The URL can be used to link to this page

cmd102621 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES October 26, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Whitney Rivera, Municipal Court Judge Uneek Maylor, Court Administrator Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Serv. Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Serv. Director Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 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 Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmember Buckshnis. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND ORDINANCE Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty reviewed: • Background Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 2 o The Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund (ERPF) Ordinance was passed by City Council on 7/20/21 as Ordinance 4229, laying out the intended usage of the city's allocation of $11,893,099 in American Rescue Plan Act funds. o Six accounts were created in the ERPF: ▪ City Expenditures, ▪ Household Support ▪ Business Support ▪ Nonprofit Organization Support ▪ Job Retraining Program ▪ Green Infrastructure • Proposed Amendments o Three amendments are proposed at this time: ▪ Amendment #1: The Household Support programs in the original ordinance were targeted for individuals and/or households earning no more than 40% of Edmonds Median Income. This lower-income threshold was originally intended to ensure that those with greatest need would be addressed first, without competition from higher income households. The grant programs have started, and many applications are being received. Nevertheless, we have received applications from individuals or households with somewhat higher incomes than the current threshold. The proposed amendment would raise the income threshold to 60%, but with priority given first to those households earning at or below 40% of median income. ▪ Amendment #2: The Business Support grant program has already awarded grants to struggling businesses throughout Edmonds. One of the criteria in the original ordinance was that businesses must not have received more than $5,000 in prior grant awards. This may have been an overly low threshold since we have received a relatively small number of applications to date. The proposed amendment would raise this threshold to $10,000 received from prior grant awards, which we believe will allow more businesses to qualify. ▪ Amendment #3: The original ordinance specifies grant award amounts and/or numbers of grants in each of the years 2021 through 2024. The final proposed amendment would allow for roll-over of unspent grant funds in the same category to a following year, as well as allow for a greater number of grants to be awarded if funds within a year allow for it. • Proposed Ordinance Text o Section 4(B) is amended as follows: Account “B” shall be the “Edmonds Rescue Plan Household Support” account into which $4,150,000 from the ARPA funds shall be allocated to reimburse those City expenditures incurred through administration of the following programs, in compliance with the ARPA eligibility criteria: 1. Household Support. Up to $3,000,000 for Grants to households earning no more than 40% of Edmonds Median Income for housing expenses, food, medical bills, childcare, internet access, and other household expenses. Up to 400 households may receive grants of up to $2,500 in 2021 and 2022. Up to 200 households may receive grants of up to $2,500 in 2023 and 2024. 2. Utility Bill Support. Up to $150,000 for one-time grants to households earning no more than 40% of Edmonds Median Income in amounts up to $1,000 for up to 150 households to help defray expenses derived from outstanding City of Edmonds utilities bills. 3. Housing Repair. Up to $1,000,000 for one-time grants to households earning no more than 40% of Edmonds Median Income for housing repair, especially focused on energy- saving measures such as roof repair, window replacement, HVAC repair/replacement, etc. Up to 200 grants at up to $5,000 each. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 3 To be eligible for grants, households must earn no more than 60% of Edmonds Median Income, with priority given to households earning at or below 40%. o Section 4(C)(3) is amended as follows: Small Business Support. Up to $625,000 for direct grants to small businesses most affected by the COVID-19-related economic recession. Grants will take the form of individual financial support grants (in the form of loans that are forgivable after four months of performance), totaling up to 50 at up to $10,000 each in 2021, with up to 25 grants of up to $5,000 each available in 2022. Eligibility criteria for these grants will include: a. Small businesses in Edmonds with zero to 30 employees. b. Businesses must demonstrate at least a 50% loss in revenue by the end of 2020 compared to the pre-pandemic 2019 revenues. c. Businesses must not have received more than $5,000 $10,000 in other grants, tax credits or other financial assistance. d. Particular consideration will be given to businesses owned by people of color, women, veterans, and other minorities. o Section 5 is amended as follows: Section 5. For those accounts that specify the number of grants or the amount of grant funds to be awarded in specific years, in the event that the number of grants or the amount of grant funds awarded in a year will result in less than a full disbursement of that year’s allocated funds, the Mayor or designee has the option to award additional grants, to roll over remaining funds to the following year, or both. The City may only use ARPA funds to cover costs incurred for one or more of the purposes allowed by federal law and during the period beginning March 3, 2021, and ending December 31, 2024. A cost shall be considered to have been incurred for purposes of this Section if the City has incurred an obligation with respect to such cost by December 31, 2024. The City must return any funds not obligated by December 31, 2024, and any funds not expended to cover such obligations by December 31, 2026. • Next Steps o Staff's intention is simply to introduce these ERPF Ordinance amendments at this City Council meeting and request that it be placed on the 11/1/21 regular City Council meeting for discussion and approval. o Please feel free to email Patrick Doherty with any questions. All questions and answers will be summarized at the 11/1/21 meeting. Councilmember Distelhorst observed 221 household applications had been submitted so far and asked how many business support applications had been submitted. Mr. Doherty noted 221 household applicants were submitted as of last Thursday, and there may be more by now. There have been 26 business applications submitted; the total could be 50 for the year. Not all 26 applications were granted funds as some were not within the City or did not meet the criteria. A small number, 4-5, received more than $5,000 but under $10,00. He anticipated upon Council approval, staff would immediately send out notice of the revised criteria in hopes of providing more business grants this year. Council President Paine asked how many more applications would qualify for the household and business grants under the expanded access. Mr. Doherty said it was difficult to guess with the business grants, but the ordinance identified 50 per year; 26 applications were submitted although several were ineligible. He anticipated getting close to 50 business grants this year with the expanded criteria. Any remaining funds would be rolled over into next year. With regard to household grants, working from the lowest income up, funds are available in 2021 for 400 grants. He did not anticipate granting all 400, but as Councilmember Distelhorst mentioned, as of last Thursday there were 221 applications. It is possible there will be double that number of applications by yearend although grants may not be provided to all the applicants. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 4 anticipated the proposed amendments would allow the City to grant funds more efficiently and to more families. Councilmember L. Johnson observed the initial intent was 40% or less of Edmonds median income and the proposal is to raise it to 60% but still giving priority to those earning below 40%. She asked if there would be additional prioritization between the 40% and 60%. Mr. Doherty answered there are many factors in a household when the case manager contacts the applicant as well as multiple ways to help residents, such as grants from other sources. The case managers have been directed to start with the lowest income and work their way up. Mr. Doherty asked if Council was agreeable to bringing this back to Council next week for further review and approval. It was the consensus of the Council to bring this back next week. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS’ ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Council President Paine advised Student Representative Brook Roberts is not present due to mid-term exams. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD DISCUSSION REGARDING RETURNING TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS OR REMAINING ALL VIRTUAL AS ITEM 9.4. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO REMOVE ITEM 9.3, PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2022-2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND BUMP IT TO A COUNCIL AGENDA AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marlin Phelps referred to the murder of Tom Wales, commenting the City of Edmonds and his murder have far more in common than can be fathomed. New York Northern District Assistant US Attorney and Special Prosecutor Steven David Clymer was the lead FBI agent on the murder of Tom Wales. The most noted part of his career was he was the special prosecutor in the Rodney King civil rights trial where four officers were acquitted which began the famous LA riots. Mr. Clymer then came to Seattle and the night of Mr. Wales’ murder, allowed 12 people to enter the murder scene. After a couple of years of investigation, Laura Laughlin, special agent in charge of the Seattle FBI, pulled him off that investigation and put two Portland FBI agents on the case. Robert Mueller, head of the FBI at the time, interceded and put Mr. Clymer back on the investigation and blackballed Laura Laughlin. Ms. Laughlin subsequently resigned and sued the FBI for discrimination, naming Robert Mueller and Steven Clymer as respondents in the case. Before it went to trial, she dismissed the case, moved to California and has been mute since. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 5 Steven Clymer was the prosecutor in the case of the horrible treatment of Shauna Reed, a suspect in the murder of Tom Wales. On August 27th, Judge Robart, US District Court of the Western District of Washington, fined Ms. Reed $25 for obstruction of justice and reprimanded Steven Clymer for his treatment of her. Steven Clymer, a former New York prosecutor where there were problems with his conduct, has no business prosecuting anyone. He suggested googling Steven Clymer to see all the horrible things about him. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Olson for reaching out to her at the end of last week’s meeting and apologized for not getting back to her. She has commented at all but one meeting since learning she could comment on the City’s illegal halting of application acceptance for property divisions, possession of trees on their 1.2 acres and forcing them to buy them back from the City before they are allowed to divide their property and build three homes, an illegal government taking. The Council later voted in a slight relief, a cap of $2/square foot of property, but that is still a taking of over $100,000 for their property unless they retain 50% of trees, requiring large trees to remain 10 feet from the homes. She referred to Mayor Nelson’s 2022 budget intention for solar power to be more accessible and affordable for Edmonds residents. Trees will need to be removed in order for sunlight to reach solar panels in many areas. She questioned whether the planning department would enforce the tree ordinance for those wishing to install solar panels, and charge homes and business owners for their trees’ carbon footprint, canopy and timber worth before they can move remove trees to produce solar power. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they would like solar panels, however, the tree ordinance requires them to retain and replant so many trees they will barely see the sun or the view of the Olympic Mountains and Puget Sound from their homes. She referred to trees cut in City Park and questioned whether the City paid into the tree fund for the value of the trees removed. The Council’s actions have required they pay more to engineers, arborists and architects to rework the application they planned to submit last November to comply with the everchanging regulations, professions that are overworked and slow. The Council’s actions have cost them more than money, including precious time. Councilmembers’ votes have illegally taken and held property hostage from owners attempting to use their property for what they are zoned for, single family homes. The Council’s votes negatively impact those who would like to live in Edmonds by increasing the price of new homes. Forgiveness is easier if a gracious apology is made with an attempt to make it right. She urged the Council not to achieve their agendas on the backs of individual Edmonds property owners. In his 2022 budget message, Mayor Nelson said Edmonds has received more tax income than ever before. She urged the Council to use that money for their agenda instead of taking it from families like hers. She thanked the Council for listening and for the work they do to improve the lives of their constituents. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, resident and local business owner, requested the Council vote to return to hybrid Council meetings next week versus virtual only, noting there have only been a handful of times over the past two years when in person meetings were held and the public allowed to comment which has led to a disconnect between residents and local government. Meetings are meant to be held in person; since meetings have returned to virtual only, there has been a reduction in public participation. In speaking with residents, this is likely due to the barrier that Zoom presents to those who are not tech savvy. She asked Council to include the metrics and data that their decisions are based on, the exact data points and goals that need to be met to return to hybrid meetings. From the people’s perspective, the goalposts keep moving with Councilmembers voting different ways on different occasions. Decisions need to be made based on science and data, not emotion or gut feelings. She recognized the difficulty of this decision due to the importance of being safe and responsible and to look for practical solutions to provide safety for staff and all participants. As elected officials, engaging with the public is an essential duty and essential service; it is far more important to engage in the public process than go to local cafes and restaurants. She reiterated her request that the Council vote to return to hybrid meetings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 6 Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, provided her initial reactions and observations on the Public Works Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Plans. 1. The public should be informed of where investments are being made as well as where they are not. For that reason, the entire City should be shown in the CIP investment maps so people can see where money is not being spent. The northern most neighborhood of Edmonds was cut out of many maps and she would be chagrined if she lived in that area and it was not shown on the map. 2. Not all investments are identified on the maps. For example, Downtown Lighting Improvements, PWT-44 $1.5M, is not shown on the map. All investments with an identified location like downtown should be shown on the map so people can see where money is being spent. 3. The maps and tables for the 6-year capital plans include investments outside the 6-year planning range, many of which appear to be outside the bowl. She questioned why those were included, doubting they were the only investments that would be made by the City from 2028-2042. Including these projects on the maps in the 6-year plan gives the impression that significantly more investment is being undertaken outside the bowl in the next 6 years than reality. 4. Where are the earmarked funds for an axillary City office in the SR-99/Uptown area that the Mayor identified in his annual address? It seems funds should be set aside if this is to become a reality. Ms. Seitz said she began commenting to Council about trees and has invested a lot and people are sometimes surprised to learn she has a young family given the time she has spent. The answer to why she keeps commenting is she believes her children, family, and neighbors are just as worthy of investment as those that live in the bowl and deserve equitable per capita investment from the City. She hoped anyone could look at the facilities and wastewater treatment projects or parks map and intuitively know that the City does not equitably distribute resources. She planned to comment on the plans at future meetings and to advocate for equitable investment in all Edmonds communities. That advocacy will point out the disparity in specific resource allocations and argue for redistribution which she understood will concern some. It was too late for equity to matter for the Civic Center and she wondered if it was too late for the budget and when would it not be too late to matter. She appreciated the conversations she has had with the City about parks, trees and equity and thanked City staff and Council for their time and consideration of her comments. Susan Hughes, Edmonds, said she first became aware of the behavior of Councilmembers and the Mayor after attending her first Council meeting on July 27th to speak against the hate portal. The behavior she has seen at subsequent meetings is unacceptable for civil servants elected to serve the people and she will continue to call out the vindictive bullying behavior; Edmonds citizens deserve better. To the four Councilmembers and the Mayor who feel drinking on the job is okay, she suggested they have their drinks in front of them as she proposed a toast; she thanked them for dragging Edmonds city government into the gutter, for approving uncivil behavior from a Councilmember, for not holding Councilmembers accountable for their actions, and for allowing insulting and intimidating language, body language and actions from a Councilmember. The code of conduct states, personal, insulting or intimidating language, body language and actions are not allowed and no signs of impartiality, prejudice or disrespect should be evident on the part of Councilmembers toward any individual participating in a public meeting. The City Council adopted a code of conduct they do not follow; there should be more outrage from all Edmonds citizens. Ms. Hughes continued, now the Mayor is trying to rush the 2022 budget through, not allowing appropriate time for citizen review and comment as has occurred in past years. Last year’s budget was approved in mid-December. To the question of why there is an aggressive budgetary schedule, she said the Mayor does not want the newly elected Councilmember who will replace Councilmember Distelhorst to provide comment, opinions, amendments or vote on the budget. The budget schedule should be returned to its original timeline. This is unethical behavior by Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers. The 2015 code of ethics says to conduct the business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact but Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 7 also in appearance. It is time to raise the level of professionalism in the City’s government; it is a honor to be elected City Council. On November 2nd, Edmonds voters need to elect people that respect the position. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, referred to the change to the calendar related to the budget process for 2022. She referred to her previous comment, reiterating her concern that the calendar was changed to be more accelerated and compressed in order for the budget to be voted on by November 16th. It does not look good for the Council, Mayor and Council President to make a decision based on the timing of the exit of Councilmember Distelhorst from his position. The budget is very complex and she recognized the Council took a lot of time with it to understand all the details. She tried to review the budget online, watched the Council meeting and the presentations, but needs to hear what Councilmembers have to say because often the information available from a graph, PowerPoint or numbers does tell the whole story or what is being given up to get other things. It is important for the public to hear and engage in that discussion and she questioned if there would be enough time for thoughtful discussion among Councilmembers for the community to understand what’s at stake. She implored the Council to make that change, to extend the calendar to what it was and not force the budget and make people feel rushed. Citizens have jobs and lives and would appreciate hearing what Councilmembers think in discussion with each other. She referred to her earlier comments about the primary election and will of the people that they did not want Councilmember Distelhorst representing them, adding her thanks to Councilmember Distelhorst for his service to the community. She appreciated all the work Councilmembers put into the jobs and although she may have policy differences, she did not want her comments to sound like she did not appreciate Councilmember Distelhorst’s participation in City government. She urged the Council to return to hybrid meetings and allow citizens to attend in person if they want to. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, relayed on October 12th the City Council was advised by the City Attorney that nothing can be added to a special meeting agenda; however, items can be added to a special meeting agenda per MRSC. The only thing not allowed is final disposition of business not included in the notice of special meeting. City Council voted to add an item to the July 6, 2021 special meeting agenda with City Attorney Jeff Taraday present. He questioned why different legal advice was provided on October 12th and whether there would be any accountability. Had public comment been added to the October 12th agenda, citizens may have been able to provide input that would have kept Council from additional missteps, a missed opportunity. Later during the October 12th special meeting, the City Attorney explained that the $8,000 fee in lieu of moving and the additional banked leave are both not within the realm of salary and working conditions and so those two items need to be approved by the Council as well. The City Attorney commented that this was hot off the press. The two new items that needed to be included had not been included as business to be transacted in the notice of special meeting. Therefore, final disposition of those two new items could not take place during the October 12th special meeting; incredibly, final disposition of the two items was pursued when the following motion was made and seconded: Council President Paine moved, seconded by Councilmember Distelhorst, to approve both the confirmation and the benefit package as a one vote option. Mr. Reidy asked whether City Council would be held accountable for voting to approve final disposition of two new items not included in the notice of special meeting. The $8,000 fee pushed compensation above the salary range established for the position by City Council. The additional banked leave exceeded the benefits established for the position by City Council. RCW 35A.11.020 addresses the powers that are delegated to City Council. With regard to what happens now, he suggested City Council adopt policy allowing compensation in lieu of moving expenses and additional banked leave over and above current salary and working conditions. He questioned whether this should be done as a general policy or as piecemeal policy that benefits only one employee. After policies have been legally adopted at an open public meeting, he questioned whether Mayor Nelson still needed to ask the Council to confirm his appointment or did part of what was included in the motion to approve a one vote option somehow still stand on its own. He urged the Council to make open and transparent disclosure to the public. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 8 Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to move to hybrid in-person meetings with a Zoom option. In his experience, valuable exchange happened with the public present in Council Chambers, both by seeing Councilmember as well as other people in the room offering their comments. Robust feedback from citizens is very important during this time of year, especially at budget hearings and input beyond what can be heard on a voice call is very important. A lot of progress has been made in the past year with regard to safe public meetings and he encouraged the Council to take advantage of the tools available and move toward public meetings that involve more people. With regard to upcoming budget hearings, he recalled when he was on the Council it was nearly impossible to complete budget conversations before the second or even third week of December. He was shocked the Council was considering pushing it to mid-November. Acknowledging he did not know all the reasons for that, he pointed out the public appearance was not good. He encouraged the Council to include more budget discussions on the agendas. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, referred to the proposed 2022 budget, recalling in Mayor Nelson’s budget message that the budget reflects our values. He questioned what the City values were, noting he had not been able to find them written anywhere. As important, he asked what the vision was for the City that the budget was leading towards. It is also not clear how the City prioritizes the distribution of funds within the budget. In reviewing the decision packages, he finds priorities ranging from 1 to 24, all being “approved.” He asked how the prioritization process was used and how individual decision packages were approved internally. The 2022 budget also includes $7 million more in expenditures than revenue. He encouraged the Council to have a robust discussion about lowering reserves by this amount, particularly with inflationary pressures on the horizon, noting risk management is as important as anything in these uncertain economic times. Mr. Ogonowski referred to the rooftop solar grant program decision package, questioning whether the City wanted to entice lower income households with $5,000 subsidies for solar roof installations that cost $18,000. Adding insult to injury, the budget for affordable housing is zero, which did not make sense to him. He found the 2022 O&M staffing plan that requests two additional operators for the wastewater treatment plant equally puzzling, especially after the City spent a considerable amount for new, efficient carbon recovery equipment. He did not recall the project as proposed and approved by Council required additional employees. He found the capital facilities plans that the Council will hear about later on the agenda equally puzzling. For example, a few weeks ago the Perrinville flooding situation was categorized as a near emergency situation in the stormwater recovery plan, however, the budget does not reflect that urgency. There are many other instances that he hoped the Council would consider in their deliberations. In light of the complexity of the budget, he did not see how the Council could complete its review in an expedited timeframe; therefore, he, like others, requested the Council reevaluate the schedule and act accordingly. Robert White, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Olson for taking time last Friday to meet with him, a new resident of Edmonds. He hoped to meet with other Councilmembers soon as well as newly elected Councilmembers following next week’s election to share his thoughts. He referred to public engagement and civic education, recalling Councilmembers have heard residents ask for a return to in-person hybrid meetings. He has been able to attend major concerts and Seahawks and Husky games in person wearing his mask around thousands of people, yet he cannot physically attend a public meeting with his elected officials. It is time to return to in-person meetings or develop a hybrid so everyone can move to the new normal. Residents of Edmonds yearn for civic education, apparent in the previous public comments related to the budget, the calendar, the schedule and the process. He implored current Councilmembers as well as those running for office to consider public civic education. This is a step forward in returning to civic engagement as once people understand how the processes of a small city work, they can make better informed decisions and understand how to engage with others in the community to ensure rumors and misunderstandings are paused in place and residents are able to help each other learn and it is not always Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 9 landing at the feet of Councilmembers, Mayor and staff. He was happy to be in Edmonds, a place his wife has always wanted to live. Retiring from the military after 20 years, he never had a place to call home. Edmonds was the first place beyond Seattle that he was happy to call home and he was happy to be here. He hoped he could continue to say that, noting most people say they move to Edmonds for small town charm. He hoped to see what that small town charm looked like after the election season. Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, seconded Mr. White’s sentiments. She too wanted to return to Council Chambers and found a hybrid version acceptable. She referred to comments about the budget being rushed through, noting there needed to be serious consideration given to that. She has heard it said that only X number of people will show up to Council chambers or participate via Zoom, and that it is a relatively small number compared to the population of Edmonds. She pointed out those that show up actually represent many other constituents who choose not to speak or voice their concerns. She reminded the Council that they reflect the will and desire of the people, those who speak up on behalf of the thousands that do not. If Councilmembers realize their duty and responsibilities as electeds and listen to the people, they will be shining stars. She thanked Ken Reidy and all the previous speakers for their participation, commenting they all matter and are speaking on behalf of the thousands that are not speaking. She assured there was not just a small group of people speaking, they represent a large group of people. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said he hoped Councilmembers were listening tonight as some of the comments were totally on-point. With regard to the Edmonds City Council not meeting in chambers, he recalled on September 28, 2021, Councilmember Distelhorst moved, seconded by Councilmember Fraley- Monillas, to continue meeting virtually for one month and revisit at an appropriate Council meeting at the end of October. The motion carried 4-3 with Councilmembers Distelhorst, Fraley-Monillas, and L. Johnson and Council President Paine voting yes and Councilmembers K. Johnson, Buckshnis and Olson voting no. He asked why the Council President was being paid an extra stipend to set the agenda for Council meetings when these things seem to get missed, just like the appointment of the hearing examiner. In January he paid a reconsideration fee for a hearing examiner decision because he didn’t receive proper public notice of the meeting. He talked to the Council about that, but the code has not been changed nor has the Council directed the City Attorney to change the code. He questioned why appointments, contracts, franchise agreements seem to fall by the wayside. He questioned what Council President Paine, the Council Administrative Assistant, the City Clerk and all his employees were being paid to do. He asked why this item was not on the tonight’s agenda and requested Council President Paine state the reason during Council Comments. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said she had no problem with the Council remaining in hybrid meetings, as too much has been done which is likely the reason that cases increased by 31 today. She cited things like getting together to work in the marsh and having children carve pumpkins together, Halloween events and parties, things that make people feel better but that continue to endanger people which is the reason it will not go away. She recognized that Councilmembers need to be kept safe or they will not be able to run the government. As a centrist, registered as an independent when she was young, she has voted democrat all her life but is not quite as progressive left. She did not see any reason to force the Council to return to in- person meetings. Carl Zapora, Edmonds, said he received a printed piece explaining the 2022 budget, but it didn’t really summarize the budget, did not include the total expenses, total revenues and how they compare to the current year’s budget. It is important when sending a printed piece to residents that it include a budget summary. He has no idea the proposed total expenses or revenues or how they compare to prior years. The printed piece did not indicate whether there was a tax increase or decrease. Any printed piece mailed to Edmonds residents should include summary data explaining that clearly. The mailed piece provides links to the detailed budget, but most Edmonds citizens won’t do that. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 10 (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5- 0), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. (Councilmember K. Johnson was not present for the vote.) During the above vote, Councilmember Olson mentioned that Councilmember K. Johnson had indicated she planned to abstain from votes tonight. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating a Councilmember could not determine what another Councilmember was going to do. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was in Robert’s Rules of Order. Mayor Nelson suggested it could be addressed during Council comments. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LEONA TOMLINSON Councilmember L. Johnson asked for confirmation that all Councilmembers on the screen were present for the meeting. Mayor Nelson commented a roll call was done and asked what Councilmember L. Johnson suggested be done to confirm that Councilmembers are present at the meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson commented if they could been seen it would help. She was concerned that although roll call was taken, not all Councilmembers were present. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she found it disturbing that a Councilmember was stating what an absent Councilmember’s vote would be. Either a Councilmember was voting or not; there was nothing in Robert’s Rules of Order about voting by proxy. Councilmember Olson said she was copied on an email to the Council President earlier today from Councilmember K. Johnson that stated she would be present at the meeting but would be abstaining from all the votes. She was asserting that because that was knowledge that the Council President and she had. Mayor Nelson said he was also informed. Councilmember L. Johnson said a vote to abstain occurs during roll call vote, indicating the Councilmember is still present at the meeting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said if a Councilmember is silent during a roll call vote, their vote is not recorded. It would be a mistake for the last vote to be recorded as an abstention. The Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) specifically forbids secret balloting. He was not certain this qualified as a secret ballot but the point of law is that everyone’s vote be made and recorded in a way that the public can see the votes happening in real time. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification, if a Councilmember stated at the beginning of the meeting that they would be abstaining from all the votes, that does not actually count as an abstention for those Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 11 votes based on Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Taraday agreed that was what he was saying; one could not have a standing yes, no or abstention vote for the purposes of the entirety of a meeting. He could not speak to Robert’s Rules, but did not think that would be allowed under state law. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said not all Councilmembers were notified that Councilmember K. Johnson was either in the hospital or a nursing care facility. She was pleased Councilmember Olson, Council President Paine and Mayor Nelson received it but the rest of the Council did not so they could understand what was going on. Her point was in a roll call vote, if the person does not answer, it is not considered a vote. Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, advising that was not the communication she received. Mayor Nelson clarified the communication he received was related to her attendance not the reasons why the Councilmember was not in attendance. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether all Councilmembers were still in attendance and would the vote be recorded as such. Mayor Nelson asked how under the OPMA and in this virtual format that could be determined ongoing. Mr. Taraday said roll was called at the beginning of the meeting and recorded. If the Council was meeting in person and a Councilmember got up to use the restroom and was in the restroom during a roll call vote, the effect would not be that the Councilmember was deemed absent from the meeting but would not have their vote recorded. That is the current situation now. There is no process for continually taking roll during the course of the meeting and to his knowledge the Council has never adopted a rule that states Councilmembers must have their cameras on during a meeting. Unless something changes, he would assume the Councilmember is present for the purpose of the meeting because they were present during the roll call. Council President Paine said COVID protocols state the minimum is a telephone line and to require anything else, the Council would have to be impose it upon themselves. She was uncertain there was an ability to inquire if people are present but certainly having a camera on indicates engagement. Mr. Taraday said it would be problematic for the Council to establish a cameras-must-be-on policy at least while the OPMA proclamation is in effect because it states at minimum, cities have to provide a phone line for accessing the Council meeting which presumably applies to both Councilmembers and members of the public. If a Councilmember wanted to call in using the phone line, that is what has to be provided by state law under the proclamation and that would satisfy for the purpose of demonstrating presence at a Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said under Robert’s Rules of Order, it is always appropriate to call for a roll call vote during a voting process and she will continue to suggest roll call votes. In other organizations she belongs to, during COVID roll call votes are done due to the difficulty in seeing what people are saying. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH COUNTY FIRE Thad Hovis, Fire Chief; Bob Eastman, Deputy Chief; Jason Isotalo, Assistant Chief; and Karl Fitterer, Fire Marshal, South County Fire, were present for this item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this is a public hearing on the proposed remedial measures to bring the City back into compliance with the balance factors established in the interlocal agreement with South County Fire (SCF). He explained the last time this was on the Council’s agenda, Mayor Nelson was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 12 internally deliberating between two possible remedial measures, both of which would have the same cost, and sought Council feedback regarding their preferences. The remedial measures were to either add one 24-hour 2 person unit or two 12-hour 2-person units; both of which cost essentially the same, adding approximately $1.5 million to the existing cost. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of Mayor Nelson’s current proposal, start with one additional 24- hour unit on January 1, 2022 with the understanding that the 24-hour unit would be converted to two 12- hour units by January 1, 2023. The purpose of this proposal is to give the RFA time to successfully bargain with its union for additional peak hour units while not allowing the transition period to be open ended. The RFA is expected to eventually succeed in the bargaining process like it succeeded in the past, but under this proposal the conversion from the 24-hour unit to two 12-hour units would not be contingent on their successful bargaining. An incidental benefit of this proposal is it would give the parties a full year of data with the additional 24-hour unit that could be compared to the data derived from the two 12-hour units. This data would compare two service types with the same cost and could be useful in highlighting the pluses and minuses of each service type and provide valuable information to the City in determining future changes to service types and/or levels of service. Following the public hearing, Mr. Taraday invited the Council to provide input regarding their preference about a formal remedial measure under the contract. In the absence of any Council direction tonight, the intent is to include a draft letter to SCF in next week’s packet for Council action at the November 1, 2021 meeting. The letter would then be sent to SCF later that evening. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled she asked SCF for data regarding the times that peak calls occur. Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire, advised he would provide an opening statement and SCF members will make a presentation that will respond to questions previously posed by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and other Councilmembers. Chief Hovis thanked the City for having this important item on the agenda and for supporting it with a public hearing. He introduced Deputy Chief Bob Eastman, Assistant Chief Jason Isotalo and Fire Marshal Karl Fitterer. He thanked the Council for the partnership that the City and the RFA have enjoyed since 2010 to provide fire and emergency medical services within the City. He explained this was originally discussed with Council on October 5th and information was included in the Council packet on pages 103- 260. The RTA reported to the City in February 2021 and re-reported in March 2021 that the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF) and Transport Balancing Factor (TBF) were both out of balance as described in the 2017 renegotiated interlocal agreement. As described in the agreement, the RFA issued a threshold notification to the City on June 2, 2021 and the RFA proposed remedial measures to the City on June 16, 2021. The proposed RFA remedial measures are the addition of one 24-hour EMS transport unit and one 12-hour EMS transport unit. Chief Hovis relayed his understanding as described in Mr. Taraday’s memo (packet page 103) and in his introduction that Mayor Nelson is recommending two different remedial measures, the addition of one 24-hour EMS unit or two 12-hour EMS transport units. On behalf of the RFA and the elected Board of Fire Commissioners, he respectfully requested the Council continue to consider for approval the RFA’s proposed remedial measures to bring both the NUUF and the TBF into balance during their ongoing budget deliberations. Since the RFA’s issuance to the City of the threshold notification and the proposed remedial measures in June, he, Deputy Chief Eastman, and the RFA’s attorney have been meeting regularly with Mayor Nelson and Mr. Taraday to discuss and further explain the proposed remedial measures. Much of the print data in the packet provided by the RFA to the City during those meetings is contained in the Council agenda on pages 223-252. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 13 Chief Hovis explained the RFA team had another opportunity to meet with Mayor Nelson and Mr. Taraday on October 18th; the purpose of that meeting was to provide additional data and information related to the questions the RFA received from Council on October 5th. Those included Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ question about the percentage of calls during the peak or 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. timeframe, Councilmember L. Johnson’s question about times of the day emergencies are occurring in Edmonds to support Council’s further consideration, and Council President Paine’s request for data on call times, specifically the area around Swedish-Edmonds Hospital or what the RFA refers to operationally as map pages grid EF 156, TF 157 and LF 157. Those grids are where the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace share a common border, generally the area on or around Highway 99 to the west from 220th to 212th (Dairy Queen, Edmonds-Woodway High School, and Swedish-Edmonds Hospital and surrounding complexes). The presentation will also address a question emailed by Councilmember Olson today related to peak times and how remedial measures may affect the amended interlocal agreement. Chief Hovis explained the additional data provided by the RFA to the City on October 18th is not included in tonight’s agenda packet, but the RFA has prepared and consolidated the data into a brief PowerPoint that will be presented by Deputy Chief Eastman. Following his presentation, he and other RFA staff are available to answer any additional questions. Deputy Chief Eastman advised he did not have the information regarding day and night breakdown in his original PowerPoint but will provide it tonight, noting although it is not pretty, it includes the relevant information. He displayed and reviewed the following in response to the questions about the breakdown between day and night, explaining he provided 2017-2019 in addition to 2020 because there are some differences in 2020 related to the pandemic: • Day/Night Breakdown for the City of Edmonds 2017 2018 2019 2020 Night 1689 1808 17993 1595 Day 3526 3747 3693 3382 Total 5215 5555 5486 4977 Night 32.39% 32.55% 32.68% 32.05% Day 67.61% 67.45% 67.32% 67.95% Deputy Chief Eastman explained the percentages have been pretty consistent, slightly over 67.5% of the call demand happens during day time hours (8 am to 8 pm) and approximately 32.5% of calls happen at night (8 pm to 8 am). This percentage is fairly common throughout the fire service in the county. He also displayed and reviewed the following, explaining the first chart is the total and the second and third are breakdowns between Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace: • Day/Night NUUF NUUF 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Mountlake Terrace 147.2% 135.3% 133.07% 130.28% 157.24% Lynnwood 199.2% 148.3% 202.06% 210.41% 280.36% Lynnwood NUUF Day/Night 2017 2018 2019 2020 Night 145.87% 187.07% 130.7% 114.28% Day 149.38% 172.95% 213.36% 384.22% Mountlake Terrace NUUF Day/Night 2017 2018 2019 2020 Night 131.96% 113.53% 125.59% 133.69% Day 136.45% 140.58% 132.20% 170.83% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 14 Deputy Chief Eastman summarized the above illustrates the NUUF is out of balance during both day and night. Looking from the RFA’s perspective and mutual aid given to neighboring organizations, it is looked at from multiple ways, the number of resources that come in, the number of calls they cover into the RFA’s service area and reciprocated service. As this has gotten more sophisticated in the last 5-7 years, this same measurement is used for example to Snohomish Regional Fire, number of units sent and total time spent on task and the number of units Snohomish Regional sends to SCF and amount of time on task. That measurement is used to determine whether mutual aid is equal or if one is providing more service to the other agency. If one is providing more service to the other agency, a conversation needs to occur, similar to the conversation occurring with Edmonds, about whether resources need to be added, moved around, etc. to stay in balance with neighboring jurisdictions. That measurement is done with Snohomish Regional, Mukilteo, Everett Fire and Snohomish Fire. Prior to when all these contracts were in place and the fire departments were independent agencies, mutual aid between the entities was measured on a regular basis and adjustments made to ensure one agency wasn’t giving more than they were receiving. He summarized this measurement is used with other agencies to ensure SCF is not receiving more mutual aid than they are giving. From SCF’s perspective, the above information illustrates there is a problem with out of balance during the night as well as day time hours which goes along with the recommended remedies sought by the RFA. Deputy Chief Eastman recalled there was a lot of discussion about Grid 157 or the Swedish Edmonds area and the potential challenges that automatic vehicle locator (AVL) or the fact that the hospital is within Edmonds city limits and having resources at the hospital dispatched to calls creating an imbalance with the NUUF as a result. He displayed and reviewed the following: • Grid EF 157 (Swedish Edmonds) First Arrival 2017 2018 2019 2020 Second Arrival 2017 2018 2019 2020 Third Arrival 2017 2018 2019 2020 St 20 124 151 255 223 St 14 61 38 81 95 St 20 7 14 5 3 St 16 217 191 117 107 St 20 40 50 61 43 St 14 3 1 5 2 St 14 115 119 101 81 St 16 60 61 50 34 St 16 9 10 3 2 St 19 36 70 63 28 St 19 25 38 29 22 St 10 1 1 St 15 25 25 22 16 St 17 14 12 4 5 St 15 1 4 9 1 CRP 9 56 66 13 St 15 10 12 8 3 St 21 1 4 1 St 10 6 4 10 7 St 10 2 4 2 Other RFA Units 1 St 17 14 15 13 7 St 18 5 4 7 2 St 12 St 18 12 13 13 4 FM 1 1 St 17 1 2 2 St 21 1 4 9 1 St 21 1 1 4 St 18 St 23 1 1 St 22 1 1 St 19 8 2 2 Other RTA units 1 CRP 2 St 22 1 KCA164 1 Total 216 222 249 207 FM 1 ARU11 1 Total 30 33 33 11 St 11 1 1 2 St 13 1 St 22 1 1 MSO/ Training Day 2 FM Grid EF157 Station Order E24 1 Station 20 Total 561 651 675 491 Station 16 Station 19 Station 14 Station 18 Station 17 Station15 Total Transports in 2020 to Swedish Edmonds: 8,556 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 15 Deputy Chief Eastman explained the Grid EF157 station order was the old, traditional way station order was determined based on the drive time it took to get to the grid. Those station orders still exist in the dispatch system as the fallback in the event technology failed. He referred to the total transports in 2020 to Swedish Edmonds (8,556) and a question of whether units doing transports to the hospital are dispatched to the busiest grid in Edmonds, thereby contributing to the imbalance in the NUUF. He referred to the tables above of first, second and third arrival which is identified in the CAD data. Based on station order, Station 20 should be the first arriving unit the majority of the time, followed by Station 16. Station 20 is the busiest station in Edmonds and the second busiest is Station 16 so it is not unusual for Station 20 to be on a call and Station 16 backing up. If Grid 157 is one of the busiest grids, he would expect to see the data in the table. Station 14 is the next most frequent arriving first, followed by Station 19; in the station order, Station 14 and 19 are reversed based on driving time. Station 19 is a very busy station with a cross-staffed unit (crews staff both the medic and engine unit). Station 14 has a dedicated ladder as well as a 12-hour peak unit, providing two resources to respond and backup Station 16 and be the third in to Grid 157. He was not surprised to see that Station 14 was first arrival more frequently than Station 19. Deputy Chief Eastman explained Station 22 (off North Road) transports almost exclusively to Swedish Edmonds. In 2020, Station 22 was never first arriving into Grid 157. If units were dispatched based on AVL while at the hospital, units at the hospital would clearly be the closest unit to Grid 157 and there would not be zero first arrivals for Station 22 or 4 times for Station 18. He referred to the second and third arrival tables, commenting the data was very similar, Station 22 was rarely the second arriving unit in Grid 157 and never the third. If having units at Swedish Edmonds and using AVL which dispatch uses through GPS to know who is actually closest, there would be more responses from outlying units into Grid 157. He summarized AVL is not driving NUUF and the arrivals into Grid 157 is what they would expect to see in normal operations. Councilmember Olson commented that last piece of information was very helpful although that was not what she expected the data to show. The data on paper did not drive the point home the way the explanation did. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described the procedures. Carl Zapora, Edmonds, asked if SCF could comment on their potential purchase of the former Value Village site and how that would affect services in that area. Chief Hovis answered the RFA is in discussions with Public Hospital District 2, dba Verdant Health Commission, about the potential acquisition of the Value Village property at 216th & Highway 99. The property is in the middle of Grid EF LF TF 157 at the edge of Edmonds, 0.2 miles from the City of Lynnwood and 0.25 miles from the City of Mountlake Terrace. As the RFA continues to grow and cities continue to receive services from the RFA and hopefully become full members of the RFA in the future, the RFA views that property as instrumental to continue to provide emergency services as well as tie in with Swedish Edmonds and Verdant. It is still exploratory at this point. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Mr. Taraday advised the parties could answer Council questions or the Council could begin deliberations on the next iteration of the interlocal agreement such as what services should be included. The Council could begin their deliberations tonight with the intent of concluding them at the November 1st meeting. Any direction the Council can provide is appreciated but if it is too early for Council direction, a letter will be drafted for Council approval at the next meeting which will be sent to SCF at the conclusion of the meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 16 Councilmember L. Johnson relayed it appeared that calls in Edmonds went from 5,486 in 2019 down to 4,977 in 2020, a 10% reduction. If that is the case, she wanted to understand how during that same time period the NUUF between Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace units responding to Edmonds went up by 30%. Chief Hovis answered 2019 to 2020 transitioned into the pandemic and all the things that happened within the pandemic including some people moving around less but more transports from facilities to other areas. That is still being analyzed as the pandemic continues. Although the total call volume slowed a bit due to the governor’s orders and fears due to the pandemic prior to vaccinations, the number of calls has increased again to normal conditions. He could not explain why the City of Edmonds’ call volume happened to go down during that time period and at the same time other units responded more, altering the NUUF and TBF. That has been seen over many years which is why Deputy Chief Eastman compared multiple years, to show that the NUUF and TBF were off prior to the pandemic and that continues today. Chief Hovis explained one of the things this community, the nation and the world continues to struggle with is what they call extended “wall wait times” or processing time at emergency departments especially during COVID due to the uptick in the fifth wave, more consideration for PPE and hospitals are overwhelmed with admissions and intubations which has put more strain on everything as well as navigating how to get services to people no matter what is happening which sometimes keeps units at the hospital throughout the entire RFA as patients are transported to Swedish Edmonds, Swedish Mill Creek and Providence in Everett, the RFA’s primary three receiving facilities. He summarized it is due to the times we are in and they will continue to watch that data as they move forward and hopefully emerge from the pandemic in 2022. Deputy Chief Eastman said the reduction was in basic life support (BLS) calls but there was a slight increase in advanced life support (ALS) calls in Edmonds during that time. ALS calls tend to use more resources so some of it is the breakdown of calls and though there were less calls, they were BLS which is typically a single unit response. ALS calls typically require response of two units instead of one which is one of the other pieces that accounts for the increase and is one of the reasons for showing data for 2017- 2019 as well. He noted it was difficult to explain some of the things that occurred in 2020 or have the time to do further research. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if having Station 20 in unincorporated Snohomish County impacted the NUUF. She assumed there was an adjustment for the fact that it was located in unincorporated Snohomish County. Deputy Chief Eastman answered it was taken into account and there was an adjustment for that. For the public watching, Chief Hovis clarified BLS is basic life support and ALS is advanced life support, paramedic services. In response to Councilmember L. Johnson’s question, he pointed out Station 20 is located in a pocket of unincorporated Snohomish County, the City has annexed the majority of the area around Esperance. The majority of the responses from Station 20 are into the City of Edmonds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what Mayor Nelson’s recommendation of one 24-hour unit and one 12-hour unit was based on. Mr. Taraday clarified that was the RFA’s recommendation. He summarized the recommendations: the RFA’s recommended remediation measures are one 24-hour unit and one 12-hour unit in addition to the current workforce which would cost approximately $2.25 million/year in addition to the current cost. Mayor Nelson’s recommendation had been either one 24-hour or two 12-hour units and the more refined version is to start with one 24-hour unit and convert it to two 12-hour units after a year which would cost $1.5 million/year. There is an approximately $750,000 difference between Mayor Nelson’s recommended remedial measures and the RFA’s recommended remedial measures. Council President Paine commented it was important to see the data to illustrate where there are gaps and times in the evening where additional coverage would be beneficial. She initially supported the two 12- Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 17 hour units but now could go either direction, recognizing that one 24-hour unit would also provide fire response. She recognized the need for additional service and liked the idea of converting two units in a year or possibly not depending on the data. She expressed appreciation for tonight’s presentation, the additional data provided by the RFA as well as the previous presentation. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Chief Hovis and Deputy Chief Eastman for the presentation and the information in the packet. He echoed the sentiments expressed by another Councilmember that having SCF staff review the information was more beneficial than looking at the maps. To him, this was Public Safety 101 and although there had been a slight decrease in a weird pandemic year 2020, with the continued and ongoing growth in the region and the aging population, he struggled to see calls going down much. He supported considering the RFA’s recommended option as the high end with the one 24- hour unit as a minimum and analyzing the data in the coming year. This is Public Safety 101 and the needs, well-being and public health of the community need to be met. With all the mail and public statements supporting public safety, this is a wonderful option to ensure the community is well taken care of with regard to ALS, BLS and fire calls. He understood other Councilmembers may not feel the same but the 24-hour unit needed to be in place at a minimum to address both times of day when calls are out of sync. He again thanked SCF for the data and looked forward to more public safety resources for the community from the RFA. Councilmember Olson asked if starting with one 24-hour unit, would there be any grace if the two 12- hour units would have gotten the City to the NUUF numbers and the one 24-hour unit did not. Mr. Taraday answered to the best of his knowledge, the RFA is not able to accurately model what the NUUF would be in the future based on these two alternative scenarios under consideration. He acknowledged that was frustrating for all because the City needs to make a resource allocation decision without knowing exactly how much improvement it would provide. He recognized there would be an improvement from a level of service standpoint but the exact amount better or change to the NUUF could not be quantified. That was frustrating and perhaps an argument for going incrementally and may be one of the reasons the Mayor did not want to immediately go to the 24-hour plus the 12-hour unit. It is possible that the additional resources at an additional $1.5 million/year will do the trick; that is unknown but it is possible. With regard to the night time NUUF being out of balance, Mr. Taraday said it was true as Deputy Chief Eastman indicated that the night time NUUF is out balance and that two peak hour units would not add any night-time resources. To the question of how the NUUF could be brought into balance if only day time resources were added when the night time NUUF was out of balance, Mr. Taraday said the agreement does not consider NUUF in a 12-hour cycle, it looks at it over the course of a year. Therefore, if enough day time resources are added, it is possible that the addition of two 12-hour day time units during the peak hours when 67% of the calls occur could produce such a significant improvement in the day time NUUF that the 24/7/365 NUUF calculation is brought into balance. He acknowledged he could not guarantee that but SCF could not say that it won’t as the modeling is not sophisticated enough to determine that. Councilmember Olson said the nature of her question was not to forecast or model ahead of time but if the City funded a one 24-hour unit in the short term, which she did not expected to have as much impact as two 12-hour units on the overall NUUF, would there be a credit or grace for the fact that the City would have been in compliance with two 12-hour units. Not by modeling but after the fact based on what actually happened. Mr. Taraday asked if her question was whether during that first year with the addition of one 24-hour unit, was it possible the City would receive another threshold notice from the district before having an opportunity to try the two 12-hour units. Councilmember Olson agreed, and if the City did receive a threshold notice that it was out of compliance, rather than renegotiating based on that, if the numbers showed the City would have been in compliance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 18 with two 12-hour units but wasn’t with one 24-hour unit, including a contract term that the City would be in compliance if compliance could have been achieved with either. Mr. Taraday said that would need to be addressed as part of the actual interlocal agreement amendment which will occur immediately following the designation of remedial measures. He explained on November 1st the Council will designate remedial measures, SCF will determine if those remedial measures are something they can live with and if not, they will terminate the contract. Assuming it is something SCF can live with it and at least see how it goes in the short term, the City would enter into an amendment to the interlocal agreement that would address a lot of the questions Councilmember Olson was asking. Chief Hovis advised there are intermediary steps in the interlocal agreement that supersede the RFA terminating the agreement with the City of Edmonds. SCF will provide its annual report in February followed by the meeting between the Commission and the Council in March as has occurred in past years. He concluded the data that was provided shows the NUUF has been out of balance since 2017 day and night. This is not a new situation; SCF is trying to address the threshold notification, remedial measures and providing options for the City to consider in its budget that would address both the day and night for Edmonds residents. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to SCF’s recommendation of one 24-hour unit and a 12-hour unit and asked where those would be located. She also asked where the City’s proposed alternative would be located. Chief Hovis advised the one-24 hour unit recommended by SCF would be located at Station 20 based on the data that shows Station 20 is the busiest station in Edmonds. The recommended peak activity unit could either be at Station 16 or Station 17; based on the data, it would be located at Station 17. One of his asks as Fire Chief would be to have the ability to move those units if needed if the data changed to continue to address the NUUF or TBF or at certain times of the year such as 4th of July, Arts Festival or other special events. The current interlocal agreement locks down the staffing at the stations and does not provide flexibility. As needs change based on the time of year or things occurring in the City such as a windstorm, prolonged snow event, etc., he and other SCF staff feel strongly about having that flexibility. The focus would be to address the NUUF and the TBF. Councilmember L. Johnson asked where the units in the City’s proposed remedial measures would be located. Chief Hovis answered without knowing where the Council will land on the options, which are different than the remedial measures the RFA proposed, he has not considered that. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COLA 2022 Jessica Neill Hoyson, Human Resources Director, presented this item, explaining that the personnel policy provides that the mayor will recommend the adjustment of the salary schedule for non-represented employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process. She outlined the status of wage adjustments for represented groups, pointing out that currently the AFSCME and Teamsters collective bargaining agreements are not settled for 2022, and the EPO Law Support Contract has a 3% COLA agreed to for 2022. The EPOA Commissioned contract is settled for 2022, but as this is a represented group that has binding arbitration, taking this group’s wage adjustments into consideration for the non-represented employees would not be appropriate. She stated that using “comparator” organizations is often the standard in establishing compensation and has been used by Edmonds for both represented and non-represented employees. The Consumer Price Index for Urban wage earners in the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue area is also used as data point to establish Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 19 compensation levels. She provided information on what the city’s comparator organizations are proposing for non-rep adjustments in 2022. Although some are not finalized, they are averaging around 4%. Turning to the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Director Neill Hoyson made the following points: • The CPI is calculated for two population groups: All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). • The CPI-U represents about 93 percent of the total U.S. population and is based on the expenditures of all families living in urban areas. • The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U and is based on the expenditures of families living in urban areas who meet additional requirements related to employment: more than one-half of the family’s income is earned from clerical or hourly-wage occupations. • The CPI-W represents about 29 percent of the total U.S. population. • Because the CPI-U population coverage is more comprehensive, it is used in most wage adjustment calculations. • To determine the cost of inflation from one year to the next year a period is established be setting a base month between two years. The June to June period is the most commonly used. Continuing, Director Neill Hoyson noted that the Washington State minimum wage will increase to $14.49 in 2022, which represents and increase of 5.83%. State law requires an automatic annual inflation adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the August to August period. She then explained what was proposed and what has occurred. At the time the budget was submitted, June to June numbers for the CPI-U was not yet available. The non-rep wage adjustment proposed was based on the first half of 2021 CPI-U, which was 3%. Since then, the June to June numbers have been released, which places the CPI-U at 5.5%. In 2020, a 2% wage adjustment was proposed in the budget for 2021 for non-represented employees. This was based off the first half of 2020 CPI-U, which was 1.8%. The June to June numbers for 2020 realized a CPI-U of 0.9%, which means the 2021 adjustment outpaced price inflation by 1.1%. She said the administration’s recommendation is for a 3% wage adjustment in the 2022 Budget. This will cost $151,668 for 2022. Taking into account last year’s COLA, which was higher than 2020 price inflation, the 3% COLA would still lag behind current inflation by 1.4%. The median wage adjustment estimated to be provided by our comparator organizations is 4%. She noted that Council may want to consider additional wage adjustments in 2022. A mid-year adjustment of 1% will keep salary levels more current with inflation but minimize the budget impact in 2022. The approximate cost for a mid-year 1% adjustment would be $25,279. Council President Paine said her first question was going to be whether we will be underestimating for the 2022 midpoint, but it doesn't sound like it because we are already above the curve there. Director Neill Hoyson responded that she did calculate it, along with the inflation rate, which is why she recommends a 1% mid-year adjustment rather than the full 5.5% that is developing from June to June. Council President Paine asked if she knew why cities such as Bothell, Shoreline, and SeaTac seem to be far ahead of the curve. Director Neill Hoyson stated that they are using different calculations, such as 100% of CPI-U or the CPI-W, or 90% of the June to June CPI-U to arrive at 6.1%. Council President Paine wondered if it would add a bit of weirdness to our normal practice but concluded it’s probably the best way to describe what is happening and why other cities chose such a high number. She said her questions have been answered and she appreciates the work. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 20 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why the study used Tacoma, Bellevue, and Seattle and not Seattle, Bellevue, and Everett. Director Neill Hoyson replied that Tacoma, Bellevue, and Seattle is the renamed price index for this area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that she doesn’t see Tacoma as being equal with Snohomish county, noting that Pierce County has a different wage rate, as does King and Snohomish County. Director Neill Hoyson said there are CPIs that include other regions, such as the Western States or even one that includes Alaska. However, most cities and organizations use this one because it is as specific as we can get for our region. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has a problem giving non-represented employees a higher wage than represented employees, which she felt represents a poor value for the city. Responding to questions, Director Neill Hoyson confirmed that the non-commissioned police union received 3%, but the Teamsters and AFSCME have not received anything due to pending collective bargaining. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas stated that in her past life, the practice of giving non-represented employees a higher increase would be called “union busting”, and she understands there are pros and cons to doing that. However, she could not support a 1% mid-year increase without giving it to the represented. She didn’t consider it a fair examination of the value of our employees. She said she has no problem keeping the non-represented at the same level as the represented, but when it goes above that it sets a really poor value of our employees. Director Neill Hoyson replied there are often situations where inflation or wages have changed over the period of time the collective bargaining agreement has been negotiated. She said she fully expects any additional wage increases that the non-represented or other bargaining units received would be addressed in subsequent contracts to even that out. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she fully understands that, but the cost to us isn't just the value of now; the cost will be the value for the negotiations going forward with the other bargaining units. So while they're going to come back and say we want the same benefit, which is fair, she was concerned about the long-term costs to the city. Director Neill Hoyson added that given inflation, whether or not Council chose to give this additional percentage to the non-represented we can expect a request from the unions to address that development of inflation in their contracts. Councilmember Fraley Monillas said it probably wouldn't be abnormal if we didn't do it now and waited to see where the unions landed; then we could get back together to provide compensation or some level moving forward. But she said it gives her a little heartburn moving forward with action that suggests the non-represented have more value than represented. 2. MUNICIPAL COURT ANNUAL REPORT Whitney Rivera, Edmonds Municipal Court Judge, provided the annual report for the Edmonds Municipal Court and Decision Packages for the 2022 Budget. Her report included the following: Significant changes in the legal landscape: • Blake decision and SB 5476 o Possession of a controlled substance is now a misdemeanor o emphasis is now placed on therapeutic court models and diversion • Equal protection litigation in Thurston County for DWLS 3 and SB 5226 • Gelinas decision: 600 bench warrants previously issued are under review, including changes to CrRLJ 3.4 Significant changes at EMC: • New judge and three new clerks Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 21 Achievements: • Omar Gamez named Probation Officer of the Year by the Washington State Misdemeanant Probation Association • Expanded the classes offered by the EMC Probation Department to include MRT in addition to DV-MRT Coping with the COVID-19 Pandemic • Safely conducted jury trials starting in May 2021 • Hybrid of remote and in-person for hearings other than jury trials • Washington Supreme Court Fifth and Extended Order Regarding Court Operations • Probation offering DV-MRT and MRT classes remotely • Clerk window reopened in July 2021 during courtroom hours Looking Forward: • Passport processing restarts November 1, 2021 • EMC Relicensing Program begins November 2, 2021 • Walk-in calendar twice a month on Tuesday mornings • Unified Payment (UP) Program • Anyone with an outstanding infraction encouraged to come • EMC Community Court tentatively restarts January 11, 2022 at CHC Edmonds 2022 Budget Requests/Decision Packages: • Edmonds Municipal Court is requesting approval of our 2021 reorganization for the 2022 budget • 2022 Decision Packages o Assistant Court Administrator and backfill a Clerk - $98,458.66 o Additional Clerk position - $69,553.44 o Reclassify Court Administrator - $31,430.76 o Change elected judge from 0.75 to 1.0 FTE - $65,565.20 Councilmember Olson questioned whether the court reorganization was fully approved by the Council as mentioned by Judge Rivera. It was her impression that it was going to come back on the consent agenda, but she never saw it there. She asked if anyone knew for sure if it’s actually approved or if it's still coming on consent. Judge Rivera said it was her understanding that it was going to be part of the budget ordinance and was being treated as though it was approved. It was brought to her attention that it didn't end up on consent, but then she learned it was going to go on as a budget ordinance amendment. She added that she wasn’t trying to misspeak, but was under the impression it was approved in terms of adding it to the budget. Councilmember Olson said it would be important to get clarification before any hiring or other actions are taken in accordance with the changes. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Judge Rivera for her presentation. He expressed excitement and appreciation for the work put into getting the relicensing program up and running in such short order. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 22 said that he, Council President Paine, and all the stakeholders who are involved in that process are really interested in making sure that we track and act on the data in order to achieve the intended results. He said he hopes Community Court will be able to kick off in January, adding that it’s well-utilized by the community and supported by the past and present court. Council President Paine thanked Judge Rivera for the presentation. She was pleased to hear about the grant opportunities and looking for ways to help support the court’s needs and resources. She was glad to hear about starting Community Court, and was hopeful that the court would share any news about grant awards broadly. She said it really helps our citizens in so many different ways, especially having access to court services down in the Bowl, in the business district, and having access remotely and in person. She said providing court along Highway 99 is a real service, along with all the other services the court’s been providing, including passports. In regards to the approval process for the court reorganization, she said although she didn’t see it on a consent agenda, she assumed was that it would move forward as a budget proposal for 2022. She added that in looking at the changing laws that affect misdemeanors, she hopes the city got it right and that the court will be in a good situation for 2022. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out that the court reorganization proposal went before the committee last month, and upon her specific inquiry was told yes, this is a budgetary item. Therefore, Councilmember Olson is correct that it did not come before the full council, but it should now that we're moving into the budget next month. Councilmember Laura Johnson expressed her thanks for the presentation and excitement for Community Court returning the beginning of next year. She said it’s a very unique thing we're able to offer and a real service to our community to increase access to justice. 3. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED 2022-2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Rob English, City Engineer, introduced Director Phil Williams, Public Works, Director Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services, and Deputy Director Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services, each of whom would present different portions of the CFP/CIP. He began the presentation outlining formatting changes to the documents, Public Works decision packages, associated projects, and estimated costs. He reviewed: CFP & CIP Format Changes: o Combined CFP & CIP Document o Citywide Project Maps o Project List o New Project Sheets Public Works & Utilities – Transportation 2022 Preservation Projects • 2022 Pavement Preservation Program DP#76($1.5M) o 6 Lane Miles o 10 New ADA Ramps • 76th Ave Overlay DP#78($1.6M) o 196th St to Olympic View Dr. o City of Lynnwood o 2.8 Lane Miles (1.4 in Edmonds) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 23 o 15 New ADA Ramps (10 in Edmonds) • 84th Ave Overlay Project Close-out DP#84($5k) 2022 Safety & Capacity Projects • Hwy 99 Revitalization/Gateway DP#80($7.6M) • Hwy 99 244thSt-238thSt Stage 3 DP#81($640K) • Hwy 99 224thSt-220thSt Stage 4 DP#82($400K) • 76th Ave/220th St Intersection DP#83($276K) • SR-104 Adaptive System DP#86 ($150K) • Traffic Signal Upgrades DP#88($30K) • Guardrail Program DP#95($20K) 2022 Active Transportation Projects & Planning • Citywide Bicycle Improvements DP#79($1.5M) • Citywide Pedestrian Improvement DP#85($10K) • Pedestrian Safety Program DP#87($20K) • Design Assistance for Concrete Crews DP#89($20k) • Elm Way Walkway DP#93($901K) • Traffic Calming Program DP#94($33K) Public Works & Utilities – Utilities 2022 Water Utility • 2023 Replacement Program DP#46($486K) • Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment DP#47($505K) • Waterline Overlays DP#49($175K) • 2022 Replacement Program DP#50($2.1M) MEETING EXTENSION AT 9:56 P.M. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:40 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2022 Stormwater Utility • 2023 Replacement Program DP#52($312K) • Lake Ballinger Regional Facility DP#54($300K) • Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Impr DP#55($190K) • Stormwater Overlays DP#57($60K) • 2022 Replacement Program DP#58($1.45M) • Perrinville Creek Basin Projects o Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration DP#53($550K) o Seaview Park Infiltration Ph 2 DP#59($555K) o Perrinville Creek Flow Mgmt DP#60($121K) • Green Street & Rain Gardens DP#61($400K) 2022 Sewer Utility • 2023 Replacement Program DP#62($336K) • Cured in-place pipe rehabilitation DP#63($482K) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 24 • Sewerline Overlays DP#64($60K) • 2022 Replacement Program DP#65($1.6M) Director Williams presented the proposed projects and estimated costs associated with Wastewater Treatment Plant and Facilities projects. He covered the following: 2022 WWTP • Carbon Recovery Project DP#67($1.16M) Public Works & Utilities – Facilities • Boys & Girls Club • Cemetery Building • City Hall • Fishing Pier • Frances Anderson Center • Fire Station 16 • Fire Station 17 • Fire Station 20 • Historic Log Cabin • Historic Museum • Library • Meadowdale Club House • Old Public Works • Parks Maintenance Bldg • Public Safety • Public Works O&M • Wade James Theater • Yost Pool House Facilities Repair & Maintenance Projects • Solar Plant Renewal: $150k Grant (45%) - FAC (9.6 kw) & Public Safety (100kw) DP#72 ($230,000) • Citywide EV Charging Stations: Add 10 Public EV Charging Stations DP#71 ($260,000) • PW Yard Repairs & Leveling: Facilities Portion - Balance from W/S Utilities DP#45 ($110,000) • City Fleet EV Charging: For 2022 Electric-powered new Vehicles (6 stations) DP#75 ($90,000) • Historic Museum: Structural Reinforcement at roof DP#36 ($10,000) • Library Repairs: West Deck Flashing DP#74 ($60,000) • Interior & Ext. Painting: FAC, FS16, Meadowdale Clubhouse DP#73 ($230,000) • PS Pedestrian Perimeter: Security Fencing DP#38 ($270,180) • City Wide: Unforeseen Repair and Maintenance DP#37 ($100,000) SUBTOTAL: $1,292,680 (solar grant) +$67,500 TOTAL: $1,360,180 BONDS: -$912,500 TOTAL GF: $380,180 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 25 Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director, joined by Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, presented the Parks portion of the 2022-2027 CIP/CFP. She explained that as a planning document, the CIP/CFP functions as a roadmap for future parks projects, staffing, and funding resources. She noted that the projects that formally become part of the budget are the decision packages submitted for Council consideration. Those were presented to the Council last week as part of the decision package presentation. She covered significant projects, future projects, the 2022-2027 Parks CIP/CFP framework, geographic distribution of projects within Edmonds, the new format for representing projects, budgets, cost estimates, and related information, and the thirteen (13) Proposed Projects. She emphasized that the adopted CFP is necessary to remain eligible for grant funding. Her presentation included the following: Significant Projects: • Complete 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Update • Complete Civic Park Redevelopment • Deferred Maintenance/Capital Replacement Program Future Large Projects: • Land Acquisition • Marsh Restoration • Marina Beach Park • PROS Plan Priorities 2022-2027 Parks CIP/CFP Framework: • 2016 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) Goals • 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) o Adoption February 2022 o Recommended CIP/CFP o City Comp Plan – reference • Parks Project List o Deferred maintenance o Small capital projects o Nearly 30 projects • Grant Funding eligibility 2022-2027 CIP/CFP Project List: • PRK 1: Civic Center Playfield • PRK 2: Marina Beach Park Improvements o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $6M o Renovation to better serve community o ADA Improvements o Daylighting Willow Creek • PRK 3: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $8M o Priority in State-Certified Creative District o Priority in 2014 Community Cultural Plan o No funding source currently identified • PRK 4: Playground Upgrade Program Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 26 o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $1,050,000 o Upgrade playgrounds to be inclusive o Goal is one per year o Some playgrounds 35+ years old • PRK 5: Yost Pool Repair o Re-plaster Yost Pool o Routine Maintenance/10 years o Necessary to continue operating the pool • PRK 6: Waterfront Walkway Completion – Ebb Tide Section o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $1,250,000 o Improve safety mobility challenges or strollers o Shoreline Permit approved o Easement currently under legal review • PRK 7: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration • PRK 8: Community Park & Athletic Complex Ph 2 (CFP Only) o Former Woodway High School site o In partnership with the Edmond School District o Phase I – lighting to significantly expand usage o Phase 2 - on hold • PRK 9: Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building (CFP Only) o Current building 40+ years old o Long-term planning purposes only, must secure funding • PRK A: Citywide Park Improvements/Capital Replacement Program o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $2,405,000 o Significant maintenance backlog throughout park system o Prioritization driven by community input through PROS plan and safety • PRK B: Beautification Program o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $126,000 o Flower plantings, irrigation and mulch o Outdoor plazas, corner parks, streetscapes, gateways, flower baskets, etc. o $19,000 per year in sponsorship revenue o • PRK C: Park and Open Space Acquisition Program o Total 6-year Cost Estimate: TBD based on opportunities that arise o Property supports PROS Plans priorities o $3,094,000 accumulated by 2027 ($700,000 from prior years) MEETING EXTENSION AT 10:36 P.M., COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:00 P.M. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED 5-1, COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES, COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 27 Councilmember Olson asked when Council would have the next opportunity to challenge or address specifics within the CIP/CFP. She pointed out that there is a council meeting tomorrow night that conflicts with the Planning Board hearing. Mr. English replied that Councilmembers could send questions to city staff, who will try to respond. 4. IN-PERSON VS VIRTUAL COUNCIL MEETINGS Council President Paine said this item was added to decide whether or not we want to return to in-person meetings or continue with the virtual option. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas noted that as chair or vice chair of the Health District for the last six or seven years, she knows that the increase in COVID cases in Edmonds is particularly problematic, especially with the recent shutdown of Madrona School. There’s also been an outbreak at Edmonds- Woodway High School where the football team has been isolated and games have been suspended. With the increase of cases throughout the county and particularly in Edmonds, she believes it is not safe to have in-person meetings or gatherings, whether they be council meetings, committees, Seahawks games, etc. She pointed out that none of the boards or committees she serves on meet in-person. She said people can do what they want, but she does not support meeting in-person. Councilmember Olson pointed out that it comes down to what you prioritize, whether it be restaurants, Seahawks games, or participating in your public process. She said we found that there are shortcomings to the all-virtual world, yet it continues to be an option for everybody who wants to participate that way. She said the last discussion about the hybrid option was more about encouraging the elected officials to participate in-person. She said there is value for those who do choose to participate live, and also value in being able to see someone’s face. She felt the city could work it out with the staff who have to participate in-person, and take steps to protect everyone in the council chamber using plexiglass and other measures. The bottom line is that the hybrid option means that you can choose to be virtual; every single participant can make that choice, whether it’s the public, the city council members, or Mayor Nelson. We know about distancing and masking, so everybody just needs to make the choice that's right for them. She said the public has been yearning for us to make this an option. Doing the hybrid option now would be an opportunity for the public to be seen and heard on the budget, which is the most important thing that we do. She encouraged the Council to support a hybrid option. Councilmember Distelhorst said he has thoughts similar to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. He said as one who still has kids in school, and having kids who are at a school that has had an outbreak, he knows how many parents are getting close contact emails. He said this is not just about showing up and giving comments in public. He noted we just heard from our Regional Fire Authority that there still are significant strains on our hospitals, including our Edmonds hospital. Snohomish County residents have been put on ventilators, and there were nine more deaths in the last week. He said there are staff who would absolutely have to be there in-person if we have a hybrid model, and even if that's only two or three people, we have a responsibility as leaders to take care of their physical health and well-being. If one or two people are not comfortable being there, then that's just an untenable decision. He stated that that he’s not comfortable forcing staff to be there when the rest of us can choose to participate remotely. He concluded that it’s not an inappropriate choice for us to be making and doesn’t speak to the current public health situation in our city and county. Council President Paine pointed out that we can't ask for vaccine status like other venues around, and we can’t ask for people to wear masks. She said although there are only a few staff who have to participate in-person, they are essential staff who are responsible for making sure our video is working properly. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 28 said God forbid if any one of them got sick or had to quarantine because we wouldn't be able to operate very efficiently. She said she is not in favor of going back to in-person meetings quite yet. She noted that there have been some promising numbers for a couple of weeks, but we're tipping back up again and don't have a whole lot of resource available for all of us in the hospitals. She said she is willing to consider it in a few more weeks, but we need to see how this all comes together in the short term. Councilmember Laura Johnson noted that the rates that were given out by Snohomish County Health have gone up by 6%. More than one in four who are eligible to get the vaccination have chosen not to get vaccinated. Some of those who are demanding a return to in-person meetings are the same individuals that are sending us information against vaccination. She said Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Everett, and Mukilteo have not gone back to in-person meetings. She said remote attendance is not an option for all of our staff, some of which have young children. For these reasons she is not going to ask that of them. COUNCILMEMBER LAURA JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO REVISIT IN-PERSON MEETINGS AT THE LAST MEETING OF NOVEMBER. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas noted than no other group is meeting in-person and there’s a reason for that. She said during her long tenure on the Council there have never been so many people giving public comment on a routine basis, and it’s because we are using Zoom. She disagreed with those who say there’s less participation, noting that when we were in-person there were very few comments, unless there was a major issue. She said she’s excited to see that we have 10 or 15 people every week who want to comment on Zoom. She said nobody’s trying to keep us from going live again, it’s just common sense that says maybe right now is not the best time to do this. Case rates are going up, nobody else is doing it, and she has no problem with waiting however long before we come back live. She said she had no problem doing in-person meetings for 10 years, but unfortunately she is concerned that people are going to get ill, and we can't force them to mask and can't make them show. We can’t mandate vaccination cards and can't do anything to protect anybody. She pointed out that last time we met in-person, people were sitting right next to each other, and 80% of the people were unmasked. She said that was very uncomfortable to be in that situation, as someone working with the Health District there's a lot of contact tracing that occurs throughout the county and it's irresponsible for us to move forward at this point. Councilmember Olson felt the public is really looking for guidance and statistics from us about what protections need to be available in order to consider moving forward. Otherwise they feel like they're in limbo, and we go through this monthly exercise with no tangible factors to consider. We need to know where the goalposts are and when we are going to be open to meeting in-person again. She felt there would be a lot less pushback if we had some tangible goal, or if it didn't seem like we just didn't want to meet in-person. Councilmember Distelhorst stated that if the Council wishes to use metrics, the case rates were 80% lower the last time we met in-person. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out that nobody on the Council is a health care professional, so they are not qualified to determine everything that’s going on with the pandemic. The bigger decision maker and subject-matter authority is Public Health. That is who the public should rely on. Council President Paine thought Councilmember Distelhorst’s case rates benchmark was a good metric, but she also wants to be sensitive to the metric regarding hospital capacity. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 29 A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO REVISIT IN-PERSON MEETINGS AT THE LAST MEETING IN NOVEMBER, WHICH CARRIED 4-1-1, WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, DISTELHORST, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. 10. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS 1. OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING REPORTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Distelhorst recognized two of his favorite young leaders in Edmonds -- Brooke Roberts and Owen Lee, who are participating with him in the Week Without Driving. Council President Paine was pleased to hear the presentations regarding the Edmonds Marsh and the Marina Beach Project. She said the water filtration work that's being done along Highway 104 will be really helpful for the long-term health of the Marsh. She then urged the council to please enable their cameras during council meetings so we can ensure everyone is engaged and participating. She said she feels serious about this and will ask that it be included in our rules of procedure because it gives us transparency. She noted that if we're still going back and forth between the virtual and in-person worlds, this is a way that everybody has access to us in a visible and verbal way. Finally, she reminded council that the next meeting would be held on Monday. Councilmember Olson reminded everyone that the election is next Tuesday, which is why we're meeting on Monday night. She said make sure you vote in those great resources at the League of Women Voters, voter 111 resources. Councilmember Kristiana Johnson commented that she misses seeing you all and participating in the meetings. MEETING EXTENSION COUNCILMEMBER LAURA JOHNSON MOVED TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR THREE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 5-1, WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, K. JOHNSON, AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged everyone to get their votes in, noting that this is the opportunity to make those decisions for the future. She said she thinks Edmonds voters have always voted on the issues, so she’s pleased to be living in Edmonds. 12. MAYOR’S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson encouraged everyone to vote and wished for a happy and safe Halloween. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 30 At 11:01 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 31 Public Comment for 10/26/21 Council Meeting: From: michelle dotsch Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 6:26 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Return to hybrid Council meetings starting November 1 As the Council had previously voted, there should be a discussion and action on tonight's Council agenda about returning to hybrid Council meetings. I did not see it listed so hopefully it will be added as was recorded. As a citizen who actively participates at Council meetings for years now, it is apparent that a Zoom only format leaves a large gap in open public engagement due to the technical challenges or inability to have Zoom access for many residents of Edmonds. The other factor, especially with a hybrid format, is the ability to have the public be able to be seen when speaking at the podium as is required at a traditional Council meeting. Everyone is to see each other at an OPM and those of your constituents and peers who comment are given a dark screen or only a faceless voice from beyond. It is demeaning and frankly seems to be disrespectful when the format used to show the faces of the public when the emergency Zoom meeting format started in 2020 and only disappeared months later without any explanation. The technology exists in the hybrid model for both options for everyone be seen unless they wish to phone in. Please vote to return to a hybrid meeting format starting November 1 and allow both the public the option as well as Councilmembers and staff to be in person safely with masks and distancing or remote. Sincerely, Dr. Michelle Dotsch Edmonds resident Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 32 From: Kathleen Rapp Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3:01 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Fwd: What’s the rush with the 2022 CIP/CFP? Subject: What’s the rush with the 2022 CIP/CFP? Dear Council Members: I'm reaching out to all of you because I feel we all deeply care about the Edmonds Community and all of its Citizens. Tonight please consider what's best for the Marsh to protect the habitat and Edmonds. Consider delaying council’s deliberations on the CIP/CFP until after the planning board has had their public hearing, deliberated and provided their recommendations to council.Thank you for reading my email Council Members. Kathleen Rapp From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 3:57 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comments on CFP/CIP and 2022 budget The Council has the CFP/CIP on its agenda for presentation tomorrow. So, rather than sending public comments now, I thought it best to first hear what is presented before making public comments at a later Council meeting. Two things though I hope Council members will raise as questions after the CFP/CIP presentations so the public can hear the staff/Mayor answers. 1. Where is the Perrinville Creek Restoration Plan that the Mayor promised to distribute last March, and how can City staff propose a CFP for Perrinville Creek if they don't first have a Council APPROVED Restoration Plan as the Mayor promised? 2. Why hasn't the 2022 Marsh Restoration CFP been revised (or deleted) to acknowledge that WSDOT is still well over one to many years away from taking title for the Unocal property? Further, if the Marsh CFP was not deleted (as it should be so that an ecologically based Marsh restoration CFP can be prepared in future when property issues are resolved), why wasn't it at least updated to put it under "Parks" (since the Edmonds Marsh is a wildlife reserve) and updated to address the fact that the State legislature has given the City FUNDING (which is what CFPs are supposed to address) for the purchase of the Unocal property? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 33 Even if Unocal claims the cleanup might be completed in 2022 (which is very, very unlikely), DOE would still have to approve it and go through public comment and input processes under the MTCA which take months to complete. Further, once that happens, title has to be transferred to WSDOT (which is currently in litigation with Chevron regarding the Purchase Agreement), and WSDOT has said they would still have to undertake a public process to address disposition and use of that property (which could take a year itself). ALSO, during the Council deliberative process, Council members should STRENUOUSLY OBJECT to staff or other Council members suggesting Council questions be done off-line - - this is supposed to be a public process and the public has the right to see and hear all of the questions, answers and deliberations on budget matters that directly affect all taxpayers. AFTER the public has had a chance to finish reviewing all of budget documents AND hearing all of the CFP/CIP and budget presentations, Planning Board recommendations (and review their minutes), other public comments, and staff answers to Council questions, AND discuss them with fellow citizens and Council members, THEN the public will be in a better position to provide constructive comments for the Council's deliberative (and open to the public) process - - This is a long-winded way of saying the budget approval process SHOULD NOT be expedited and should proceed into December as it has in past to ensure TRANSPARENCY and UNIMPEDED Council deliberations on public input on budgetary matters. From: Linda Mae Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 3:29 PM To: Susanpaine@edmondswa.gov Cc: Mikenelson@edmonds.gov Subject: Important I am asking the mayor and city council to postpone any decisions concerning our municipal budget until after the election and new council members are sworn In. This is the right thing to do and many citizens are requesting this same thing. It is time for ALL OF YOU to listen to we who support this city. You serve we who vote and live here. We do not want to support a political agenda that many of you are forcing on the citizens of Edmonds. Delay any budget approvals! We demand this! Linda Fernandez Edmonds, wa Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 34 From: karen prater Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 3:28 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Stop Budget Rush I trust CM Buckshnis and former CM Bloom!! STOP the budget rush!! Karen Prater From: Elizabeth Fleming Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 2:06 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please do not rush the budgeting review process for 2022 budget. Hello council President Paine and Mayor Nelson: I am writing to request that the Council President and Mayor rethink the tecent updates made in order to rush the 2022 budget process. It is unreasonable and irresponsible of you to reduce the timeline so as to accomplish your political goals. I spoke at last week’s council meeting in thus regard and so you know that I feel this is undermining the will of your constituents. There was originally more time planned for presentation & review, then discussion and to hear citizen input and now it’s been crammed into a much shorter window than prior years. The motivation to do so is looking very questionable and that is something this Administration and council should be sensitive to. There is no acceptable excuse to have changed the calendar at such short notice. Please dig deep and try to tap into the long lost integrity that we hope still exists and that your constituents are pretty much begging for. Thank you Beth Fleming Edmonds resident Rec’d 10/22/21 – 1:45pm From: Dawna Lahti As citizens who value the electoral process, we have to agree with Councilmember Buckshnis that to rush budget approval ahead of a game-changing vote of the people smacks of an unfair Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 35 move to circumvent the will of the electorate (whose voice has already been heard in the primary). Keep the traditional schedule and postpone council vote on the budget until well past the election certification, please. Respectfully, Jim & Dawna Lahti From: michelle dotsch Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:35 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Turley, Dave <Dave.Turley@edmondswa.gov>; Teresa Wippel <teresa@myedmondsnews.com>; Edmonds Beacon Editor <edmondseditoryourbeacon@gmail.com> Subject: Reference to all extended agendas put out starting 8.6.21 referencing the 11.23.21 planned budget adoption agenda item See below for all of the 10 straight notices of extended agendas put out to the public that identified November 23, 2021 as the date for the planned agenda item for the 2022 city budget deliberation and adoption. Also, for 10 straight public notices, November 16, 2021 was listed as the date of the second public hearing on the 2022 proposed budget. Until October 15, 2021, just 5 days ago, all of a sudden it changed...please give an explanation as to why? November 23 now has only a single 20 minute item included on the agenda. The 2nd public hearing on the budget has just been moved to a brand new date during Committee night as a new special meeting starting an hour earlier than the regular council meetings at 6pm instead of 7pm. How will the public be able to even know about this or participate at such an early time when regular people are coming home from work or making dinner for their kids? If the 2nd Tuesday is normally Committee night and no public participation is allowed, why would someone even think there would be a critical public hearing scheduled, let alone an hour earlier than normal? Are you relying on the media to do that for you? The Administration did not even properly provide the local media and general public the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 36 information and date of the Mayor's 2022 budget address, also at an inconvenient time for regular folks at 4:30pm, so almost no one knew and very few heard it. That is very odd as it is usually a big announcement to get the Mayor's agenda out to the public/media and what he is taking from listening to his constituents and putting forward for the following year's priorities. There is still a meeting scheduled for November 23, 2021, so what necessitated the last minute addition of a special meeting one week sooner when the November 23 meeting still allows for the needed time to have the budget deliberation and adoption? Why could it not have remained on November 23, 2021 as it was originally scheduled for on 10 straight extended agendas, consistently approved by the council president with the administrative staff, and released to the public? What has suddenly occurred to hastily change it? For a reminder of the cogent advice given at your budget retreat in May of 2021, your facilitator was quoted in an article by My Edmonds News: During retreat, council discusses 2022 budget priorities, possible shift to two-year cycle - My Edmonds News He also reminded councilmembers of their important role in developing policy guidance for the budget, which the mayor presents in draft form each fall, followed by council discussion and amendments based on public feedback. Under state law, the final budget must be approved by the end of the year. Clear communication to the public about budget priorities is key, said Bailey, who described that process as “telling these stories in a way that people who are paying for the services can understand it.” Bailey acknowledged the difficulty of communicating budget messages during an era of remote meetings due to COVID-19 gathering restrictions. “Even though the pandemic has changed everything, the fundamentals have become even more important,” he said. Under these circumstances, it’s key for councilmembers and staff to be prepared so they can communicate effectively, and in a thoughtful and respectful way, he said. Is this 2021 budget process respectful of the citizens you represent? I look forward to your response, Dr. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds Resident Extended Agenda released 8.6.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting (If a meeting date falls on the General Election, the meeting is held on Monday) Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) FIN 20 min Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 37 NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 90 min NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget FIN 120 min Extended Agenda released 8.13.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) FIN 20 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 90 min NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget FIN 120 min. Extended Agenda released 8.20.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) FIN 20 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 38 Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget FIN 120 min. Extended Agenda released 8.27.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) FIN 20 min NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget FIN 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget FIN 120 min. Extended Agenda released 9.3.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 20 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Added Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget D/PA 120 min. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 39 Extended Agenda released 9.10.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 20 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget D/PA 120 min. Extended Agenda release 9.17.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 20 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Budget Deliberations on the 2022 Proposed Budget D Total Time 2 hrs. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 40 Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget D/PA 120 min. Extended Agenda released 9.24.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 20 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Budget Deliberations on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 120 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget D/PA 120 min. Extended Agenda released 10.1.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 20 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Budget Deliberations on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 120 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget D/PA 120 min. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 41 Extended Agenda released 10.8.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 20 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Budget Deliberations on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 120 min. NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Second Public Hearing on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH 10 min. Budget Deliberation on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 90 min. NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberation and Adoption of the 2022 City Budget D/PA 120 min. Extended Agenda released 10.15.21: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting (my note: this is a regular meeting and NOT a special meeting as the date is moved up for the general election held on the normal date. Please correct this) Presentation and Public Hearing on the Proposed City Budget (2022 Budget) PH 30 min. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Budget Deliberations on the 2022 Proposed Budget D 120 min. NOVEMBER 9, 2021 – Council Committees Public Safety, Planning & Personnel – 5:00-6:00 p.m. Alliance for Housing Affordability ILA Amendment Planning 10 min. Total Time Finance Committee – 6:00-7:30 p.m. CANCELLED Full Council Special Meeting – 6:00-7:30 p.m. Added Second Public Hearing and Deliberations on the 2022 Proposed Budget PH/D 90 min, Total Time 90 min. Parks & Public Works Committee – 7:30-9:30 p.m. Total Time NOVEMBER 16, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Budget Deliberations and Adoption of the 2022 Proposed Budget A 145 min. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2021 Page 42 NOVEMBER 23, 2021 – 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting Little City Hall on Highway 99 P/D 20 min.