr. Passey and he will be preparing the ordinance following Council amendments, he requested motions be made without interruption. He did not get Councilmember Paine's motion in its entirety because she was interrupted before it could be completed. He asked her to restate the motion. Councilmember Paine restated the motion: AMEND SECTION 4.11 TO INSERT ii BELOW COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON'S THAT WOULD SAY THESE FUNDS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BASED Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 8.1.a NON -PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISTRIBUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE. Mr. Doherty clarified the existing two partners are Snohomish County -based Washington Kids in Transition and King County -based Wellspring whose leadership live in Edmonds. He asked if the intent was not to allow Wellspring to process any further applications. He pointed out Wellspring created the application portal, are running a fundraising campaign for Edmonds to generate more money, but the amendment appeared to say they could not have any more of the funds. In his opinion it was bad faith for organizations that the City had just contracted with. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was a different fund, they have the $100,000 although it was currently at $33,000 and they can keep working on that. However the $350,000, the CARES Act funds need to go to a Snohomish County organization. Mr. Doherty said Section 4.B of the ordinance adds $350,000 to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, subsuming the program previously approved into the overall CARES Fund program. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if that needed to be separated out. Mr. Doherty said he was suggesting the City already has two partners and should add a third that would be a Snohomish County - based partner. He would personally feel badly if the City told one of its founding partners one who had gone the extra mile for no compensation that they could not help the City further. Mr. Taraday suggested taking Councilmember Paine's amendment which begins with the words "these funds" and change it to read "these additional funds" meaning the supplemental infusion of $350,000. That would indicate the existing arrangement with Wellspring could remain intact. Councilmember Paine agreed. (Councilmember K. Johnson resumed participation in the virtual meeting.) Councilmember Olson said that did not address Mr. Doherty's legitimate concern that the founding partner who had done the work on the first $100,000 for no compensation would not participate in the paid portion which she felt was unjust. She recommended Councilmembers not support the amendment or alter the amendment to add another partner and the existing organizations continue, each with one-third of the funds. Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in having the City's money go into a different county; Wellspring is based in King County and the City needs to send the money to Snohomish County. She hoped Wellspring hadn't been promised more money through a contract. Wellspring will receive the profit, and she was sure they would want some sort of profit, with the rest of the money if it was allocated back to them as well as Washington Kids in Transition. Mr. Doherty said the contracts for administration of the $100,000 initial funds with the two agencies included no compensation. Wellspring started a fundraising campaign on its website to grown the fund and did wish to participate in administration of any additional funds they raised with a 10% or so fee. The additional CARES Act funds were not even a proposal until this week so they had not been told about that. Given the larger amount of funds, it would make sense to have three agencies working on it. He assured the funds were being disbursed to Edmonds residents. Councilmember Paine asked if the prior ordinance would need to be amended to change the percentage of what they would get, acknowledging they had put in a lot of work. Mr. Doherty explained this ordinance subsumes the creation of that initial fund; any amendments to that initial Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, now being subsumed by this new ordinance can be made in Section 4.B. He clarified no percentage for an overhead fee was included in the initial $100,000. Councilmember Paine restated the motion: TO ALLOW FOR WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION TO COLLECT A NORMAL OVERHEAD FEE AS WELL AS WELLSPRING FOR THE AMOUNT UP TO $100,000 AS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 8.1.a APPROVED IN PRIOR FUNDS FROM THE HOMELESS AND FOR THE ADDITIONAL CARES ACT FUND ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN OVERHEAD COST. Mr. Taraday said this ordinance will be very difficult to put together. He will do his best but he requested Councilmembers read it very carefully because it may not be what they think it will be and may need to be amended because at this point it is getting very messy. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the organizations should have been offered something to offset their overhead as non -profits cannot be successful without funds for their overhead. The $350,000 will require some overhead fees. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Distelhorst asked about the passage of this ordinance and one fund subsuming other. It was his understanding that even if the Council passed this ordnance, there would still need to be a budget amendment. Mr. Doherty agreed, advising the budget amendment is intended to be a very simple ordinance that shows a funds was set up and moving the money into it. Given the volume of applications and given these new funds, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if it would be appropriate to transfer some of the $66,666 that would have been in the second and third months of the program, in the budget amendment versus this ordinance. Mr. Doherty answered it could be done either way, state the intent to do that in Section 4.13 and execute that in the budget amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated this is administrative; the Council is getting into the weeds and the ordinance will be very confusing. She asked whether the intent was to have three organizations instead of two or was it to get rid of the two that the Administration had selected. Mr. Doherty said it was not clear to him, whether the amendment was to have three agencies administering the new total or whether it was only a new organization and Washington Kids in Transition. Councilmember Buckshnis said her opinion was the same as Councilmember Olson, the City has in good faith gone to a company and they have done fundraising and suddenly the Council makes a different decision just because they are outside Snohomish County. She pointed out the funds are being distributed within Edmonds. She preferred to include one more organization, and questioned why this was put into the code when it was an administrative issue. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Wellspring focuses on children and families. They have been given a shot with the $100,000 to see if they can give it to more people than just families and children such as the disabled, veterans, seniors and other groups. She wanted the CARES Act funds allocated by a Snohomish County -based organization who know about the resources and programs in Snohomish County. Wellspring sounds like a fine organization; they just don't have experience in a lot of other areas. She wanted to ensure the money was being distributed by Snohomish County -based organizations. Councilmember Distelhorst suggested a shorter, cleaner amendment: Amendment 8B COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO INSERT AT THE END OF 4.B, "AN ADDITIONAL SNOHOMISH COUNTY -BASED ORGANIZATION WILL BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING PROGRAM." Councilmember Distelhorst explained that would add a Snohomish County -based organization and does not address any fees, etc. because that would be handled in the contract between the Administration and those agencies. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 8.1.a Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the intent was to include the current two organizations working on the distribution of the $100,000 in with the distribution of $350,000 and add one more organization. Councilmember Distelhorst answered yes and how that was done would be up to the Administration. He noted Wellspring is currently doing the applications for Washington Kids in Transition; he was not implying they would do the applications for a third agency, only that an additional Snohomish County -based organization would be added to the existing two. How that was accomplish would be organized by Mr. Doherty and his staff. Action on Amendment 8A COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said she missed some of the discussion. She asked if the motion was to add administrative fees to the agencies distributing the funds. Mayor Nelson and Councilmember Distelhorst said it was not. Action on Amendment 8B AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Amendment 9 COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD SALES TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 2019 AND THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2020 TO THE CRITERIA SECTION AND FURTHER MOVED THAT THIS INFORMATION SHALL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. Councilmember Olson said it was legitimate to consider the impact to the City budget which is how all the City's services are delivered to citizens. Councilmember Paine said she would be very curious to know if this was allowable information to include in the criteria. It was not necessarily bad, but wanted to ensure it was within the confidentiality criteria as identified by the State. Mr. Taraday answered once the City takes possession of the document, assuming that the City would, whether it was kept confidential or not was entirely dependent on whether there was an exemption in the Public Records Act (PRA). If there is not an exemption to the PRA, the City has essentially no ability to keep it confidential. Councilmember Olson asked if there was any way to include a caveat, if the City learned it would be subject to the PRA, that the criteria would be deleted. Mr. Taraday said he could add that the material shall remain confidential to the extent of the City's ability under the PRA. Councilmember Paine asked if that would be in conflict with Councilmember Distelhorst's amendment about transparency via monthly reports and the end of the year summation report. Mr. Taraday answered probably. Mr. Doherty answered potentially, yes. Action on Amendment 9 AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. Amendment 10 COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO STRIKE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IN SECTION 4.11: "IN ADDITION, UP TO $50,000 FROM THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC RELIEF PROGRAM, INITIALLY EARMARKED AS A POTENTIAL SECOND ROUND OF FUNDING FOR THE CHAMBER FOUNDATION WISH GRANT PROGRAM, SHALL BE REALLOCATED TO THIS ACCOUNT." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 8.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said her research found other cities such as the City of San Antonio have found it very useful to provide direct relief to businesses. The City of San Antonio has been a bulk supplier of hand sanitizer, masks and temperature reading devices which may be difficult for individual businesses to purchase. She went to one business recent that only had a small can of Purell at the register. Edmonds could spend that $50,000 on those supplies to benefit the businesses and citizens who visit those businesses. She recommended not spending that money right now and continuing to keep it as a potential grant to the Chamber of Commerce and working with the Chamber on ways to help support businesses. The initial grant was intended to help support small businesses, but in fact few needed the type of resources that were offered. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why $50,000 from the funds allocated to the Chamber was proposed to be reallocated. Mr. Doherty answered the contract with the Chamber is up to $50,000 through the Foundation WISH Grant program; the City initially allocated up to $100,000 if it was needed for that program. The Chamber has distributed approximately $30,000; in an effort to propose a robust community support program along with a robust business support program, Councilmember K. Johnson's proposal was to reallocate the $50,000. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the Chamber said about that. Mr. Doherty said the Chamber knows, they weren't specific one way or another; the Chamber was happy about business grants so it was somewhat of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mayor Nelson advised the City will be getting over 18,000 cloths masks from the State that can be distributed to citizens in addition to 10,000 disposal masks that are being distributed. Councilmember Olson said there is truly no limit to the need that businesses have and this indirectly benefits businesses in the City so she will support the amendment. Action on Amendment 10 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Amendment 11 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO AMEND IN SECTION 4.B TO REMOVE "UP TO" BEFORE $300,000 AND REMOVE "UP TO" BEFORE $50,000. Action on Amendment 11 AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, FOR THE COUNCIL TO SEE A CLEAN COPY NEXT WEEK. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, a previous motion to postpone was unsuccessful and she questioned whether this was the same motion. Mr. Taraday said someone who voted on the prevailing side of that motion could make a motion to reconsider. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO POSTPONE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND DISTELHORST VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday said he will revise the ordinance and include it in the packet for next week's meeting. If Councilmembers saw anything that looked inconsistent with their recollection before next week's meeting, he invited them to bring it to his or Mr. Doherty's attention sooner rather than later. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 2. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR DAYTON STREET UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English displayed an aerial view of the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project, explaining this is a proposed change order for the section of Dayton Street between 6' Avenue and 8' Avenue. The original contract called for pavement restoration that included a 2-inch grind, placement of pavement fabric and a 2-inch overlay within this section of Dayton Street. The restoration plan was based on cores taken during design that showed a pavement thickness of 5 inches between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue and 4 inches between 7th Avenue and 8' Avenue. Once the utilities began to be installed and the pavement trench patch was done, the contractor found 3-inch pavement thickness in some sections which present a problem because grinding 2 of the 3 inches will likely damage and crack the remaining 1-inch layer. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. English relayed the recommendation for a full depth reconstruction between 6t' Avenue and 8' Avenue. He displayed a photograph of the pavement condition that includes alligator cracking. Reconstruction has already begun between 6t' Avenue and 7t' Avenue. This is critical for action tonight because that work will be paved Friday and the contractor needs to move to the 7t' Avenue to 8t' Avenue portion which exceeds the $100,00 threshold and requires Council to authorize the Mayor to approve the contract change order. Mr. English reviewed the additional cost of street reconstruction: 6t' Avenue to 7' Avenue $70,000 7t' Avenue to 8' Avenue $53,100 Subtotal $123,100 10% contingency $12,300 Total $135,400 Mr. English said this would be paid from the project management reserve, the current balance is $712,00 and the funds for this work are from the Stormwater and Water Utility Funds. Staff recommends authorizing the Mayor to approve a change order up to $135,400 for that full depth reconstruction on Dayton Street which will provide a much longer pavement life in this section. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO APPROVE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER UP TO $135,400 TO RECONSTRUCTION DAYTON ST FROM 6TH AVENUE TO 8TH AVENUE (100 FT EAST OF 8TH AVENUE). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Mr. English and Public Works Director Phil Williams left the virtual meeting). 3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION Councilmember Buckshnis said it was her understanding that the Council would not be considering this item tonight. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating that was not her understanding as Mr. Williams wanted to present four slides. Mayor Nelson said because staff left the meeting, he believed they were done for the night. 9. STUDY ITEMS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 8.1.a 1. COMMUNITY SERVICES RESOURCE GUIDE Mayor Nelson said Mr. Doherty had also left the meeting, perhaps understanding that the Council would not be considering this item. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO END THE MEETING AFTER MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson advised there will be a pedestrian friendly Main Street on Saturday and Sunday and mask will be available. (Mr. Williams returned to the virtual meeting.) Councilmember L. Johnson supported allowing Mr. Williams to make his presentation as he had waited all evening. Discussion followed regarding what motion would be appropriate. Mr. Taraday said all Councilmembers voted on the prevailing side of the motion to end the meeting so any could move to reconsider. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO END THE MEETING AFTER MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 9. ACTION ITEMS (CON'T) 3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION (CON'T) Mr. Williams reviewed the approximate financial impacts • All numbers are estimates only at this point • Includes all sales taxes • Bond Insurance ($301,000 est.) not included • Interest rates could increase or decrease prior to sale of bonds • We could evaluate using levelized DS or a debt service wrap • Final arrangement could include our partners as well but wouldn't change Edmond's numbers • Edmonds Partners Shares o Mountlake Terrace 23.174 % o Ronald 9.488 % o OVWSD 16.551 % o Edmonds 50.787% • 20 year term, levelized debt service, 2.7% Interest Rate Project Cost $26,121,250 Edmonds share @ 50.787% 13,266,000 Debt Service Reserves $1,507,500 Issuance Costs $301,500 Total Bond $15,075,000 Insurance? 301,500 Gross Payment $81,360* 12 = $976,320 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 8.1.a Interest on Reserves (976 x 1% x 12 = $11,712 Net Payment $964,608/yr. 2020 Projected Rate Revenue (approved 2020 budget) $12,873,846 New Rate Revenue Needed/Projected 2020 Rate Revenue $964,608/12,873,846 = 7.49%* • The Project team estimates savings of $341,247/yr. in O&M • Edmonds share of that varies but averages approx. 47% or $160,386 • Net Edmonds cost increase = $964,608 - $160,386 = $804,222 or 6.25% • Single Family Residential would increase from $45.84/mo. to $48.70 or $2.86/mo. • Graph of existing and proposed bonds o Existing debt ■ WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011 ■ WS Rev 2013 ■ WS Rev 2015 o Proposed 2020 Bond, 20 year Level Debt Service Mr. Williams suggested Councilmembers forward him any questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the increase for the average rate payer. Mr. Williams answered $2.86/month for a single family wastewater ratepayer in Edmonds. Council President Fraley- Monillas asked if that was for a family of four. Mr. Williams answered sewer is billed on a per -household basis and does not matter the size of the family or house, everyone pays a flat rate. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what was the current flat rate. Mr. Williams answered it is $45.84/month and $48.70 after the increase, a difference of $2.86/month. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS (CON'T) Mayor Nelson encouraged the public to visit the pedestrian- friendly Main Street this weekend wearing masks to shop, dine or walk. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember L. Johnson advised Friday, June 16t' is a holiday known as Juneteenth which commemorates Black freedom from slavery and recognition of the ongoing struggle for equality and true freedom. The Black Student Unions at Edmonds School District high schools have planned a march on Friday at 11 a.m. and are encouraging community members to gather at College Place Middle School and march to the District administrative officers. The public can come early at 10 a.m. to make signs or at 11 a.m. with prepared signs. There will also be a candlelight vigil at 7 p.m. at Meadowdale High School. Masks are highly encouraged at these and other events. Masks will be provided to those without one. Councilmember Buckshnis wished a Happy Father's Day to Mr. Passey, Mayor Nelson, Mr. Taraday and Councilmember Distelhorst. She relayed with great sadness the passing of Evan Zhao, a founding member of Students Saving Salmon and the Edmonds Stream Team who was tragically killed in a rock climbing accident. His family has set up a memorial scholarship fund through the Foundation for Edmonds School District. Councilmember Olson reported the Economic Development Commission is meeting on Wednesday, June 17t'' at 6 p.m. to talk about recovery. She invited Councilmembers and/or the public to contact her or other commissioners with input. The Housing Commission Zoom meeting is on Thursday, June 18t' at 6:30 p.m.; further information is available on the City's website. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 8.1.a Councilmember Olson acknowledged the amount of time and effort that Councilmembers have devoted to studying agenda items. Although Councilmembers have differences of opinion about how to be helpful, she assured they all want to be helpful and really care and are sorry for everything that everyone is going through. She urged citizens to keep their chin up and keep moving forward, noting there are many resources available. She encouraged citizens to contact the City if they need information on available resources. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Councilmember Olson's comments and thanked Council, Mayor Nelson, Mr. Taraday and Mr. Passey for bearing with the Council through a very long discussion on the CARES Act funding, noting that was representative of how important it was to businesses, residents, elected officials and staff. He thanked everyone for working together in a collaborative manner as it will benefit everyone in the end. He thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for announcing the Juneteenth event with the Black Student Unions in the Edmonds School District on Friday. He looked forward to putting on his mask for multiple events including the Main Street pedestrian plaza which he thanked Mayor Nelson and staff for arranging. He urged he public to wear masks to keep each other safe. Councilmember Paine said she was looking forward to the weekend with appreciation to all the fathers in world and to the plaza and seeing how that works and potential opportunities to expand if it is successful as well as the Juneteenth rally and march. She noted all the discussions around equity are very important and a great way to look at policies through the lens of equity. She hoped everyone had a great time for the rest of the week after all the work that was done tonight. 11111U -9\I With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 8.1.a Public Comment for June 16, 2020 Council Meeting: 6/10/20 Randall Hodge, Subject: RE: Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association Support for Cares ACT Grant Program I wanted to send my comments about the Edmonds Cares Act Program We need the help. It is as simple as that. And it should for to 1-30 employees. In the Randall J Hodges Photography Gallery, it is just me and one employee. My business has lost so much in this difficult time have dipped into saving just to pay the rent. Now that we are open again, it will take a long time to get back up to full business and customer counts. I do not want to loose what I have worked for over 21 years due to Covid. We need the help. So many large business have benefited from government help, but those of use with 1-2 employees have not. Payroll protection was not a good for for my business. And with only one employee, I have been turned down for all grants, like I am not worth saving. Please consider helping the small business in the downtown core, the are the core of Edmonds Thank you for your consideration 6/10/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comment for the June 16, 2020 City Council Meeting The June 5, 2007 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes include the following: "Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute."(As a side note — please appreciate the failure to call the meeting to order prior to entering Executive Session.) From Page 8 of the June 5, 2007 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes:"With regard to the allegation that something occurred in Executive Session, Mr. Snyder advised once the process was concluded, all Executive Session minutes would be available to the public. As the minutes would reveal, he was very clear to the Council when this was discussed that a settlement proposal had been presented to the Council; the settlement proposal depended upon passage of the development agreement. He assured he had not polled the Council and only sought reactions and feedback regarding negotiating the terms. He had advised the Council they could not make a decision in Executive Session and that they should not give direction regarding the development agreement. The Council was not asked their opinion regarding the development agreement in Executive Session as that could only be done in open session after a public hearing."Please note that the approved minutes clearly indicate that Mr. Snyder advised the following: once the process was concluded, all Executive Session minutes would be available to the public. The following detailed discussion about Executive Sessions is documented in the July 17, 2007 City Council Approved Minutes: Executive Session Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He recalled during the discussions of the park in south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion regarding what information was and was not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss certain issues in Executive Session and in at least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session was broken. The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would accomplish two purposes, 1) if a Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that should not, they could propose a motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have discussion and make a determination during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from revealing information that other Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 8.1.a Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address Councilmembers questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was appropriate for Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in Executive Session. She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the retreat with the way meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the number of times each Councilmembers could speak. Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to question an inappropriate Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember could always leave an Executive Session that they felt was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. He explained the Council could reach consensus in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an issue in the open meeting, they could come out of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue placed on a future agenda and/or request information be released. In the absence of a motion, the confidence of the Executive Session would be observed. He noted the resolution did not address the appropriateness of a subject for Executive Session because that was addressed in state law. Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council had agreed should not be disclosed. His intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the same understanding. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session information remained confidential as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.To the 2020 City Council, please note the following: 1. Resolution No. 1150 is still in effect. Are you complying? The intent of the Resolution is to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session.2. Executive Session minutes are supposed to be made available to the public after the related process is concluded. 3. City Council used to keep minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed appropriate issues in Executive Session. This was in the Public Interest. Such practice was done away with via Resolution 1360 — a legislative act contrary to the Public Interest. Please consider requesting an item be added to next week's agenda to reconsider/rescind Resolution 1360. 4. Executive Session information remains confidential as long as the City Council feels it should remain confidential. This requires consensus. Per RCW 42.30.110, the Edmonds City Council may exclude the public from the meeting place and meet in Executive Session to discuss certain matters. However, entering Executive Session is optional, not mandatory. Executive Session discussions sometimes do not warrant permanent confidentiality. Rescinding Resolution 853 via Resolution 1360 was a decision promoting permanent confidentiality of all Executive Session discussions — even when the reason for the Executive Session has expired. The 1996 Edmonds City Council voted that it was in the public interest to maintain summary minutes. The rescission of Resolution 853 twenty years later was contrary to open government and not in the public interest. Councilmember Tom Meseros made the motion to rescind Resolution 853. In doing so he stated that the Council has created an "atmosphere" that there are minutes being kept. Mr. Mesaros failed to provide support for the so called "atmosphere". Mr. Mesaros also claimed that Council has given the public an impression that is "unreal". I strongly disagree and I think these comments showed great disrespect to the public. I believe citizens are plenty smart enough to know exactly what the summary minutes are. What the summary minutes actually are has great value. Summary minutes of Executive Session are a tool that promotes Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 8.1.a more open government, which increases trust in City government. Councilmember Mesaros also stated that decisions are not made in Executive Session and that the public will have quite a bit of opportunity to come to know what is discussed. Again, I disagree. It is often the practice of the City Council to exit Executive Session and vote without discussing the related matter and without providing the public hardly any related information. Furthermore, Council has a practice of reaching consensus in Executive Session. The October 2, 2012 City Council Meeting minutes indicate Council reaches consensus in Executive Session by head nod and/or by discussion. Resolution 1150 even adopted policy requiring the City Council to reach a consensus prior to adjournment of Executive Session. The 2016 vote by City Council was a blow to open government and harmed the citizens of Edmonds. The 2016 City Council had an opportunity to be the beacon for open government and transparency in the State of Washington and improve upon Resolution 853. Instead, the 2016 City Council chose to rescind this good policy that was adopted because it was in the public interest. Hopefully the 2020 City Council will act in the public interest like the 1996 City Council did and reverse the acts of the 2016 City Council. Please reconsider/repeal Resolution 1360. Thank you. 6/10/20 Jaime Williams, Subject: Re: Cares Act grants I just read through the article in MyEdmondsNews talking about the businesses you are considering for the grant. I am very sad and disheartened that you are not considering single person businesses in your process. I get that you get more bang for your buck if you eliminate us from the pool. But let me tell you that we are in just as great of a need. I am a single mother of two 3 year old boys. I am my sole income for my home. I have not received any other loans of grants. I am a small business that is owned by a woman. I have work on 5th ave south for 5 years now doing hair. I lost 100% of my revenue due to the closure. I was closed 12 long weeks. I have begged and borrowed from my extended family to make it through and it really hits hard to know I won't even be given a chance to receive a grant. This seems like yet another blow and the hits keep coming. First to learn that the SBA small business loans went to big businesses now this. I have no problem working my tail off to provide for my boys. I will admit I am nervous to be back behind the chair and risk the health of my preemie boys if I bring this virus home. I guess I am just urging you to reconsider. I don't understand why I get punished for being a small 1 chair 1 employee- myself business. Thank you for your time Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 16, 2020 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 25, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 06-25-2020 Draft Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 39 8.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES June 25, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/INTRODUCTIONS ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Interim Finance Director Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online special meeting was called to order at 3:32 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. Elected officials, City staff and members of the audit team, Kristiana Baylor, program manager for the local office of the Washington State Auditor's Office; Kirk Gadbois, audit supervisor for the City of Edmonds audit; and Maggie Wallis, lead auditor; introduce themselves. 2. SAO RESOURCE - BEWARE CYBERSECURITY FRAUDS TARGETING DIRECT DEPOSIT PAYROLL Ms. Baylor advised this is the entrance conference for the fiscal year 2019 audit of the City of Edmonds. The purpose of today's meeting is to share what they plan to cover in the audit, discuss the type of audits that will be performed, the specific areas they plan to look at and answer any questions. In addition, they also like to take the opportunity to share resources that the Auditor's Office has published and provide information that may be helpful as the City conducts its operations. Ms. Baylor displayed the Entrance Conference packet that had been provided to the City. The Auditor's Office is tasked by the legislature to conduct audits on a regular cycle where they look at the use of public funds as well as financial examination to ensure financial statements are fairly stated and accurately presented. They do a number of different types of audits and each audit has a slightly different focus depending on the size of the local government or audit risk or history. The types of audits that will be conducted in Edmonds are the same type that have been done on a consistent basis. Ms. Baylor reviewed the audit scope, explaining they plan to perform the following audits: • Accountability audit for January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 o Objective: look at City's compliance with state law, regulations contracts, agreements, grants, etc. as well as the City's own policies and procedures Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 40 8.2.a o Evaluate whether the City has adequate safeguarding of public funds, whether there is any potential that funds could be misappropriated or misused or assets that go missing o Utilize a risk based audit approach Financial Statement Audit for January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 o City is required under state law to prepare an annual financial report, due to the Auditor's Office within 150 days after year-end. ■ Deadline extended this year due to COVID - Edmonds met deadline o Review prepared financial statements to ensure they are fairly stated and materially correct o Issue an audit opinion on financial statements o Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is part of the Financial Statement Audit ■ Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) offers an award program whereby local and state governments can apply for a certificate in financial reporting (CAFR award program). ■ Edmonds typically pursues that award; eligibility for the award has additional requirements in addition to typical financial statement preparation such as additional schedules and other information that must be included in financial reporting package - Auditors will review additional information prepared by the City and preview all questions that the GFOA reviewers consider in determining whether to issue an award Federal Grant Compliance Audit for January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 o Objective: Examine federal funds the city receives through federal grant awards. Federal government mandates anytime a state or local government expends over $750,000 in federal funds in one fiscal year, a Federal Grant Compliance Audit is required. o Plan to test the Highway Planning & Construction grant to ensure federal requirements for receiving those funds were met Ms. Wallis reviewed the five areas selected for the Accountability Audit for 2019: • Accounts payable - general disbursements, credit cards, electronic funds transfers and employee reimbursements o hi 2019, the City had approximately $40 million in accounts payable o Will review general disbursements, credit cards, electronic fund transfers, employee reimbursements, etc., anything that represents cash going out of the city o Gain understanding of city's process to make disbursements, policies and procedures to ensure practices match the policy • Financial condition o Look at ratios to ensure cash balance sufficiency, the number of days the city has cash on hand to pay its bills, and other ratios o Gain understanding of what city is doing to address impacts of COVID-19 ■ Ensure city is actively reviewing its condition so it will be sustainable going forward • Licenses and permit software conversion o Ensure all information from old system was converted over to new system o Ensure new system is working properly and security and user access is setup properly • Payroll - leave cash outs and separation agreements o Ensure cash outs are calculated correctly, match payroll agreements and properly approved • Budget compliance o Many governments have had to make adjustments due to COVID o Ensure adjustments and transfers due to COVID-19 were approved and are in compliance Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the Auditor's Office was handling work during COVID such as whether it was all done electronically. She asked if there would be a supplemental response to the 2019 audit related to COVID since that actually occurred in 2020. Although the audit is regarding 2019, the auditors will look at financials related to COVID and budget compliance and movement of funds. Mr. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 41 8.2.a Gadbois said the main focus is fiscal year 2019. Accountability audits sometimes look up to the present and provide guidance; if there are ways the city can improve operations, they do not want to wait an entire year to make a recommendation. This year with COVID-19, they are not looking into the nitty gritty details of how funds are being spent; it is high level looking at budget actions and whether there is anything that should be corrected or highlighted. With regard to how auditing is working during COVID-19, Mr. Gadbois said for the most part they are teleworking/off-site auditing and have been since about February. That has presented new challenges with obtaining reports, but they have been able to make things work through scanning or dropping by the city to pick up documents. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the audit will need to be extended due to COVID-19. Mr. Gadbois answered he did not think the dates would need to be extended. Their timelines will hopefully remain about the same. The goal is to wrap up the Financial Audit in July and the Accountability Audit by the beginning of August and exit late August/early September to meet the federal deadline for federal grant reporting. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the Auditor's Office planned to go back and look at the finding in 2019 for the 2018 audit and the plan of correction. Ms. Wallis answered yes, they are required to review that as part of the audit and she has already begun working on that. Ms. Baylor added the report will include the status of prior year's findings so the public can see the status of that item. With regard to the Financial Statement Audit, Ms. Wallis explained they ensure the statements are fairly presented in all material respects as well as additional procedures to issue the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the GFOA Certificate of Achievement. She has completed her review of the single audit and that is going through her management review. With regard to the status of the other audit areas, the Financial Statement Audit is in progress and is approximately 40-50% complete. As soon as that is completed, they will focus on the Accountability Audit to ensure they meet the deadline to issue the CAFR letter to the city. Ms. Wallis advised an engagement letter has been provided that confirms both management and auditor responsibilities, cost of the audit and estimated timeline. She reviewed levels of reporting: • Findings o Included in the audit report o Report significant deficiencies and material weaknesses • Management Letters o Less severe than findings o Communicate control deficiencies o Referenced in audit report but not included • Exit Items o Less severe than findings or management letters o Address best practice or ways to improve Mr. Gadbois highlighted important information provided in the packet: • Confidential Information o Our Office is committed to protecting your confidential or sensitive information. Please notify us when you give us any documents, records, files, or data containing information that is covered by confidentiality or privacy laws. • Audit Costs o The cost of the audit is estimated to be approximately $86,000, plus estimated costs of $ ] 0,000 for travel and other expenses. Expected Communications Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 42 8.2.a o During the course of the audit, we will communicate with Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director, on the audit status, any significant changes in our planned audit scope or schedule and preliminary results or recommendations as they are developed. o Let us know if, during the audit, any events or concerns come to your attention of which we should be aware. We will expect Mr. Turley to keep us informed of any such matters. Audit Dispute Process o Contact the Audit Manager or Assistant Director to discuss any unresolved disagreements or concerns you have during the performance of our audit. At the conclusion of the audit, we will summarize the results at the exit conference. We will also discuss any significant difficulties or disagreements encountered during the audit and their resolution Loss Reporting o State agencies and local governments are required to immediately notify our Office in the event of a known or suspected loss of public resources or other illegal activity. These notifications can be made on our website at www.sao.wa.gov/report-a-concem/how-to-report-a- concern/fraud-program/. Peer Reviews of the Washington State Auditor's Office o To ensure that our audits satisfy Government Auditing Standards, our Office receives external peer reviews every three years by the National State Auditors Association (NSAA). The most recent peer review results are available online at www.sao.wa.gov/about-sao/who-audits-the- auditor/. Our Office received a "pass" rating, which is the highest level of assurance that an external review team can give on a system of audit quality control. Mr. Gadbois advised when the audit report is released, the city will receive an audit survey. He encouraged the city to circulate the survey and provide feedback. In addition to the audit team conducting the audit, there are other teams to assist local government • Local Government Support Team o Purpose is to provide resources and answer accounting questions • The Center for Government Innovation o Purpose is to make government more efficient and transparent and operate more efficiently Mr. Gadbois referred to information in the packet regarding the audit team's qualifications. He also highlighted cybersecurity frauds targeting direct deposit payroll where the city receives a fraudulent email requests to change the bank account for direct deposit payroll or to change the bank account information for a vendor. The auditors will work with payroll and AP staff to ensure there are sufficient controls to avoid this. 3. SAO COMMUNICATION - APRIL 15, 2020 LETTER FROM STATE AUDITOR PAT MCCARTHY TO ALL GOVERNMENTS Mr. Gadbois referred to a letter in the packet from the State Auditor Pat McCarthy; during the pandemic, the Auditor's Office has received a lot of questions about activities and purchases related to the pandemic. They are not providing legal advice but the most important advice they are sharing is to document everything so that during next year's audit, the city has rationale for why programs were funded. Another issue that has arisen recently is governments are receiving federal funds before guidance on how to spend the money is finalized. The Auditor's Office's advice is for cities that receiving federal funds to save/document the guidance related to how those funds can be spent. 4. SAO RESOURCE -OFFICE OF WASHINGTON STATE AUDITOR 2019 ANNUAL REPORT Mr. Gadbois referred to the Office of the Washington State Auditor's annual report that describes what the Auditor's Office did last year: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 43 8.2.a • 2,785 audits in 2019 0 1,346 accountability audits 0 365 federal audits 0 790 financial audits • 90 unauditable governments • 24 fraud investigations • 32 whistleblower investigations • 188 other engagements • 8 performance audits • 7 cybersecurity audits • New in 2019 o Segregation of Duties Guide o CPE credits o Financial Intelligence Tool • Key fraud reports o Largest misappropriation of funds on record in Washington o County risk management payments • SAO Spotlight o Shining a light on troubled governments ■ City of Wapato ■ Unauditable governments • $51.5 million total budget for 2019 o Where does SAO's money come from? ■ $31.9 million from local governments for their audits ■ $12.9 million from sales tax for performance and cybersecurity audits ■ $6.7 million from state agencies for their audits o Where does the money go? ■ $44.6 million - salaries and benefits ■ $4.5 million - goods, services and equipment ■ $3.2 million — contracting ■ $1.5 million - travel • Map of SAO offices Mr. Gadbois encouraged Councilmembers, the Mayor or staff to reach out to him, Ms. Wallis or Ms. Baylor with any questions. He looked forward to meeting again in September to review the results of the audit. Mayor Nelson thanked the team for their presentation, commenting it was very helpful. 5. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 26, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 44 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 07-07-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 45 8.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES July 7, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS 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 STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir Pamela Randolph, Treatment Plant Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst 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 BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 10, PUBLIC HEARING ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT & CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION, TO ITEM 8 AND AGENDA ITEM 8, HOUSING COMMISSION'S QUARTERLY REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL, TO ITEM 10. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes July 7, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 46 8.3.a COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. INTERVIEW FOR COUNCIL APPOINTMENT 1. PFD BOARD CANDIDATE INTERVIEW PFD President David Brewster introduced the candidate for Public Facilities District Board Candidate Position 1, Gregory Hinton. Mr. Hinton has works at Edmonds College as vice president of finance and operations. His application is in the Council packet. The Council interviewed PFD Board candidate Gregory Hinton. He responded to the following questions: • (Councilmember Buckshnis) Your background is needed due to the pandemic and economic crisis. How much do you know about the PFD and the financial aspects? I'm still learning, eager to delve into that. I've attended their last few meetings but have not been able to work with any committees at this time. I have an in-depth background in finance and have worked with other non profits. I'm eager to learn more about the finances and be able to assist and contribute. • (Councilmember Paine) Nice to have new people coming into the community and volunteering for sometimes very difficult jobs. Pleased that Mr. Hinton is from the community college because that is an alliance that needs to be developed further and she was hopeful he would advocate for the PFD and its role. What are your thoughts about learning opportunity for students at the PFD. I like that opportunity. I have done a great deal of volunteer work related to education for the last 20 years. A hardware failure caused an interruption in the video from approximately 7:07 p.m. to 7:11 p.m. When video resumed, Mr. Hinton was describing cultural performances he has attended. In addition to a financial background, he is taking the lead on COVID-19 reopening plan for the college. (Councilmember K. Johnson) I also have a passion for arts and think he will be a great addition to the PFD. What do you want to accomplish during your term? I am open to that. I have learned I don't write my own script. A year ago, I did not expect to be in front of the City Council. I keep an open mind to learning and opportunities to learn, success, preparation and opportunity. There will be a lot of changes due to COVID-19. How to bring healing to the community, arts does that and does it well. I do not have an agenda other than wanting to serve and help. There are a lot of opportunities and challenges. I am about how to best serve the community. Councilmember Distelhorst) What are the top one or two things that help contribute to successful private -public partnerships based on his experience? Relationships, personal and professional. The book, The Road Less Traveled, " talks about emotional deposits, putting emotional deposits into relationships. Building relationships is important and is needed and a requirement to being successful. I want to add to the strong relationship between the City Council, the PFD and the community. (Council President Fraley-Monillas) I serve as the Council liaison to the PFD so I have seen Mr. Hinton at PFD Board meetings. I'm impressed you are a Brown alumni and a member of the Morehouse Parents Association; it's good to see that interest in the community and in places that benefit families. Mayor Nelson explained approval of Mr. Hinton's appointment to the PFD Board is on the Consent Agenda. Once the Council approves the Consent Agenda, his appointment to the PFD Board is approved. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525) Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Packet Pg. 47 8.3.a Tom Miles, Portland, Oregon, said Pamela Randolph contacted him a year ago and more recently to inquire about carbonizing systems and biochar from biosolids. He is a biomass energy consultant with more than 40 years' experience in the design and development of biomass energy systems including pyrolysis, gasification and combustion. He has worked with research and development as well as large scale industrial systems and has worked on biosolids drying, gasification and combustion and incineration in several communities. Mayor Nelson interrupted Mr. Miles and suggested he may want to provide testimony during the public hearing later on the agenda. There were no other public comments. (Written comments submitted to Public Comment&Edmonds.wa.gov are attached to the minutes.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 7.1 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. MAY 2020 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 5. YOUTH COMMISSION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 6. DSHS DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES ADMINISTRATION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RENEWAL 7. FACILITIES LEAD JOB DESCRIPTION 8. PFD BOARD CANDIDATE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENT 8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2020 (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.1) Councilmember Buckshnis said after discussion with the City Clerk, the minutes will be remanded back to the City Clerk's Office to correct errors and schedule approval on next week's Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO REMAND THE MINUTES TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE MINUTES AND SCHEDULE APPROVAL ON NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING (OPTIONAL) (HTTPS:HZOOM.US/S/4257752525) WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT & CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION Packet Pg. 48 8.3.a Public Works & Utilities Director Phil Williams introduced Pamela Randolph, WWTP Manager, Lonn Inman, project manager, Ameresco, who also worked with the City on Phase 5; Dave Parry, the City's third party expert consultant on biosolids management, gasification and pyrolysis; and Scott Bauer, the City's bond advisor. Mr. Williams reviewed: Graph of Plant Energy and Cost Trends o Energy usage and demand trending downward, while costs are trending upward due to RDC charges and rate increases ■ 31 % reduction in energy consumption energy cost ■ 42% higher without ESCO City Council Oversight — Path to Sustainability o August 2014: Staff laid out a long-term plan in a presentation titled "Putting it all Together". The long-term plan included a staged approach outlining a pathway for this next project. o After successful completion of Phase 3, 4, and 5 energy projects, in 2017 we approached City Council with the Phase 6 project which outlined the necessity of replacing the biosolids incinerator o In late 2017-2018 an RFQ process developed a shortlist of promising options. In 2018 Council authorized funding for the design of Phase 6 — a pyrolysis -only technology provided by Bioforcetech (Project A). After considerable evaluation, several difficulties arose in further developing this alternative o In early 2020, the project team began development of a competing but similar technology produced by Ecoremedy (Project B). Project B can reduce construction cost significantly, does not require a new building, provides significant carbon recovery, and reduces the environmental impact of the odor control system. We are now recommending Project B as the right fit for Edmonds Project drivers o Equipment has high O&M cost in terms of electrical usage, disposal costs, operations staffing, testing, reporting, repair & maintenance and emission controls — approx. $1,000,000/year o The equipment is currently operating significantly beyond its useful life expectancy — in operation 32 years o The equipment was installed at a time when the need to reduce energy and promote the reuse of bi-products was the not a focus. o Regulatory burden has significantly increased with the new sludge incinerator regulations under 40CFR Part 60 Subpart O. ■ § 60.150 states compliance with new emissions standards must be met... "When the cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs." o Analysis of Edmonds WWTP incinerator repair and maintenance history shows we are nearing 43% at this time Basic options available for replacement o Build conventional digesters followed by production of EQ Biosolids for land application ■ Most common current approach ■ Edmonds does not have space for digesters on site ■ Any expansion of our footprint in downtown would be very difficult ■ Likely the most expensive option ■ Wintertime management of land application systems ■ Long-term costs of hauling and possibly storage are very high and energy intensive ■ Does not address PFAS residues o Replace with a new incinerator ■ Appeared to be the second most expensive option after our initial technology screening Packet Pg. 49 8.3.a ■ Would not measurably improve environmental performance including our Carbon footprint ■ Regulations on incineration may well continue to get more stringent Basic options available o Pyrolysis/Gasification options ■ Can produce a range of useable end products ■ More energy efficient ■ Reduce carbon emissions ■ These approaches have been commercially available for many years ■ Most installations in this country have been for organic wastes like agricultural manures, wood chips, and other feedstocks. Examples using municipal biosolids are limited to 2 but are growing as several more are in development. City staff recommendation - Project B o Photographs of Ecoremedy system installation in Morrisville, Pennsylvania o Video of David Mooney, President and Chief Technology Officer, Ecoremedy, explaining how the Ecoremedy process works ■ Ecoremedy is a highly controlled carbon conversion process combining drying, pyrolysis and gasification into a single vessel ■ Ecoremedy differentiators include: - Extreme scalability - Broad fuel tolerance - Operational simplicity - Low maintenance costs • Operating Cost Comparison Utilities Existing Incinerator (Baseline) Project A Pyrolysis Centris s Project B Gasification Ecoremed Unit Utilities $163,566 $193,479 126,666 Total $/yr Odor Control Chemicals $47,768 $74,826 $3,009 Total $/ Polymer $160,000 $160,000 $56,000 Total $/yr Screenings $0 $24,000 $0 Total $/yr Labor 4321,725 $333,271 $333,271 Total $/yr Annual Maintenance $89,951 $52,000 $35,000 Total $/yr Regulatory $172,183 $120,000 $60,000 Total $/yr Hauling $36,000 $0 $36,000 Total $/yr Sub Total All Costs $/yr $991,193 $957,575 $649,946 Total $/yr o Savings between existing and Project B: $341,247 Benefits of Project B - Pyrolysis/Gasification o Most flexible, efficient and affordable approach to implement and the lowest operational costs o Produces an environmentally -friendly end product (biochar) while generating its own thermal conversion from the biosolids. This will move the City closer to achieving the goals established in Resolution 1389 o No acidic side stream or hazardous waste is produced o Biochar will likely be land applied in eastern WA. We will also look for sites in western Washington Approximate Financial Impacts o All numbers are estimates only at this point o Includes all sales taxes o Bond Insurance is not needed o Interest rates could increase or decrease prior to sale of bonds o We could evaluate using levelized debt service or a debt service wrap o Final arrangement could include our partners as well but wouldn't change Edmonds' numbers Packet Pg. 50 8.3.a o Edmonds Partners Shares ■ Mountlake Terrace 23.174 % ■ Ronald 9.488 % ■ OVWSD 16.551 % ■ Edmonds 50.787% o 20 year term, levelized debt service, 2.7% Interest Rate Project Cost $26,121,250 Edmonds share @ 50.787% $13,266,000 Debt Service Reserves $899,348 Issuance Costs $220,920 Total Bond $14,386,268 Insurance $0 Average Annual Debt Service $898,203 + 10% UT = $988,023 2020 Projected Rate Revenue (approved 2020 budget) $12,873,846 New Rate Revenue Needed/Projected 2020 Rate Revenue 1 $988,023/$12,873,846 = 7.67% o The Project team estimates savings of $341,247/yr. in O&M o Edmonds share of that varies but averages approx. 47% or $160,386 o Net Edmonds cost increase = $988,023 - $160,386 = $827,687 or 6.43% o Single Family Residential would increase from $50.42/mo. to $53.66 or $3.24/mo. This includes Utility Tax Graph of existing and proposed debt o Proposed 2020 Bond, 20 year Level Debt Service, 2.39% ■ Average Debt Service = $898,203 ■ Total Debt Service = $17,964,050 ■ Initial Net Rate Impact = 6.43% ■ Approx. $3.24/month o Proposed 2020 Bond, 20 year Wrap Debt Service, 2.62% ■ Average Debt Service = $766,917 (18 years) ■ Total Debt Service = $18,984,500 ■ Initial Net Rate Impact = 5.31% ■ Approx. $2.68/month 0 2020 Bonds: 25 Year, Level Debt Service, 2.75% ■ Average Debt Service = $784,500 ■ Total Debt Service = $19,612,350 ■ Initial Net Rate Impact = 5.46% ■ Approx. $2.75/month 0 2020 Bond: 25 year, wrap debt service (interest only for 18 years), 3.24% ■ Average Debt Service = $509,150 (18 years) ■ Total Debt Service = $23,255,500 ■ Initial Net Rate Impact = 3.1% ■ Approx. $1.56/month Comparison of Debt Options 20-YR Levelized 20-Yr Wrap 25-Yr Levelized 25- r wrap Interest Rate 2.39% 2.62% 2.75% 3.24% Initial Avg. Annual $898,203 $766,917 $784,500 $509,150 Debt Service Total Debt Service $17,964,050 $18,984,500 $19,612,350 $23,255,500 Payments Total Interest $6,144,050 $7,129,500 $7,852,350 $11,640,000 Initial Rate Impact 6.43% 5.31% $5.46% 3.10% • Action — Next Steps Packet Pg. 51 8.3.a o At the end of this optional Public Hearing, public comment will be closed. Council will then discuss the input received and entertain taking the following action: ■ Authorizing the Mayor to sign all necessary documents between the City and the Department of Enterprise Systems to deliver this project for the Guaranteed Maximum Cost of $26,121,040. o Further Council action in 2020 will likely include selling revenue bonds to support the project. Consideration should be given to moving forward sooner rather than later in this low interest market. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wished the information had been provided in the packet. She asked the current interest rate for the bonds maturing in 2031. Mr. Bauer answered the current 2011 bonds interest rate or coupons range from 3% to 4% depending on the maturity, the 2031 maturity on the 2011 bond would be at 4%. Councilmember Buckshnis commented even with a hybrid of the 25-year wrap it is 3.24%. She was interested in a way that did not charge as much to utility rate payers. She anticipated there would not be a need to refund/refinance bond at this low interest rate. She acknowledged the 25-year wrap was more expensive, but this is very large project that is important to the City. A 3.24% interest rate for 25 years sounds a little high but it really isn't since it was wrapped and backloaded to the end. She expressed appreciation for the team developing and reviewing the different options. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Williams to forward the presentation to the City Council. She asked whether the Council needed to determine how to pay for this now or could that be done later. Mr. Williams answered that could definitely be done later; it was important now to get an approval for the Mayor to sign the document with the State so the project can be put together. The price will not change, only how the money is generated so those topics could be separated and he felt it would be a good idea to separate them. Council President Fraley-Monillas was hopeful the Council could consider them separately so that Councilmembers would have an opportunity to think longer and harder about the debt options. She expressed appreciation to the team for their work. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was very important to talk about bonding because it impacts utility rates. She agreed that decision did not need to be made tonight, but the Council needed to consider it as there is a tremendous difference between 20 and 25 years with regard to what ratepayers pay. She agreed that decision did not need to be made now, but the Council needed to view and discuss the debt options and participants in the public hearing may also be interested in commenting on that aspect. She asked what the team thought. Mr. Williams agreed that was very important which suggests taking more time to make a decision on the bond structure would be advisable. The team needs a commitment to moving forward and that the Council will select one of these options or another option to generate the funding to support the project. Once that approval is provided and the Mayor can sign those documents, the team's concerns about project deadlines will be much improved and the project can be built in 2021. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Bauer his opinion about the 25 year wrap and how it is end loaded. Mr. Bauer answered there is a policy decision related to the amount of rate increase. Interest rates are currently at historical lows which can be an argument for putting debt out long. He believed the City may have additional projects in the next couple years in which that debt could be pulled shorter, setting known interest rates now and then having the opportunity to pull debt in a bit shorter on a future issuance if the Council chose. He summarized that was a little bit of an argument for going out longer than the City normally would. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the possibility that rates may go down further. She supported a 25 year term but was not sure about a wrap. She asked if many cities did a wrap that was end loaded. Mr. Bauer answered Edmonds has done that in the past. The initial issuance in 2011 was a first issuance and then the 2013 bonds were wrapped and in 2015 there was a levelized debt structure. He said this absolutely happens, particularly with utility and revenue bonds; the issue is balancing debt service payments with rate Packet Pg. 52 increases. Councilmember Buckshnis said a rate increase of $2.75 was better than $6. Mr. Williams said the highest rate increase in the comparison of debt options is $3.24. Councilmember Paine recalled when this was discussed at a previous meeting, Mr. Williams had said the amount that needed to be financed was $21 million but it did not need to be paid all at once. She asked if there was any benefit to portioning out the financials, whether it needed to be covered all at once or could it be pieced out and when the money was due to ESCO. Mr. Williams answered the City would commit to all the cost, but there will be a schedule of payments for the total amount; approximately $11.6 million will be paid to Ecoremedy for the equipment package. The City commits to providing that full amount and the Department of Enterprise Services enters into an agreement with Ameresco to deliver the project to the City of Edmonds. Once Ameresco has that agreement in hand with the state, they issue a purchase order to Ecoremedy for $11.6 million which has payment schedule. There is an initial modest signing cost and within 45-60 days, a payment of $2.8 million is due followed by a series of additional payments as they build and deliver the equipment followed by a final payment. In the meantime, design and permitting is occurring and a significant amount of money is being spent in addition to what is paid to Ecoremedy. He summarized the bills begin to come in fairly quickly. Mr. Williams asked whether Councilmember Paine's question was whether it would make sense to do a smaller bond issue now and another one later for the remainder. Councilmember Paine said she was just considering all options to ensure she had all the information she needed. She liked the idea of making a commitment earlier for the full amount because it was right thing to do. The second part of that is when do the bills start coming into the City; she asked if half would come up fast and furious in the first few years. Mr. Williams answered not just the first few years; all the money would be spent by late fall 2021. His explanation above was what that looked like from a cashflow standpoint between now and fall 2021. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Tom Miles, Portland, Oregon, said Pamela Randolph contacted him a year ago to inquire about carbonizing systems and biochar. He is a biomass energy consultant with more than 40 years' experience in design and development of biomass energy systems including pyrolysis, gasification and combustion so his comments will be regarding technology and biochar. He has worked both in research and the industry with these processes. He has a special expertise in transformation of ash and metals in biomass fuels so he pays attention to potentially toxic elements like metals, fluorine and PFAS. He is the chairman of the U.S. Biochar Initiative, a non-profit association of scientists, engineers, farmers and biochar producers dedicated to the promotion and use of biochars which are safe, stable and sustainable for recovering nutrients for soil health and to solve environmental challenges and sequester carbon. There are some very good biochar producers in Western Washington that have been working hard to build biochar markets in the last several years. Mr. Miles said he has assisted the development and testing of biosolids to biochar systems internationally for the last 10 years; in recent years commercial systems have been seen in Europe as well as a couple very success demonstration and development systems in California, both of which were considered for the City of Edmonds' project, one of which was Project A. He has experience with processes like the Ecoremedy system proposed for the City and has watched their system evolve from processing poultry litter to manure to biosolids for several years and was happy to see they have one biosolid system now in operation in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. He believed the Ecoremedy system under consideration was appropriate for the City's scale, it has good energy balance and good system efficiency. The biochar has a high carbon content for biosolids compared to other products and provides the control to maintain a constant quality of biochar which is important in the current market and will allow adjusting the amount of carbon or ash in the residue as was pointed out in the video and it is a process that has a low to negative carbon footprint. The City will produce a small quantity of biochar that will need to be marketed. The prospect is good for finding wholesale markets and can be explored at this early stage of the project. Packet Pg. 53 8.3.a Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Nelson asked if the Council was interested in taking action tonight. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, whether the comments from the Climate Protection Committee and the Interfaith Climate Committee needed to be read into the record. Mayor Nelson said he was not aware that the Council had ever authorized the reading of comments into the record. He invited Council President Fraley-Monillas to speak to that issue. Council President Fraley-Monillas answered as long as Councilmembers have the comments and they are included in the minutes, that was fine. If Council was more comfortable, a motion could be made to that effect. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was prepared to move this tonight. The Interfaith Climate Action Group as well as the Mayor' Climate Protection Committee were in favor of Project B and wrote very favorable letters. She commented the Council did not need to figure out how to structure the bonds right now. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ALLOW THE MAYOR TO SIGN TO BEGIN THE PROJECT. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled she voiced the opinion last week that the Council should not make a decision on the same night as the public hearing. In view of all the overwhelmingly supportive comments, she was totally comfortable with making a decision tonight to move the project forward. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Attorney Jeff Taraday asked for clarification whether Councilmember Buckshnis' motion was intended to move the recommend motion in packet, "To authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents between the City and the Department of Enterprise Systems to deliver this project for the Guaranteed Maximum Cost of $26,121,040. Further Council action in 2020 will likely include selling revenue bonds to support the project." Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that the intent of her motion and the remaining Councilmembers indicated that was their intent. Mayor Nelson thanked Mr. Williams and the team for their work on this project. 10. STUDY ITEM 1. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB LEASE AGREEMENT Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser displayed a drawing of the Civic Park design with the outline of the Boys & Girls Club site highlighted. This is a five year lease renewal with Boys & Girls Club of Snohomish County for continued use of the field house and surrounding area at Civic Park. The Boys & Girls Club has leased and used the 5,600 square foot field house since 1968, originally leased from the Edmonds School District. As a result of the transfer of land ownership, in 2010 the City entered into a 5-year lease agreement with the Club for continued use of the facility. This agreement had a 5-year extension clause that was executed in 2015 and is set to expire in December 2020. Ms. Feser advised the Boys & Girls Club's preference to remain in this location was incorporated into the design of the Civic Park, even allowing for potential expansion of the Club's facility up to 20,000 square feet. The Club has stated interest in exploring a new building in the Edmonds area but have not finalized a location and wish to continue their lease at Civic Park. The lease renewal was due in May, but was delayed to this month due to COVID-19 impacts. The agenda packet includes several attachments including the 2015 original agreement, the June 8t' letter of intent from the Boys & Girls Club, the redline lease agreement showing the proposed changes due to the removal of the School District's interest as well as the lease in its final draft. Packet Pg. 54 8.3.a Council President Fraley-Monillas said in reviewing the agreement, it appeared there was a 30 day out for the City or the Boys & Girls Club. Ms. Feser answered there are no penalties for leaving the lease early, it is just basic notification. If the Boys & Girls Club were to leave and break the lease, the City would more than likely know more than 30 days in advance. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the 30 day out was applicable to both parties; for example, if the City needed to get out of the lease. Ms. Feser agreed it was for both parties. Councilmember Buckshnis was confused why this was a study item as she recalled it was on the Consent Agenda last week and was pulled for clarification. Councilmember Olson answered the original lease contract contained an extension by mutual agreement. However, due to the material change of the ownership of the property and therefore the contracting parities, a change, amendment or extension to that same contract would be improper so the contract was rewritten. This has the same effect as an extension and is legal. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a citizen's comment that the City should do a yearly extension. Ms. Feser said that could be done if the Council wished, but an annual renewal increases administrative efforts. If the intent was to revisit both parties' commitments on an annual basis, staff has frequent discussions with Boys & Girls Club regarding their plans to either find another location or build in this location. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had no problem with this and supported forwarding it to the Consent Agenda or making a motion tonight. Council President Fraley-Monillas was comfortable with lease agreement, knowing there is a 30 day out. As this is a study item, she asked if the intent was to schedule it on next week's Consent Agenda. Ms. Feser answered yes. 11. PRESENTATIONS 1. HOUSING COMMISSION'S QUARTERLY REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL Development Services Director Shane Hope advised this was the Housing Commission's third quarterly report to the City Council; the Housing Commission has been working hard. She introduced Housing Commissioners Will Chen, Leif Warren and Keith Soltner. Commissioner Chen reviewed: Background o Council Resolution #1427 ■ Established Citizens' Housing Commission o Housing Commission's Mission ■ "Develop diverse housing policy options for Council consideration designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation." o Commission Make-up ■ Edmonds residents with various backgrounds working together to fulfill the Housing Commission's mission Housing Commission Members Karen Haase Herrick- Zone 1 James Ogonowski- Zone 1 Leif Warren- Zone 1 Alternate Keith Soltner- Zone 2 Weijia Wu- Zone 2 Wendy Wyatt- Zone 2 Alternate George Keefe- Zone 3 Tanya Kataria-Zone 5 Greg Long -Zone 5 Shirley Havenga-Zone 5 Alternate Jess Blanch -Zone 6 Alena Nelson-Vietmeier-Zone 6 Rick Nishino-Zone 6 Alternate Will Chen -Zone 7 Packet Pg. 55 8.3.a John Reed (dec.)- Zone 3 Judi Gladstone -Zone 7 Eva -Denise Miller- Zone 3 Alternate Jean Salls-Zone 7 Alternate Nichole Franko- Zone 4 Bob Throndsen-Mayor's Choice Michael McMurray- Zone 4 Tana Axtelle-Mayor's Choice Alternate Kenneth Sund- Zone 4 Alternate Housing Commission Support o City Council Liaisons ■ Councilmember Vivian Olson ■ Councilmember Luke Distelhorst o City Staff ■ Director Shane Hope ■ Associate Planner Brad Shipley ■ Planner Amber Groll ■ Admin. Assistant Debbie Rothfus o Consultants ■ Senior Associate Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group ■ Project Coordinator Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group Commissioner Warren reviewed: Policy Proposal Timeline o May 14 meeting — introduce draft policy ideas and clarifying questions o May 28 Meeting — Discuss round 1 policy ideas o June 11 meeting — decide which policy ideas will move forward for community input o July 9 meeting — discuss round 2 policy ideas o August 13 meeting — discus community feedback o September 10 meeting — introduce draft policy proposals o October 8 meeting — decide which policy proposals move forward for additional community engagement o November 12 meeting — refine policy proposals o December 10 meeting — vote on final policy proposals Community Engagement Timeline o May — begin drafting online open house (OOH) o July — August - Launch OOH and survey and community mailing o August — close out OOH survey for round #1, o August — September - update OOH for round #2 (if applicable), in person outreach as allowed, attend events, tabling o September — close OOH round #2 survey o October — event on draft proposals and online engagement o December — share final proposals Commissioner Soltner reviewed: Quarterly accomplishments since March 24, 2020 o March and April meetings were cancelled due to COVID-19 o Held regular monthly public meetings via Zoom on the second Thursday of the month, as of May. Meetings are recorded and available for public viewing online o Out of necessity, an additional special public meeting was held in both May and June o Each committee holds their own meetings via Zoom to discuss housing policies Policy Committees o City Resources Committee o Incentives & Requirements Committee o Housing Types Committee o Zoning Updates Committee o City Processes or Programs Committee Packet Pg. 56 8.3.a Summary of Round 1 Policy Ideas Discussed (** = ideas the commission plans to move forward for public input and more consideration) o City Resources** ■ Work with other local governments and agencies in Snohomish County toward regional housing solutions that improve affordability and meet other community needs. ■ Use City's existing share of state sales tax (from SHB 1406) for housing purposes in coordination with other jurisdictions/agencies - Possible short-term use for housing assistance to Edmonds residents impacted by COVID-19 ■ Advocate for Snohomish County to adopt the optional 0.1% sales tax that is allowed by state law to provide affordable and supportive housing for low-income households. ■ Work out an agreement with HASCO, the main housing agency in Snohomish County, so the agency can buy or develop buildings for affordable housing in additional areas of Edmonds. Commissioner Chen reviewed: o Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ** ■ Allow one [1] attached or detached accessory dwelling per property, where it is associated with a primary (main) dwelling, in a single-family residential zone ■ Allow accessory dwellings to be approved through a standard permit process in which staff may approve the permit if all requirements are met. ■ Develop examples of detached accessory dwelling designs that would help homeowners who want to plan for such a unit. ■ Require that each accessory dwelling meet City criteria o Duplex or two -unit townhouse ** ■ Provide development guidance or incentives that encourage duplex or two -unit townhouse buildings in lieu of one large single-family house Commissioner Soltner reviewed: o Transition areas * * ■ Allow low -density multi -family residential housing (such as triplexes, four-plexes, courtyard apartments, ■ townhomes, and/or mixed use) along transit routes that are also adjacent to commercial zones. Designate transition areas that are currently zoned RS-8 AND are adjacent to multifamily or commercial zones. Encourage small-scale multifamily there —namely, duplexes, triplexes or quadruplexes. Require all transition areas to provide on -site vehicle parking and usable green space for people who live there Commissioner Warren reviewed: o Development fees ■ Recommend City Council craft a Resolution that expands & defines further uses & goals under the Transportation Element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, for example, regarding more parking capacity. ■ Recommend City's Engineering Dept. run a cost analysis in the future on various utility fees to see if increases are justified o City processes and programs ■ Simplify zoning regulations. Use diagrams, pictures, and tables in place of text where applicable. Use plain language where text is necessary. ** ■ Streamline the permit process by reducing the number of land uses that must have a conditional use permit. * * ■ Explore establishment of a city -funded childcare programs for families in need. Packet Pg. 57 8.3.a ■ Establish a Community Land Trust (CLT) to preserve affordable housing Commissioner Soltner reviewed: o Design guidelines ** ■ Require a percentage of larger(3-4 bedroom) units in new multi -family projects. ■ Require a certain percentage of ADA accessible units in new multi -family projects. ■ Develop multi -family design guidelines • Next Steps o Community Engagement - Online Open House ■ Date to be announced soon ■ Announced widely and posted for about 3 weeks ■ To include - Videos - Graphics - Engaging activities o Commission Meetings - Always open to the public (Zoom meetings until face-to-face meetings are allowed + video) o Analysis of data and public input/feedback o Policy developments o Policy recommendations finalized o Final recommendation to City Council in December 2020 • Additional Resources: https://www.itizenshousingcommission.org/ Councilmember Buckshnis said people have been asking her about trees being removed during development. She recalled discussions a couple years ago about low density housing where trees are retained and asked whether the commission was looking at any environmentally friendly type of housing stock and smaller cottage type housing to address tree removal. Mr. Warren, speaking on behalf of the Zoning Standards Committee, said they were hoping to look a mix of cluster housing or urban villages in the Round 2 policies. They are in the early stages of discussion but want to move forward with things on which there is a lot of agreement. Those are both aspects of missing middle housing they would like to address because the intent of the commission is to produce diverse options and those options are not frequently available in Edmonds. If ways to implement them could be developed without impacting the beloved neighborhood character, that would a positive thing. Commissioner Soltner said the flexibility of cluster housing is a great opportunity for smaller homes to retain existing trees, vegetation, landscaping. Urban villages are another way of clustering in mixed use type buildings with professional or commercial services on the first floor and multifamily in 1-2 stories above. Urban villages would have parks, walking/bike paths, etc. and would be located in different neighborhoods throughout the City, thereby eliminating traffic because people wouldn't need to go downtown. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented there is a lot of confusion countywide between accessory dwelling units (ADU), attached dwelling units, which Edmonds already allows, and detached dwelling units (DADU). She asked if those could be better defined. Ms. Hope answered there tends to be two terms DADUs and ADUs. (Ms. Hope's virtual participation failed.) Mr. Warren clarified ADUs are accessory dwelling units and DADU are detached accessory dwelling units. Council President Fraley-Monillas said in other parts of county there are ADU or DADUs, attached or detached dwelling units and now there is the term accessory dwelling unit. She observed there was confusion countywide with those terms and was hopeful there could be a better definition. When she hears ADU, she things of attached dwelling units not accessory dwelling units. Ms. Hope answered ADU is the generic term, attached ADUs are allowed in the City. (Ms. Hope's virtual participation failed.) Commissioner Warren agreed it could be confusing to the public who do not deal with it every day; possibly Packet Pg. 58 8.3.a there was something the commission can suggest. Commissioner Chen suggested identifying in the definition whether it was attached or detached. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Snohomish County uses the term accessory dwelling unit. Councilmember Paine asked if the commission had discussed the Esperance area. Ms. Hope recalled there had been conversations about it at the beginning. There is interest in what Esperance citizens think, but the focus has been on the area within the city limits. Councilmember Paine said some of the development standards are very different in Snohomish County versus Edmonds. If that area ever annexes into Edmonds, there will be a big difference in the land use standards. With regard to local control, Councilmember Paine recalled the legislature passed rules regarding authority for ADUs and parking. She asked about the City's control over ADUs and parking. Ms. Hope explained the state legislation prohibited cities from requiring parking in certain locations that are close to major transit facilities; the way it was defined in the legislation, it is not applicable in Edmonds other than a few lots. Councilmember Paine recalled when she attended a subdivision public hearing a few years ago, there was an indication that a great deal of extra parking cannot be required in a townhome subdivision. Ms. Hope said it would not seem reasonable to require more than was required for a single family house, but as much or some portion less can be required. Councilmember Paine said her experience in Seattle was a lot of units on a parcel in a smaller subdivision results in parking on the street because the garages are used for storage. Ms. Hope answered that sometimes happens with single family houses as well. Councilmember Paine commented the difference with a single family home is there are not 6-8 vehicles competing for parking. Councilmember Paine asked whether any budget requests were anticipated for the coming year. Ms. Hope answered no, it appears the commission will be able to develop a set of recommendations by the end of the year so there is no need to budget for continuing their work into 2021. There will be implementation, but that is unknown until the recommendations are made and the Council decides which of those to pursue. Councilmember Paine liked that the commission was looking at environmental justice as well. Councilmember Olson thanked the commission for their work; as the liaisons, she and Councilmember Distelhorst have had a front row seat to their creativity and hard work which she found very impressive. She cited the creativity of the transition areas and said the land trust idea was an interesting, intriguing possibility. She summarized she was blown away by the work and the ideas that have come from the dedicated group of commissioners. Councilmember Olson reminded the City has incredible state pressure for housing density, specifically the need for affordable housing. The City can either do it carefully and thoughtfully and in a way that works for this community or will be imposed by the state. She urged citizens to come to the open houses with an open heart and open mind and look at being part of the solution of meeting the mission of the Citizen Housing Commission in the most thoughtful, best way for Edmonds. As Edmonds is an artist community, she was hopeful artists would be included in the provision of affordable housing. The City's identity is tied to the artist culture but many artists are not super affluent during their lifetimes. It would be great if artists could live in Edmonds where they are revered and honored. Councilmember Olson recognized the hard work that John Reed put into this effort before his untimely passing. His work was very valuable and he is missed on the commission. She thanked him and wished his soul well. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the commissioners for their teamwork and for the detailed presentation. She referred to page 257 of the packet, under transition areas and the statement, "designate transition areas that are currently zoned RS-8 AND are adjacent to multifamily or commercial zones." She noted RS-8 are single family homes primarily east of 9t1i and south of 196'1i; the Bowl is mostly zoned RS6, multi -family and business and north of that are multi -family 10 and 12. In looking at the map, parts of the residential zone 10 and 6 are also adjacent to transit. She questioned why RS-8 was selected as a focus. Commissioner Packet Pg. 59 8.3.a Soltner answered they started looking at zones that back up to multi -family zones and many of those were RS-8. The committee started expanding that and found there was a lot of diversified areas where transition could work that other than RS-8. He clarified these are not fully developed and there will be more flexibility as the commission continues its work identifying other single family zones. The commission was interested in transition areas on the periphery, not in the center of a single family neighborhood which would destroy the character. Ms. Hope said two of the commission's policy committees worked independently on that issue; one developed more specific criteria such as particular zoning adjacent to commercial or multi -family and the other proposal was more general related to transit. The commission is discussing what is the right balance, but wanted to propose something to get early input from the public. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Commissioners Chen, Warren and Soltner for their presentation and other commissioners for their participation on the commission. The last couple months have been fast paced with two meetings a month and many of the committees meeting weekly. He echoed Councilmember Olson's message that the commission needs participation from across the entire City to make this successful. It takes a decade or more to get into a housing crisis and it takes a decade or more to get out. Structural changes are needed to materially tackle the housing affordability crisis. When the commission launches the open house in the next few weeks, he urged residents to provide input regarding what they want to see in the future in Edmonds. Beyond the environmental aspect, there needs to be consideration of diversity, equity and inclusion aspects of housing as a lot of housing policies have a strong past rooted in racism. 12. PRESENTATIONS (CONTINUED) CITY ATTORNEY ANNUAL REPORT City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained he gives this report every year, usually in the first quarter, but it was delayed until the OPMA proclamation was lifted. His report will be in 4 sections, 1) the rules of professional conduct, his role at the City and the attorney -client relationship in the context of a city attorney, 2) Lighthouse Law Group's legal team, 3) contract matters and economics of the city attorney contract, and 4) matters Lighthouse has spent most of its time on in 2019. He offered to send the slides to Council and/or have them included in the minutes. Mr. Taraday reviewed: • Big Picture o City has relationships with four law firms: ■ Lighthouse ■ WA Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) ■ Bond Counsel ■ Zachor & Thomas • Who is the client o RPC 1.13(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents • The attorney -client relationship AttorneyGaOrganizational clientG*Duly Authorized Constituents • Duty Authorized Constituents o City Council ■ Individual Councilmembers ■ Boards & Commissions o Mayor ■ Directors ■ Staff o Judge • What about your constituents, the citizens? Packet Pg. 60 8.3.a o Lighthouse C* Duty Authorized Constituents C* Citizens Same concept applies to the City's relationship with the other three law firms Oversight role? o Duty to investigate? ■ RPC 2.1, comment 5: A lawyer ordinarily has no duty to initiate investigation of a client's affairs or to give advice that the client has indicated is unwanted, but a lawyer may initiate advice to a client when doing so appears to be in the client's interest o Request to investigate ■ The RPCs do contemplate that lawyers will be asked on occasion to investigate alleged violation of law o What if lawyer knows of a violation? ■ RPC 1.13(b): If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter ... that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization... . o Reporting Up ■ RPC 1.13(b):... Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law. o Highest Authority ■ RPC 1.13 [comment 5]: The organization's highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body. o What if "reporting up" doesn't work? ■ RPC 1.13(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d), if (1) despite the lawyer's efforts ... the highest authority ... insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law, and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization. then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. Lawyer as a decision -maker? o RPC 1.13, comment 3: When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer's province. Lawyer not decision -maker, but... o ... when the lawyer knows that the organization is likely to be substantially injured by action of an officer or other constituent that violates a legal obligation to the organization or is in violation of law that might be imputed to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Special rules for city attorney? o RPC 1.13, comment 9: ... in a matter involving the conduct of government officials, a government lawyer may have authority under applicable law to question such conduct more extensively than that of a lawyer for a private organization in similar circumstances. Thus, when the client is a governmental organization, a different balance may be appropriate between maintaining confidentiality and assuring that the wrongful act is prevented or rectified, for public business is involved. So you aren't the client... are your communications still confidential? Packet Pg. 61 8.3.a o RPC 1.13, comment 2: When one of the constituents of an organizational client communicates with the organization's lawyer in that person's organizational capacity, the communication is protected by Rule 1.6. ■ ...This does not mean, however, that constituents of an organizational client are the clients of the lawyer. The lawyer may not disclose to such constituents information relating to the representation except for disclosures explicitly or impliedly authorized by the organizational client in order to carry out the representation or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6. • Advisor o In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation. Mr. Taraday described the City Attorney Team: • Jeff Taraday o City Council meetings o Elected official advice o Land use o Litigation o Coordination/special projects o Office hours thrice a week • Sharon Cates o Labor and employment o Contracts and ILAs o Bidding and procurement o Disability Board o Office hours once a week • Patricia Taraday o Public Records Act o Code enforcement o Nuisance abatement o Office hours once a week • Tom Brubaker o Council meeting backup o Special projects • Beth Ford o Research o Writing legal memos o Briefing o Ordinance drafting o Other litigation work • Rosa Fruehling-Watson o Council meeting backup o Labor and employment support o PRA support • Mike Bradley (contractual relationship with Lighthouse) o Cable TV franchises o Telecommunications law o FCC proceedings • Angela Tinker o Franchise negotiations Packet Pg. 62 8.3.a o Research o Writing legal memos Mr. Taraday reviewed contract matters and economics of the city attorney contract: • Types of City Attorney relationship o Elected o City Employee appointed by Executive o Contract with law firm pursuant to City Council's contracting authority In House vs. contract o Hiring/Firing Authority: does this matter? ■ In-house — Mayor's authority ■ Contract — Council's authority o Intellectual Capacity: 8 brains vs. x brains o Cost: depends on... ■ Level of service chosen (x) under each scenario ■ Who bears budget risk • Types of City Attorney contracts o Flat fee (status quo): all-inclusive within predefined scope; the fee is both a ceiling and a floor ■ Availability and budget are highly predictable o Retainer: the fee is a floor, not a ceiling ■ Availability is predictable; budget is less predictable o Hourly: no floor or ceiling ■ Availability and budget are not predictable • Budget Risk o Flat Fee (current arrangement): Lighthouse assumes budget risk o Retainer: City assumes budget risk o Hourly: City assumes budget risk • City Attorney Team Stats (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) o Lighthouse worked 3,594 hours for Edmonds o Earned flat monthly fee of $47,964.19 ($575,570 annually) for all civil work including litigation o = $160 average effectively hourly rate • Comparing $160 to the hourly rates paid by other cities in 2019 o Maple Valley (Lighthouse) : $214 - $285* o Kenmore (Inslee Best): $245 - $265** o Lake Stevens (Ogden Murphy): $210 - $345*** o Lynnwood (Inslee Best): $175 - 260 (with most hours at $190) o Mill Creek (Ogden Murphy): $225 - $325 o Tukwila (Kenyon Disend): ■ Monthly retainer of $33,940 for general city attorney services ■ Plus hourly rates ($165-350) apply to litigation and special services o Snohomish (Weed Grafstra): $185-200 *rates in effect from May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020 **rates result of 2019 competitive RFP process ***rates result of 2018 competitive RFP process Mr. Taraday reviewed: • 2019 top ten matters (by hours worked) (parenthesis = last year's ranking): Ranking Matter Hours 10 Public Works (NR) 99 9 Devel. Services (10) 110 8 Police (4 132 Packet Pg. 63 8.3.a 7 Finance (9) 155 6 City Clerk (7) 209 5 Shippen v. Edmonds (NR) 211 4 Engineering 6 278 3 City Council (2) 350 2 Human Resources (3) 413 1 Ebb Tide (1) 1,081 • Top Litigation matters by hours worked Ranking Matter Hours 5. Barnard Pension Calc 36 4. Blomenkamp (LUPA) 36 3. Justin Lee (Grievance) 96 2. Shippen (IC/Trespass 211 1. Ebb Tide (Dec J) 1,081 • Litigation completed by Lighthouse since last report o Barnard (Pension) ■ Settled at mediation o Justin Lee (Grievance) ■ City prevailed at arbitration. Termination of employment upheld ■ Lighthouse and Summit Law Group worked this case as co -counsel o Blomenkamp (LUPA( ■ Supreme Court denied petition for review. Hearing examiner's decision upheld Pending Litigation with Lighthouse o Edmonds v. Ebb Tide ■ Declaratory judgment. City's easement was ruled to be valid on motion for summary judgment. Easement height has also been established by motion for summary judgment. March 2020 trial on remaining issues cancelled due to COVID-19. New trial date pending o Shippen v. Edmonds ■ Landslide case with counterclaim from City to require proper draining installation. Parties engaged in discovery o Tupper v. Edmonds ■ OPMA related to City's first COVID-19 executive session. o Appeal of FCC cable franchising order ■ Group appeal with other cities WA Cities Insurance Authority Coverage o Claims arising from alleged: ■ Employment related action, e.g. retaliation and harassment ■ Police excessive force ■ Land use damage ■ Auto liability ■ Defective street or sidewalk ■ Sewer obstruction ■ Premises liability ■ Other negligence o Packet includes report from WCIA (page 404-405) o Good to have WCIA rep talk to Council occasionally about their risk profile o Risk profiles shows other group members. WCIA groups cities for determining actuarial risk by worker hours Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled last year or the year before there was a list of Councilmembers and the amount time spent with individual Councilmembers. She asked Mr. Taraday if he had that data and if he would be willing to generate that report. Mr. Taraday answered he did not remember ever doing that Packet Pg. 64 8.3.a and it would be nearly an impossible task because the billing system has a billing matter set up for City Council but not for individual Councilmembers. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she vaguely remembered that information in the past. She was not suggesting he go to great extremes to provide that information if he had not kept that data. The Council is the second to third largest number of hours so it would be good to know how that time is spent. She recognized some of it was City Council meetings. Mr. Taraday said the large number of hours was due to Council meetings; Council meetings occur weekly and it is not uncommon for them to last 2'/2 to 3 hours so the hours add up quickly in addition to telephone and email consultation with Councilmembers. He assured there was not one Councilmember who was overusing the resource. If a Councilmember asks him to take on a project that seems extremely time consuming, he will usually say this is the type of thing he would like to have Council direction on because it will be a lot of work. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in 2014 when she worked on the contract renewal there was a breakdown by Councilmember and Council President; possibly his system has changed since then. Mr. Taraday answered Councilmember Buckshnis may have seen billing records; City Council billing records would show a description such as telephone conference with Councilmember Buckshnis and the number of hours. The problem with that is he does not always break it out like that. For example if Councilmember Buckshnis called him and then Council President Fraley-Monillas him two minutes later, he would just keep the timer on instead of creating a new timer for each conversation. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the City Attorney Report be put on the Consent Agenda so the public can see it as a number of people had contacted her about it. With regard to the 2019 top ten matters, Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the Council could not talk about Ebb Tide but she has asked to discuss it in executive session due to the new Councilmembers. She asked if there was a way to determine how much of the City Clerk hours were devoted to public records requests, redacting, etc. She asked whether public records requests were going up or down. Mr. Taraday answered most of the time billed to the City Clerk is Public Records Act (PRA) related work. It is not always, he sometimes interacts with City Clerk Scott Passey on Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) questions. If the Council ever wants finer detail, new billing matters can be created such as for PRA, and hours can be billed to that billing matter. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the City of Gold Bar went broke due to public record requests. The report does not show a comparison from previous years and she wondered whether public records requests were going up, down or staying the same. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested moving Reports on Outside Boards and Committees to next week. Council agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis assumed when there is more transparency, there are less public record requests. That is an interest of hers because Gold Bar went bankrupt two years ago due to a tremendous public records request. Mr. Taraday said he can run a supplemental report that would show how the City Clerk matter has trended over time. The City Clerk billing matter is not unique to public records so it would have to be extrapolated that if the City Clerk matter was going up or down, it was partly due to public records going up and down. He said compared to other cities, Edmonds has been doing a great job with regard to PRA compliance. For all cities it is a high risk area and a lot of cities get sued over it. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was interested in it and people ask her about it. She asked if the Police public records requests fall under City Clerk. Mr. Taraday answered no, those are billed to the Police Department. Packet Pg. 65 8.3.a Councilmember Paine asked if he had been identifying hours related to the COVID response and how that compared to the work that was done during this time last year. Mr. Taraday answered he has not created a COVID matter; certain matters have gone up this year due to COVID. For example, one department that was not identified in the 2019 top 10 was Community Services & Economic Development. He has been working a fair amount with Mr. Doherty on COVID-related matters. He was unsure it would reach the top 10, but that was an area where the hours had increased significantly due to COVID. A lot of the time billed to the Mayor matter number is also COVID related and a lot of the time billed to all the departments with respect to trying to figure out whether something necessary and routine theoretically be treated as COVID related time. Councilmember Paine commented his involvement in emergency response management was also related to COVID. Councilmember Paine asked if any of cost would be recoverable through federal funds. Mr. Taraday answered possibly through FEMA but not through the CARES Act because the CARES Act does not provide for something that was already budgeted. For example, the City would have paid Lighthouse the same amount of money either way so the question would be how the City was harmed. FEMA could possibly look at that differently. Councilmember Olson commented it is important to her and to her constituents to follow the City code. She is working on some issues with Chapter 2.05 related to the city attorney position and things that aren't being done because they are not in the contract; the code needs to match what Lighthouse has been asked to do in their contract. 13. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Due to the late hour this item was postponed to the July 10 Council meeting. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson commented on the robust fireworks on the 4t1' of July. Many city officials were contacted and there were significant responses by the Fire and Police Departments. Every year in the state hundreds are hurt by fireworks; the overwhelming majority of the injured who go to the emergency room are children and over half those injuries are burns. Nationally last year half of all the fires on the 4t1' of July were caused by fireworks. He believed a new approach was needed; to help prevent future fireworks injuries and fires resulting in property destruction and loss of life, he has asked the city attorney to update the City's fireworks ordinance to better reflect the significant risk that fireworks pose to the community, including significantly increasing fines and penalties. The updated ordinance will be presented to the City Council. Additionally, he asked South County Fire District Chief Thad Hovis about an education and enforcement campaign. Chief Hovis is looking into a Fire Marshal task force to help with education and enforcement. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson gave a shout out to Susan Morrow, the mastermind behind the Justice sign project that resulted in a $4,500 contribution to the Edmonds Food Bank. She thanked Ms. Morrow for her work on behalf of the food bank. There are still a few signs available at Edmonds Justice25&amail.com or by emailing her. Councilmember Olson thanked Mr. Hinton for his comments during his interview today; she found them very thought provoking such as being friends without having to agree, being part of each other's journey going forward, and finding a meeting of minds. It is an opportunity to think about offering grace to each other, including each other in our lives and our journey and figuring things out together. Councilmember Distelhorst reported effective today by state order, businesses are supposed to refuse service to anyone not wearing a mask or a facial covering. He realized that potentially put a lot of businesses Packet Pg. 66 8.3.a and residents in very uncomfortable situations. The way to prevent that and to respect your neighbors, residents, businesses and restaurants is to wear a face covering or a mask and keep each other safe and healthy. The current rate of 50 cases per 100,000 is more than double the Phase 2 approved number of 25 cases per 100,000 or 5 times the original Phase 2 rate set by the governor of 10 cases. He urged the public to follow state guidelines; the number of cases is heading in the wrong direction and people need to take it seriously when they are out in public. He recommended people not go out in public if they were sick or feeling unwell. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mayor Nelson for his comments regarding fireworks. She received numerous comments from dog community about how bad this year was. She thanked everyone who contacted her over the weekend, commenting it was a busy weekend with a lot of fireworks and she hoped things would be better next year. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the City's May financials are out; the City is looking very good. In talking with a realtor friends, one said the inventory of home sales is the lowest in history, a .7 month supply versus a norm of 3-6 months. The City's BEET revenue is looking good. Although Mayor Nelson has suggested postponing Civic Field, she suggested revisiting that during the budgeting process due to low interest rates and it will be good to have Civic Park once people can go out. She thanked residents for their comments, assuring she hears them and encouraged them to write letters to the media. Everyone is trying to do the best they can, every needs to wear masks as that will be the new normal for a while. She summarized be happy and suggested having a masks for each day or each mood. Councilmember L. Johnson gave a shout out to Courtney Wooten for her nomination as a finalist for the Snohomish County Emerging Leaders Award. To many, Courtney is already known as an established leader in Edmonds. She is the driving force behind the youth -oriented Martin Luther King Day event, "Our Beloved Community, she is key in many school district conversations around equity and inclusion and education, she serves on the Snohomish County Human Rights Commission, she the backbone of the Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition and many are fortunate to call her a dear friend. With all that, she very humble which is amazing. Presentations are this Thursday. She congratulated Ms. Wooten regardless as she is a leader and Edmonds is very fortunate to have her working and living in the community. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to take this opportunity to talk about and explain the situation that led to a series of articles and posts in the local press. To begin, she acknowledged that some people's feelings were hurt by her words and for that she was sincerely sorry and assured that was not her intention. The situation began three weeks ago when she reviewed the Council packet for the June 16t' meeting. She was surprised that deliberations of the CARES Act was listed as an action item before the Council had been briefed or had an opportunity to review the proposal. This resulted in a very lengthy meeting and the discussion was continued the following week. To prepare for the June 16t' meeting, she sent an email to the City's Economic Development Director to discuss many aspects of his proposal including criteria for distributing funds. Mainly, she was supportive of the use of measurable quantitative data instead of subjective qualitative data. She felt this criteria should be used in a fair and unbiased fashion. Councilmember K. Johnson explained she posed a rhetorical question to highlight inherent biases. At the June 23' meeting, Mayor Nelson recited the question she had posed and it was not taken well. The comments were taken out of context and he used it to illustrate a point. Unfortunately, her question was politically incorrect and offensive to some people. She admitted that there were words that were very provocative which was the nature of the rhetorical question. She was uncomfortable with this type of discourse in public; however, because the Mayor broke the rules of decorum at the last meeting, she felt the need to defend herself. First, her words were taken out of context. Second, she was advocating for a fair and unbiased process. Third, her words provoked hard feelings and were misunderstood. She felt this kind Packet Pg. 67 8.3.a of political grandstanding was done to cast her in a negative light. Looking back, it would have been helpful to know that the CARES Act fund was intended to support minority businesses because her research did not reveal that. Looking forward, she asked Mayor Nelson to call her to discuss issues of concern to him. If she was misunderstood, then she would explain and if she was misinformed, she would listen. She believed all could benefit from better communication. Councilmember K. Johnson explained the City was awarded $1,265,100 from the federal Corona Relief Fund and Economic Security Act (CARES) which the state distributed to cities at a rate of $30 per resident. Financial decisions such as this allocation are the City Council's responsibility. She raised many policy - related questions in AN email to the Economic Development Director and after the June 16t' meeting Councilmembers clarified their direction; for example most wanted to include grants for individuals and families, most wanted to give extra points for disadvantaged business owners, geographic location and creative businesses within the Creative District. As she listened, she evolved her thinking. Although she still felt that objective criteria were important, she also thought it was appropriate to have policy -based criteria to achieve a social objective. Based on her experience, this has been done for transportation contracts to support certified minority or women owned business enterprises. After scoring applicants, a 10% bonus was added to their scores. Councilmember K. Johnson explained she had prepared an amendment for the Council's June 231 meeting that incorporated the Council's direction but would result in a more equitable and uniform application of the three qualitative criteria. She spoke to that motion, explaining that IF an applicant had 7 points total, then 1 preferential point would equal 6%, and 2 preferential points would equal 12% of the total score. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember K. Johnson continued, if an applicant had 6 points total, 1 point would equal 16% and 2 points would equal 33% of the total score. To be more uniform and equitable, she proposed a bonus approach that incorporated these policy preferences. In the end, the Council adopted the 17 point criteria proposed by the administration. This is the Council's official position. She was a dissenter because she did not think the subjective criteria were applied uniformly or equitably. Once the Council has made a decision, it is the official policy of the body; however, an individual Councilmember can present a dissenting opinion to their constituents or the press which is what she is doing in explaining her position and thinking. In conclusion, she apologized again if her words hurt anyone because that was certainly not her intent nor has it ever been. She welcomed anyone to contact her if they wanted further discussion of this topic. Council President Fraley-Monillas said words in writing are very important and can be hurtful to many people. She encouraged everyone to think more clearly before pushing the send button especially considering everything the Council sends is publicly disclosable. She agreed fireworks were really obnoxious this year. She woke up to a number of bottle rockets burned in her yard, on her roof and in her driveway. She went to bed around 9:30/10 p.m. and apparently there were explosions going off all over the neighborhood that she slept through and luckily her house did not burn down. Council President Fraley-Monillas offered congratulation to Courtney Wooten and was thrilled she was nominated. She planned to watch online because she knew a number of the nominees and it will be exciting to see who receives the Emerging Leaders Award. Ms. Wooten is a great example of someone who is very community minded. Alicia Crank is the keynote speaker for the event. Councilmember Paine hoped everyone had had a wonderful Independence Day holiday. She reflected on the fact that the COVID numbers were going up and up and up. She spent the holiday weekend in Washington DC where everyone wears masks outside even though it was 95 degrees. She stayed inside most of the time due to the temperature. When she got home a couple days ago and was picking up her mail from post office, she had a conversation with a gentleman who was not wearing mask who said, "what are Packet Pg. 68 8.3.a you, afraid?" That was the second time at the post office where someone confronted a person in a negative way about wearing a mask. That worried her because the numbers are going straight up; Snohomish County is barely hanging on to Phase 2 and she hoped going back to Phase 1 would not be necessary although she recognized it was a real possibility. There are a lot of things people can control, number one is to wear a mask; it's not that big of an imposition. She summarized we all need to protect each other due to the impacts on the entire community. Student Representative Bauder said it was nice to see everyone and he hoped everyone was doing well. He had nothing to report tonight but had something in the works for the next Council meeting. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Packet Pg. 69 8.3.a Public Comment for July 7, 2020 Council Meeting: 7/7/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comment for July 7, 2020 City Council Meeting Please ask City Attorney Jeff Taraday the following during his annual report to the City Council this evening: 1. If an offer to drop a lawsuit is conveyed to the City Attorney, are you required to inform the City Council of the offer and the conditions required by the offer? 2. How do you convey such an offer to the City Council? 3. Can the City Attorney act with City Staff to meet the conditions required by a settlement offer without City Council first voting to approve such actions? 4. What is City Council's utmost responsibility if they discover a City Attorney misrepresented a State or City Law to the City Council during a Public Hearing or during a Hearing in front of a Hearing Examiner? 5. What is City Council's utmost responsibility if they discover a City Attorney provided incomplete information to the City Council during a Public Hearing? 6. What is City Council's utmost responsibility if they discover a City Attorney provided incomplete information, such as applicable Code Sections, to the Hearing Examiner before and during a Hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner? 7. If two parties sign a land clearing permit application, do the same two parties have to sign a written request to extend the same permit for an additional 6 months? 8. Can the City Attorney act on what he claims, "makes sense", and email a citizen that "the city assumes that a citizen is impliedly joining another party on a written request to extend a permit? If Mr. Taraday represents that this conduct is legal, please have Mr. Taraday provide the State and or City law that allows the City Attorney and/or "the city' to do this. 9. Does a City Attorney have the authority to state what the City's position is on a matter or is it the City Attorney's role to advise the City authorities and officers on all legal matters pertaining to the business of the city? Are City authorities and officers the parties that actually have the authority to state what the City's position is on a matter. 10. Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 2.05 is titled "City Attorney". This Chapter clearly requires the City Attorney to attend all sessions of the Edmonds Municipal Court. Does Mr. Taraday or a member of Lighthouse Law Group do this? 11. If the answer to Question 10 is no, what is it called when the code is violated? Is violating a provision of the Edmonds City Code a misdemeanor or a gross misdemeanor? Is each failure to attend a session of Edmonds Municipal Court a separate violation of the Edmonds City Code? Thanks in advance for seeking answers to these important questions. 7/6/20 Terese Richmond, Subject: Comment letter on Replacement of Sludge Incinerator Please find the attached comment letter for distribution at the July 7th public hearing regarding the proposed pyrolysis and gasification system to replace the sludge incinerator. Dear Councilmembers, We appreciate the Council's careful consideration of the alternatives for the necessary replacement of the existing Sanitary Sewerage Sludge Incinerator (SSI). We have been following the City's design efforts, through a 2019 presentation by City's Public Works & Utilities Staff to the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and more recently through the Staff presentations during four Council meetings in June 2020. At the June 23, 2020 meeting, Project B was recommended by the City's Public Works & Utilities Staff. We are writing to provide the C I i m a t e Protection Committee's input on Project B. Our perspective is as community members who are informed and concerned about the imperative to limit the impacts of climate change Packet Pg. 70 8.3.a through mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to prepare for the now inevitable impacts of climate change. As citizen volunteers we bring expertise, knowledge and interest to the Climate Protection Committee. We submit this comment letter because of the replacement of the SSI carries with it an important chance to dramatically reduce our City's carbon emissions. With this perspective in mind, we submit to the Council the following comments. First, we agree with the Staff that a new incinerator should be eliminated from further consideration due to the GHG emissions associated with its operation. Second, when Staff briefed us in 2019 about Project A, we were positively impressed by their fiscal and environmental responsibility as well as their expertise in the field. Thus, their recommendation for Project B carries great weight. The shift to Project B appears to be a logical outcome of further design and the effort to achieve the most GHG emissions as possible balanced with the City's budget restrictions. Third, Project B is consistent with the City's leadership on climate change issues and a path to a sustainable community as called for under Resolution 1389. Project B will increase carbon recovery over and above the existing SSI; utilize screening and bio-solids as fuel; and lower the utilization of GHG emitting trucking. In addition, Project B's construction costs are lower and the project does not require construction of a new building. We urge the Council to complete its study for Project B (including building a record about the total projected GHG emissions and Project B's utility as a heat source if district energy becomes feasible in the future) and then take actions necessary to authorize and fund implementation of Project B. We acknowledge the economic impact of the pandemic; however, the state of the infrastructure requires that the City act now to replacement of the SSI and Project B is the best choice, accomplishing the goal of reducing Edmonds' (and the World's) GH emissions. We urge the Council to continue its steadfast leadership on making wise choices to reduce carbon emissions and create a more climate resilient community. Thank you for your leadership. T.0 Richmond, Co -Chair on behalf of Members of the City of Edmonds Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. http://www.edmondswa.gov/climate- Drotection-committee.html 7/6/20 Stan Gent, Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade Please find attached our written comments for the July 7th public hearing on this topic. 0710512020 SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE Packet Pg. 71 8.3.a 1. SITUATION The City of Edmonds is currently planning to replace its aged sewage solids incinerator in downtown Edmonds. At the same time, the City of Edmonds is seeking ways to become a sustainable community by lowering carbon emissions. Two options have been presentment to Council. There is a planned public comment period scheduled for July 7th 2020. 2. TWO OPTIONS PRESENTED FROM STAF ARBON RECOVERY PROJECT COMPARISON I F as S 2 ID c r as as U c 3 O BENEFITS OF PROJECT B - GASIFICATION U O • Most ancient, affordable la implement and lowest cast to (Q operate. O • Produces environmentally —friendly end product (biochar) while L Q generating its own thermal conversion from the biosolids. This QQ will move the City closer to achieving the goals established in "` Q Resolution 1389 ,(� v • No acidic side stream or hazardous waste is produced/ biomass projects. ++ • 6igGhar Will be purchased for land appliCahon in eastern WA, Ecpremedy successful 3 • The technology has been permitted by EPA as a non- CC� incineration process in other regions. G 3. INTERFAITH CLIMATE ACTIONS BELIEVES... ICA believes that Option B, having the lowest impact on the environment, is the correct choice for the City of Edmonds. ICA is also pleased that sustainable solutions are clearly cost beneficial. ICA encourages the City of Edmonds to move forward with this option quickly. MISSION STATEMENT: Interfaith Climate Action brings together people from diverse faith traditions to advocate for the moral imperative of creating a just and sustainable world. Packet Pg. 72 3. INTERFAITH CLIMATE ACTIONS BELIEVES... ICA believes that Option B, having the lowest impact on the environment, is the correct choice for the City of Edmonds. ICA is also pleased that sustainable solutions are clearly cost beneficial. ICA encourages the City of Edmonds to move forward with this option quickly. MISSION STATEMENT: Interfaith Climate Action brings together people from diverse faith traditions to advocate for the moral imperative of creating a just and sustainable world. Packet Pg. 72 8.3.a VISION: Interfaith Climate Action envisions a courageous local community leading the way in creating a healthy, just, thriving world. 7/6/20 Michael McMurray, Subject: Incinerator public comment Please consider delaying the incinerator decision until this time next year. It would be prudent to have greater economic visibility on future budget Constraints caused by Covid-19 crisis. It's concerning that we could be allocating limited credit capacity at this time that may be needed to meet emergency short falls in other more crucial Areas of our city if crisis continues. One question is the financial health of our partners in this challenging economic environment (MLT & Olympic Water and Sewer district), if they default and/or can not meet there financial obligation on this project, I suspect Edmonds being principal partner would have to cover there share? My last concern is the new technology being considered, although exciting how many cities actually have implemented this type of incinerator? I have been informed very few as Edmonds would be one of the first, that results in some risk without long operation history and if parts and service will be accessible in future to achieve longest capital return on this machine. 6/30/20 Olivia Latham Brown, Subject: Grant Program Feedback As a small business owner in Downtown Edmonds for the past 5 years, I wanted to weigh in on the proposed CARES act grants from the city. I strongly support a small business grant, as it will contribute to many aspects of the Edmonds economy. For some businesses it may mean the difference between keeping their doors open and closing forever, or losing their space in Edmonds and relocating to another city. It may mean the difference also in being able to reemploy previous employees, or to have stock on their shelves or appropriate PPE and sanitation supplies to be able to reopen safely. I would also encourage the Council to consider changing the employee count from 5-30 to 1-30. My business prior to the Covid shutdown had 5 employees (if you count myself as the owner), but many of the very special businesses that give Edmonds it's unique character have only the owner or perhaps the owner and 1 or 2 part time employees. These businesses have fallen through the cracks, and many have seen no assistance of any kind during this shutdown. The City should show it's support for these businesses by including them in consideration for any grants made available. I also want to comment that the Edmonds Chamber has been exemplary in its support of local businesses during this extraordinary time. They have stepped up and kept the business community connected and informed throughout this time. To lose the current Chamber staff would be a very sad thing for the Edmonds business community. I urge you to consider language that would allow the Chamber to apply for grant funds as well since the events that usually fund their operations are impossible this year. Thank you for your time! Packet Pg. 73 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 Boys and Girls Club Lease Agreement Staff Lead: Shannon Burley Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser Background/History In 2010 the City of Edmonds entered into a five (5) year building use agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Snohomish County for their use of the Field House at Civic Park. The building use agreement included a five (5) year extension clause which was executed in 2015. The current (2015) agreement is set to expire in December 2020 (attached). Staff Recommendation Approve authorization of the Mayor to sign a new 5-year lease agreement between the City of Edmonds and Boys & Girls Club of Snohomish County for the Civic Park Field House. Narrative Staff received a verbal commitment from the Boys and Girls Club of Snohomish County in May of 2020 stating their intent to execute the five (5) year extension clause in their existing Building Use Agreement (attached, section 4). Due to COVID-19 the written confirmation did not arrive until June 8, 2020 (attached). The Boys and Girls Club of Snohomish County has explored building a new club in Edmonds in a variety of locations however they have not finalized their plans and wish to remain in their current location for an additional five (5) years at minimum. The Boys and Girls Club Lease Agreement is intended to extend the terms of the current agreement for an additional five (5) years expiring in December of 2025. The agreement has been updated to remove all references of the Edmonds School District who owned the building when the previous agreement was in place as is shown in the attached redline agreement. Attachments: Bldg. Use Agrmt. - Boys -Girls Club 2015 Executed Boys and Girls Club Letter of Intent DRAFT Boys Girls Club Lease 2020 6.25.2020 redline Boys Girls Club Lease 2020 6.25.2020 Packet Pg. 74 8.4.a BUILDING USE AGREEMENT FOR BOYS' & GIRLS' CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this day obj1 , 2015, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter CITY), and the BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (hereinafter LESSEE). WITNESS ETH 1. The CITY does hereby lease to the LESSEE and the LESSEE does hereby lease from the CITY, parts of certain premises situated in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, generally known as the FIELD HOUSE, located at 310 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The LESSEE shall have the right to use of the Field House, located on the above - described real property. That in addition, subject to the rules and regulations as shall be promulgated by the CITY, the LESSEE shall have the right on a shared basis with other programs to utilize the Civic Center Playfields (when scheduled, with additional fees charged accordingly) when they are not scheduled for use by the CITY, except the adjacent asphalt play court and storage building which the LESSEE has priority use with no additional fees charged. Consideration for this lease is set at $1.00 (one dollar) per year and the mutual N benefits to be derived from the operation of a Boys and Girls Club, open to the youth of the City of Edmonds and providing recreational and educational services v such as drop -in activities, organized athletics, tutoring, mentoring, field trips and w cultural enrichment activities. The one dollar annual rental reflects a discount from �? any comparable commercial rate due to several factors. First, the CITY has c acquired its underlying leasehold interest from the Edmonds School District No. 15 m for $1.00 (one dollar) and its promise to use the property solely for recreational purposes. Second, additional consideration is provided by the LESSEE through its E agreement to provide the described services to the youth of Edmonds and the Q broader area serviced by the Edmonds School District No. 15 in a non- y discriminatory manner and in compliance with all requirements of state and federal law. -a m 2. Declaration: The City of Edmonds hereby declares its determination that the Field House and storage shed located on the subject property E is not presently required for City recreational purposes. However, LESSEE acknowledges that the Field House and storage shed is owned by Edmonds School Q District No. 15, which has retained the right to change which buildings or property are leased to the CITY through January 31, 2021. LESSEE acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to such prior right of Edmonds School District No. 15. C°®�/- .2 Ib -�n ? -I . -- Packet Pg. 75 3. Purpose: The subject property is to be used for the Edmonds Boys & Girls Club youth activities. No other business or activities shall be undertaken on the premises without the written consent of the CITY. 4. Term: This Agreement shall remain in effect until December 31, 2020. This agreement may be renewed for successive five-year terms thereafter upon mutual agreement of the parties. A written request for a five-year renewal shall be made by the LESSEE on or before May 31 st of 2020. 5. Rental Fee: The yearly rental fee shall be the sum of one dollar ($1.00), payable on or before May 1 st of each year to the City Treasurer. 6. Maintenance and Re airs: The LESSEE will maintain the premises in good repair for the term of the Lease, with all maintenance and repairs to be paid by the LESSEE. The LESSEE agrees that the CITY shall have access to the premises for purposes of inspection at reasonable hours during the term of this Lease, including renewals. The LESSEE agrees that it will quit and surrender the premises without demand or notice at the end of the term, or renewal thereof, and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and will deliver up all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. 7. Utilities: The LESSEE hereby covenants and agrees to pay all charges for heat, light, water and garbage disposal. LESSEE shall not order any public utilities which shall be used in or charged against the leased premises. In the event such shall occur, the LESSEE shall pay the same during the full term of the Lease. 8. Indemnification: Hold _Harmless _and Subrogation Waiver: The CITY shall not be liable for loss or damage to any property maintained by the LESSEE on the premises. LESSEE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the CITY, EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 and the officers, employees and agents of each, from and against any claim, loss or damage to person(s) or property resulting from or arising out of this lease agreement or LESSEE'S use or occupancy of the subject property herein, provided, however that: (1) LESSEE'S obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend shall not extend to claims, loss or damage caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the CITY or Edmonds School District No. 15; and M (2) LESSEE'S obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend for claims, loss or 'D damage caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the CITY and/or Edmonds School District No. 15 and LESSEE shall apply only to the extent of LESSEE'S negligence. E U a 9. Lawful Use: LESSEE agrees and covenants that the premises shall be at a all times used and maintained in accordance with all local, State and Federal laws and regulations including without limitation, orders of the health officer, building inspector Packet Pg. 76 8.4.a and fire marshal, except with regard to the structural integrity of the Field House and code requirements pertaining thereto, which shall be the responsibility of the CITY. However, in the event that LESSEE makes any alteration(s) or improvement(s) to the subject property, then LESSEE shall be responsible for compliance with all laws and regulations pertaining to such construction and shall pay for the entire cost thereof, except as otherwise provided herein. 10. Alterations or Improvements: The LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will make no alterations or improvements to the leased premises, or to any of the furniture or equipment located on the premises subject to this Lease without the prior written consent of the CITY. CITY is not obligated to grant its consent. All alterations or improvements are to be paid for by LESSEE. Upon submission to and approval of construction plans and specifications by the CITY, LESSEE may make permanent capital improvements to the Field House, which tenant improvements upon completion shall become the sole property of the CITY. The work shall be completed in accordance with all applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations. The CITY shall have the right to enter the premises herein in order to perform building and construction inspections as necessary. The CITY may contribute toward the cost of such improvements in an amount deemed necessary and in its best interests, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to obligate or require the CITY to pay any of the costs of such improvements. The parties acknowledge that any structural alterations or improvements to the premises are subject to the prior written approval of Edmonds School District No. 15 as owner of the property. In consideration of the financial investments made in capital improvements, an amendment may be made to the term of this Agreement upon mutual consent of the CITY and the LESSEE. 11. Liens: LESSEE warrants that it will keep the subject premises free from 0 a any and all liens, including without limitation liens for labor, materials, equipment or N supplies furnished, unless approved in advance by the CITY. In the event any lien is filed against the subject property for any reason, the CITY shall have the right to 6 immediately terminate this Agreement and, upon written notice, LESSEE shall quit and m surrender the premises within thirty (30) days. m E 12. Assignment: LESSEE shall not let or sublet the whole or any part of the M subject premises, nor assign this Lease or any part thereof, and agrees and stipulates that r a material consideration for the execution of this Lease is its personal acceptance of the a Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County as LESSEE. Packet Pg. 77 8.4.a 13. Exclusive Use: The LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will not permit or tolerate the use of the subject premises by any group, organization, individual, or legal entity other than the reasonable and necessary use by the LESSEE, its employees, or responsible adult participants and children duly enrolled in its authorized programs, without the prior written permission of the CITY. 14. Fire and Other Casualty: In the event the premises are destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake or other casualty to such an extent as to render the same untenable, in whole or in a substantial part, this Lease and the obligation to pay rent shall terminate, with rent prorated to the date of the loss. Risk of loss shall be as provided in paragraph 8. 15. Notices: All notices required by this Lease or notices of breaches thereof shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the City of Edmonds at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020 and all such notices to the LESSEE shall be sent by registered or certified mail and addressed to the LESSEE at 9502 191h Ave SE, Everett, Washington 98208. Delivery of all notices shall be conclusively presumed to be effective upon such posting in the United States mail, postage prepaid. 16. Default and Re -Entry: If LESSEE shall violate or default in any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, then the CITY may immediately cancel this Lease and re-enter said premises. 17. Costs and Attorney's Fees: In the event of a failure of either of the parties to perform any obligation created by this Lease, the defaulting party agrees to pay all damages and costs necessarily incurred by the injured party, including reasonable fees. 18. Non -Waiver of Breach: The failure of a party to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of the Lease or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such provision, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 19. Removal of LESSEE's Property: In the event of any entry in, or taking a possession of, the leased premises as aforesaid, the CITY shall have the right, but not the N obligation, to remove from the leased premises all personal property located therein, and may place the same in storage in a public warehouse at the expense and risk of the -a owners thereof. 0° c a� 20. Insurance: E M U A. The LESSEE covenants and agrees to obtain a liability insurance a policy with a minimum coverage of $2,000,000 prior to taking possession of the leased premises and to make the City of Edmonds as a named insured on that policy. Such policy is to include a provision prohibiting cancellation of the policy except upon ten (10) Packet Pg. 78 8.4.a days prior written notice to the CITY. A copy of the policy shall be delivered to the CITY within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Lease. B. If any policy of insurance which LESSEE is obligated to secure under this Lease is cancelled for any reason whatsoever at any time, the CITY shall have the right to require LESSEE to vacate the leased premises immediately upon notice being given, either written or oral. The term of this Lease shall be considered terminated upon such notice by the CITY. C. In the event LESSEE undertakes any capital improvements of the subject premises known as the Field House, LESSEE shall require any and all contractors to obtain commercial general liability insurance coverage in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), to which policy the CITY shall each be named as an additional insured. Said policy of insurance shall provide that it may not be cancelled or reduced except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to LESSEE and the CITY. 21. School District PropeM: If the property leased is owned by Edmonds School District No. 15, then this section shall apply: The rights of the LESSEE granted under this Lease are specifically subject to the terms and conditions and term of tenancy of the CITY as set forth in that certain lease between Edmonds School District No. 15 and the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation, dated this l st day of August 1977 through January 31, 2021. The terms of which are hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. Notwithstanding the term of the tenancy granted LESSEE under this Lease, in the event the CITY'S possession of the leased premises shall be terminated for any reason, all rights of the LESSEE hereunder shall likewise terminate. 22. Structural Inspection: As a condition precedent of this Agreement, the CITY may require the LESSEE to provide a copy of a structural inspection report for the subject premises. 23. Termination: Termination shall operate to discharge all obligations that E are executory by either party on or after the effective date of termination, but any right of 0 Q a party based upon performance or breach of this Agreement prior to the effective date of N termination shall survive. Any portion of this Agreement not terminated shall remain in effect and full force as if no termination were made. m This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part: m E (a) If the LESSEE fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, M U and the CITY deems the continuation of the Agreement may be substantially detrimental r to the CITY'S interests, the CITY shall notify LESSEE of the termination, the reasons Q thereof, and the effective date. Packet Pg. 79 8.4.a (b) By the mutual written agreement of the CITY and LESSEE, the agreement to terminate shall include the conditions of termination, effective date and in the case of termination in part, the portion to be terminated. Itmay also include an option for the LESSEE to cure the conditions of termination prior to a specific date before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises without demand or further notice and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and shall deliver all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. (c) In the event that, during the term of this Lease, the CITY determines that it is in the best interests of its citizens to develop or redevelop any of the leased premises in a way that would preclude LESSEE's use of the Field House as contemplated herein, the CITY will provide LESSEE with One Hundred Eighty (180) days' notice of termination of this Lease. Upon termination, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises without demand or further notice and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and shall deliver all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. 24. Severability: If a court holds any part, term, or provision of this Agreement to be illegal, or invalid in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular invalid provision. 25. Jurisdiction: This Agreement has been made and shall be construed as having been made and delivered under the laws of the State of Washington. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding arising hereunder shall be instituted and maintained only in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction of Snohomish County, Washington. 26. Modification: Modification or amendment of the terms and conditions hereunder shall only be made in writing, signed by both parties. 27. Complete Agreement: This Agreement is the complete expression of the terms and conditions hereunder. Any oral or written representations or understandings not expressly incorporated herein are excluded. M m c m E U a r r a Packet Pg. 80 8.4.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I certify that I know or have evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she/they was/were authorized to exeCLIte the iument and acknowledged it as the Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Club of Snohomish County to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. S yF Dated i -> l Q�,� r R� ate NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the Washington I��d �N,r`�.Y N Pt B IC 2 Title 12 17-2016 0 � My appointment expires , (� EXECUTED this ( , 2015. : CITY OF EDMONDS O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ,5;— Sco ssey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ( '. C-M-4�' O rice of the City Attorney LESSEE: BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY Its'Executive Director a� m c m E t U a r r Q Packet Pg. 81 Officers Mark McNaughton President Steve Hatfield Secretary/Treasurer Board of Directors Breann Ackley Randy Bolerjack Mike Burns Henry Cagey Christina Castorena Joe Cronin Jon Douyard Tony Edwards Colleen Frauenholtz Mike Gaffney Mark Harmsworth Kevin Harrison Dominic Ivankovich Michael Kerr Duard King Noni La Lone Josh O'Connor Mitesh Parikh Deborah Taglialavore Dan Templeman Executive Director Bill Tsoukalas Clubs Alderwood Arlington Brewster Cascade Coupeville Edmonds Everett Granite Falls Inchelium Lake Stevens Lummi Marysville Monroe Mukilteo Nespelem North Kitsap Oak Harbor Snohomish South Everett/Mukilteo Sultan Trailside Tulalip Warm Springs Wellpinit MAGINE BOYS GIRLS CMUM' THE IMPACT OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY Ever Broadway, Suite 300 Everett, WA 98203 June 8, 2020 Angie Feser Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Francis Anderson Center City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Angie: 8.4.b I am writing to request the five year renewal/extension of the Edmonds Boys & Girls Club lease with the City of Edmonds dated October 29, 2015. Let me know if you need further information. Sincerely, Bill Tsoukalas Executive Director Packet Pg. 82 8.4.c LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY THIS LEASE AGREEMENT ("LeaseA treemen4„) is made this _day of 20204-5, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter CITY), and the BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (hereinafter LESSEE). WITNESSETH 1. The CITY does hereby lease to the LESSEE and the LESSEE does hereby lease from the CITY, parts of certain premises situated in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, generally known as the FIELD HOUSE, located at 310 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The LESSEE shall have the right to use of the Field House, located on the above - described real property. That in addition, subject to the rules and regulations as shall be promulgated by the CITY, the LESSEE shall have the right on a shared basis with other programs to utilize the Civic Center Playfields (when scheduled, with additional fees charged accordingly) when they are not scheduled for use by the CITY, except the adjacent asphalt play court and storage building which the LESSEE has priority use with no additional fees charged. Consideration for this Llease is set at $1.00 (one dollar) per year and the mutual N benefits to be derived from the operation of a Boys and Girls Club, open to the youth of the City of Edmonds and providing recreational and educational services J such as drop -in activities, organized athletics, tutoring, mentoring, field trips and cultural enrichment activities. The one dollar annual rental reflects a discount from v any comparable commercial rate due to the --several faetersFifst, the CITY has N L_ 1.00 (one dollar) and its promise to ttse the pf!ope solely for- reer-eational Fty pur-poses Seeon , additional consideration is -provided by the LESSEE through its m° agreement to provide the described services to the youth of Edmonds and the U. broader-- area sep,isedbythe Edmonds Sehool Distfict No. 15 in a non- discriminatory manner and in compliance with all requirements of state and federal law. m E 2. Declaration: The City of Edmonds hereby declares its determination that the Field House and storage shed located on the subject property are4s not presently required for City recreational purposes. Howevef, a LESSEE acknowledges that the Field House and storage shed is owned by Edmonds chool Distriet liter ,"v'1'iich has retained the right to age w'i icir buildings l,aings pr-opefty are !eased to the CITY t13iu��1�1LESSEE aeknowledges that this Agfeement is subjeet to stieh prior- fight of Edmen Se#eol Distriet No. 15. 3. Purpose: The subject property is to be used for the Edmonds Boys & Girls Club youth activities. No other business or activities shall be undertaken on the premises without the written consent of the CITY. I Packet Pg. 83 8.4.c 4. Term: This Lease AgFeement shall remain in effect until December 31, 20250. This Lease-agfeefaent may be renewed for successive five-year terms thereafter upon mutual agreement of the parties. A written request for a five-year renewal shall be made by the LESSEE on or before May 31st of 20250. 5. Rental Fee: The yearly rental fee shall be the sum of one dollar ($1.00), payable on or before May lst of each year to the City Finance Department. 6. Maintenance and Repairs: The LESSEE will maintain the premises in good repair for the term of the Lease, with all maintenance and repairs to be paid by the LESSEE. The LESSEE agrees that the CITY shall have access to the premises for purposes of inspection at reasonable hours during the term of this Lease, including renewals. The LESSEE agrees that it will quit and surrender the premises without demand or notice at the end of the term, or renewal thereof, and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and will deliver up all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. 7. Utilities: The LESSEE hereby covenants and agrees to pay all charges for heat, light, water and garbage disposal. LESSEE shall not order any public utilities which shall be used in or charged against the leased premises. In the event such shall occur, the LESSEE shall pay the same during the full term of the Lease. 8.Indemnification; Hold Harmless and Subrogation Waiver: The CITY shall not be liable for loss or damage to any property maintained by the LESSEE on the premises. LESSEE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the CITY; 9-8EDA40NDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 15 and itsthe officers, employees and agents of each, from and against any claim, loss or damage to person(s) or property resulting from or arising out of this Llease agreement or LESSEE'S use or occupancy of the subject property herein, provided, however that: A. LESSEE'S obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend shall not extend to claims, loss or damage caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the CITYE)rEdmonds Seheel Distric+'� ; and A-.B. LESSEE'S obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend for claims, loss or damage caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the CITY �^r Edmonds Sehool District No. ram and LESSEE shall apply only to the extent of LESSEE'S negligence. 4-0-.9. Lawful Use: LESSEE agrees and covenants that the premises shall be at all times used and maintained in accordance with all local, State and Federal laws and regulations including without limitation, orders of the health officer, building inspector and fire marshal, except with regard to the structural integrity of the Field House and code requirements pertaining thereto, which shall be the responsibility of the CITY. However, in the event that LESSEE makes any alteration(s) or improvement(s) to the subject property, then LESSEE shall be responsible for compliance with all laws and regulations pertaining to such construction and shall pay for the entire cost thereof, Packet Pg. 84 Q 8.4.c except as otherwise provided herein. 44-.10. Alterations or Improvements: The LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will make no alterations or improvements to the leased premises, or to any of the furniture or equipment located on the premises subject to this Lease without the prior written consent of the CITY. CITY is not obligated to grant its consent. All alterations or improvements are to be paid for by LESSEE. Upon submission to and approval of construction plans and specifications by the CITY, LESSEE may make permanent capital improvements to the Field House, which tenant improvements upon completion shall become the sole property of the CITY. The work shall be completed in accordance with all applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations. The CITY shall have the right to enter the premises herein in order to perform building and construction inspections as necessary. The CITY may contribute toward the cost of such improvements in an amount deemed necessary and in its best interests, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to obligate or require the CITY to pay any of the costs of such improvements. In consideration of the financial investments made in capital improvements, an amendment may be made to the term of this Lease Agreement upon mutual consent of the CITY and the LESSEE. 4-241. Liens: LESSEE warrants that it will keep the subject premises free from N any and all liens, including without limitation liens for labor, materials, equipment or L supplies furnished, unless approved in advance by the CITY. In the event any lien is filed against the subject property for any reason, the CITY shall have the right to c immediately terminate this Leased and, upon written notice, LESSEE shall m quit and surrender the premises within thirty (30) days. U. 4-,2.12. Assignment: LESSEE shall not let or sublet the whole or any part of the subject premises, nor assign this Lease or any part thereof, and agrees and stipulates that a material consideration for the execution of this Lease is its personal acceptance of the E Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County as LESSEE. Q 44.13. Exclusive Use: The LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will not permit or tolerate the use of the subject premises by any group, organization, individual, or legal entity other than the reasonable and necessary use by the LESSEE, its employees, or responsible adult participants and children duly enrolled in its authorized programs, without the prior written permission of the CITY. 4-5-.14. Fire and Other Casualty: In the event the premises are destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake or other casualty to such an extent as to render the same untenable, in whole or in a substantial part, this Lease and the obligation to pay rent Packet Pg. 85 8.4.c shall terminate, with rent prorated to the date of the loss. Risk of loss shall be as provided in paragraph 8. 4-615. Notices: All notices required by this Lease or notices of breaches thereof shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the City of Edmonds at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020 and all such notices to the LESSEE shall be sent by registered or certified mail and addressed to the LESSEE at 4322 Rucker, Everett, Washington 98203. Delivery of all notices shall be conclusively presumed to be effective upon such posting in the United States mail, postage prepaid. 4-7-.16. Default and Re -Entry: If LESSEE shall violate or default in any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, then the CITY may immediately cancel this Lease and re-enter said premises. 4-817. Costs and Attorneys' Fees: In the event of a failure of either of the parties to perform any obligation created by this Lease, the defaulting party agrees to pay all damages and costs necessarily incurred by the injured party, including reasonable attorney fees. 4-9-18. Non -Waiver of Breach: The failure of a party to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of the Lease or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such provision, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 2049. Removal of LESSEE'S Property: In the event of any entry in, or taking possession of, the leased premises as aforesaid, the CITY shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove from the leased premises all personal property located therein, w and may place the same in storage in a public warehouse at the expense and risk of the M owners thereof. 0 24-.20. Insurance: 00 U. A. The LESSEE covenants and agrees to obtain a liability insurance policy with a minimum coverage of $2,000,000 prior to taking possession of the leased premises and to designatemake the City of Edmonds as a named insured on that policy. Such policy is to include a provision prohibiting cancellation of the policy except upon E ten (10) days' prior written notice to the CITY. A copy of the policy shall be c delivered to the CITY within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Lease. a B. If any policy of insurance which LESSEE is obligated to secure under this Lease is cancelled for any reason whatsoever at any time, the CITY shall have the right to require LESSEE to vacate the leased premises immediately upon notice being given, either written or oral. The term of this Lease shall be considered terminated upon such notice by the CITY. C. In the event LESSEE undertakes any capital improvements of the subject premises known as the Field House, LESSEE shall require any and all Packet Pg. 86 contractors to obtain commercial general liability insurance coverage in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), to which policy the CITY shall each be named as an additional insured. Said policy of insurance shall provide that it may not be cancelled or reduced except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to LESSEE and the CITY. 24. The rights of the LESSEE gr-a-pAed under- this Lease are speeifieally sttbjeet to the teEms and eonditions and tefm of tenaney of the CITY as set fefth in that Gel4ain lease between Edmonds Sehool Dist+iet No. 15 and the City of Edmonds, a manieip4- the tefm of the tenaney gfafited LESSEE undef this Lease, in the event the CITY'S ' f the !eased pr-emises shall be tefmifia4ed for- any r-easen, all Fights of the 2&.-- 2-6-.21. Structural Inspection: As a condition precedent of this LeaseAgfeenw-nt, the CITY may require the LESSEE to provide a copy of a structural inspection report for the subject premises. 22. Termination: Termination shall operate to discharge all obligations that are executory by either party on or after the effective date of termination, but any right of a party based upon performance or breach of this Lease Agreementprior to the effective date of termination shall survive. Any portion of this LeaseAgreefflent not terminated shall remain in full force and effect and full force as if no termination were made. This Leased may be terminated in whole or in part: A. If the LESSEE fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this_ Leasg Agreement, and the CITY deems the continuation of the LeaseAgr-e meH* may be substantially detrimental to the CITY'S interests, the CITY shall notify LESSEE of the termination, the reasons thereof, and the effective date. B. By the mutual written agreement of the CITY and LESSEE, the agreement to terminate shall include the conditions of termination, effective date and in the case of termination in part, the portion to be terminated. It may also include an option for the LESSEE to cure the conditions of termination prior to a specific date before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises without demand or further notice and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and shall deliver all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. a C. In the event that, during the term of this Lease, the CITY determines that it is in the best interests of its citizens to develop or redevelop any of the leased Packet Pg. 87 8.4.c premises in a way that would preclude LESSEE'S use of the Field House as contemplated herein, the CITY will provide LESSEE with One Hundred Eighty (180) days' notice of termination of this Lease. Upon termination, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises without demand or further notice and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and shall deliver all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. 2-7-.23. Severability: If a court holds any part, term, or provision of this LeasgAgr-eement to be illegal, or invalid in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the LeaseAgreernent did not contain the particular invalid provision. 2-8-.24. Jurisdiction: This LeaseAgr-eernent has been made and shall be construed as having been made and delivered under the laws of the State of Washington. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding arising hereunder shall be instituted and maintained only in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction of Snohomish County, Washington. 2-9-.25. Modification: Modification or amendment of the terms and conditions hereunder shall only be made in writing, signed by both parties. 26. Complete Agreement: This Leased is the complete expression of the terms and conditions hereunder. Any oral or written representations or understandings not expressly incorporated herein are excluded. EXECUTED this day of LESSOR: CITY OF EDMONDS Mike Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 20204-5. LESSEE: BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY Bill Tsoukalas, Executive Director Q Packet Pg. 88 8.4.c Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Bill Tsoukalas, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County, to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing at: My commission expires: Q Packet Pg. 89 8.4.d LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY THIS LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease") is made this day of 2020, by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter CITY), and the BOYS & GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (hereinafter LESSEE). WITNESSETH 1. The CITY does hereby lease to the LESSEE and the LESSEE does hereby lease from the CITY, parts of certain premises situated in the City of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, generally known as the FIELD HOUSE, located at 310 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. The LESSEE shall have the right to use of the Field House, located on the above - described real property. That in addition, subject to the rules and regulations as shall be promulgated by the CITY, the LESSEE shall have the right on a shared basis with other programs to utilize the Civic Center Playfields (when scheduled, with additional fees charged accordingly) when they are not scheduled for use by the CITY, except the adjacent asphalt play court and storage building which the LESSEE has priority use with no additional fees charged. Consideration for this Lease is set at $1.00 (one dollar) per year and the mutual N benefits to be derived from the operation of a Boys and Girls Club, open to the youth of the City of Edmonds and providing recreational and educational services such as drop -in activities, organized athletics, tutoring, mentoring, field trips and cultural enrichment activities. The one dollar annual rental reflects a discount from v any comparable commercial rate due to the additional consideration provided by y L the LESSEE through its agreement to provide the described services to the youth of Edmonds in a non-discriminatory manner and in compliance with all requirements of state and federal law. m° 2. Declaration: The City of Edmonds hereby declares its determination that the Field House and storage shed located on the subject z property are not presently required for City recreational purposes. M 3. Purpose: The subject property is to be used for the Edmonds Boys & Girls Club youth activities. No other business or activities shall be undertaken on the premises without the written consent of the CITY. 4. Term: This Lease shall remain in effect until December 31, 2025. This Lease may be renewed for successive five-year terms thereafter upon mutual agreement of the parties. A written request for a five-year renewal shall be made by the LESSEE on or before May 31 st of 2025. a Packet Pg. 90 8.4.d 5. Rental Fee: The yearly rental fee shall be the sum of one dollar ($1.00), payable on or before May 1st of each year to the City Finance Department. 6. Maintenance and Repairs: The LESSEE will maintain the premises in good repair for the term of the Lease, with all maintenance and repairs to be paid by the LESSEE. The LESSEE agrees that the CITY shall have access to the premises for purposes of inspection at reasonable hours during the term of this Lease, including renewals. The LESSEE agrees that it will quit and surrender the premises without demand or notice at the end of the term, or renewal thereof, and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and will deliver up all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. 7. Utilities: The LESSEE hereby covenants and agrees to pay all charges for heat, light, water and garbage disposal. LESSEE shall not order any public utilities which shall be used in or charged against the leased premises. In the event such shall occur, the LESSEE shall pay the same during the full term of the Lease. 8. Indemnification; Hold Harmless and Subrogation Waiver: The CITY shall not be liable for loss or damage to any property maintained by the LESSEE on the premises. LESSEE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the CITY and its officers, employees and agents from and against any claim, loss or damage to person(s) or property resulting from or arising out of this Lease agreement or LESSEE'S use or occupancy of the subject property herein, provided, however that: A. LESSEE'S obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend shall not extend to claims, loss or damage caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the CITY; and B. LESSEE'S obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend for claims, loss or damage caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the CITY and LESSEE shall apply only to the extent of LESSEE'S negligence. 9. Lawful Use: LESSEE agrees and covenants that the premises shall be at all times used and maintained in accordance with all local, State and Federal laws and regulations including without limitation, orders of the health officer, building inspector and fire marshal, except with regard to the structural integrity of the Field c House and code requirements pertaining thereto, which shall be the responsibility of m the CITY. as E However, in the event that LESSEE makes any alteration(s) or improvement(s) to the subject property, then LESSEE shall be responsible for compliance with all laws and c° a regulations pertaining to such construction and shall pay for the entire cost thereof, except as otherwise provided herein. 10. Alterations or Improvements: The LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will make no alterations or improvements to the leased premises, or to any of the furniture or equipment located on the premises subject to this Lease without the prior written consent of the CITY. CITY is not obligated to grant its consent. All alterations or improvements are to be paid for by LESSEE. Packet Pg. 91 Upon submission to and approval of construction plans and specifications by the CITY, LESSEE may make permanent capital improvements to the Field House, which tenant improvements upon completion shall become the sole property of the CITY. The work shall be completed in accordance with all applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations. The CITY shall have the right to enter the premises herein in order to perform building and construction inspections as necessary. The CITY may contribute toward the cost of such improvements in an amount deemed necessary and in its best interests, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to obligate or require the CITY to pay any of the costs of such improvements. In consideration of the financial investments made in capital improvements, an amendment may be made to the term of this Lease upon mutual consent of the CITY and the LESSEE. 11. Liens: LESSEE warrants that it will keep the subject premises free from any and all liens, including without limitation liens for labor, materials, equipment or supplies furnished, unless approved in advance by the CITY. In the event any lien is filed against the subject property for any reason, the CITY shall have the right to immediately terminate this Lease and, upon written notice, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises within thirty (30) days. 12. Assignment: LESSEE shall not let or sublet the whole or any part of the subject premises, nor assign this Lease or any part thereof, and agrees and stipulates that a material consideration for the execution of this Lease is its personal acceptance of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish County as LESSEE. 13. Exclusive Use: The LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will not permit or tolerate the use of the subject premises by any group, organization, individual, or legal entity other than the reasonable and necessary use by the LESSEE, its employees, or responsible adult participants and children duly enrolled in its authorized programs, without the prior written permission of the CITY. N 14. Fire and Other Casualty: In the event the premises are destroyed or c damaged by fire, earthquake or other casualty to such an extent as to render the same untenable, in whole or in a substantial part, this Lease and the obligation to pay rent shall terminate, with rent prorated to the date of the loss. Risk of loss shall be as z provided in paragraph 8. a 15. Notices: All notices required by this Lease or notices of breaches thereof shall be sent by certified or registered mail to the City of Edmonds at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020 and all such notices to the LESSEE shall be sent by registered or certified mail and addressed to the LESSEE at 4322 Rucker, Everett, Washington 98203. Delivery of all notices shall be conclusively presumed to be effective upon such posting in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Packet Pg. 92 8.4.d 16. Default and Re -Entry: If LESSEE shall violate or default in any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, then the CITY may immediately cancel this Lease and re-enter said premises. 17. Costs and Attorneys' Fees: In the event of a failure of either of the parties to perform any obligation created by this Lease, the defaulting party agrees to pay all damages and costs necessarily incurred by the injured party, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 18. Non -Waiver of Breach: The failure of a parry to insist upon strict performance of any of the covenants and agreements of the Lease or to exercise any option herein conferred in any one or more instances, shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such provision, or any other covenants or agreements, but the same shall be and remain in full force and effect. 19. Removal of LESSEE'S Property: In the event of any entry in, or taking possession of, the leased premises as aforesaid, the CITY shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove from the leased premises all personal property located therein, and may place the same in storage in a public warehouse at the expense and risk of the owners thereof. 20. Insurance: A. The LESSEE covenants and agrees to obtain a liability insurance policy with a minimum coverage of $2,000,000 prior to taking possession of the leased premises and to designate the City of Edmonds as a named insured on that policy. Such policy is to include a provision prohibiting cancellation of the policy except upon ten (10) days' prior written notice to the CITY. A copy of the policy shall be delivered to the CITY within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Lease. B. If any policy of insurance which LESSEE is obligated to secure under this Lease is cancelled for any reason whatsoever at any time, the CITY shall have the right to require LESSEE to vacate the leased premises immediately upon v notice being given, either written or oral. The term of this Lease shall be considered N terminated upon such notice by the CITY. N C. In the event LESSEE undertakes any capital improvements of m° the subject premises known as the Field House, LESSEE shall require any and all c contractors to obtain commercial general liability insurance coverage in the minimum E amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000), to which policy the CITY shall each be named as an additional insured. Said policy of insurance shall provide that it may not c° a be cancelled or reduced except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to LESSEE and the CITY. 21. Structural Inspection: As a condition precedent of this Lease, the CITY may require the LESSEE to provide a copy of a structural inspection report for the subject premises. Packet Pg. 93 8.4.d 22. Termination: Termination shall operate to discharge all obligations that are executory by either party on or after the effective date of termination, but any right of a party based upon performance or breach of this Lease prior to the effective date of termination shall survive. Any portion of this Lease not terminated shall remain in full force and effect as if no termination were made. This Lease may be terminated in whole or in part: A. If the LESSEE fails to comply with the terms and conditions of this Lease, and the CITY deems the continuation of the Lease may be substantially detrimental to the CITY' S interests, the CITY shall notify LESSEE of the termination, the reasons thereof, and the effective date. B. By the mutual written agreement of the CITY and LESSEE, the agreement to terminate shall include the conditions of termination, effective date and in the case of termination in part, the portion to be terminated. It may also include an option for the LESSEE to cure the conditions of termination prior to a specific date before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises without demand or further notice and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and shall deliver all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. C. In the event that, during the term of this Lease, the CITY determines that it is in the best interests of its citizens to develop or redevelop any of the leased premises in a way that would preclude LESSEE'S use of the Field House as contemplated herein, the CITY will provide LESSEE with One Hundred Eighty (180) days' notice of termination of this Lease. Upon termination, LESSEE shall quit and surrender the premises without demand or further notice and leave the same in a neat and clean condition, and shall deliver all keys belonging to the premises to the CITY. 23. Severability: If a court holds any part, term, or provision of this Lease to be illegal, or invalid in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the Lease did not contain the particular invalid provision. 24. Jurisdiction: This Lease has been made and shall be construed as having been made and delivered under the laws of the State of Washington. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding arising hereunder shall be instituted and maintained only in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction of Snohomish County, Washington. 25. Modification: Modification or amendment of the terms and conditions hereunder shall only be made in writing, signed by both parties. 26. Complete Agreement: This Lease is the complete expression of the terms and conditions hereunder. Any oral or written representations or understandings not expressly incorporated herein are excluded. Packet Pg. 94 8.4.d EXECUTED this day of LESSOR: CITY OF EDMONDS Mike Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss COUNTY OF 2020. LESSEE: BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY Bill Tsoukalas, Executive Director On this day of 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Bill Tsoukalas, Executive Director of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Snohomish County, to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC, residing at: My commission expires: Packet Pg. 95 8.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 City Attorney Annual Report - 2019 Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Each year the City Attorney provides an annual report to the City Council. Staff Recommendation For information only. Narrative The Council requested that the City Attorney provide the PowerPoint presentation of his annual report, which he provided on July 7, 2020. The report is attached. Attachments: 2020-07-07 City Attorney Annual Report for 2019 Packet Pg. 96 8.5.a .l - IN =UOIM Lighthouse L Law G roup PLLc Packet Pg. 97 jr Q 8.5.a k �fi • MN 1"Ire 0 A& O�10 gq0 0 Lighthouse 1 L Law G roup PLLc Packet Pg. 98 Who is the client? RPC 1.13(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents. 8.5.a P. Attornev — Client Relationshir .. Lighthouse L Law G roup PLC Packet Pg. 100 ■ Duly Authorized Constituents? • Individual City Councilmembers Council • Boards & Judge Commissions Mayor Directors Staff 8.5.a out constituents, the citizens? your V T O N L Q. d C a L O a V ti O 1- O O N O N C CD E t V 2 Q Lighthouse L Law G roup PLLc Packet Pg. 102 8.5.a T P ore" 0 rI • Sy0 IIW U Lighthouse L I Law G roup PLC Packet Pg. 103 8.5.a Dversic �T ti P, r I. J Lighthouse L Law G roup PLC Packet Pg. 104 Duty to investigate? RPC 2.1, comment 5: A lawyer ordinarily has no duty to initiate investigation of a client's affairs or to give advice that the client has indicated is unwanted, but a lawyer may initiate advice to a client when doing so appears to be in the client's interest. Request to investigate The RPCs do contemplate that lawyers will be asked on occasion to investigate alleged violation of law. What if lawyer knows of a violation? RPC 1.13(b): If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter ... that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and that is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, then the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization.... Reporting up RPC 1.13(b):... Unless the lawyer reasonably believes that it is not necessary in the best interest of the organization to do so, the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the circumstances, to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law. Highest Authority RPC 1.13 [comment 5]: The organization's highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body. What if "reporting up" doesn't work? RPC 1.13(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d), if (1) despite the lawyer's efforts ... the highest authority ... insists upon or fails to address in a timely and appropriate manner an action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a violation of law, and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the violation is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the organization. then the lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation whether or not Rule 1.6 permits such disclosure, but only if and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent substantial injury to the organization. Lawyer as decision -maker? RPC 1.13, comment 3: When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, the decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer's province. Lawyer not decision -maker, but... ... when the lawyer knows that the organization is likely to be substantially injured by action of an officer or other constituent that violates a legal obligation to the organization or is in violation of law that might be imputed to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. Special rules for city attorney? RPC 1.13, comment 9:... in a matter involving the conduct of government officials, a government lawyer may have authority under applicable law to question such conduct more extensively than that of a lawyer for a private organization in similar circumstances. Thus, when the client is a governmental organization, a different balance may be appropriate between maintaining confidentiality and assuring that the wrongful act is prevented or rectified, for public business is involved. So you aren't the client... are your communications still confidential? RPC 1.13, comment 2: When one of the constituents of an organizational client communicates with the organization's lawyer in that person's organizational capacity, the communication is protected by Rule 1.6. So you aren't the client... are your communications still confidential? ... This does not mean, however, that constituents of an organizational client are the clients of the lawyer. The lawyer may not disclose to such constituents information relating to the representation except for disclosures explicitly or impliedly authorized by the organizational client in order to carry out the representation or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6. Advisor In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation. 8.5.a The G-Ity Attorney team0 . Jeff Tarada Y 0 City Council meetings • Elected Official AdviceCD 0 • Land Use LitigationCD 0 • Coordination Special Projects � • Office hours thrice a weekcm CD Lighthouse L Law G r�u� Packet Pg. 117 The City Attorney Team - I Sharon Cates • Labor and Employment • Contracts and ILAs • Bidding and Procurement • Disability Board • Office hours once a week The City Attorney Team Patricia Taraday Public Records Act Code enforcement Nuisance abatement Office hours once a week 13 The City Attorney Team Tom Brubaker 4 Council meeting backup 4 r.r Nn, At qLA Special Projects 8.5.a Ah I:i�i77eTre ice D datior UTM lZr4w E n ' Lighthouse Law G Packet Pg. 121 The City Attorney Team - Rosa Fruehling-Watson 1-1 • Council meeting backup • Labor & employment support J • PRA support -- The City Attorney Team Mike Bradley • Cable TV Franchises • Telecommunications Law • FCC Proceedings 8.5.a 0 The City Attorney Team c c Q An ela Tinker 9 o` Q c� T Franchise O } N Negotiations w O _ Q N Research R 7 CD Writing Legal Memos 0 -jr dL O F O O Lighthouse L Law G roup PLC Packet Pg. 124 Types of City Attorney Relationships • Elected • City Employee Appointed by Executive • Contract with Law Firm pursuant to City Council's Contracting Authority In House vs. Contract • Hiring / Firing Authority: does this matter? • Intellectual Capacity: 8 brains vs. x brains • Cost: depends on... — Level of service chosen (x) under each scenario — Who bears budget risk Types of City Attorney Contracts • Flat Fee (status quo): all inclusive within predefined scope; the fee is both a ceiling and a floor — Availability and budget are highly predictable • Retainer: the fee is a floor, not a ceiling — Availability is predictable; budget is less predictable • Hourly: no floor or ceiling — Availability and budget are not predictable Budget Risk • Flat Fee (current arrangement): Lighthouse assumes budget risk • Retainer: City assumes budget risk • Hourly: City assumes budget risk City Attorney Team Stats January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 • Lighthouse worked 3,594 hours for Edmonds • Earned flat monthly fee of $47,964.19 ($575,570 annually) for all civil work including litigation 0 _ $160 average effective hourly rate Comparing $160 to the hourly rates paid by other cities in 2019 • Maple Valley (Lighthouse): $214 - $285* • Kenmore (Inslee Best): $245 - $265** • Lake Stevens (Ogden Murphy): $210 - $345*** • Lynnwood (Inslee Best): $175-$260 (with most hours at $190) • Mill Creek (Ogden Murphy): $225-$325 • Tukwila (Kenyon Disend): — Monthly retainer of $33,940 for general city attorney services — Plus hourly rates ($165-$350) apply to litigation and special services • Snohomish (Weed Grafstra): $185-$200 *Rates in effect from May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2020. **Rates result of 2019 competitive RFP process. ***Rates result of 2018 competitive RFP process. 2019's Top 10 Matters (by hours worked) 10. PublicWorks(NR) 9. Devel. Services (10) 8. Police (4) 7. Finance (9) 6. City Clerk(7) 99 hours 110 hours 132 hours 155 hours 209 hours 2019's Top 10 Matters (by hours worked) 5. Shippen v. Edmonds (NR) 4. Engineering (6) I City Council (2) 2. Human Resource (3) 1. Ebb Tide (1) 211 hours 278 hours 350 hours 413 hours 1,081 hours 2019's Top 5 Litigation Matters (by hours worked) 5. Barnard (Pension Calc-) 4. Blomenkamp (LUPA) 3. Justin Lee (Grievance) 2. Shippen 1. Ebb Tide (IC / Trespass) (Dec J) 36 hours 36 hours 96 hours 211 hours 1,081 hours Litigation completed by Lighthouse since last report • Barnard (Pension) • Settled at mediation • Justin Lee (Grievance)* • City prevailed at arbitration. Termination of employment upheld. • Blomenkamp (LUPA) • Supreme Court denied petition for review. Hearing examiner's decision upheld. *Lighthouse and Summit Law Group worked this case as co -counsel. Pending Litigation with Lighthouse • Edmonds v. Ebb Tide Declaratory judgment. City's Easement was ruled to be valid on motion for summary judgment. Easement height has also been established by motion for summary judgment. March 2020 trial on remaining issues canceled due to COVID-19. New trial date pending. • Shippen v. Edmonds • Lanaslide case with counterclaim from City to require proper drainage installation. Parties engaged in discovery. • Tupper v. Edmonds OPMA related to City's first COVID-19 executive session • Appeal of FCC cable franchising order Group appeal with other cities MOM-- FM cities Im --il. -'-:0 coriv"'F Coverage Claims arising from alleged: • Employment related action, e.g. retaliation and harassment • Police excessive force • Land use damage • Auto liability • Defective street or sidewalk • Sewer obstruction • Premises liability • Other negligence 8.5.a D11P.St1C; Q Lighthouse L Law G r�u� Packet Pg. 137 8.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 EPOA Commissioned Collective Bargaining Agreement 1/1/20 - 12/31/23 Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Per RCW 41.56.100 the City has a duty to engage in collective bargaining with the exclusive bargaining representative and shall not refuse to engage in such bargaining. Per this requirement, the City has completed bargaining of the EPOA Commissioned Collective Bargaining Agreement for the contract term of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023. Staff Recommendation Council to take action on the collective bargaining agreement Narrative Final collective bargaining agreement will be posted to the Human Resources web page on the City website once approved by Council. Packet Pg. 138 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/14/2020 Edmonds CARES Fund Budget Amendment Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History Amend the 2020 Budget Ordinance 4187 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council forward the Edmonds CARES Fund Budget Amendment to full council for presentation and approval of Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2020 Budget. Narrative N/A Attachments: 2020 Edmonds CARES Fund Budget Amendment Ordinance 2020 Edmonds CARES Fund Decision Package Packet Pg. 139 9.1.a ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4187 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES OF THE EDMONDS CARES FUND, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2020 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4187 amending the final budget for the fiscal year 2020 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D adopted herein by reference. 1 Packet Pg. 140 9.1.a Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON 2 Packet Pg. 141 9.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4187 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES OF THE EDMONDS CARES FUND, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12020. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 142 9.1.a EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (July 2020) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2020 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2020 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 13,880,031 43,803,858 49,044,056 8,639,833 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 317,427 437,980 467,140 288,267 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 1,910,833 56,140 - 1,966,973 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 6,637 5,230 5,900 5,967 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 864,978 - - 864,978 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 225,443 100,000 125,443 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 50,000 - 21,555 28,445 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 119,631 165,390 45,800 239,221 111 STREET FUND 1,000,012 1,912,768 2,199,717 713,063 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/I MP ROVE 1,123,874 2,747,881 2,717,463 1,154,292 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 571,443 263,576 243,880 591,139 118 MEMORIAL STREETTREE 19,479 750 - 20,229 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 89,768 98,630 128,250 60,148 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 76,336 27,270 26,880 76,726 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 13,710 1,790 3,000 12,500 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 69,836 34,450 33,900 70,386 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 2,255,258 1,436,090 3,610,520 80,828 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 2,228,720 1,453,520 3,401,093 281,147 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 305,533 145,050 113,782 336,801 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 201,381 184,610 195,787 190,204 136 PARKSTRUSTFUND 160,486 6,390 - 166,876 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 1,030,157 54,210 - 1,084,367 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 7,842 10,380 11,900 6,322 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND 22,625 79,209 80,510 21,324 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND - 1,265,100 1,265,100 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL 12 12,400 12,400 12 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND 10 738,400 738,400 10 332 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 3,515,935 9,638,306 13,013,343 140,898 421 WATER 20,820,387 11,116,270 12,809,352 19,127,305 422 STORM 10,309,553 6,720,466 10,831,951 6,198,068 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 45,963,645 25,261,935 32,767,560 38,458,020 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 848,031 1,988,100 1,988,130 848,001 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 8,487,434 1,746,160 3,170,398 7,063,196 512 Technology Rental Fund 767,671 1,202,963 1,454,784 515,850 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 147,523 72,620 78,700 141,443 Totals 1 117,411,641 112,687,892 140,581,251 89,518,282 C 7 U- U) W Q V N C O E W O N O N r C d E t V R r a Packet Pg. 143 9.1.a EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (July 2020) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4168 1/1/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4174 2/25/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4183 4/15/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4187 5/19/2020 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 712020 2020 Amended Revenue Budget 001 General Fund $ 43,803,858 $ $ $ $ $ 43,803,858 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 437,980 437,980 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 56,140 56,140 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,230 5,230 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - - 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund - - 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 165,390 165,390 111 Street Fund 1,893,668 19,100 1,912,768 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,433,890 313,991 - 2,747,881 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 259,635 - 3,941 263,576 118 Memorial Street Tree 750 - 750 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 98,630 98,630 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 27,270 27,270 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,790 1,790 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 34,450 34,450 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,436,090 1,436,090 126 Special Capital Fund 1,453,520 1,453,520 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 145,050 145,050 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 184,610 184,610 136 Parks Trust Fund 6,390 6,390 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 54,210 54,210 138 Sister City Commission 10,380 10,380 140 Business Improvement District Fund 79,209 - 79,209 142 Edmonds CARES Fund - 1,265,100 1,265,100 211 Lid Fund Control 12,400 - 12,400 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 738,400 738,400 332 Parks Construction 9,638,306 9,638,306 421 Water 11,116,270 11,116,270 422 Storm 5,670,766 545,000 504,700 6,720,466 423 Sewer/Treatment Pla nt 24,452,726 809,209 - 25,261,935 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,988,100 - 1,988,100 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,746,160 1,746,160 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,202,963 1,202,963 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 72,620 - - 72,620 Totals $ 109,226,851 $ 1,668,200 $ 527,741 $ $ 1,265,100 $ 112,687,892 C 7 U- 07 W Q V N C O E W O N O N r C d E t V M r a Packet Pg. 144 9.1.a EXHIBIT "C: Budget Amendments by Expenditure (July 2020) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4168 1/1/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4174 2/25/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4183 4/15/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4187 5/19/2020 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 712020 2020 Amended Expenditure Budget 001 General Fund $ 48,244,815 $ 313,606 $ 485,635 $ $ $ 49,044,056 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 467,140 - - 467,140 012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,900 5,900 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - - 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund - 100,000 100,000 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund 21,555 - 21,555 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 45,800 - 45,800 111 Street Fund 2,139,717 60,000 2,199,717 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,403,472 313,991 2,717,463 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 243,880 - 243,880 118 Memorial Street Tree - - - 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 122,750 5,500 128,250 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 - 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 33,900 - 33,900 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 3,067,616 542,284 620 3,610,520 126 Special Capital Fund 2,661,040 716,786 23,267 3,401,093 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 100,220 10,762 2,800 113,782 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 195,787 - - 195,787 136 Parks Trust Fund - - 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd - - 138 Sister City Commission 11,900 11,900 140 Business Improvement District Fund 80,510 - 80,510 142 Edmonds CARES Fund - 1,265,100 1,265,100 211 Lid Fund Control 12,400 12,400 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 738,400 738,400 332 Parks Construction 11,942,630 1,070,713 13,013,343 421 Water 12,436,114 373,238 - 12,809,352 422 Storm 8,357,375 1,190,856 1,283,720 10,831,951 423 Sewer/Treatment Pla nt 30,493,425 2,274,135 - 32,767,560 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,988,130 - 1,988,130 511 Equipment Rental Fund 3,170,398 - 3,170,398 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,224,784 230,000 1,454,784 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 78,700 -1 78,700 Totals $130,318,238 $ 7,101,871 1 $ 1,796,042 1 $ 100,000 $ 1,265,100 1 $ 140,581,251 r a Packet Pg. 145 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (July 2020) 9.1.a Proposed Proposed Proposed Amendment Amendment Amendment Change in Changein Change in Ending Fund Number Revenue Expense Fund Balance 142 1,265,100 1,265,100 Total Change 1,265,100 1,265,100 C N E C N E a m U- W Q U N c O E W r a Packet Pg. 146 9.1.b Budget Amendment for: One -Time Response Item Description artment: Authorization to spend $1,265,100 from the Edmonds CARES Fund for the city's response to the effects of COVID-19, approved at the council meeting held 6/23/2020. The funds are to be used in three accounts. A. COVID-19 City Expenditure Reimbursement - $265,100 B. Housing & Supplemental Relief Program - $300,000 C. Edmonds Business Support Grant Program - $700,000 Services/Economic Division: I Community Services Title: Director Preparers I Patrick Doherty Budget Amendment Type Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? What is the nature of the expenditure? Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Previously Discussed By Council Jun 23 2020 100% Self Funded One -Time Operating Fund 142 EDMONDS CARES Name: I FUND I Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 CARES Fund Expenditures $ 1,265,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 1,265,100 $ S - $ S - Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 142.000.333.11.000.00 CARES Reimbursement $ 1,265,100 $ Total Revenue Increase (Decrease) $ 1,265,100 $ - $ - $ S - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ - $ - $ - $ r c m E c m E Q d a� 00 c u_ co W Q V c 0 E W Packet Pg. 147