cmd110421 spec mtg
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
November 4, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human
Services Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural
Arts & Human Services Director.
Rob Chave, Acting Development Serv. Dir.
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 special meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely, with the
exception of Councilmember K. Johnson.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON,
MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED (5-1),
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 2
Will Chen, Edmonds, shared a message he received this morning, “No way in hell you are being voted
into office. You are a walking coronavirus and will sell every single thing about our city, state and
country back to your homeland. Get the F out of our city and county, piece of shit China man.” Mr. Chen
said he was sharing this message because he believed in the community and knew this sentiment did not
reflect the community. He has been and will continue to advocate for the community no matter the
negativities and hatred of some. He will continue to stand against hate of any form and will continue to
advocate that hate has no home anywhere in this community. We must come together no matter our
political views or feelings on certain policies or politics. We are so much more alike than we are different
and we are better together. He urged the Council to stand with him against this type of disrespect and
hate.
Tom Mesaros, Edmonds, representing the Edmonds Civic Roundtable, relayed the Roundtable’s
thoughts from a recent board meeting: the budget should be a part of a vision process and it should help to
fulfill the vision the City has created. What has the City Council done to prepare for the next 5-10 years
and have this document represent fulfillment of that vision for the future of Edmonds? He invited
Councilmembers to answer the following questions: what is the vision for Edmonds over the next 5-10
years? How have we received ample citizen input so you know citizens agree with the established vision?
What needs do we have to fulfill this vision? Are these needs stated in the CIP and CFP? Have citizens
had ample opportunity to comment and constructively critique the CIP and CFP? Does the current budget
proposal move us toward this vision? How does this current budget achieve this vision for us over the
next year? Have citizens been able to comment on that achievement during 2022? How does this budget
help us achieve our overall goals? Can you answer these questions as a City Council? Have you listened
to the citizens of Edmonds? It’s not too late to do this; the budget process established thus far truncates
the ability for citizens to comment, give input and have a firm understanding of the budget needed to
achieve the vision for Edmonds in 2022.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said a public notice was issued on October 8th stating the second public hearing on
the 2022 budget would take place on November 16th. He asked why that public hearing was now planned
for November 9th, what changed, why does the public have a week less to prepare for public comment
than they were told they would have on October 8th? Why is a public hearing now planned for a Council
committee night? Citizens have been made to accept that Council committee meetings are work sessions
for the Council and City staff that do not include audience comments or public hearings. What is going
on? Why is the November 9th committee meeting now going to include a public hearing? Per City code,
the Finance Committee is supposed to meet next Tuesday night from 6 to 7:30 p.m. Not long ago the plan
was for the Finance Committee to review the September finance report on November 9th. Why would the
City Council cancel a Finance Committee meeting when there is plenty of time to have one? Why the big
hurry to adopt the 2022 budget?
Mr. Reidy continued, this is a unique year where a Councilmember will be sworn in very soon. Knowing
that, why have efforts not been made to do everything possible to facilitate the new Councilmember’s
participation in the adoption of the 2022 budget? The 2018 budget was adopted on December 5, 2017; the
2019 budget was adopted on December 11th, the 2020 budget was adopted on December 20th and the 2021
budget was adopted on December 15th. Why is there a push to adopt the 2022 budget on November 16th,
almost a month earlier than last year? What makes the Council think they can adopt an annual budget
when ECC 1.02.060 requires a biennial budget? Shouldn’t the City Council address this City Code before
doing anything else? Edmonds’ City government has gone to extreme lengths to enforce its code against
citizens. Does the City government think it does not have to comply with its own City code? What if a
citizen told you that for years it hasn’t been their practice to comply with the City Code governing
setbacks? What if that citizen told you that because of their conduct over many years, they do not have to
follow the City Code? He suspected the City’s code enforcement officer would start laughing. He urged
the Council to address ECC 1.02.060 before doing anything further.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 3
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, expressed his sorrow to Mr. Chen that he received the note he read, nobody
should be subjected to something like that. He found it appalling and was proud to have worked with Mr.
Chen on the Housing Commission. He thanked Director Turley for walking him through some detailed
budget and financial questions in the last few days. He was still not sure anyone at the meeting could
pencil out the process the Council was going through to develop and approve the budget. It was stated last
week that the format is different with the combination of the CIP/CFP therefore the process itself should
be different as well. He did not understand how the Council could schedule a process they did not
understand. He encouraged someone to put together a flowchart of the process so everyone is on the same
page because right now he did not think they were. It would also help citizens follow the bouncing ball.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, said she had not planned to speak but felt she had to speak in support of Will
Chen after hearing what he had experienced. She found it very upsetting that someone would say
something like that. Unfortunately, political times bring out the worst in people and elections can make
people passionate to a fault. Everyone she knows in Edmonds would agree that was terrible to say such
things to anyone, it was unacceptable and she offered her condolences and best wishes to Will Chen.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to a decision package in the budget regarding a raise for the city
attorney and city prosecutor. The City approved a flat fee contract with Lighthouse Law Group; the
proposed increase for 2022 is $26,000. In addition to the flat fee and contrary to the rules of professional
conduct established by the Washington State Bar Association, if the City were to cancel the contract,
there is an ability for Lighthouse to back-bill the City on an hourly rate. For that reason, he recommended
having a contingency in the budget for the back-billing. If the administrative services department is
receiving monthly invoices with the hourly services provided in 2021, that could be used to forecast in the
budget. He recalled this being discussed by former Finance Director James, but there is no contingency in
2022 budget for the back-billing and wondered if the City was protected on that. He was also concerned
about the increases in salaries and new positions. He recommended this Council do something similar to
what former Mayor Naughton did, move some of the excess into a real Council Contingency Fund. The
current projected spending is overboard. He urged the Council to listen to citizens and not make decisions
in the backroom.
David Preston, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, explained the Port was also reviewing its
budget that includes new vehicles, electric vehicles and charging stations. The City’s budget includes
nearly $1 million for electric and hybrid vehicle and charging stations. The Port is considering postponing
some of those purchases due to the premium being paid for automobiles. His family sold two vehicles and
a boat this year because they received a premium for the used vehicles; car dealers indicate they are often
getting above the suggested retail value because the market supply is low. He suggested the Council
consider postponing vehicle purchases for 1-2 years.
5. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. BUDGET DELIBERATIONS
Administrative Services Director Dave Turley advised there were several directors and assistant directors
present tonight to answer questions. The plan for tonight’s meeting is to ask budget-related questions
round-robin style. To make the best use of time, questions should be decision package related, but
questions related to operating and capital budgets are also appropriate. The format of the November 9th
meeting will be similar. Councilmembers can begin sending him their proposed additions or deletions
beginning today through November 9th. He was okay if some were introduced on November 9th but it had
been agreed that they should be submitted by November 9th. Anything received by midnight November 9th
he will compile into a schedule grouped by topic.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 4
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating she did not believe the Council had voted on a
drop dead date. Mayor Nelson said he did not recall.
Council President Paine recalled it was discussed at a Council meeting but she was uncertain it had been
formalized. She said it was a good practice because that way everyone would have an idea of what was
going on. Mayor Nelson clarified that was Mr. Turley’s recommendation. Mr. Turley said he was unsure
it required a Council vote, recalling it had been discussed several times that Councilmembers did not want
things brought up at the last minute. On this year’s schedule, the last minute would be November 16th.
Having proposed changes submitted by November 9th will give everyone a week to review each other’s
potential requests. As Councilmember Olson mentioned last week, he will group requests by topic which
worked well last year. A completed ordinance will be provided at the November 16th meeting.
Councilmember Olson said she wanted to be on the record as not supporting this schedule.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE COUNCIL VOTE ON THE BUDGET ON NOVEMBER 23RD AS WAS ORIGINALLY
CAPTURED ON THE EXTENDED AGENDA.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified for citizens that the Council President was responsible for the
agenda. She had a lengthy discussion with City Attorney Jeff Taraday today about pushing out the
CIP/CFP until the end of December. She has not heard any reason for the aggressive schedule, why it was
moved up. She thought November 23rd was even too quick because the Council has not had a healthy
discussion by the Administration about the City’s financial situation and strategic outlook. If
Councilmembers wanted to have a simple majority vote to approve this budget, once a new
Councilmember is seated, she will open a repeal process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not appreciate being threatened, finding that an
inappropriate step that perhaps should be looked at by the full Council as threats are no way to run a
group. When she was Council President when there were a number of new Councilmembers, she recalled
hearing from several Councilmembers that they did not know what they were doing, they needed a year to
figure it out, etc. If a couple Councilmembers get their way, she was concerned with having a brand new
Councilmember who has not been part of the City or done anything with the City until January involved
with the budget and found it very inappropriate.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out Councilmember Distelhorst spent two years on the Council,
has been on the Finance and the Parks & Public Works Committees, has looked at every department, is
very accurate in his statements, does his homework and understands what he needs to do. She found it
very inappropriate to try and cut him out of the process to include someone that has never been part of the
City Council before. Councilmember Distelhorst is well trained and she thinks very highly of him. He
wants nothing more than for the City to achieve excellence in its future and cutting him out of the budget
so there is a vote of four people is really inappropriate since Councilmember Distelhorst has spent two
years on the Council learning about budgeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of clarification, pointing out Councilmember Distelhorst will be
working on the budget and she did not intend to cut him out. Mayor Nelson advised he would allow
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to continue and Councilmember Buckshnis could make a counter
argument when she finished.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this was bully behavior. Councilmember Distelhorst has
done a very good job and few people have done the research and have the understanding that he has. She
apologized for naming Councilmember Distelhorst, but it is important for people to understand that
Councilmember Distelhorst understands what he is doing, a new Councilmember will not and will take
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 5
positions based on other Councilmembers. She preferred to have an independent Councilmember looking
at the budget versus someone being led by another Councilmember.
Council President Paine said having a schedule in place is transparent and it is abundantly available to
everyone. There have been a lot of great discussions by the community and there have been a lot of great
emails and everyone seems very prepared for this process. She did not think access to the information had
been reduced, she recalled 8-10 emails from directors between Councilmembers and the public today.
There is a robust schedule and robust outreach and the City has been very effective in getting this
message out. It is one thing to talk about not having enough community discussion but in actual fact there
has been a tremendous amount of community discussion. The public has access to the five documents on
the Administrative Services website which illustrate all the Q&A between Councilmembers and directors.
She concluded this was a bit of a specious argument.
Councilmember Distelhorst said Item 5.1 on the agenda promised budget deliberations and it would be
great if the Council could do their work “instead of whatever this is.”
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L.
JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Council President Paine referred to DP 15 and asked for specifics regarding costs related to the bike
program. She noted the bike program was mentioned at the end of DP 15 and there were few details.
Police Chief Michelle Bennett answered the department currently does not have the staffing to send
officers to bicycle training. The department has six bicycles; when there is enough budget to staff bike
officers, which is an ancillary duty, the funds will simply be to maintain the existing bikes, uniforms and
any training costs which are negligible because most of it is free. She summarized there are not a lot of
costs associated with the bike program.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to DP 71, recalling he emailed two questions and received an answer
to only one of his questions. He asked if there was a plan of where electric car charger infrastructure
would be placed and what would be the priority. Observing that all the existing chargers are in downtown,
he asked how there could be better equity in locating them throughout the City. Public Works Director
Phil Williams apologized for not answering that question, noting he received the same question from
Councilmember Olson and would forward his answer to Councilmember Distelhorst. He explained there
was not a map of the exact locations. Stations can be located almost anywhere in the right-of-way, but
locating them in parking lots will require some thought. Staff is willing to develop that plan if there is
funding available to expand the number of stations.
Mr. Williams explained there are six electric vehicle charging stations now, four in City parking lots and
two in the right-of-way. This proposal would provide funding to add 10 additional stations because that is
where the transportation system is headed in both the short and long term. The City does not want to have
a lot of underutilized infrastructure but also does not want to be behind the market. No new stations have
been added since 2011 other than replacing the original stations. This would make an additional modest
investment in public infrastructure; another DP would add private stations for the City fleet. He offered to
work with Council or a subcommittee to select locations and agreed they should not all be downtown.
Mayor Nelson said his vision was to have charging stations equitably distributed all over the City.
Councilmember Olson asked when Councilmembers were asking questions about a specific DP, whether
it would be appropriate for other Councilmembers to ask questions about that subject matter. Mayor
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 6
Nelson said the format was round robin and Councilmembers could ask their questions when they have
their turn.
Councilmember Buckshnis said a citizen notified her that the meeting was not being broadcast live on
TV. She did not agree with the round robin format because she believe all the questions regarding a
specific DP should be asked at the same time and that was a more efficient and effective way to run the
meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Port Commission Preston’s comments and said she was told by a
scientist that the charging stations are going to be upgraded and the City should wait a year or two. She
asked if staff was aware of that information. Mr. Williams answered Port Commissioner Preston’s
comments were related to vehicle costs. He was not aware of any recent changes in the cost of vehicle
charging stations so waiting would not be a financial reward. The proposal is level 2 solar chargers, the
chargers that current exist in the City and are available from multiple vendors. A level 3 charger is much
higher capacity, requires extra power to the location, are more expensive and would be located off the
street. That argument can always be made on technology; this technology has changed over time and may
continue to change but there is never the exact right time to wait for the next version. A lot of the chargers
are designed to allow the software to be upgraded over time; the hardware is relatively basic. Many of the
car manufacturers, other than Tesla, have standardized the technology for the chargers. He did not see any
technology reason not to move forward with installing additional charging stations.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the scientist also said the lower level chargers, a 2 versus a 3, take longer
to charge so less people can utilize the charging mechanism. Mr. Williams agreed there was a big
difference between level 2 and 3, both in cost, power needed to serve the station, real estate required and
capital costs.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to DP 35 and 26 related to vehicles in Public Works and Parks and
asked if Parks and Public Works had considered purchasing used vehicles. Mr. Williams answered Fleet
is in Public Works; staff has not seen a great deal of benefit from buying used vehicles. New vehicles
have a long service life and buying new means they have no defects. A pickup truck often last 15 years
and sometimes longer; new vehicles are not purchased until the maintenance costs increase to the point
that a new vehicle is justified. When buying expensive equipment like dump trucks, good deals can be
found; the City has purchased two used dump trucks since has been with the City. DOT’s practice is to
rotate them out every ten years and they take tremendous care of them, but they are difficult to find
because everyone wants them. A dump truck is over $175,000 new and sometimes can be purchased used
but in great shape from DOT for $60,000-$75,000. He did not recommend that for consumer level
vehicles and anticipated the fleet manager would also not recommend it.
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Angie Feser said they submit their requests
to Fleet in Public Works. She noted another consideration is the warranties that come with new vehicles
versus used vehicles. Mr. Williams acknowledged the price of vehicles has increased but the total
investment in vehicles proposed this year, although $485,000 sounds like a lot, it is less than some years.
It was fortunate in a year of higher prices not to have a greater demand for new vehicles.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to DP 35 and asked how many vehicles that represented. Mr.
Williams answered for years Facilities has gotten everyone else’s throw away cars when vehicles are
replaced. For example, one of the vehicles the custodians use is a 1996 Mercury Sable and four of them
drive from building to building at night. At some point that vehicle needs to be replaced. Two of the
recommended vehicles in 2022 would replace old “ghost vehicles” that have been replaced once or twice
before and are still used, an example of how value is squeezed out of vehicles but eventually they need to
be replaced. Two are normal replacement of existing vans and two of the ones in that DP would replace
vehicles that are not technically replacements because they have been replaced previously and are “ghost
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 7
vehicles.” He summarized there is a total of four vehicles, two are regular replacements, two are new
vehicles.
Mr. Turley said new vehicles can be purchased from the State contract which provides a good discount on
new vehicles. The State contract allows jurisdictions to band together and bargain for a very low price on
new vehicles. That is not available for used vehicles. Mr. Williams agreed, noting the City also belongs to
a couple large buying cooperatives such as the Houston Galveston Area Council for certain specialized
vehicles that may not be on the State contract and can leverage a high volume low price.
Councilmember Olson referred to DP 68 and said she was in support of whatever needed to be done for
odor mitigation related to the sewer, but recalled when this issue was discussed previously, the Council
was told the sewage coming from Seattle caused this odor. She asked if it would be appropriate, prudent
or reasonable to expect Seattle to pay for part of this purchase. Mr. Williams answered it was not sewage
from Seattle but the flow from east Edmonds (Lake Ballinger area) that goes to a pump station owned by
King County and gets pumped to the metro system. They do that essentially for free during the year to
balance the flow coming from the Richmond Beach area that is pumped directly to Edmonds’ WWTP, a
flow swap. The parties try on an annual basis to make it work out gallon for gallon so no one has to write
a check. The flow has a long path along SR-104; the longer sewage is in the pipe and the slower it moves,
odors increase. Once the flow starts rapidly downhill on SR-104, it is very turbulent and the gases evolve
off and it has caused problems in a couple neighborhoods near Pine Street.
Mr. Williams continued, it is not entirely due to the wastewater in that flow swap from King County,
other wastewater comes down that line and there have been odor complaints off and on over the years that
have gotten worse recently that need to be addressed. The system will evacuate the air above the static
line and the gravity sewer line and it shouldn’t evolve out into the neighborhoods anymore. The City
asked King County not to pump that for a while which cost the City money because to the extent King
County does not provide that wastewater, the flow swap is imbalanced and the City has to write a check.
To keep residents from being exposed to odor in the meantime while this equipment was manufactured
and delivered (it will be installed shortly but took longer than anticipated), the City told King County not
to send flow. Councilmember Olson responded she may have misunderstood some of the previous history
and agreed this was obviously a priority.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the broadcast of the Council meeting had been addressed. She
was able to watch it by accessing it on another computer. City Clerk Scott Passey answered Council
meetings that are held other than on Tuesdays at 7 p.m. are not livestreamed on the cable channel because
it requires access to Council Chambers. Regular 7 p.m. Council meetings are livestreamed on the cable
channel, everything else is available via Zoom or telephone.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to DP 61 regarding green streets and raingardens and asked if
these would be spread out throughout the City. Mr. Williams answered some of it will be although the
focus when the request was made from ARPA funding was to assist efforts in the Perrinville Creek Basin
to a large extent. The problem there is too much flow coming too fast and eroding the channel and
causing problems at the bottom of the creek. The emphasis would be raingarden clusters and individual
raingardens in the Perrinville Creek Basin for the most part but there could be sites in other areas of the
City if willing hosts in a block can be identified. Doing individual raingardens in different parts of the
City is not particularly efficient; doing them in clusters is easier and more cost effective. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas agreed Perrinville is a priority for the City at this point.
Council President Paine referred to DP 16, adding a half FTE to the public information officer. She asked
what additional benefits were anticipated with making this a full time position. Economic Development &
Community Services Director Patrick Doherty answered the current public information
officer/communications strategist is a halftime position which is how it started a couple years ago. It has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 8
proven to be a very valuable position, providing much more communication and engagement with the
public in the past two years over several media platforms than was done previously. With the numerous
things occurring in the City related to parks, public works, police, the COVID pandemic, grants, etc. the
halftime hours are not sufficient to fully provide the service. For example, something might break
overnight or in the morning where it is important to get information out via a press release or social
media. The PIO starts working on it in the morning which usually requires review by a department head,
the mayor and/or him, and then the person’s hours end for the day and it then falls to him to pick up the
pieces at that point and finish the press release, get comments from other directors or the mayor, etc.
Mr. Doherty explained the PIO/Communication Strategist Kelsey Foster has been very willing to work
extra hours and flex her schedule to compensate for the 20 hours which also means she is less available at
other times. The communication strategist part of the job is difficult to do as a halftime employee, it is
barely enough to keep up with the communication flow but does not provide time for strategizing, to meet
with directors on a regular basis to strategize about their communication needs over time and be strategic
about communication engagement and take on even more initiatives like keeping a blog going or other
things that would engage the public on a regular basis. He summarized with a halftime position the job is
barely getting done and full time hours would allow them to do a better job.
Mr. Doherty continued, the City has received comments from press agents locally that they expect the
City’s PIO to be available all the time. He acknowledged Councilmember Distelhorst’s agreement as he
does that job for Sound Transit. The PIO receives press inquiries on weekends and evenings; the
expectation of availability may not be reasonable for a full-time position and is certainly not for a
halftime job.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he has spent his entire career in both private and public sectors in
communications and could not fathom how anyone would attempt to do that job part-time as it would be
nearly impossible. He referred to DP 23, ADA Transition Plan, expressing interest in the scope of this
plan, whether it would only be facilities in parks or also access to parks. For example, if a resident is
living with a disability that prevents them from driving, how useful is it to have all the facilities at a park
if that park is essentially inaccessible to them without some other assistance? He asked if the plan would
look at only park properties or also access to those locations. Ms. Feser answered the scope of this work
would be related only to park amenities inside the park. For example, Mathay Ballinger has a parking lot
and an ADA accessible playground but the area between the parking lot and the playground is not
accessible. Picnic tables are ADA accessible but the path to them is not. The scope does not extend
beyond the park. She suggested Mr. Williams may be able to address a previous ADA Transition Plan for
City facilities, commenting she was unsure whether that included sidewalks and rights-of-way or if it was
only buildings and facilities.
Mr. Williams answered the right-of-way transition plan considered the 23 City buildings about three years
ago. Parks wasn’t done at that time which is the reason for DP 23. The right-of-way transition plan
identified $146 million in eventual spending (in 2-3 year old dollars) to upgrade sidewalks, ramps and
City buildings to full ADA access. That is a massive effort that will take a long time and the goal is to get
as much of it done over time; some is done via street capital projects and the paving program, upgrading
the ADA facilities that they touch. Private sector development also upgrades facilities to ADA
compliance. The project on Highway 99 will accomplish a lot of that as it moves forward. Even without a
dedicated line item in the budget with an amount that prioritizes a list of ADA-related projects in the next
five years, the City has been able to make considerable progress over time.
Councilmember Distelhorst suggested the scope of that project consider whether there are ADA
accessible sidewalks adjacent to parks and whether there is transit access, and if additional funding is
required, he suggested Ms. Feser advise him. It is valuable to look at this holistically to extend ADA
accessibility beyond the park border.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 9
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was attempting to reconcile the numbers on DP 54 related to Lake
Ballinger facility design. It is a $3-5 million project, yet the CFP identifies $6 million in year 3 and that
only $137,5000 is needed, yet the CIP/CFP identifies $550,000. Mr. Williams answered the $300,000 is
what is expected to be spent in 2022 on detailed design of the improvement. Additional monies will be
spent on design in 2023 because it will cost more than $300,000 to design a $5+ million project. It is a
multi-year project. City Engineer English agreed it was a multi-year project, the $137,500 is the local
match to the grant. Many of the numbers are preliminary because the project is in the pre-design phase.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if $6 million was the City’s share or the total cost. She was trying to
figure out the City’s share of this project. Mr. Williams answered the City has a grant for the design and
assuming that scope is completed, grant funds will also be sought for construction. The cost of
construction is unknown until the project is further in design. The design phase will span two years and
will provide a much better idea of the cost which will allow the City to approach several grant sources for
construction funds. Mr. English answered the design grant was a 75/25, 75% provided by DOT and 25%
provided by the City. The goal would be to get the same percentage for construction.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented as the $6 million is included in the rate study, she wanted to
clarify whether it was $5 million or $6 million. Mr. Williams answered like a lot of projects, the cost is
estimated with either a secured or unsecured revenue source to offset the costs. The total cost of the
project would not impact rates, only the local portion would affect the rate structure. Councilmember
Buckshnis said she was aware of that and was still waiting for the 2019 rate study that a citizen requested.
She was concerned that the numbers didn’t jive. Mr. Williams agreed to look at that.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to DP 54, relaying she saw the need and value in a Ballinger regional
facility and recalled from the presentation that there were some exciting components. After further
consideration, she had concerns with making a neighborhood park into a stormwater facility, especially
since this is the only neighborhood park in the uptown area. She asked how putting money into this
project was balanced with the fact that this is the only park in that area and that the project will make the
park inaccessible for a while. Mr. Williams answered he did not have all the details on the construction
sequence but recalled it would be in a small area of the park that does not currently have any formal
identified use and most of the work will be done either at grade or below grade. Public Works will
certainly work with Parks in the design to ensure that what is done is compatible with the current and
future expectations in the park. He agreed it was a sensitive topic and care needed to be taken but he
believed it was entirely possible to accomplish the project. There is no other logical place for the project;
stormwater flows downhill and short of installing an expensive pump station to send the stormwater
elsewhere, locating a facility in the park seems to be the best choice. He assured Public Works will work
closely with Parks to ensure it work.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she had difficulty moving forward with this without a clear plan for how
to accommodate the need for a park in that area. She was hearing that the park would not be accessible
during construction. Mr. Williams said he had not heard that. There may be phasing or parts of the park
that are inaccessible for periods of time but it is not the intent to shut the park down during construction.
Details such as the sequence, how to keep the park open, etc. are worked out in the design process.
Councilmember Olson referred to DP 14, Public Safety Marine Unit, recalling she has asked questions
before but continues to ruminate on it. Edmonds has the only waterfront in the general area and people
from throughout the region come to enjoy it. She was struggling with the fairness or burden-sharing from
all the beneficiaries of having the marine rescue unit although she could definitely see the value of it. She
reached out to the Port and to Representative Strom Peterson about the ferry being a beneficiary and the
dive park that City manages. One concept and idea that arose in the conversation with Representative
Peterson is the boat at the Port is owned by the fire department and whether it would make sense for this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 10
operation to be run by the fire department instead of Edmonds Police Department and distribute the cost
via the regional contract with the fire department and not be solely a City of Edmonds burden which she
felt was more appropriate. The Port is also a beneficiary and are willing and interested in partnering on
this. The Port directly or indirectly pays for fire protection which may be how they contribute. Her
question was not whether the DP content had value, but whether further consideration could be given to
how to finance it.
Chief Bennett said her lunch with the fire chief today included discussion about the marine unit. The fire
chief felt it would be a more effective or appropriate utilization if each had their own separate unit. A
meeting is planned with the Port, State Patrol, Ferries, DOT, the Police Department and the Fire
Department in the next few weeks. Safety is a concern since the State Patrol withdrew their people due to
contract disputes, the patrol at ferries is no longer provided which results in occasional blocked sidewalks.
Officers have reported the number on the sign to report violators cutting into the ferry line has been
disconnected. There are several things to address including safety, the underwater dive park, marina slips,
water-related incidents such as suicidal people jumping into the water, plane crashes, boat thefts, etc. She
was open to myriad options for funding something that everyone would benefit from.
Councilmember Olson asked if the fire department also had a marine unit. Chief Bennett answered the
fire department has a boat at the Port. Edmonds Police Department can ask to utilize the boat, but that
takes additional time. This DP is related to dive equipment; when staff attempted to put a buoy on the
plane that crashed, they realized none the dive equipment was serviceable. This DP was to get the dive
unit up and running for things like an evidence search (someone throws a gun in the water), or other
water-related recovery to maintain police department chain of custody.
Councilmember Olson asked if the equipment was purchased, could the people stewarding the dive park
use it as well. Chief Bennett said she is a certified diver and some of the equipment is universal and
transferable. Councilmember Olson said the dive park stewardship, to the extent the City is involved at
all, is more of a Parks thing and asked if that would be a weird thing for Parks to utilize a Police
Department asset. Ms. Feser responded the dive park is supported by the City in the maintenance and
provision of Brackett’s Landing North, the beach, the restroom, parking lot, outdoor shower, maintenance
of the park, etc. The City leases that area from the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources.
A volunteer group, completely separate from the City that does not receive any resources from the City,
set up and maintains the dive park itself. The City has conversations with the group 1-2 times a year about
the dive park. They are not considered City volunteers; they are a group of individuals who created and
maintain this underwater amenity. Any substantial changes to the dive park require contacting the City
and the City contacts the State to request approval of the changes. Feser directly.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said a huge group of volunteers developed the dive trails. She has met
with them and seen what they have done. It is amazing and that group has funded it all. She referred to the
DP related to accessible playground upgrades. She asked if the City received any ADA funding or if it
was completely funded by the City. Ms. Feser answered not at this time, staff is in the process of
identifying an annual upgrade of playgrounds throughout the City; some are some as old as 35 years. It
should be part of an capital replacement program. All upgrades need to be ADA accessible, but the intent
of this DP is to the level of inclusivity. She anticipated there will be grant opportunities. The Seaview
playground was inclusive as the Civic Park playground will be but this looks forward to other
playgrounds in the Parks system. The proposed $175,000/year is a placeholder and identifying the priority
of playgrounds in the City is another opportunity for equity throughout the parks system and will provide
opportunity to seek grant funds.
As the parent of a child with a disability, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was never able to
bring her son to any of the City’s parks when he was a child because he couldn’t interact with the “the
sort of things going on within our parks.” She was interested in equity and inclusivity, noting there are no
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 11
sidewalks to reach Mathay Ballinger Park which requires pedestrians, people pushing wheelchairs or
using strollers to walk in the road. Some have said use the Interurban Trail, which is paved, but the trail
from the Interurban Train to Mathay Ballinger is not paved, making it difficult to access with anything
wheeled. She agreed with Councilmember Distelhorst that providing paths to parks is an important piece.
She loved Seaview Park, commenting it had been an amazing process but agreed with giving
consideration to how to reach parks. It is very difficult for someone with disabilities to reach some of the
City’s parks. She summarized updating access to the parks was the second step to updating parks. As a
parent of a child with a disability, she represented a lot of people who believe what Edmonds is doing is a
good thing.
Council President Paine referred to DP 35 and asked if having all these additional vehicles would
alleviate staff from driving their own personal vehicles on the job. She was concerned with that practice
and wanted to avoid people using their personal vehicles as much as possible. Mr. Williams explained
there are only two new vehicles, one of them is related to another DP, an additional building maintenance
operator, and providing a vehicle for that person. The other vehicle would supplant a lot of the personal
vehicle usage. People currently drive their personal vehicles from building to building late at night; that
has been exacerbated during COVID because people do not want to spent time in a car with another
employee, leading to more usage of personal vehicles. Even prior to COVID there was a fair amount of
personal vehicle use, but DP 35 should fully address that. Council President Paine commented on the
potential liability for the City of employees using their personal vehicles.
Council President Paine asked if all the employees who drive City vehicles go through driver
training/education on a regular basis. Mr. Williams said there is not a formalized program but the City
works with its insurance agency and looks at claims and history to determine if there any issues. A few
years ago, after a series of City vehicle involved accidents, a safety program focused on vehicle usage
was conducted. That probably should be repeated every few years due to staff turnover. A lot of weight is
given to candidates’ driving records during the hiring process. Most of the Public Works employees go
through the CDL program which intensively addresses safety. Employees driving passenger and non-
CDL vehicles are trusted to keep their driving record in good standing with the State and required to
notify the City of any changes. He agreed it would be a good idea to repeat the driver safety program
every five years or so and suggested working with HR Director Neill Hoyson and/or the new Safety &
Disaster Coordinator on that.
Council President Paine asked about driver training for police officers. Chief Bennett answered there is
emergency vehicle operators course (EVOC) and classroom instruction as part of ongoing training and
certification.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to DP 20, Rooftop Solar Grant Program, and asked if it was
envisioned that the program would include partners. He was aware that Snohomish County PUD has done
that and maintains a list of approved contactors. He asked if assistance would be provided to ensure
residents were aware of other incentives to lower the cost such as the current federal tax credit. Acting
Development Services Director Rob Chave recalled the City participated in Solarize South County a
number of years ago through Snohomish County and are generally knowledgeable about available
resources. Staff could certainly reach out to other jurisdictions for lists of approved contractors. When this
was developed, it was hoped other grants could be leveraged at the federal or state level. One of the
concerns with targeting lower or moderate income people is they do not have a lot of disposal income
even if they get a partial grant. If none of that comes to fruition, consideration may be given to targeting
apartment buildings or larger complexes with lower income tenants rather than individuals. He assured
the goal will be to access as many resources as possible because those income groups need as much help
as possible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 12
In attempting to reconcile the CFP/CIP to the budget, Councilmember Buckshnis referred to DP 53
related to Perrinville and said the total cost in one place is $3.5 million but when she adds everything up,
it is $4.1 million for the Perrinville Creek Flow Management Process and the Lower Perrinville Creek
Restoration Phase 1. She has never seen anything to support these numbers, recalling a Perrinville study
was promised last year when the City “put that block in to stop the creek.” She asked whether these
numbers were close to what was needed and why did the numbers not match. Mr. Williams said he would
need to see the numbers Councilmember Buckshnis was referring to in order to provide an explanation.
The truth is, regardless of the numbers, there is a question about what it will cost because the design
phase has not begun to determine exactly what will be needed and how extensive it will be. This is an
educated guess and is the reason for the request for $3.5 million in ARPA funds to address the issues in
lower Perrinville Creek. The number in the DP is what could be spent in furtherance of that project in
2022.
Mr. Williams explained the City is currently negotiating with three property owners to allow work in that
area and build a new channel, essentially to abandon the current channel and build a new channel with
higher capacity at a grade sufficient to keep velocities high enough that sand, gravel, rocks, etc. that come
down now and plug everything up could be kept in suspension and go out through a new fish passable
bridge or culvert under the railroad tracks. It will not be possible to do all that in 2022. It might be
possible to build the wider, larger channel on a new alignment; the key is to hook that up to the two
existing culverts which is a temporary thing. The flow is currently in a 38 inch culvert and the railroad’s
culvert where the creek channel used to go through the fence and across private property. Calculations
show it will require both culverts to pass a 100 year storm. The interim solution would be to build a new
channel, hook it up to the two culverts and continue the design process and probably build the fish
passable feature the following year. He did not have reason to believe that $3.5 million was not enough
but it is not very far into the process. It is a bit of a plug number but it was the best guess at the time and
still is.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Turley how ARPA funds would be handled for projects on the
CFP/CIP so they wouldn’t be part of the rate study analysis. She asked if there was a footnote that the
$3.5 million was coming from a revenue source that would not impact utility ratepayers. Mr. Williams
said Public Works does the utility rate study and will work with Finance on that. A project of that size
would not be included in the rate study when there was already an expectation of a funding source or even
if a grant was assumed. The difference between the cost and the funding would be taken into account in
the rate study. Councilmember Buckshnis said the ARPA funding is new to everybody and many citizens
want to ensure that that is clear to the consultant doing the rate study.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked for further information about DP 42 and 51. Mr. Williams answered
the Street/Stormwater Division’s 16 FTEs are split equally between Storm and Street and they work
throughout the year as a team on street, right-of-way and drainage projects. Most of the City’s drainage
work is in the rights-of-way as that is where the pipes, structures, etc. are located. Over many years,
including the 11 he has been in Edmonds but even before that, the community has been blessed with new,
better, creative and expanded ways of providing community projects, many of them sponsored by the
Chamber, the City and other organizations. Public Works frequently gets involved in those whether it is
traffic control, road closures, signage, banners, etc. and that has increased over the years. This is primarily
related to overtime to maintain drainage systems and street rights-of-way as well as overtime to support
community events. This is an effort to recognize that that is an expectation and it should be acknowledged
in the budget. Those efforts will continue and it takes time away from regular maintenance work. One of
the DPs is in the Street budget and other is in the Storm budget.
Councilmember Olson said residents repeatedly indicate sidewalks are a priority. The City has a
designated sidewalk crew that does the traditional amount based on weather, staffing or whatever year
round, but the proposed budget does not include anything additional. Mr. Williams answered the budget
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 13
for the sidewalk crew is the same as was approved three years ago plus COLAs and increased supply
costs. No expansion was proposed in 2022, but sufficient supplies are necessary to continue their work.
The sidewalk crew has done a lot over the last two years. Councilmember Olson asked how much was
done in the past year, asking if this was the year all the bump-outs were installed on 7th. Mr. Williams
answered they did bump-outs, ADA ramps and sidewalks. One of the main reasons the Council supported
the sidewalk crew was to build short sidewalk sections to connect existing sections; several of those have
been accomplished. The crew also replaces existing sidewalk panels that can no longer be repaired. He
offered to provide a summary of projects the sidewalk crew has done over the last year.
Councilmember Olson asked if she submitted priority sidewalk stretches that residents have identified,
could staff determine if they were a priority in the department and whether the proposed budget would
address them. Mr. Williams said he was happy to look at the list. There is a list in the non-motorized
portion of the Transportation Plan. Staff is also requesting funds in the 2022 budget to update the 2015
Transportation Plan. Any new information will be considered in the update; the updated plan will come to
Council for approval.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if priorities for sidewalks are being identified, she would like to
have the residential areas along the Highway 99 corridor that do not have sidewalks prioritized.
With regard to sidewalks, Council President Paine recalled Mr. Williams indicated the City has a
contractor that addresses sidewalk maintenance. She recalled shimming or grinding the 250 sidewalks that
need it would only cost $2000. Mr. Williams said the City hires a contractor who uses a high speed/RPM
plane that can make a very smooth transition in a lifted panel to reduce trip hazards. A lot of that has been
done over the last 10 years; about 25 can be done for about $2,000. The City usually does $10,000-
$20,000 in that type of repairs a year. If a tree is lifting a sidewalk panel, planing only works 2-3 times
before the tree and the sidewalk panel needs to be replaced, but in the meantime, the life of the sidewalk
can be extended very effectively using that equipment.
As someone who suffered a significant trip and fall a few years ago where she broke four bones in her
face, Council President Paine said that effort is important, particularly in areas where a lot of people walk
such as neighborhoods and commercial areas. She was considering applying some fund balance to that
effort to focus upkeep on areas with increased pedestrian activity.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to DP 69, the Sound Transit bike lane grant that the City applied for
in 2017/2018. Mr. English recalled the City applied for that grant in 2019. Based on the City Council
approved TIP that included the recommended bicycle facilities, Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out
there is nothing in the 2022 budget or through 2027. He asked whether Public Works could bring forward
a plan to begin addressing these facilities that had been approved for 6+ years in the TIP but have not yet
been implemented. Mr. Williams answered there were smaller pots of money to make improvements such
as the Pedestrian Safety Program, Pedestrian Education Program, signal cabinet project, guardrails, etc.,
but there is no similar amount set aside specifically for bike lanes. Bike lanes are typically done on a large
scale like the Sound Transit grant program. He referred to a project to mark a bike lane on 76th between
196th & Perrinville that will require removing some parking spaces on the Edmonds side of 196th that are
not well used as was done on 9th. It is not a major capital project but will be part of repaving that road.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked how long it would take Public Works staff to develop a proposal for an
annual program and funding similar to the Pedestrian Safety and similar programs. Mr. Williams and Mr.
English estimated a plan and cost estimate using the existing plan to prioritize highest value projects that
make key connections could be developed in 90 days.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ASK STAFF TO BRING FORWARD A BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 14
PROGRAM BASED ON THE 2015 APPROVED RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES AS
INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL APPROVED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TO COUNCIL BEFORE MARCH 1, 2022.
Mayor Nelson pointed out this was a special meeting on budget deliberations and he was unsure if this
was off topic. At City Attorney Jeff Taraday’s request, Councilmember Distelhorst restated the motion:
TO ASK STAFF TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE 2022
BUDGET TO FUND ONGOING BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE
RECOMMENDED BICYCLE FACILITIES INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL APPROVED
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO COUNCIL FOR POTENTIAL FUNDING
BY MARCH 31, 2022.
Mr. Taraday asked if the budgetary component would be to have an appropriation in the 2022 budget to
do that planning work. Councilmember Distelhorst answered there was not a budget consideration in the
motion but there would be in Council approval to fund it as part of the 2022 budget through a budget
amendment. Mr. Taraday answered for this meeting, given it is a special meeting on the budget, any
motion related to adding or subtracting an appropriation, modifying a decision package, etc. would be
appropriate. Parts of his motion appeared to address that but not all of it.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to DP 23, a long needed issue related to the 1999 Americans with
Disabilities Act. She was unable to find anything in the CFP/CIP even though this seemed like an issue
that needed to be addressed. She asked why an amount was not included in the out years of the CFP/CIP.
Ms. Feser answered the plan is in the operating funds so it is not listed in the CIP as a project; it was a
good point that the funds have not been earmarked in the CFP/CIP. If development of an ADA Transition
Plan is not approved in the budget, there is no reason to allocate funds to ADA work moving forward.
Any improvements, renovations or new construction is required to be ADA compliant so funds are built
into projects. For example, all the work on Marina Beach Park will be ADA compliant. Depending on
how an ADA Transition Plan prioritizes the work and the recommendations, funds would be identified in
the budget the year following adoption of the plan so 2023 is when funds would begin to be identified.
She agreed in the future it would need to be tied into the CFP/CIP.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there really was no idea how deficient park facilities are, noting she
often hears how ADA deficient parks and sidewalks are. Ms. Feser commented the challenge with parks
was that every park was very unique and it could be something as simple as a grade change. For example,
she could almost guarantee the Interurban Trail from the road to Mathay Ballinger Park is not ADA
accessible because of the grade; even though the grade is slight, the landing is not at an appropriate
increment. She could likely point to 20 things at Mathay Ballinger that are not ADA compliant so it’s
difficult to estimate.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to DP 15, relaying she reread the President’s Task Force on 21st
Century Policing, specifically the two pillars that were mentioned, and noticed the overwhelming focus of
Pillar 1, Building Trust and Legitimacy that states it is important to understand a key component of
external procedural justice, the practice of fair and impartial policing is built on understanding and
acknowledging human biases, both explicit and implicit and that mitigating that needs to be part of
training on all levels of law enforcement organizations to increase awareness, etc. She asked Chief
Bennett to speak to what would be necessary to undertake the first four community engagement
components proposed in DP 15. Chief Bennett clarified she was referring to the DP regarding community
engagement programs that includes starting a Volunteer Program, Community Academy, Youth Explorer
Program, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 15
Councilmember L. Johnson said her question was related to these programs being outreach from the
police department to the community when the City was in the process of various levels of DEI work and
understanding. She asked how that could be implemented in these various programs when the City was
still in that process. Chief Bennett answered the social justice, equity and inclusion roadmap is part of the
process that the Mayor and City has started and is in process. Tabatha Shoemake is the City’s new
community engagement officer and recently accompanied her to a community engagement meeting Mr.
Doherty held. Part of this effort is her outreach such as the Youth Explorer Program and meeting with
Lynnwood staff that operates their community academy and senior volunteer program.
With regard to the social justice and equity inclusion program, Chief Bennett said that is multifaceted.
Part of the reason for the community engagement position was to work on Highway 99 and reaching
various communities such as the unhoused, hate speech such as Will Chen experienced, and being
available to address those issues in the community. The programs are the outreach piece where that social
justice and inclusion occur. She recognized the great work Officer Shoemake has done in the past month
and a half to engage the community and start these programs. The Police Department continues to work
on training related to social justice, inclusion and equity.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the public in the volunteer program would be engaged in that
work. She agreed what happened to Will Chen was hate speech. She referred to the residents along
Highway 99 and members of the community who experience things she does not and asked how to ensure
the people doing this outreach would have the necessary training to avoid causing harm. Chief Bennett
answered Officer Shoemake is exactly that person and her office will be in the space being considered on
Highway 99. She described the public’s reaction when Officer Shoemake, two other female officers and
she were handing out Halloween candy on a Highway 99 corner. People were shocked and asked what
they were doing; she told them they were handing out candy and talking to kids and community members.
Officer Shoemake’s history in the City is already paying off as many people know her and she knows
them. She recalled when she worked with Ms. Feser in Sammamish, they partnered in community and
city events doing outreach, handing out volunteer pamphlets, etc. She has already had community
members inquire about how they can be involved.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO EXTEND 15 MINUTES.
Councilmember Olson commented it was already too late. Mr. Taraday answered since the chief was in
the middle of her answer, it would be fine to extend the meeting now.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember L. Johnson agreed Tabatha Shoemake was the right officer to undertake community
engagement. Her main concern was completing some of that work before pulling in volunteers and
allowing them to engage with the public. She understood how the community engagement officer would
do their work but she was fuzzy on how to ensure the volunteers have the tools they need to do the work
in the most positive way. Chief Bennett relayed her understanding of Councilmember L. Johnson’s
question, whether there was a framework in place to launch this. The answer is the framework is a process
that will continue to evolve and require additional training. The police department is pretty well geared,
engaged and ready to start the various volunteer programs.
Councilmember Olson commenting it appeared Councilmembers were commenting on the merits of
various decision packages but were not talking about the bigger picture of whether the level of spending
versus the level of expenditure was appropriate. So the discussion should be not just whether a decision
package has merit but whether the spending at that level had merit. When she asked Mr. Turley about
recurring expenses versus recurring revenues, it sounded like from his response, the City does not have
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2021
Page 16
policies about the level of spending. She was disappointed if it was true and requested staff and the
Finance Department look into everything on record to make sure that is true. If there are policies, she
wanted to ensure the Council followed them and if not, that the Council follow prudent financial
practices.
Councilmember Olson referred to DP 38, relaying her surprise that the public wasn’t supposed to walk
through the police parking lot. The parking lot, adjacent to the Farmer’s Market, is the shortest distance
between two points and she often walks that way, not knowing there was potential danger to her and to
the police. The vandalism and graffiti was something different and separate and she hoped it was a one-
time thing. She asked if the cameras were angled to capture perpetrators. Instead of the proposed
$270,000 for a gate, she suggested putting up signs at a cost of $50 or $100 to inform the public they were
not supposed to walk through there. She asked Chief Bennett how imperative this was and where this was
in the priority of other police department requests. Chief Bennett responded a police department safety
perimeter has been requested for many years. It is important for both the protection of community
members as well as crime suspects brought into the sally port, for chain of custody as there is currently no
cover for the sally port when seized vehicles or vehicles for which a warrant is being sought are brought
in.
Chief Bennett said a separate issue is the 55+ vehicles that had nails put in their tires, had paint thrown on
them, or had windows smashed. The existing cameras are not to the point that they could necessarily
identify a suspect; night vision cameras that can capture faces or facial recognition are quite expensive.
Signs in the parking lot are similar to the signs warning people not to trespass on the train tracks; people
still walk on and/or cross the tracks. She doubted signs would keep people out of the parking lot. Signs
also require enforcement and would create new issues. The most reasonable effort is to finally put up a
safety perimeter to protect both the public and the City’s property and, most importantly, pedestrians who
walk through the parking lot as police vehicles are entering and exiting the lot.
Council President Paine suggested essential City infrastructure in the CFP/CIP start with areas that do not
currently have infrastructure. A Council constituent speaks to the Council weekly about developing
infrastructure in areas where that is lacking. In addition to maintaining the existing infrastructure, the City
needs to focus on areas with deficits. She commented on the importance of sidewalks as they build
communities and make neighborhoods friendly.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Paine’s comments and thanked staff for attending
tonight’s meeting and answering Council’s questions.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the meeting would end in three minutes. Mayor Nelson agreed it
would. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has plenty of questions. It is important that residents trace and
look closely at the CFP/CIP and at the numbers in the budget book and continue to call her.
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the directors for attending and answering questions.
6. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.