cmd110121 spec mtg 2
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
November 1, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human
Serv. 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 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember L. Johnson 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.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. FAMILY COURT AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming November as Family Court Awareness Month in Edmonds,
and encouraging all citizens to support the mission of Family Court Awareness Month Committee.
Tina Swithin, founder of One Mom’s Battle and creator of Family Court Awareness Month, explained
she entered the family court system 12 years ago naively believing that child safety was prioritized,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 2
unfortunately that is not what is happening. Her daughters are now safe, but it took years and many other
children are not safe. October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month; domestic violence is about power
and control and that desire to maintain power and control does not just vanish when the relationship ends
and many times escalates and moves into the family court system where children become the pawns. Many
people are shocked to know that most family court judges have zero training in domestic violence, yet they
are making decisions that impact the life of a child, sometimes literally.
The goal is to shine a spotlight on these issues and start really important conversations with elected officials
within communities. In her opinion, the first step toward change was awareness; she was grateful for the
City of Edmonds joining the list of over 200 cities, counties and states this year proclaiming November as
Family Court Awareness Month. She thanked the City for standing with them on the importance of a court
system that prioritizes children and their safety.
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the tree ordinance passed by the City Council. She has
spoken every week, not only for herself but for others who own property with trees and would like to cut
down one or more to build a house. Edmonds has taken possession of their trees and is forcing them to buy
them from the City, even though they have already paid for them, before they can take down trees to build
their houses. She was shocked that this was allowed as it is against the constitution and property rights. She
was shocked the City’s planning department slowed the permitting process that they began almost five
years ago, causing damage to them. She suggested the Council consider what it would be like to have this
happen to them; they were planning to build a home, the plans are ready, the planning department said it
was fine, and you’re about ready to turn in the permit application only to find out that it was halted by six
months and while that was halted, the Council decided they should be charged again for the trees they
already purchased. She found it really disheartening that government voted in by the people can ignore the
peoples’ needs, wants and rights given to them by the constitution. She was thankful the Council has
listened to her and although she was sorry to see some of them go, she was happy to see new people come
in. She requested the Council consider the constitution every single time they vote and ask the City Attorney
if its legal.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, relayed she recently attended a Planning Board presentation on the Buildable
Lands Report. Prior to a few weeks ago, she had not realized the extent to which the City has and will in
all likelihood seek to focus density in the SR-99 corridor far in excess of any other area, the same corridor
that has been consistently for decades been under-resourced by the City. This bring new urgency to the
City’s budget process and highlights the need to immediately reimagine the way the City allocates recourses
and who receives benefits from their tax dollars. She was extremely concerned that the City has created and
will continue to create significant risk factors for communities along the SR-99 corridor/uptown area to
become displaced which would be deeply inequitable and a tremendous loss given the unique and diverse
communities that reside near SR-99. The City is fond of saying it is not like Seattle, yet she could see the
making of Columbia City and South Lake Union displacement in the City’s actions. She requested the City
at large slow down and think about equity and displacement and take similar care and diligence with
planning for the SR-99 corridor as is done with the bowl to ensure communities are not displaced. She
requested the City choose not to be like Seattle in the SR-99 corridor/uptown area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 3
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said December 15, 2020 was a bad night for citizens of Edmonds; the City Council
was told that evening that there were two emergencies which he did not believe. The City Council was also
told an emergency ordinance can take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the
whole membership of the Council; this is not true, a unanimous vote is required. Councilmembers now
know the truth. One so-called emergency was to allow streateries in City streets; Ordinance 4209 declares
the following, without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries need to continue
to operate under a special event permit but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. This
is a declaration by the City Council of a home rule City government with broad powers. Why declare
something that is not true? The second so-called emergency was to allow outdoor dining without a
conditional use permit under Ordinance 4210. On August 24, 2021, the City Council passed new Ordinance
4232 that claims Ordinance 4210 has now expired. He did not think Ordinance 4210 expired, but suspected
Ordinance 4210 ended up being null and void. He questioned whether Council had asked about this or if
anyone had bothered to address action taken under Ordinance 4210 between December 15, 2020 and
September 1, 2021. If not, why does the City have laws?
Mr. Reidy continued, both so-called emergency ordinances were also interim zoning ordinances; interim
zoning ordinances require a public hearing be held within 60 days of adoption. The December 15, 2020
City Council agenda packet stated the following about what would become Ordinances 4209 and 4210:
both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within
the time required under State law. On December 15, 2020, City Council was even told that February 2,
2021 was a possible date for a public hearing. Public hearings were not held within 60 days for either
ordinance. He questioned whether any Councilmember had asked the City Attorney to make open and
transparent disclosure to the public regarding the legal consequences of failing to conduct public hearings
within 60 days of adoption and if not, why not? He urged the Council to remember who they represent,
stating his belief that the conduct evidenced by the adoption of Ordinances 4209 and 4210 impairs citizen
confidence in City government. He questioned why any City government would choose to behave this way
and urged the Council to address all issues related to Ordinance 4209 and 4210 and seek to improve the
quality of public service and confidence of citizens.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented he was totally lost on how the current process was working. He
understood that the CFP is supposed to be part of an approved Comprehensive Plan and he could not
understand how the Council was discussing amending the Comprehensive Plan to put in a new or modified
CFP at the same time they are discussing new funding, a new budget, new granting decisions, etc. He
questioned whether the process should be that the CFP is discussed, deliberated and approved by the
Council prior to starting the budget process to determine the annual budgeting needs, priorities, etc. He said
it made no sense whatsoever to have this mixed up discussion of, 1) priorities and what’s important for the
City and 2) how to fund it to get the job done. Mashing that process together eliminates the ability for the
public to provide constructive input because no one know whether they’re talking about the CFP, CIP,
budget item, decision packet, etc. That needs to be fixed to ensure a transparent budget process. He
recognized it was probably too late for this year because the Council has the same mess in front of them
again but he hoped there would be a deliberative process next year to fix this and do it right.
Mr. Scordino continued, in March Mayor Nelson promised to put out a restoration plan for the Perrinville
mess. Unfortunately, now there are specific budget items to implement what should have been part of that
restoration plan without having a restoration plan to see how they fit or who should pay. Lynnwood is a big
contributor to the Perrinville problem and he questioned why the City was not requiring they be part of the
process instead of Edmonds taking on the burden of the problems caused by Lynnwood and Edmonds’s
stormwater. He recommended creating a restoration plan, getting Lynnwood involved before the City starts
spending taxpayer’s money.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 4
AJ Johnson, Edmonds, a firefighter at the Maplewood fire station, referred to the presentation by the fire
department and the need to increase service. He commended the Council for taking the time to understand
something that can sometimes be incredibly confusing. He thanked Councilmember Distelhorst specifically
for his comment last week that citizens frequently indicate their number one priority is public safety. Public
safety does not start and end with the Edmonds Police Department but has many different facets including
the City’s fire department. The level of service is the same as it was in 1989 and it is time to treat the City
of Edmonds like the third largest city in Snohomish County and properly staff the department. He hoped
the Council would vote yes on the increased service level that is presented because his family and theirs
depend on a well-staffed fire and EMS department.
Alicia Crank, Edmonds, relayed concern with behavior she and others in the community have witnessed.
She hoped and asked sitting Councilmembers who are texting her and others to speak out against other
Councilmembers and electeds to stop that behavior. That was not what she expected elected leaders to do;
she did not expect them to ask her or others to speak out against other people or other members of the
community and that is not why the Council is there. It made her very uncomfortable and people who spoke
to her also expressed discomfort. She recognized there were a hotbed of issues right now but urged
Councilmembers to refrain from asking community members to get involved in “muckety-muck” and
engage in negative behavior. That is not what Edmonds is and not what residents want it to be. She
suggested taking a step back, focusing on representing all members of the community and not asking others
to dig up dirt on their neighbors.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, referred to last week’s discussion about hybrid meetings, commenting people
are interested in having more options and she hoped and asked the Council to consider those requests.
During last week’s meeting, Councilmember Distelhorst shared a piece of information, saying 85% higher
than last time the Council was in person, which scientifically data speaking sounds like a big number but
she had no idea what it meant. She was trying to find information about Edmonds-related COVID cases
and found the Snohomish County site was not updated through the end of October unless it was updated
within the last day. She also visited the City of Edmonds site seeking COVID-related information and found
much of the information was from June. She suggested establishing a place on the City’s website to inform
citizens about the number of cases per 100,000 which was used as the basis for phases 1, 2 and 3 last year
and earlier this year. She hoped that would help get everyone on the same page; alignment of the number
of cases and the goal would be very helpful. She echoed Ken Reidy and Joe Scordino’s comments regarding
the budget and following the process and basic rules. She hears lots of things that are happening related to
not following the law, codes and ethics and encouraged the Council to do better. She agreed the budget has
been rushed and most people who have been commenting feel its rushed. Having the same people repeatedly
talk to the Council is okay because they are speaking for more than just themselves. For example, when
they are speaking about constitutional rights related to the portal, stepping on people’s rights or treating
people poorly while they are making comments, they are defending everyone’s rights.
(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.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the reason the October 26, 2021 meeting minutes were not in the packet
was because this was a special meeting and there wasn’t sufficient time to include them. City Clerk Scott
Passey responded the minutes writer was out due to a medical procedure so he will be writing the minutes
for the last two meetings.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 5
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. BUDGET PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Nelson explained the process would be to open the public hearing and give the public the opportunity
to comment followed by Council questions.
Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained the first of the public hearing is regarding the 2022
budget. He recognized that the budget process and preparation of the CFP and CIP can be very confusing
to citizens. He reviewed:
• Why are we having this presentation tonight?
o RCW 35.33.057 states that “Prior to the final hearing on the budget, the legislative body or a
committee thereof, shall schedule hearings on the budget or parts thereof”
• What is the purpose?
o When putting a budget together, we start with understanding our revenues. One purpose of this
presentation is to help you understand City revenues to help us make expenditure decisions,
another is to give you context later this evening when you decide whether to increase our
property tax levy by 1%.
o For both this and the property tax agenda item, tonight is an opportunity to hear comments
from the public and for Council to discuss whether to adjust our Property Tax Levy for next
year. Thursday will be for discussion of decision packages.
• Budget Priorities/Highlights
o What is in the proposed budget in addition to ongoing City services?
▪ ARPA Funds: Year 2 of ~ $11 million in federal funds to be invested in Edmonds
businesses, individuals, and green infrastructure.
▪ Improvements to the uptown community: Beginning construction of Phase 2 of the
Highway 99 Revitalization Project.
▪ Community Policing: In response to State mandates, and an effort to address public safety
issues, as well as take proactive steps to engage the community.
▪ Climate Action: Investments in solar energy, electric vehicle, and making additional
electric vehicle charging stations available for public use.
▪ Human Services: Continuation of the program begun in 2021.
▪ Maintenance of buildings: Significant investments being made in long delayed building
maintenance.
• Citywide Revenue Budget - $114.8 million
o General Fund – 39%
o REET – 4%
o Parks Construction – 3%
o Street Maintenance – 1%
o Street Construction – 12%
o Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund – 4%
o Debt Service 1%
o Fleet and IT (Internal Services Funds – 3%
o Water, storm and sewer related funds – 32%
• Graph of City revenues 2021 compared to 2022 related to the General Fund; Water, Storm and
Sewer related funds, Fleet and IT, Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund, Street Construction, Street
Maintenance, Parks Construction, REET, and other.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 6
• Graph of General Fund Tax Revenue (2015 through 2020) – sales tax (increased from $6.9M in
2015 to $8M in 2020 and likely $10M in 2021 and 2022), property tax (little increase in 3-4 years),
EMS tax (little increase in 3-4 years), and other taxes (decreasing since 2016)
• Graph of General Fund Reserves (2016-2020 actual, 2021 estimate and 2022 budget), with and
without transfers
o These have been very consistent over the last several years
o This stability helps when making a 2022 forecast
o General Fund Revenues – 2% per year on average
• General Fund Revenues
o About 74% of GF revenues are made up of property taxes and sales taxes
o Property Taxes - very predictable and consistent
o Sales Taxes - unpredictable and more volatile
(Chart from page 24 of budget book)
• General Fund Revenues – Other (~26%)
o These are things like charges for services, fines and penalties, grants, and other misc.
▪ Development Services - Building permits and related fees
▪ Parks - Program fees for things like classes
▪ Outside Revenues - Agreements with Woodway and Edmonds School District,
Distributions from the State (e.g. liquor and marijuana taxes), ~ 90 revenue line items in
total
o In general, in preparing the 2022 Proposed Budget, we have returned to pre-pandemic
expectations for these revenues and related expenses
• General Fund – Property Taxes (~35%)
o Very predictable and consistent
o Presentation to follow later this evening
• General Fund – Sales Taxes (~39%)
o Retail Sales Tax ~ 22%
o Other Sales Taxes (Utilities, Criminal Justice, Leasehold) ~ 17%
o Graphs of 2020 and 2021 Sales and Use Tax (comparing current year, budget and prior year)
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
o A significant revenue source that can help to alleviate pressure on the General Fund
o (REET does not affect most households in a given year)
o REET 1 & 2
Cumulative
Budget Forecast
Monthly
Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January $ 195,748 $195,748 $ 625,840 219.72%
February 341,557 145,810 922,678 170.14%
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 7
March 525,343 183,786 1,222,093 132.63%
April 697,989 172,646 1,478,072 111.76%
May 895,413 197,424 1,949,51 117.74
June 1,1120,061 224,648 2,330,065 108.03%
July 1,335,075 215,015 2,879,064 115.65
August 1,581,214 246,138 3,453,870 118.43
September 1,849,736 268,522 3,818,929 106.46
October 2,083,774 234,038
November 2,308,787 225,013
December 2,500,000 191,213
o Graph of 2021 REET Tax 1 & 2 (comparing current year, budget and prior year)
• General Fund Revenues and Budget Planning
o What you need to know (updated from 2020):
▪ COVID will be with us for all of 2021 2022, we have prepared a budget intended to deal
with this for the long term. A vaccine will help, but it will take time.
▪ Forecasting - Our actual results have fallen in line with projections that we have made.
▪ Trends - Our revenues remain strong, and we foresee continued growth in Sales Taxes and
REET.
▪ Stimulus Packages - Nationally and locally, federal government stimulus packages have
had a positive impact on keeping the economy going.
▪ Budget for 2022 - We are hoping for the best, but planning for the worst continued slow,
steady growth overall.
• Next Steps
o Once this presentation is concluded, next on the agenda is our Preliminary Budget Hearing:
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Accept comments
3. Close Public Hearing
o This is a presentation only, no action is asked for this evening. Its purpose is to inform Council
and the public and help make decisions on expenditure setting later.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described the procedures.
Patrick Hepler, Edmonds, retired Edmonds and Fire District 1 firefighter, who served for 38 years, asked
for the Council’s support in increasing funding in the interlocal agreement with South County Fire so
paramedic staffing at Station 17 can be increased again from the reduction in February 2017. There have
been paramedics in the City of Edmonds since January 1969 beginning with Medic 7 based out of Stevens
Hospital and there was a dedicated paramedic unit in the City of Edmonds until 2017 when the funding was
taking away and the Medic 7 unit was lost. In 2003, half of the Medic 7 paramedics were integrated into
the City of Edmonds Fire Department and the other half into the Lynnwood Fire Department. He strongly
asked for the Council’s support to reinstitute the staffing level as losing two paramedics at Station 17 has
severely impacted the responses and staffing with the City of Edmonds. Advanced Life Support (ALS) calls
require response by more than one station instead of only Station 17 or a Medic 7 team. That affects not
only the three Edmonds stations but the Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline stations to help cover
ALS needs.
Kim Bayer-Augustavo, Edmonds, said she has lived in five different locations in Edmonds throughout
40 years and not always in the bowl. She anticipated the only reason the budget approval was being rushed
by Mayor Nelson and his party of four was because the five knew there would soon be a power shift from
state and regional agendas in Edmonds to an actual, true Edmonds agenda that can finally support all
citizens including those that don’t agree with them. She urged Council President Paine and Councilmember
L. Johnson to think about how good this alliance to Mayor Nelson will be for them as she predicted they
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 8
would not be the remaining block of four as of tomorrow’s election outcome. They and Mayor Nelson are
so transparent about their agenda; there is no reason to rush the budget process. It is quite obvious that
Mayor Nelson wants to get his agenda approved without answering to new thinking on the Council. It is
also clear Mayor Nelson does not care what ordinary citizens think. She commented on the number of
emails Mayor Nelson has received with no response; he does not respond to anyone that he views has a
different viewpoint than his very partisan agenda. She knew many residents were excited about the outcome
of tomorrow’s election so the Council will no longer function as a private partisan membership that has
chosen to completely ignore the voices of who they were elected to represent. She urged Council President
Paine and Councilmember L. Johnson to do the right thing by slowing down approval of the 2022 budget
until after Councilmember Distelhorst’s replacement is on the Council.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, referred to public comments he made almost eight years ago. The December 3,
2013 Council minutes indicate he said the code rewrite is the biggest issue facing the City and that
establishing a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy way to administer City code is critical to the
City’s efforts to provide a high level of government service that invites economic and other beneficial
activities. He described the difference between the Edmonds City Code (ECC) also known as the Edmonds
Municipal Code and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The ECC consists of Titles 1-
10 that address issues such as health, safety, finance, officials, boards and commissions. The ECDC consists
of Titles 15-25 that address building, planning, land use, public works, design and natural resources. The
December 3, 2013 minutes indicate he said that both parts of the code require update and he urged the
Council to give the complex code rewrite the attention it deserved. Prior to moving forward with an annual
budget process for 2022, he requested the Council review ECC 1.02.060 and make sure they are following
the City code. He noted the word “shall” in that code section, pointing out that shall means it is mandatory.
ECC 1.02.060 requires a review of the mid-biennial budget to commence no sooner than eight months after
the start and no later than conclusion of the first year of the fiscal biennium. public hearings on proposed
budget modifications are required to be heard prior to the adoption of the ordinance modifying the biennial
budget.
Mr. Reidy continued, Ordinance 3671 established this City code and Ordinance 3671 has never been
repealed. This is the City code and he questioned whether it meant something and if not, why does the City
have laws? After City Council figures out how the Council can approve an annual budget when the code
requires a biennial budget, the ECDC is not the only thing that needs to be updated. The ECC also requires
update and he requested the Council budget accordingly. The code rewrite has been budgeted many times
over the years. Budgeting is one thing, executing the budget is another thing. He questioned whether the
Council had any idea of what they can do to represent constituents if the budget is not executed and whether
anyone had asked. He requested Council review how City government obtains its legal advice as part of the
budgeting process. He questioned how the 2021 City Council budget for a contract approved by the 2019
Council that contains contingent fees that can be retroactively adjusted higher if option triggering events
take place.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, referred to the 2022 budget, commenting it was not clear how the City
prioritized distribution of the budget. When he reviewed the decision packages, he found priorities ranging
from 1 to 24, all deemed approved. He asked how the prioritization process was used and whether and how
individual decision packages were approved to move forward for Council consideration. It seems more like
a wish list instead of set of prioritized expenditures needed for the City. It would be helpful to highlight a
budget process flowchart so citizens can follow the process. The proposed 2022 budget includes
expenditures $7 million more than the revenues. The Council should have a robust discussion about how
they are spending reserves by this amount particularly with inflationary pressures on the horizon. He
referred to DP 20, rooftop solar grant program and asked whether the City wanted to entice lower income
households with $5000 subsides for solar panels that cost $18,000 to install. Adding insult to injury, the
budget for affordable housing is zero. DP 66, the O&M staffing plan, requests additional operators for a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 9
brand new carbon recovery system at the wastewater treatment plant. The City just spent a great deal of
money for new equipment and he did not recall that additional employees were part of that discussion.
Mr. Ogonowski found the capital budget equally puzzling; a few weeks ago Perrinville flooding was
categorized as a near emergency condition; however, the budget does not reflect that urgency. The proposed
over-spending of $3 million in park land is questionable because it will soon be superseded by the upcoming
PROS Plan in the next couple months. He recommended capping the parks plan to within revenue and
reevaluating the budget once the PROS Plan is presented to Council. In light of the complexity of the
budget, he did not see how a thoughtful review could be accomplished in an expedited timeframe. The
results of the State audit for the City’s finances also have not been provided, an important part of the budget
reconciliation. He requested the Council reevaluate its budget schedule and act accordingly.
Carl Zapora, Edmonds, said as this was the public hearing on the budget, he wished the presentation had
given a broader overview such as total revenues and total expenses projected for 2021, the net income or
loss to the City and how that compared to 2020, and whether there was a surplus projected or a deficit. The
presentation should also have provided a bigger picture of the last ten years, the financial health of the City,
net assets and reserves and whether they are increasing or being depleted, and whether they are sufficient
or insufficient. Any one year budget can be important, but how the City is doing longer term is very
important, whether the City is in a good financial position for when/if bonds are required in the future, what
is the City’s bond rating, and whether the City is gaining or losing ground. That detail may be in the long,
complicated budget, but a public hearing on the budget should highlight those items. He thanked the
Council for the work they are doing.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Zapora was spot on with some of the concerns she has brought up. She
offered to share with him the email she received from Mr. Turley. She asked if questions and comments
were being posted on the website. Mr. Turley asked if her question was about posting questions regarding
decision packages. Councilmember Buckshnis said it was related to any questions, she planned to focus on
the strategic outlook on page 13 which she asked staff a number of questions about. She wanted to clarify
things for citizens so they understood where she was coming from. She recalled posing questions to staff
on the global or overall financial package, long term financial planning, strategic outlook, reserves, etc. and
asked if those questions would be on the City’s website. Mr. Turley said they would be posted on the
website.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the date of the strategic outlook. Mr. Turley answered it was sometime
in August. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the outlook projected spending $2.1 million in reserves to
fund ongoing expenses in the 2022 budget. Mr. Turley answered reserves are far in excess of policy so there
are funds available to spend down and the 2022 budget plans to spend $2 to $2.5 million. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked how the one-time reserve will fund ongoing expenses past 2022. Next, Councilmember
Buckshnis said the outlook is extremely outdated and she asked if the outlook would be updated to include
bonds received by December 2021. Mr. Turley said the strategic outlook is actually pretty good and he
would stand by it. There are a couple places where the forecasts are conservative but overall it looks pretty
good and he did not plan to make any changes to it between now and when the book is published.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Mr. Turley said sales tax had increased drastically since August and
the City will receive over $5 million in bond proceeds, yet he did not think that was material enough to
update the strategic outlook. Mr. Turley said the bond proceeds for building maintenance are included in
the budget book in the estimated column for Fund 016. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the projection
of 5% underbudget and asked if that was included in the projections, a total of $2.5 million. Mr. Turley said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 10
he felt like he was on trial. Mayor Nelson agreed there was a lot of cross examination going on, commenting
it was not an inquisition. He suggested Councilmembers reframe how they pose questions.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has submitted these questions but was trying to ask them during a
meeting so citizens understand. She offered to try to “speak more florally.”
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, suggesting there be a little bit of decorum.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would let someone else ask questions since they did not like her
regulator voice. Mr. Turley said a 5% under-expenditure is pretty close to what has actually happened
historically and it was reasonable to expect that in 2022.
Council President Paine asked if the approximately $2 million that is different and that goes over was the
ARPA money. Mr. Turley answered no, the vast majority of the ARPA money is in a special revenue fund,
Fund 142, and not in the General Fund.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has asked a lot of questions and wondered if they would all be on the
website. Citizens are contacting her and she has been following through with them as well as her review of
the budget. Mr. Turley answered Councilmembers have been working hard the last week; a lot of questions
have been submitted. He was happy to see that but it was hard to keep up with answering them. He believed
all the questions and answers received through Friday have been posted on the website with the exception
of one or two complicated ones about the Parks budget. A number of emails were submitted over the
weekend and staff is working as fast as possible to keep up. He summarized all the questions and answers
will eventually be posted on the website. If any were missing, it was an accidental omission.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the amount such as the new person in the Mayor’s office and supplies
(DP 1) had been embedded into the budget. Mr. Turley answered yes, looking at the Mayor’s page in the
budget book, salaries increased, nearly doubled, due to the addition of the REDI program manager.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the increase in supplies was due to the additional person in the
department. Mr. Turley answered DP 1 included a line for supplies, miscellaneous, etc. because the person
will need a computer, a desk, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will forward staff’s responses to her
questions to the residents who contacted her.
Councilmember Olson recalled during negotiations on decision packages last year, Councilmembers’ input
on the same items were not consolidated and were not considered at the same time. She recalled discussing
during the budget retreat doing that differently this year. She asked if that was being done. Mr. Turley
recalled a suggestion to group them together and it had worked better. He planned to do that again this year,
but that will not be part of the discussion at Thursday’s meeting. Official proposals by Councilmembers on
the same item will grouped together.
2. PROPERTY TAXES PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING
Dave Turley, Finance Director, explained that State law states that we must “hold a public hearing on
revenue sources for the district’s following year’s current expense budget.” In our case, property taxes
make up about $15.4 million, or 35% of the General Fund budget. He said the significant purpose of this
presentation is to inform the council’s decision whether or not to increase our property tax levies by 1%.
The legislature has limited cities to increase their property taxes by no more than 1% in any given year.
He explained that property taxes that go to the City of Edmonds make up only 11.2% of the property tax
bill paid by the typical Edmonds homeowner (this was 14.6% last year). Because the City of Edmonds is
only one piece of the pie, if our rate stays the same and other rates grow, the percentage that comes to
Edmonds actually decreases, which is what's happened recently.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 11
Continuing, he stated that the City’s tax levy may only increase up to 1% per year except for 1) tapping
banked capacity or 2) approving an excess levy or a levy lid lift. In 2014-2016 the City levied extra
money to pay for debt service on the Public Safety Building. He reviewed the tax levies chronologically,
concluding that over the past eight years we've had very little property tax increases in the City of
Edmonds. He noted that a 1% increase to the regular property tax levy equals about $105,000 of
additional revenue to the city. For the average household, this would represent a $6.25 increase to the
annual property tax bill. A 1% increase in the EMS levy would add about $41,000 in revenue. He noted
that in previous years the city has not increased the levy but has exercised the option to bank capacity.
He noted that following the public hearing, the council needs to discuss alternatives and decide whether
or not to increase these levies. Either a motion to approve 0% or 1% increase to the regular levy, and
motion to approve a 0% or 1% increase to the EMS levy. He said he will bring the ordinances to Council
next week on the consent agenda rather than bringing all the possible permutations tonight.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, expressed opposition to increasing the regular property tax rate but was okay with
the EMS levy. Because property tax revenues provide 35% of the general fund budget, he thinks that
carries with it a responsibility for the city council to represent all citizens, including property owners. The
city has historically used part of that revenue to contract with a city attorney, but he does not necessarily
represent the interests of individual property owners. This is illustrated by his comments in past Planning
Board meetings in which he is quoted as saying “I represent the city of Edmonds, I’m here to advance the
interest of the city of Edmonds, not individual property owners.” He said he would feel better about
paying property taxes if city staff and directors would respond to all citizen emails and remember their
code of conduct: “The city's primary function is to provide service to the citizens of Edmonds. To achieve
that goal, all employees are expected to treat the public as their most valued customer. All employees are
expected to serve the public in a professional manner which is courteous, efficient and helpful.” He would
feel better about paying property taxes to the city if elected officials responded to all citizen emails and
followed their code of ethics, which includes keeping the community informed, encouraging
communications between the citizens and municipal officers, and friendly and courteous service to the
public. He would feel better about paying property taxes if the city was able to execute the code rewrite.
He would feel better about paying property taxes if the city government consistently followed State and
city laws. He urged the city to please make improvements so that all feel better about paying property
taxes in the future.
Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, commented on the ongoing nature of taxes versus a cyclical nature, noting that
Mr. Turley mentioned that sales tax revenue tends to be a bit volatile and somewhat cyclical, whereas
property tax tends to be steady. He said one of his concerns with the budget is you're paying for
operations or ongoing expenses using the reserves. He would prefer to see those spent on infrastructure,
parks, improving Highway 99, and transportation issues rather than ongoing operational expenses. He
said he would like to know where to find that information to understand how operation expenses are
going to be funded. Noting that Mr. Turley mentioned needing more time to respond to council questions,
he said there’s an obvious solution to that that people can figure out for themselves. He said property
taxes are going up due to increasing values, so we shouldn’t be raising the levy rate. However, we know
that we're going to need money for EMS and yet, even the $40,000 a year is not nearly enough to cover
the 1.5 million proposed by the Fire District. His concern is that the money would come from the General
Fund. He pointed out that Woodway left our service district in 2018, so while the EMS levy stayed the
same, our service area has shrunk. In effect, our EMS amount stayed the same, He proposed that the city
consider sharing services somewhere up by the hospital district instead of moving down to Station 17.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 12
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said she supports the EMS levy and would also support other taxes as long as
the city could spend them equitably. However, that has not been the city's history, so she wouldn't support
additional property taxes because her area would not see the benefit of that money.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, expressed concern about a property tax increase, given the current economic
situation and inflation that many are living through due to COVID. She said now is not the time to raise
property taxes, but she would support the levy requested by the Fire Department. She urged the council to
prioritize the budget so that we don’t ask the public to pay for more and spend more than our revenues
allow. She didn’t think it was a priority to add additional staff in the mayor’s office; instead, we should be
focusing on things like infrastructure and public safety. Once those things are funded, then we can decide
what’s the priority based on how much is left over. She reiterated we need to prioritize and pay for the
priorities that are most important, and challenged the city to go back to the numbers and figure out where
it can come from. She pointed out that Snohomish County is also talking about a 2.5% property tax
increase for Snohomish County residents, so it's ridiculous to be asking people for more money. She said
it puts undue pressure on people who can't afford it, or maybe prevents people from getting out of a rental
and into home ownership. And since we’re always talking about affordable housing, how does a property
tax increase fit into all these conversations?
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, felt the process was out of sequence and asked how do you decide if you
need additional property tax revenue if you haven't even decided on a budget? He said the philosophy
seems to be one of getting the money first and then figuring out what you’re going to do with it. He said
there hasn't been enough time for the process to work itself out thoughtfully, considering everything he’s
hearing. He concluded by stating that the EMS would be money well spent.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has no interest in raising property taxes, as it can be very
regressive to those that are barely hanging on financially. However, the EMS levy is an important piece,
given that we’re going to be spending between 1.5-$2 million in police services. Therefore, she will be
voting no on raising property taxes but probably vote yes on the EMS levy.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Ogonowski that making this decision is premature, though
she agrees with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. and we have banked capacity for many years. She said
although she’s not interested in raising taxes, we should look at the entire budget picture, because there
are lot of issues with the budget and CIP/CFP. She said she’d like to postpone this public hearing until a
future day.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for the EMS levy, recognizing it’s not very large compared
to the $1.5 million that’s needed, but it’s a start. Regarding property taxes, he said everyone should
understand that by limiting the housing supply, prices have gone through the roof. When you're not
adding new housing, you need to raise taxes at some point because the prices will continue to increase. If
you want to try and address it without raising taxes, then you need to do it through housing reform. You
can't have one without the other, so if people are unwilling to have that discussion here, it needs to happen
on the housing supply side.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed previous comments, noting that she’s definitely in favor of the EMS
levy and then banking the 0% property tax. She confirmed with Mr. Turley that the EMS levy is only to
be used for EMS services, though the services are considered public safety and not to be used for police
services.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 13
Councilmember Olson pointed out that people bought their homes years ago when they were affordable,
but because the property values have gone up, people are paying a lot more in property tax. She said
although we can’t control the property values, we can control the rates. She was not in favor of increasing
the rate because it makes it less affordable for long-term Edmonds homeowners. She said the EMS levy
makes sense and is easy to justify, but she feels this is a year where there's much more pressure on our
residents. She said she is not going to vote for either levy and is looking to make other expenditure cuts in
order to make the budget balance with available revenues.
Council President Paine stated that fire services are directly funded by the EMS levy, so it's an
appropriate revenue source. It will contribute to better fire services, which is what we’ve been talking
about the last two weeks. She was not in favor of increasing the property tax due to the hardship people
are facing. She pointed out that we all benefit by the regular surplus in REET revenue, so she didn’t
support adding a property tax increase to the mix.
Councilmember Olson clarified that even though she does not support the EMS levy, she definitely
supports EMS and will propose other ways to finance it later in the agenda tonight.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Turley why this decision needs to be made tonight. She said
generally we don't make decisions directly after a public hearing.
Mr. Turley explained that council would not be making a final decision tonight; he will bring the actual
ordinances back to Council next week. He reiterated that when putting together a budget, you start with
your available reserves from previous years, then add your revenues to it so you know the total sum that is
available to make expenditure decisions. He said it is absolutely appropriate to talk about the revenue side
first, because you can’t decide how much to spend later if you don’t know how much revenue you will
have. He pointed out that unlike other revenues sources which Council has no control over (sales tax) or
are approved at other times (utility tax), the property tax is really the only revenue source the Council
approves as part of the budget process.
Councilmember K. Johnson said it makes sense from a budget standpoint, but said if there’s no deadline,
she would prefer making the decision next week so there’s more time to hear from our citizens. She added
that they often comment after the public hearing and she wants to honor transparency and citizen
participation.
Councilmember Fraley Monillas said it is important to understand what monies we have to work with, so
it’s reasonable to decide this in advance of anything else. She pointed out the city has not raised property
taxes for many years, and all the public comment tonight confirmed that people don’t want a property tax
increase. She did not see any reason to get more citizen input as it would just prolong the budget process.
She said nobody has contacted her asking for a property tax increase, so she was in favor of moving
ahead.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE 1% EMS LEVY INCREASE. UPON ROLL
CALL, MOTION CARRIED 5-2, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE VOTING YES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE A ZERO PERCENT INCREASE IN THE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 14
PROPERTY TAX LEVY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO
BANK TAXING CAPACITY.
Councilmember Olson said she thinks we really don’t expect to use the banked capacity; it’s more of a
safety net in case something really out of the ordinary happens. Mr. Turley stated that if you don't take the
increase, then it just stays on the table automatically. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out that we have
always made the statement that we bank capacity, adding that we can have a zero increase and not bank it.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney, added that he believes it is possible to have a zero increase and not bank
capacity, unless something has changed. He said it is not his understanding that banking occurs
automatically. He said the city could potentially be entering a period of very high inflation over the next
10 years. Therefore, since property taxes are capped at 1%, the council might wish you had that bank
capacity.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE AMENDMENT TO BANK TAXING CAPACITY,
WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE A ZERO PERCENT
INCREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY AND BANK TAXING CAPACITY,
WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO PLACE THESE LEVY ORDINANCES ON THE CONSENT AGENDA NEXT
WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RECESS
At 8:48 p.m., Mayor Nelson called for a five-minute comfort break. The meeting resumed at 8:53 p.m.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2022 TO 2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Rob English, City Engineer, reviewed that the CFP/CIP process actually started back in July when they
began developing the capital budgets for the city budget, which continued into August and September.
Those capital budgets were submitted to Finance, and then Parks and Public Works developed the actual
CFP/CFP document together. In October, staff made a presentation to the Planning Board on October 13,
and another presentation was given to the City Council last week on October 26. He reviewed the
following:
• The Planning Board held a public hearing at the October 27 meeting and received comments
along with two written comments prior to the public hearing.
• The Planning Board approved the following motion and recommendations at the October 27
meeting: motion to recommend the 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) to City Council, with the following recommendations:
1. That staff do their best to explain the funding aspect of the CFP to the public and
explain why items are located where they are, particularly the Marsh Restoration
Project and other projects that incorporate multiple components of the CFP.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 15
2. That the City should establish a formal process to establish values and a vision of
Edmonds that would be as part of, and lead, the Comprehensive Planning
process.
3. Seek opportunities to shift monies or look for funding to move forward with
projects that advance equity throughout the City.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, read the Planning Board’s recommendation to explain funding aspects of the CFP
and asked whether explanations were provided prior to tonight's meeting so citizens could prepare public
comments for this public hearing. He suspected not, as he sees that staff is again proposing to place the
Marsh under Stormwater. He said this is counterproductive to ensuring the needed ecological approach to
restoring the Marsh estuary. He noted that as a wildlife reserve, the Marsh should be managed as a
wildlife sanctuary. He said the Marsh stormwater project of the Public Works CFP needs to be deleted; it
is a $17 million erroneous cost estimate based on a faulty contract report that ignored wildlife and
migrating salmon needs, as well as outdoor recreation values, including wildlife viewing and nature trails
under city parks. It includes unnecessary berms, sea walls, plastic liners and off-site excavation hauling
costs that are not needed for successful marsh restoration. He said the city should keep the Marsh
restoration project only on page 12 of the Park CFP as is with a to-be-determined costs, until such time
that WSDOT disposition of the old UNOCAL property is resolved. His question is this: Is it a good idea
to have this public hearing so few days after the October 27 Planning Board meeting? The October 27
Planning Board meeting minutes aren't even available yet. And is it a good idea to have this public
hearing on the same night that two other public hearings are scheduled? How much time does the public
have to provide feedback Council needs to represent all of us on a variety of issues? Should this public
hearing be extended to November 16 so the public has more time to prepare public comments for the
2022-2027 CFP/CIP? He said please consider doing so.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he’s one of the few people that’s had the Marsh up to his elbows and
armpits, so he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Marsh management and restoration. He
agreed that the $17 million project in the PW CFP document is problematic and needs to be deleted. It
comes from a faulty contractor of a port that assumes the connection between the Marsh and Puget Sound
would be through a relocated ferry terminal. He said we all know that's not true; the report and dollar
amount was never corrected, so the best thing to do is toss all the old information. He said the Marsh
Restoration project in the Parks CFP is where it belongs. He said let's clarify things once and for all and
have one clear city approach to what we want to do with the Marsh and adjacent UNOCAL property. He
said let's start making sense of things with one CFP under Parks; the city should have no problem getting
sufficient grant funds for restoring the Marsh since the purpose would solely be salmon recovery, near
shore estuary restoration, and recreation for a wildlife sanctuary. If it is presented as a cohesive
comprehensive package under a Parks umbrella, there's no problem whatsoever with the city getting grant
funds. His said putting the Marsh in different places and using bad numbers only hurts us, so let's stop
doing it. He thanked the city for the actual Stormwater project in the Public Works CFP that does benefit
the Marsh, which came as a recommendation by the Save Our Marsh group. He said it will give Public
Works all the authority, funding, and access to the Marsh it needs. He reiterated that deleting the $17
million project and keeping Marsh restoration where it belongs will put us on a clear path to restoring the
Marsh.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, said she was concerned that not enough time has been given to such an
important issue, noting the late hour that this issue was discussed at the last meeting. She said she also
shares the concerns expressed by Joe Scordino and Ken Reidy regarding how the CFP/CIP is laid out. But
she is very concerned that the CFP/CIP, which is such a huge part of the budget process, is being rushed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 16
so quickly. She said talking about it from 9:30-11:00 p.m. like was done last week is neither reasonable
nor transparent. She stated that she opposes the way this budget process is being run.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said she doesn't like speaking against investments in recreational programming
or making life for young families harder, but money is not infinite and resources should be spent
equitably and in ways that uplift all communities. She noted that daycare facilities in the Highway 99
corridor are located in commercial buildings that have been repurposed for childcare. Foam padding and
play equipment are installed over pavement in small, back alleys far from green open space and parks.
She pointed out that under city code, daycare facilities are secondary uses that are allowed outright upon
all park facilities. But what do you do when you only have a single half-acre park flanked by utility
corridor in your area? These daycare facilities do a tremendously great job making these spaces
welcoming and providing some after-hours programming for families through their private resources. She
highlights this because it illustrates the issue of public service versus private burdens. The resources
identified in this CFP -- Boys and Girls Club, Civic Field, Francis Anderson, parks, programming, and
many others are public services in the bowl, and yet they are private responsibilities in the Highway 99
corridor. She said these decisions are real and impactful to families that live here who are not seeing the
benefit of their tax dollars. She said Washington state health data from the census indicates the area she
lives in has greater health disparities and a higher proportion of low income and non-white residents in
the city as a whole. She said she believes our form of government is based on the principle that all of us
are created equal and that the equitable allotment of resources is a government responsibility. Equity is a
city responsibility and is increasingly becoming a consideration for grants. If for no other reason, equity is
needed for the city to continue to successfully compete for funding. She said do not make past failures to
consider equity a failure of this council and administration. She urged the council to act now to equitably
distribute resources to all areas of the city.
Susie Schaffer, Edmonds, said she couldn't agree more with what Joe Scordino said regarding the
Edmonds Marsh. She would like a comprehensive plan that includes the whole UNOCAL property and
elements incorporated to get all kinds of grants. She envisioned the plan featuring a large, comprehensive
park based around this wonderful, restored estuary connected to the beachfront that will be accessible to
everyone. She commented on the many people who've been coming to the demo garden with their kids,
adding that we need to be keep planning for the design and funding through Parks. She said we need a
different kind of planning effort than we've had before; rather than just trying to get some scraps, we need
to think big. She added that we need our own Stanley Park – a place that’s got something for everybody.
But mostly it's to support our salmon and our native wildlife because that's what everyone needs.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said he loves parks, but our capital plan for the parks is somewhat confusing.
The mayor’s budget message about the Uptown community would suggest that we're going to prioritize
this area, yet the Parks budget doesn't include any projects for Uptown. Adding insult to injury, the Parks
plan highlights projects proposed for the Bowl that aren't even on a planning horizon, yet again, there is
nothing planned for Uptown. He questioned the priority for $1.25 million to build 100 feet of boardwalk
along the waterfront. Additionally, Parks wants to spend over $3 million more than they have in funding
for 2022 using fund balance reserves. That represents 70% of their reserves. He said given inflationary
pressures, he’s not sure that’s prudent to do at this point. Noting that the PROS plan is coming to Council
for review within the next few months, he suggested that the city keep parks funding at the revenue level
until it has a chance to reevaluate. Once the PROS plan is brought back for review, it will provide a better
picture about how we should move forward.
Marjie Fields, Edmonds, said she knows how hard the Parks Director is working to make the plans
equitable, and people just need to have more information. She agreed with the Planning Board
recommendation for better explanations about the CFP/CIP because the public is really confused and
concerned about many things, including Marsh restoration being listed under Stormwater. She said one
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 17
issue that needs discussion is the reported link between utility rates and the Marsh being listed in the
Stormwater plan. There is great concern that utility bills will be higher if Marsh restoration is funded
through the Stormwater budget. There are other more serious reasons that people are nervous about Marsh
funding being placed in Stormwater – the concern that stormwater engineers, instead of scientists, will be
making decisions about how to restore the Marsh to a fully functioning estuary. She commented on the
disaster from the Stormwater approach in destroying the function of Perrinville Creek. She said qualified
experts need to plan for Edmonds Marsh and Perrinville Creek, which is why she’s concerned about
where the budget is showing the Marsh. She said the public needs information about how the CIP/CFP
documents affect actual practice.
Ron Eber, Edmonds, said in following the efforts of Save Our Marsh and others, it strikes him that what
the city really needs is a comprehensive approach in dealing with Marsh restoration and not a patchwork
stormwater approach. Because it’s a wildlife sanctuary and not a stormwater basin, he supports moving
the money out of the Stormwater CIP and into the Parks CIP. He said the council needs to initiate what it
voted on unanimously last year to do -- have a comprehensive plan amendment this coming year. He
urged the council to get the Edmonds Crossing and all conflicting provisions out of the plan that are
inconsistent with Marsh restoration efforts before spending more money on stormwater projects. He said
a clear policy statement is needed about what your objectives and goals are for restoration, acquisition,
and protection. He said the policy will provide a path forward, then you can put the funding into
adequately dealing with the restoration. He said the city shouldn't be waiting until 2024 to do those plan
amendments; those should come first. This is a change in perspective; this is not a storm water issue, this
is an ecological issue. Based on that perspective, the city should get the amendment and the policy clearly
articulated in the comprehensive plan, and then decide exactly how you're going to fund it.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, said as a recently retired ecologist from NOAA and a 40-year resident
watching the Marsh develop, he knows something about marshes. He expressed support for those who
spoke previously about viewing and planning the Marsh as a complete system and not a stormwater
system. He said there is a lot of literature showing that marshes around the country, when they're properly
managed and developed in a comprehensive way, do prevent stormwater issues in their particular
watersheds. He said a comprehensive Marsh plan needs to be in the Parks CIP/CFP, and it can have
stormwater issues to be resolved, but not the other way around. He supported the seven other speakers
who spoke on this issue, adding that the Salmon Safe City team is about to start taking a comprehensive
look to see what the city can do to further support healthy salmon populations.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis thought the city should postpone this public hearing until a future date due to
more time-sensitive items. She said she agrees with Mr. Reidy’s comments, and having watched the
Planning Board, she would like to see the minutes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 23.
Councilmember Olson asked if the Council can consider November 16 instead so it’s not postponing for
three weeks.
Council President Paine replied that Council could continue to November 9 because we already have one
public hearing on the proposed budget. She wondered if that would give staff and Council the time to
make modifications and address the issues addressed tonight. She didn’t think there will be modifications,
but Council could vote for a second public hearing on the CFP/CIP.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 18
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out that modifications can occur during the CIP/CFP process; it's just
an amendment. She said she has no problem with November 9 but she does intend to make modifications.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
NOVEMBER 16.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not understand why the public hearing should be extended
when we just had eight public comments received at the hearing. She said it’s probably more people who
have ever spoke regarding this CIP/CFP. She did not support continuing the hearing.
Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out that the extended agenda anticipates adoption of the 2022-2027
CIP/CFP on December 14. She was not sure what is being attempted tonight, given that there is ample
time remaining.
Councilmember Olson said she will continue to listen to comments, but didn't realize that we weren't
finalizing it until that date.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how we can adopt a budget without first adopting the CIP/CFP? She
expressed her preference for doing the CIP/CFP first because it feeds into the budget. She said she’s heard
from many citizens that follow the extended agenda who have questions and would like the public hearing
continued. Given that it just happened at the Planning Board, she said people have contacted her and said
they haven’t had time to go through the entire document. We also hear citizens say they can’t believe we
started the discussion at 9:30 p.m. last week. She said she’s just offering transparency, and maybe citizens
who listened tonight will read it on My Edmonds News and may want to comment.
Council President Paine clarified that the extended agenda for December 14 included a typo – it’s only
the CFP, not the CIP, that is scheduled for adoption on that date. She said after speaking with Mr.
Taraday, the CFP ordinance must be adopted at the last meeting of the year, but the CIP needs to be
adopted with the budget.
Mr. Taraday said it is true that historically, the city has adopted the CFP in conjunction with the budget.
This year, for the first time, the CIP and CFP are one document, so it may be that our historical practice of
adopting this CIP with the budget is not necessary. This year we could just adopt the entire document at
the end of the year with the comprehensive plan. He said the other reason why it’s been done in
conjunction with the budget is because during years when we have had other comprehensive plan
amendments, that had already been adopted. One of the exceptions to the once-a-year rule for adopting
comprehensive plan amendments is that if we amend the CFP in conjunction with a budget adoption or a
budget amendment, we're allowed to deviate from the once-a-year rule. We don't have that problem this
year, so the CFP is the only comprehensive plan amendment that is going to be considered this year.
Because of that, it does not have to be done at the same time as the budget. He apologized to the Council
President because he didn’t have some of this information when he spoke to her earlier.
Councilmember Fraley Monillas said the comment has been made that citizens feel 9:30 is too late to be
working on this. However, it’s 9:30 now and the council still has another hour and a half work ahead of it.
She said working late is something she’s been doing during her 12 years on the Council. She said perhaps
some people can’t attend, but this is the business we’re in. She didn’t think the late hour was a good
reason to continue a public hearing when Council already received very good input tonight.
Councilmember L. Johnson said that although 9:30 may be late for some, she is more concerned about
continuing to push things off. She did not want to have a situation like last year, where we were having
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 19
budget amendments and deliberations at a four-hour meeting that went past 11p.m. She said dumping a
whole bunch of amendments and changes at the end is not transparent. If we keep continually trying to
push all of these things, we're going to be doing something very similar.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented that final CIP/CFP ordinance adoption is six weeks away, so
there is still quite a bit of time for discussion.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for continuing the public hearing. She said the information
Council just received about the adoption schedule supports a later date. She said because this is a very
important issue involving a lot of money, we can continue taking input right up until we make a decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis stated that the city cannot pass a budget without an adopted CIP/CFP because
the decision packages are tied directly to the 2022 budget. She said there’s a lot of confusion based on the
city attorney’s comments. She said she doesn’t see how it’s financially possible to approve a budget
without having a CIP/CFP, which is the budgetary tool. She said Mr. Taraday needs to provide a white
paper on it because it doesn’t make financial sense in all of the11 years she has been on the Council.
Mr. Taraday suggested starting with an oral explanation first; then if there’s a need to draft a memo, we
can consider it. As he understands it, the decision packages contain all of the capital project decisions for
the 2022 budget. Therefore, through the Council's consideration and action on the various decision
packages, the Council would basically be able to lay out and adopt its capital budget. To the extent that
any of the Council's action along those lines is different from what's currently proposed in the CIP, that
document would be amended to be consistent with the adopted budget. Basically, the Council's
deliberations and action on 2022 capital dollars happens through the decision packet process, and then the
CIP is made to conform to that.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to have an explanation on that because there are many
aspects in this CIP/CFP that may not be in year 2022. However, it actually has a long-term financial
impact on a city and as a Councilmember who focuses on oversight and long-term financial planning, she
would like to understand exactly why we are separating those two very important documents and
approving the budget first. She again requested a white paper and said she will be checking with the
municipal finance folks she knows because she feels that it would be a big disservice to not look at the
CIP/CFP in its entirety. Mr. Taraday said he won’t be rendering an opinion on that because he has no
legal opinion on the sequencing of these documents.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked what would happen if the council repeals the budget. She pointed out
that the extended agenda indicates that the budget will be approved on November 16. Citizens have been
asking her when a new Councilmember is seated at the end of November. If it’s determined that we
would like to hear that new person's voice, we can repeal the budget if we have four votes. She said it
becomes even more cumbersome to not approve the CIP/CFP in conjunction with the budget.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO NOVEMBER 16. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION WAS DEFEATED 2-5,
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, L.
JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC
HEARING TO NOVEMBER 23. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION WAS DEFEATED 3-4,
WITH COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 20
AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, L. JOHNSON, AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED TO POSTPONE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS
AND AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 4 LICENSES TO THE DECEMBER 7 COUNCIL
MEETING.
Councilmember Olson said she’s worked on this item a lot over the past few months and would like to
move it forward. She added that she sent prior notice of her amendments to the full Council so they know
what she had in mind.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS
AND AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 4 LICENSES TO THE DECEMBER 7 COUNCIL
MEETING. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON VOTING NO.
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. 2021 NOVEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT
Dave Turley, Finance Director, commented on the question about bank capacity from the previous
discussion. In checking his sources, he explained that when inflation is below 1%, that is time when you
have to separately request to bank capacity. Because inflation is currently at 3- 4%, tonight’s ordinance
would not have had to separately request to bank capacity, so it would have banked automatically.
Mr. Turley then outlined the three items comprising the November budget amendment, as follows:
1. A September decision package created the authority to transfer the funds out of the Memorial
Tree Fund into the new Tree Fund. This adjustment is needed to correct a mathematical error that
was discovered after the previous budget amendment was approved so the Memorial Tree Fund
nets to zero.
2. In August of 2021, council approved the reorganization request for the Municipal Court. This
decision package accounts for the estimated cost impact in 2021 for the following:
1. Create an Assistant Court Administrator position;
2. Backfill the clerk position vacated by the individual who will become the Assistant
Court Administrator and create an additional Court Clerk position;
3. Reclassify the Court Administrator; and
4. Change the elected Municipal Court Judge position from 0.75 FTE to 1 FTE.
3. In June of 2021, the HR Analyst Position moved from part-time to full-time on a temporary basis
in order to meet the increased staffing needs of the city. It has been determined that this change in
FTE would most benefit the city as a permanent position change. This decision package is to
approve the permanent change salary and benefits for the Senior HR Analyst Position in 2021 by
reallocating budget from the vacant S&D Coordinator position.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4234 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 21
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND ORDINANCE
Patrick Doherty, Community Services & Economic Development Director, reviewed that Council
previously approved in July the intended usage of the city's allocation of American Rescue Plan funds.
Six accounts were created: city expenditures; household support; business support; nonprofit organization
support; job retraining program; and green infrastructure. The proposed amendments in the draft
Ordinance are intended to accomplish three things:
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 many 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.
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 too low a threshold
since we did not receive many applications. The proposed amendment would raise this
threshold to $10,000 in prior grant awards.
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.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
FRALEY MONILLAS, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 4229 RELATED
TO THE EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MEETING EXTENSION
AT 9:56 P.M. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. AMENDMENT TO CITY'S AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
Mr. Taraday noted that Chief Hovis and Deputy Chief Eastman are in attendance and may be helpful in
answering any questions of the Council. He then directed the Council’s attention to the draft letter in the
packet from the Mayor to South County Fire, which would accomplish the task of complying with the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 22
deadline to provide notice of the city’s designated remedial measures required by the interlocal
agreement.
According to the draft letter, beginning on January 1, 2022, the City would add one 24-hour two-person
transport unit to be stationed in Edmonds pursuant to terms that would be contained within an amendment
to our interlocal agreement (ILA). This 24-hour two-person transport unit would be a temporary Remedial
Measure whose purpose is to add to the service level while giving South County Fire time to negotiate the
right to convert this 24-hour unit to two two-person peak hour units (PAUs). The City proposes the
addition of two PAUs to be its long-term Remedial Measure. While it had initially contemplated that this
conversion would occur upon a date certain, the City proposes an alternative arrangement that would give
South County Fire a more flexible deadline to complete those negotiations and the related conversion.
Mr. Taraday stated that the addition of two PAUs will better balance the NUUF and TBF than the
addition of one 24-hour unit. If South County Fire insists on keeping the Negotiation Thresholds as
part of the ILA (the City would like them removed), the City would expect that the parties have at least
two years of data with the two PAUs in service before another Threshold Notice could be issued. For
example, if the additional 24-hour transport unit is converted to two PAUs on January 1, 2024, then a new
Threshold Notice could not be issued until after January 1, 2026. A Threshold Notice issued without two
years of data would not give the two PAUs a fair opportunity to bring the NUUF and TBF into balance.
But this proposal gives South County Fire some flexibility in the conversion date, which reduces the risk
of disruption to the deployment of PAUs elsewhere in the South County Fire jurisdiction.
Mr. Taraday requested Council action by motion, either by approval of the letter or any amendments.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE,
TO SEND THE LETTER AS DRAFTED.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the NUUF and related calculations in the exhibit will go away as a
result of designating these remedial measures. Mr. Taraday replied that the letter is drafted under the
assumption that those would not go away, but if we are able to successfully negotiate it they would go
away. In the future, if South County Fire stipulates that they don't need threshold notices anymore, we'll
add in the new 24-hour unit permanently and get rid of threshold notices completely. That is the goal, but
we can’t do it unilaterally. Councilmember Buckshnis noted it was Exhibit E that many of us have had
issues with over the years.
Councilmember Fraley Monillas asked if the City received data regarding daytime/nighttime and/or peak
hours. Mr. Taraday noted that South County Fire presented data last week indicating approximately 67%
of the calls are occurring during the peak hours of 8am to 8pm. He clarified that the official remedial
measure is peak activity units (PAU), but we're giving South County Fire flexibility as to when to
implement them, recognizing that they have a complicated situation to arrange.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she likes the letter but asked if it assumes the $1.5 million renegotiated
amount. Mr. Taraday confirmed that it does because additional service under either scenario equates to
roughly $1.5 million a year in 2021 dollars. Although the letter assumes this, final action would have to
be taken by the Council as an amendment to the ILA. However, designation of the remedial measure
definitely begins that process. Councilmember K. Johnson stated that she does not support the motion
now but it was a great letter.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday that if the City says no, does that mean we have no fire
service?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 23
Mr. Taraday replied that the ILA requires the City to designate some remedial measures it believes will
bring the various thresholds into balance. If it fails to do so, then the City would be in material breach of
the agreement. This does not mean, though, that we are forcing the Council’s hand. The Council has
leeway to designate something other than the mayor's proposal. However, we believe the proposal is
reasonable, considering the extent to which the NUUF is currently out of balance. With peak activity units
(PAU) there's a good chance it will come back into balance.
A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO SEND THE LETTER AS DRAFTED. UPON
ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON
VOTING NO.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everybody who contacted her. She said had a great vacation and told
the Council President she didn't need to be excused because some Councilmembers don't think going to a
football game is a reason to not attend a meeting. She urged people to keep contacting her, noting that
she’s reviewing the budget and CIP/CFP, she has lots of questions, and is listening.
Councilmember Fraley Monillas recognized Linda Ferkingstad for consistently coming to Council to talk
about important issues such as the tree code. She agreed with her that the process that was used was not
necessarily transparent; it could have at least pulled together interested parties who could have come up
with a better solution. She said she has been contacted by many people who probably should have been in
the room from the beginning. She also recognized and thanked Natalie Seitz for speaking every week
about the differences between Highway 99 residents and the rest of the city. She said councilmembers
have talked about how they’re going to work on Highway 99 for the last eight years, but it’s really gone
nowhere until Mayor Nelson got involved.
Councilmember Olson thanked South County Fire, the Mayor, staff, and all of her colleagues for their
hard work and sacrifice on behalf of the City. She said the recent tsunami warning system test illustrated
the fact that many people did not hear it. She urged the city to implement an app-based emergency
warning system that people can opt into and get notifications on our phones. Noting the new Safety &
Disaster Coordinator started work today, she asked that this be made a priority for this new staff member.
She said such apps are readily available in the market, and some services are actually free to both the City
and end users.
Councilmember L. Johnson hoped everybody had a spectacular Halloween, adding that she enjoyed
greeting all of the kids that came trick-or-treating to her door. She particularly enjoyed seeing all of the
teenagers who joined in the fun, noting we should take advantage of any chance we have to extend
childhood through mutual fun. Given that children have missed out on so much, she appreciates that they
chose a COVID-safe activity this year. She felt we should preserve childhood as much as we can and
encourage our teens to choose safe activities over other things they could be doing. She concluded by
reminding everyone to vote, noting there’s a ballot drop box at the Edmonds Library.
MEETING EXTENSION
AT 10:14 P.M. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 24
Councilmember K. Johnson said she would like to make some comments regarding council behavior
recently. She said she was able to appear on camera for the beginning of the evening, but because of her
back injury, she could not continue to sit, which is why she turned her camera off. For some reason, her
screen had been blank for the meeting, so she met with IT staff and he was able to restore her picture. She
concluded by reminding everyone to vote on November 2, adding that every vote counts.
Council President Paine said it has been a busy week of work but she really appreciates all the advocacy
for all the issues that people have been sending us. She said keep up the good work, your advocacy does
make a difference.
Brook Roberts, Student Representative, asked people to please vote with your community in mind, not
just yourself. He also said keep on wearing a mask and be safe, we are in this together.
11. MAYOR’S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson wished all the candidates for local office good luck tomorrow and encouraged everyone to
vote. He said he looks forward to working with whoever wins.
ADOURNMENT
At 10:18 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 25
Public Comment for 11/1/21 Council Meeting:
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:54 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>;
Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 11-1-21 Public hearing on the budget
Council and Mayor Nelson,
There was an LTE in myedmondsnews today about the proposed REDI position in the budget.
Here is a link to that LTE:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/11/letter-to-the-editor-proposed-redi-manager-not-the-
answer-for-achieving-citys-diversity-goals/
Elizabeth Miakinin, the writer of the LTE said:
““Race/equity/diversity/inclusion” managers who have no authority to hire, fire, affect
compensation or award contracts end up being expensive figureheads who despite their
talents, energy and skills are able to affect little or no change.”
I share her concerns. I am also concerned that this is a staff request, unvetted by Council
committee. There should be research done beyond what other cities are doing before this
$150,000, ongoing, and likely to escalate, expense is added.
Council should not be adding an “expensive figurehead” position at this time, given how many
other issues demand the taxpayers’ money. Instead, as the author of the letter says we should:
“Hold the mayor and his staff accountable for race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals through
appropriate job descriptions, performance reviews and compensation.”
Regards,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Councilmember
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:27 PM
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 26
To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public
Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Williams, Phil <Phil.WIlliams@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: CIP/CFP Public Hearing 11-1-21
Council President Paine and Councilmembers,
As other residents who are concerned about the future of the Edmonds Marsh, I am writing to
urge Council to delete Page 73 of the CIP/CFP. The $17M cost estimate is based on a report that
ignored wildlife and migrating salmon needs as well as outdoor recreation values. The $17M
estimate includes costs that are not needed for successful Marsh restoration. The Marsh
Restoration project should be on Page 12 of the Parks CFP only, with a "to be determined" cost
until WSDOT's disposition of the old Unocal property is finalized.
State and federal granting agency concerns are that the City's stormwater-centric approach
lacks the comprehensive, holistic approach necessary for successful restoration of the Marsh-
Estuary. As recently as last year a City grant application for funds was withdrawn because it was
too narrow. Grantee reviewers suggested that a Comprehensive Plan was the best approach to
obtain funds.
So Edmonds has been advised that a Comprehensive Plan for restoring the ecological functions
of the Marsh is needed in order to obtain restoration funds. It’s clear that this plan must be
developed within the Parks department, not in Public Works under stormwater.
There is no reasonable explanation, given all of the above, for the Marsh to continue to be
listed under stormwater. Again, please delete Page 73 of the CIP/CFP. Please do the right thing
for the future of our wonderful Edmonds Marsh and all of the creatures who live there. Please
listen to all of the citizens who care so much and have worked so hard for the Edmonds Marsh.
Regards,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Councilmember
From: Kathleen Sears <kj8sears@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 6:07 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: My comment for tonight's budget hearing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 27
Dear Councilmembers,
Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's budget hearing, so I am emailing my comment to
you along with my request that it be included in the public record. I realize that finalizing the
budget is an extremely time-consuming and challenging task. I appreciate all the hard work that
goes into it and I have tried to keep my comment short and to the point.
Comment submitted by Kathleen Sears, Edmonds resident, to the Edmonds City Council
Budget Hearing, November 1st, 2021.
Dear Edmonds City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you, as you deliberate on the budget, to vote to delete page 73 of the
Public Works CFP/CIP and nest this Marsh money under Parks.
The Edmonds Marsh is a Wildlife Sanctuary and its restoration is (or should be) primarily an
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION project, not a stormwater project. Stormwater regulation is a part
of this bigger goal, not vice versa. Budget categories are not just semantics, they communicate
to the public (and to potential granting agencies) how the city views these projects.
Over the past year, many citizens have tried a variety of ways to communicate to you the
importance of having our city budget reflect a holistic, big-picture view of Marsh restoration.
We have sent letters and emails, given public testimony at council meetings, written guest
columns and letters to the editor in local news sources, and organized community work parties
at the Marsh. Will this year’s budget deliberations show we’ve been heard? I hope that your
discussions and votes this year will show that you have been listening to the many
scientists and citizens who care deeply about the Marsh and who want the city to get it right.
Thank you,
Kathleen Sears
From: Cynthia Sjoblom
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Taradays decision making
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 1, 2021
Page 28
As Ken Reidy has pointed out in his recent email to you/us that Jeff Taraday advised the council
to ignore an Ordinance since it had not been complied with for several years. This is beyond
astonishing!
"Well let's go ahead and continue not to comply with an Ordinance since retrospectively its
been violated for many years."
Lighthouse Law has got to go and this truly needs to be put up for bid. The taxpayers pay for
this. We don't condone paying for advice that violates our laws.
It's also my understanding you don't have to wait until light house law contract expires. You can
terminate their contract at any time. Hopefully you'll look into this.
Respectfully,
Cynthia Sjoblom