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