Loading...
cmd111721 Adjourned Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES November 16, 2021 Adjourned until November 17, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director 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 English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING The Edmonds City Council virtual online adjourned meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmembers K. Johnson and Buckshnis. PUBLIC HEARING DELIBERATIONS AND ADOPTION OF THE 2022 BUDGET (Continued) Administrative Services Director Dave Turley recalled last night Council asked to see the total affect the amendments had on the budget. He displayed Proposed Budget (page 7 in budget book), a list of Changes to Revenues, Changes to Expenditures, and Adopted Budget (proposed budget with changes made yesterday and tonight). He explained one change that was not the result of an amendment was when the Tree Fund was closed out, it affected the 2021 ending balance and the 2022 beginning balance, reducing revenues for the Memorial Tree Fund by $530 and moving those funds to the Tree Fund. So far the net effect on cash of the amendments made last night is a reduction of $533,875. He will update the Adopted Budget as amendments are made tonight. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 2 Councilmember Olson raised a point of personal privilege. She requested a statement from the City attorney in response to questions of whether this was a legal meeting. She wanted to hear on the record whether he thinks it is legal or not so Councilmembers can choose not to participate if it is an illegal meeting. City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday asked how much detail was desired; he could provide the long or short version. Mayor Nelson suggested the long version. Mr. Taraday explained the City Code specifically contemplates this and that code section was referenced yesterday. He has been made aware of comments and concerns that people in the community have regarding whether this meeting is in compliance with state law. RCW 42.30.090 contemplates adjournment and the first sentence reads, “The governing body of a public agency may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment.” The order of adjournment is an order decided by the Council which is basically what the Council voted on last night. The RCW goes on to say, “If all members are absent from a regular or adjourned regular meeting, the clerk or secretary of the governing body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. He or she shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in 080 for special meetings.” Mr. Taraday editorialized, this statute importantly distinguishes between orders of adjournment and notices of adjournment and does not use those two synonymously. An order of adjournment is an adjournment where the Council decides the time and place of the adjourned meeting; a notice of adjournment occurs when the clerk decides the time and place of the adjourned meeting and that only happens in the rare instance where no one shows up at a regular meeting which obviously is not what happened last night. This meeting is in the realm of orders of adjournment, not notices of adjournment. To the question of whether 24-hour notice is required to be provided of the adjourned regular meeting, there is strong evidence in the statute that that is not required. As mentioned before, the provision about providing notice for special meetings only applies to notices of adjournment, not orders of adjournment. Mr. Taraday continued, the very last sentence of the statute says, “When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings by ordinance…” which is 7 p.m. in Edmonds. If one were to interpret the 24- hour notice provision to apply to orders of adjournment, then that would basically make it impossible to have an adjourned meeting the next day and he did not find any evidence in the statute for that interpretation. It would not make sense to require a 24-hour notice when the City Council themselves are the ones deciding the time and place of the adjourned meeting; 24-hour notice would, however, make sense if the clerk is unilaterally deciding the time and place of the adjourned meeting. He reiterated that was not what happened so he was firmly of the opinion that this is a legal meeting, that the process was followed properly and the 24hour notice contemplated by 080 does not apply to this adjourned regular meeting. Mr. Turley commented he was certain Mr. Taraday would not allow the Council to hold an illegal meeting but it was helpful to have the background on what makes this a legal meeting. He presented the proposed amendments as follows: No. DP # or New Item Submitter Fund Description Expense Increase (Decrease) Revenue Increase (Decrease) Net Effect on Cash 11 2 Buckshnis, K Johnson Various Remove VEBA Contribution for Non-Reps (22,200) $22,200 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE VEBA CONTRIBUTION FOR NON-REPS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 3 12 3 Buckshnis General Fund Remove part-time office help for HR (3,983) 3,983 No action taken. 13 4 Buckshnis General Fund Remove pre-employment mental assessments for Police Department (6,800) 6,800 No action taken. 14 5 Buckshnis General Fund Remove 1-time funds for assessment centers to assist with hiring in the Police Department (15,000) 15,000 No action taken. 15 6 Buckshnis General Fund Remove approval for attorney contracts; council should instead issue an RFP or adjust the budget to include the escalation clause (35,300) 35,300 No action taken. 18 14 K Johnson General Fund Remove Public Safety Marine Unit (73,150) 73,150 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO DECREASE THE EXPENSE BY $10,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 19 15 Buckshnis General Fund Remove Police Department Community Engagement Program (73,500) 73,500 No action taken. 20 16 Buckshnis, K Johnson General Fund Remove increase of PIO from 0.5 FTE to 1.0 FTE (69,000) 69,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE INCREASE OF PIO FROM 0.5 FTE TO 1.0 FTE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 21 18 Buckshnis ARPA Fund Remove expenditure authority for ARPA money (1,250,000) 1,250,000 No action taken. 22 20 Buckshnis, Olson, K Johnson General Fund Remove rooftop solar grant program (150,000) 150,000 23 20 Olson General Fund Replace rooftop solar grant program with gas blower replacement initiative 85,000 (85,000) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested the amendment be separated and voted on individually. Mr. Turley responded they would need to be voted on separately, but he was asked to discuss them together because one impacts the other. Councilmember Olson requested the replacement amendment be discussed first as it explained why she recommended removing the rooftop solar grant program. Mr. Turley agreed. Councilmember Olson said the recommendation to replace rooftop solar grant program is not a statement that she does not support the idea of promoting solar. This grant program is a $5,000 grant for an average $18,000 expense for solar and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 4 was directed exclusively for low income households. She anticipated coming up with $13,000 to install rooftop solar would be a huge barrier and therefore she anticipated the program would not be well utilized and therefore any climate benefit would be zero if there were zero participants in the program. Alternatively, the other option (gas blower replacement initiative) is a lesser expenditure from the General Fund and she anticipated it would be well utilized as there are a lot of gas blowers in the community. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO REPLACE THE ROOFTOP SOLAR GRANT PROGRAM WITH THE GAS BLOWER REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE. Councilmember Olson explained with this initiative, residents and landscape/yard maintenance business who have regular reoccurring jobs in Edmonds that use gas blowers could turn their gas blower in for destruction and be reimbursed for a corded electric blower, or a 75% reimbursement for a battery operated blower. She noted both electric and battery operated blowers have wonderful climate impacts as gas blowers create almost as much emission as cars as well as cause noise pollution. Doing this as an incentive would have great quality of life and air quality benefits for community. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Councilmember Olson for the idea. He did not support it as part of this budget, but agreed gas blowers were absolutely horrible for the environment, unsafe for operators, and huge noise pollutants. He hoped such a program could be more thought out and a City Code process developed in the future. He was aware that a number of municipalities, especially on the west coast, are doing this and he would be happy to support it as a resident advocate in the future if work was done via a more thorough and comprehensive process. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if Mayor Nelson or Mr. Turley could speak to the rooftop solar grant program, recalling he asked questions of Acting Director Rob Chave about capitalizing on other partnerships and initiatives that are available at the county, PUD, state or federal level to ensure the $13,000 difference is substantially reduced. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Councilmember Olson, expressing her excitement about going down this path. This is one part of what is needed going forward, but there needs to be a larger program built around it, one that includes the City setting an example. She was concerned with enforcing that residents or businesses used electric/battery blowers once they traded in their gas blower. The program needs to be further developed, but she appreciated that thought was being put into it and wanted to continue working on it later. Council President Paine asked how Council would determine whether the rooftop solar grant program was not fully used, guessing that it would Development Services. Mr. Turley answered it was a budget proposal by Development Services. Council President Paine suggested getting an update four months into the year to see what interest had been expressed. She liked the idea, agreeing that leaf blowers are loud and the electric/battery blowers are better for the environment, but raking is an even lower cost. She suggested the rooftop solar grant program be bought back to Council in a few months to see what interest there has been and to look at a gas blower replacement program before leaf season in the fall. Councilmember Olson said she did not want this to be approved if the rooftop solar grant program was approved because it would be spending too much money; her proposal was in lieu of the rooftop solar grant program. The community is more receptive to a carrot approach versus an ordinance and she viewed this as a good opportunity. Including it in the budget would mean the program would be in place in time for next year’s leaf season. She anticipated it would have a bigger climate impact because it is such a low barrier. She encouraged Councilmember to support a gas blower replacement program in lieu of the rooftop solar grant program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 5 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see this as either/or. It is important to have the solar program as well as electric blowers and she suggested doing both. She understood Councilmember Olson’s concerns about funding and spending taxpayer’s money, but she viewed this as a great opportunity to do both. Council President Paine agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, why give up a good idea in lieu of another good idea. She was supportive of both programs. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND TO CREATE A PROGRAM TO TURN IN GAS BLOWERS FOR ELECTRIC BLOWERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated she supports this idea, but it needs to be more than a replacement initiative. For example, there needs to be a lot of education so the money is spent in ways that are as far reaching as possible. She could support setting aside money to develop a program, but not if it was a replacement initiative without an education component. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson’s statement, especially regarding who this applies to, whether it would be business or households and who would that be prioritized. He supported the idea but it needed more time in the oven to be clear about what, who and exactly how the program would work. He would not support it right now, but would support ongoing work to develop a more complete proposal in the future. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Olson said a great deal more information was submitted with her amendment so it was a pretty well thought out program and included paying for rakes and bags if someone chose not to use a blower. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Olson recalled she copied Councilmembers when she submitted the amendment; there were three options for reimbursement and it included residents and landscapers with recurring jobs in Edmonds. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED NOT TO DO A REPLACEMENT, BUT A GAS BLOWER REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE FOR $50,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE THE ROOFTOP SOLAR GRANT PROGRAM. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Olson referred to upcoming amendments proposed by Councilmembers Buckshnis and/or K. Johnson, suggesting for the sake of expediency, even if she was interested in talking about the amendment, if there was no second to her motion, there would not be any conversation. She suggested other Councilmember make a motion if they were interested in discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to move ahead with each item to see if there was a motion. She felt it was inappropriate to bypass the amendments simply because the proposing Councilmember was not present. 24 21 Buckshnis, K Johnson General Fund Remove Human Services Division budget (609,500) 609,500 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 6 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE $200,000 FROM THE HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 25 22 Buckshnis General Fund Remove Park Planning and Capital Project Manager (119,840) 119,840 No action taken. 26 23 K Johnson General Fund Remove ADA Transition Plan (120,000) 120,000 No action taken. 27 33 K Johnson General Fund Remove Facilities Condition Assessment (15,000) 15,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE THE FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 28 34 K Johnson General Fund Remove Citywide Carpet Cleaning Service (45,000) 45,000 No action taken. 29 35 Buckshnis, K Johnson Fleet Remove Facilities Maintenance Vehicles (145,000) 145,000 No action taken. 30 37 Buckshnis, K Johnson General Fund Remove ongoing building repairs and maintenance (100,000) 100,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE ONGOING BUILDING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 31 38 Buckshnis, Olson, K Johnson General Fund Remove Police Campus Pedestrian Safety Perimeter (270,180) 270,180 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO REMOVE POLICE CAMPUS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PERIMETER. Councilmember Olson said her reasoning was 2-3 fold. She was not aware until the meeting where this request was made by the police department that the public was not supposed to walk across the parking lot. Today when she walked in that direction, she made a point to walk around it knowing they did not want pedestrians in the parking lot. There has never been a sign or any indication; a chain with a few posts to would reduce the traffic through the parking lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking if there was a motion and a second. Mayor Nelson answered there was and Councilmember Olson was speaking to the motion. Councilmember Olson said cameras would be a better use of funds. There have also been questions about whether the public safety complex and city hall are in the best location and this is another investment in that campus. She suggested having those conversations and vetting the idea before making further investments. This is $270,000 that can be saved in the budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 7 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the police department has been asking for this for the 12 years she has been on Council due to a number of concerning incidents. She was unsure there was any agreement to move the police headquarters to Highway 99 at an estimated cost of $30 million. She was unsure a cost of $30 million was preferable to spending $270,000 to fence in the parking lot. This is nothing new or something that has happen in the last year. She supported having a method to prevent police and employees’ private vehicles being tampered with. Council President Paine said this proposal was not made last year, anticipating she would have supported it last year if she had heard about it. There needs to be a secure sally port when transporting prisoners; it is important for officer and prisoner safety. It is also important to ensure pedestrians are not walking through the parking lot, commenting she has never understood people using a parking lot as a shortcut. She acknowledged it would be a tragedy if an officer responding to a call inadvertently hit a pedestrian or a vehicle and she did not want to have officers’ personal property or police vehicles tampered with. She recalled a camera was stolen off the building a few years ago that wasn’t noticed immediately. Having better perimeter safety measures is important for the integrity of the building and vehicles. She firmly supported retaining the Police Campus Pedestrian Safety Perimeter. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled he was initially supportive of the decision package but understands there are a lot of considerations, particularly regarding the sally port. He supported this decision package with hopefully the police department looking at the smallest options first before going to the full area. In discussion with the chief this last week, she provided images of what it could look like which he likened to the fortification in an inclusive community. He hoped the design/implementation would consider safety first and ensure it fits with the community and does not look like a completely gated off building. He suggested considering the sally port and most critical areas first and expanding incrementally as needed which may not use the full budget allocation. Councilmember L. Johnson said this decision package also gave her pause, but after diving deeper into it she realized it was a safety perimeter to discourage pedestrians from walking through the parking lot. While some of that could be done with signage, in the example provided, it took attending meetings to hear an explanation for a Councilmember to understand. Pedestrians are only one part of it; damage or sabotage to 60 patrol cars is significant. Another important aspect is safety for the transfer of prisoners. She summarized after deeper thought, she deemed it a reasonable and responsible ask that she will support. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-4), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. 32 39 Buckshnis General Fund Remove baseline adjustment for increased cost of bank fees (5,700) 5,700 No action taken. 33 40 K Johnson General Fund Remove 2022 Commute Trip Reduction (36,000) 36,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE 2022 COMMUNITY TRIP REDUCTION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 34 41 K Johnson Street Fund Remove Traffic Control Variable Message Boards (30,000) 30,000 No action taken. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 8 35 42 K Johnson Street Fund Remove OT for Community Event Support (20,000) 20,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REDUCE OT FOR COMMUNITY EVENT SUPPORT FROM $20,000 TO $10,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 36 47 K Johnson Water Fund Remove Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment (505,000) 505,000 No action taken. 37 48 K Johnson Utility Funds Remove Utility Rate and GFC adjustment and analysis (120,000) 120,000 No action taken. 38 51 K Johnson Storm Fund Remove Community Event Support – Overtime (20,000) 20,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT TO $10,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 39 53 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Perrinville Creek Lower Restoration Project (550,000) 550,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE PERRINVILLE CREEK LOWER RESTORATION PROJECT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 40 55 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements (190,000) 190,000 No action taken. 41 56 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update (300,000) 300,000 No action taken. 42 60 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Perrinville Creek Projects (121,542) 121,542 No action taken. 43 61 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Green Street & Rain Gardens (400,000) 400,000 No action taken. 44 66 Buckshnis Sewer Fund Remove O&M Staffing Plan (214,000) 214,000 No action taken. 45 70 Buckshnis Fleet Remove 2022 Vehicle Replacements (485,000) 485,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO DECREASE THAT BUDGET BY $100,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 46 72 Buckshnis, K Johnson Building Maintenance Fund Remove Solar Plant Renewal and Grant Application (230,000) 230,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 9 No action taken. 47 93 K Johnson REET and Storm Remove Elm Way Walkway (901,780) 901,780 No action taken. 48 96 Buckshnis REET 126 Remove Land Acquisition Consulting Services (45,000) 45,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE LAND ACQUISITION CONSULTING SERVICES. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Turley relayed the final effect on cash was $533,875. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding that the Council was spending $500,000 more than was in the proposed budget. Mr. Turley agreed. Councilmember Olson referred to questions she submitted to Mr. Turley regarding whether this is a responsible budget and whether the Council was spending a reasonable amount in view of reserves. Before the Council voted on the budget ordinance, she suggested recessing until Mr. Turley had time to put those items into the spreadsheet so the Council could have a more global conversation about expenditures from the allowable spendable reserves. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Turley if he needed a recess to provide that information. Mr. Turley said this budget was relatively unchanged from the proposed budget the Council has had for six weeks other than the addition of $500,000. He summarized this was a very sustainable budget, and he did not see any problems. Mr. Turley anticipated in the future, sales tax and other taxes would come in higher than projected which would provide an additional cushion. To residents concerned about the $7 million in expenditures over revenues, he explained there is nearly $7 million in expenditures on Civic Field. The reason it looks like it is overspending the budget is because revenues came in this year or last year. For example, the bond proceeds this year, $4 million for Public Works and $1.6 million for Civic Field, came in this year and will show as revenue this year but the expenses will be next year. Therefore, it is not overspending the budget, but a timing issue. The budget book is a one year snapshot of revenues and expenditures; to provide a complete picture, revenues received in prior years need to be considered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, whether there had been a second to Councilmember Olson’s motion. Mayor Nelson clarified she was asking a question, not making a motion. Mr. Turley said he was answering Councilmember Olson’s and other questions he has received. Another question that has been asked is about spending down the fund balance. The City has built up several million in fund balance, in excess of the required reserves. In the private sector, people are used to seeing profits in a business that go into the equity section and more profits are better for a private sector business, the more a private sector business retains, the more stable it is and the more longevity it will have in the future. That is not the way government works; governments collect taxes and are supposed to provide services and benefits to the citizens with those taxes. The goal of government is not to collect a big fund balance and have it continue to grow. The City’s fund balance has grown eight out of the last ten years. Mr. Turley continued, in the eyes of most government accountants, the City has built up more profit over the years than it should have and it is time to spend it for the benefit of citizens. To those worried about spending down the fund balance, he assured it was entirely appropriate. The economy hasn’t given him anything to worry about with regard to being conservative and even with the excess budgeted this year, the budget does not even come close to tapping into restricted reserves. He summarized this is a sustainable Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 10 budget and more importantly it is a responsible budget and the City is doing what they should be doing with its money right now. Councilmember Olson asked about the percentage of available reserves, commenting what was so slippery and uncomfortable for her was there were things coming up that are not reflected in the budget like the $1.5 million in the fire department contract. Not having that amount show up anywhere in the budget makes her uncomfortable and she asked how that fit into the percentage of reserves that the Council is responsibly using/not using. With regard to the fire contract. Mr. Turley recalled a couple of years ago the budget was increased for the fire contract because South County Fire was unable to settle their labor contracts and planned to submit a retroactive bill. A fairly significant amount was included in the budget to account for the retro bill. Last year SCF caught up on the retro; beginning in January the annual contract will increase and there is some cushion built for the retroactive billings. The cushion will be used to cover half or more of the SCF’s 2022 increase. He agreed that was a significant increase but a fair amount of it was already built into the 2022 budget. He did not feel it was appropriate to add things to the budget until the dollar amount was firm; that is the purpose of quarterly budget amendments. The Council has been kept informed via several meetings with SCF so the increase will not be a surprise. When the budget was being developed, there was some awareness that the increase would be coming but it was not far enough along to include it in the proposed budget at the time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE [ORDINANCE NO. 4240] AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AS A DRAFT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EMAIL THAT SHE SENT ON MONDAY OR TUESDAY TO ALL COUNCIL FOR THEIR INFORMATION. Councilmember Olson asked if other Councilmembers remembered receiving the amendments. Council President Paine remembered receiving the amendments including a photo that had some pink highlighter. Councilmember Olson agreed that was the email she was referring to. Council President Paine said she looked at the changes and did not have any no objection to them, recalling one did not identify the correct year. Councilmember Distelhorst said his recollection beyond the pink highlighter was the changes were procedural dates, highlighting changes in the whereas clauses. He did not object to the changes as long as they had been reviewed Mr. Taraday to ensure they were consistent and accurate. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said considering this is a budget request, she preferred to go through the items one at a time otherwise Council was taking it on faith and this a pretty heavy budget to do that. Councilmember Distelhorst advised the email was sent at 12:45 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16th. Councilmember L. Johnson said she just forwarded Councilmember Olson the email. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Olson relayed the first whereas in the draft budget ordinance would be unchanged from the draft. The second whereas would be replaced with, “Whereas a notice was published on October 8, 2021 and posted on the door of City Hall from October 8 to November 8, 2021. That the City would meet virtually via Zoom on November 1, November 4, November 16, November 23 and December 7 if necessary for the purpose of making and adopting a budget for said fiscal year and giving taxpayers within the limits of the city an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing upon said budget and” Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 11 Councilmember Olson proposed a third whereas clause be added between the former second and third whereas clause in the draft that reads, “Whereas a notice was published on October 15 and October 22, 2021 and posted on the door of City Hall from November 8, 2021 until present. That the City would meet virtually via Zoom on November 1, 4, 9 and 16 for the purpose of making and adopting a budget for said fiscal year and giving taxpayers within the limits of the city an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing upon said budget, and” Mayor Nelson asked if the Council wanted to vote line by line. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested Mr. Taraday weigh in on the amendments as well as the necessity of the changes and whether they help with the process. Mr. Taraday said for the most part he did not have a concern about most of the revisions drafted by Councilmember Olson. He did provide comments to her, one as he mentioned before, there is no legal requirement that budget hearing notices be posted on a door; they need to be published. Therefore, it is a question worthy of discussion whether whereas clauses in the ordinance should address door posting when there is no law that requires door posting. Mr. Taraday explained he was aware that notices were posted on the door and that that caused some confusion which is one of the reason the hearing was continued until November 16th so that anyone who might have been confused could testify last night. There is always a question of what to put and what not to put in whereas clauses; that is ultimately up to the Council. Whereas clauses tell the story and provide background on what led up to ordinance adoption. If the Council feels that detail is an appropriate part of story, it can be included. He reiterated for the record that there is no requirement that he was aware of to post budget hearing notices on a door. Councilmember L. Johnson said based on that answer, a number of people were confused by the door posting. Since it is not necessary to post a door but it is necessary to publish, she questioned including the additional language and adding to the confusion instead of being clear about the requirements and how they were met. She feared the revised language would add to the confusion in future years and almost giving more credence to something that wasn’t necessary versus the necessary process. Councilmember Olson said she was okay with removing the sentence about door posting if that was preferred. What got her attention and led to the modification was what was written previously was true only based on some of the notices and not others. Mayor Nelson asked for clarify about how the Council want to vote. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said as she did not have it front of her, she preferred to go line by line. She requested the entire section be read first and then go line by line. Councilmember Olson read the last whereas clause, “Whereas the city council did hold a public hearing on the budget on November 1, 9 and 16, and did then consider the matter of the proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2022, and;” She asked if a draft of the budget ordinance in packet could be displayed on the screen. Mr. Turley displayed the draft ordinance. Councilmember Olson forwarded the proposed changes to Councilmembers. She also sent her proposed changes to Mr. Turley to display. Councilmember Olson advised November 1st needed to be added before November 9th in the last whereas clause in the changes she emailed. Mr. Turley displayed Councilmember Olson’s proposed changes. Councilmember Distelhorst said taking into consideration the comments from Mr. Taraday and to avoid further confusion, it would be appropriate to add the 9th to the 1st and 16th in the second existing whereas clause in the draft ordinance. The other edits seem to be more confusing rather than narratively accurate. He suggested considering if there needed to be a reference to tonight as a continued meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 12 Councilmember L. Johnson supported the wording proposed by Councilmember Distelhorst. Councilmember Distelhorst clarified his suggestion was to add November 9th between November 1st and November 16th in the second whereas clause in in the existing budget ordinance and not including any of the other suggested edits. Councilmember Olson said the issue is, depending on what notice someone was looking at, different things were actually said. That whereas clause is not a true statement depending on the notice someone was looking at. Council President Paine said as she understands it, posting on the door is not a requirement under COVID OPMA guidance, so the proposed edits may not be necessary in the second whereas clause. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO REMOVE “AND POSTED ON THE DOOR OF CITY HALL FROM OCTOBER 8 TO NOVEMBER 8TH 2021” IN THE SECOND WHEREAS.” UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE THE STATEMENT “POSTED ON THE DOOR OF CITY HALL FROM NOVEMBER 8, 2021 UNTIL PRESENT” IN THE PROPOSED THIRD WHEREAS. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-3), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday explained he will be working with Mr. Turley to prepare the version of the budget ordinance that is signed by the Mayor and wanted to ensure he understood the Council’s intent. A motion to amend that removed door posting in the second whereas clause passed and a motion to amend to remove door posting in the third whereas clause failed; he was having difficulty reconciling those actions. He suggested the Council continue to work on making the ordinance internally consistent so he can understand the Council’s intent. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she was doing her best to follow but this whole process was confusing. She was unclear if a motion had been made regarding the changes proposed to the whereas clauses. Mr. Turley said he did not believe a motion was made to make the changes proposed by Councilmember Olson so amendments could not be made to it. Councilmember Olson said she thought she had offered it as an amendment and asked if a Councilmember remembered seconding it. City Clerk Scott Passey responded it was not clear to him. Councilmember Distelhorst said he was voting no on the amendments because he did not think they should be included in the draft budget ordinance. When this effort is concluded, he will make a motion to add November 9th to the second whereas clause. Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Olson make a motion to add the changes she proposed to the whereas clauses. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD THE PROPOSED WHEREAS CLAUSES FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFYING WHAT WAS NOT TRUE BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE OF CERTAIN NOTICES AND NOT OTHERS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 13 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Olson propose the changes section by section, recognizing there were some errors. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THE SECOND WHEREAS CLAUSE IN THE BUDGET ORDINANCE (PACKET PAGE 109) BE REPLACED WITH THE WHEREAS CLAUSE SHE PROVIDED IN THE PINK HIGHLIGHT). MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THE THIRD WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT WOULD BE ADDED BETWEEN THE FORMER SECOND AND THIRD WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT WOULD CONTAIN THE INFORMATION FOR THE NOTICE THAT HAD DIFFERENT INFORMATION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, IN THE THIRD WHEREAS IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD, REPLACE “AT THAT TIME” WITH “NOV 1, 9 AND 16.” UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED TO AMEND TO ADD NOV 9, 2021 IN THE SECOND WHEREAS CLAUSE BETWEEN NOV 1 AND 16. Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, pointing out the ordinance contained Nov 9. She asked if his intent was to add Nov 4. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed November 4 was not a public hearing, only budget deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION. Councilmember L. Johnson said that date is missing in the ordinance in the binder, but the ordinance in the packet was updated to include November 9. Councilmember Olson asked if there was ever a notice that had the dates of November 1, 9 and 16 on it; the October 8 notice had November 1, 4, 16, 23 and 7. Mayor Nelson asked who she was directing her question to. Councilmember Olson answered any and all who wanted the whereas clauses to be accurate as to what the notices actually said. Mr. Passey answered the first notice was published on October 8 and it noticed two public hearing dates, November 1 and 16 and other dates for budget deliberation, adoption, etc. The follow up public hearing notice was published on October 15 and 22 and it changed the November 16 public hearing date to November 9. Other dates for adoption and deliberation also changed, but those dates are not the focal point of a public hearing notice, it is the public hearing dates. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING NO. Mr. Passey advised the ordinance number was 4240. 3. PROPOSED 2022-2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) City Engineer Rob English explained this a continuation of the discussion regarding the 2022-2027 CFP and CIP. He reviewed: • CIP/CFP Schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 14 o October ▪ Planning Board presentation – October 13 ▪ City Council presentation – October 26 ▪ Planning Board public hearing – October 27 - Planning Board recommendations included in the agenda memo in the packet o November ▪ City Council public hearing – November 1 ▪ City Council Discussion – November 16 o December ▪ 60-day Department of Commerce Review ends – December 10 ▪ Adopt CFP into the Comprehensive Plan – December 14 • Staff recommendation o Approve the project lists in the Public Works and Parks 2022-2027 CFP/CIP and authorize the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final approval at the December 14, 2021 City Council meeting Mr. English explained the reason approval of the ordinance was recommended at the December 14 meeting is the 60-day review period by the Department of Commerce ends December 10. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the first Planning Board recommendation, relaying his understanding that directors have spent a considerable amount of time responding to stakeholder and resident emails regarding the marsh restoration project and Marina Beach Park. Given this forum to publicly address questions and concerns from residents and City leaders, he asked staff to provide a response similar to what has been provided to various parties in emails. Public Works Director Phil Williams said a lot of questions focused on how the City is administering issues related to the marsh and interest in an overall guide to investments made to the marsh. He and Ms. Feser both see this as a City project; all in, it is a large effort and will take extensive cooperation from a lot of departments both in fundraising and project management. Each have areas that are more appropriate to take the lead on, but always working together and always seeing it as a City project, not a departmental project. The 2021 Public Works budget includes some funds, but there are none in the 2022 budget. In approving the 2022 budget, the Council is not being asked to approve any expenditures directly related to the marsh restoration project in Public Works. The property issues that have kept that from moving forward still have not been resolved. There has been some buzz behind the scenes that announcements may be made relatively soon; when that happens, the appropriate staff, council and administration can discuss next steps. There is one project related to cleaning up stormwater inputs that go into the marsh. He summarized he has never seen the marsh restoration as a Public Works or Parks project, just as a City project. Councilmember Distelhorst requested Parks comment on the RCO and environmental components of the project. Parks, Recreation, Cultural and Human Services Director Angie Feser emphasized there is an existing fund, Marsh Restoration and Preservation Fund 017 (page 125 of the budget). There is currently $844,000 in that account to be used toward marsh restoration, for grant match or projects. There has been a lot of discussion around Marina Beach Park and how it relates to marsh restoration and the recent award of two grants totaling $1 million for that project. The daylighting of Willow Creek or the open air channel in Marina Beach Park has been designed with hydrology engineers and ties into and can accommodate all the marsh restoration effort. The design of Marina Beach Park is at the 30% level and needs some refinement, but the channel has been footprinted to connect the two main points, 1) the opening under the railroad bridge, which is a fixed point, and 2) Puget Sound. Ms. Feser continued, the Marina Beach Park work supports the future restoration of the marsh, an enormous project that needs to start somewhere and Marina Beach is a place to start. There are three primary parcels Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 15 involved with the project, first, the marsh which is currently owned by the City where quite a bit of restoration work was done this year including volunteer work in October related to removal of invasives and planting native vegetation as well as volunteer work on SR 104. The Unocal property is another parcel; little can be done until ownership becomes clear. The third parcel is Marina Beach Park; there is $1 million in grants to begin the work and further refine development of the design. The channel has been funded by ALEA, an RCO grant that ranked number one in the evaluation process as well as a second grant through WWRP. These are the same grants Snohomish County received for the Meadowdale Beach project. Council President Paine referred to the marsh project and where funding is identified and asked whether it made any difference where funding was located with regard to the City’s ability to get grants. She was agnostic about where funds were located, but she did not want to jeopardize the City’s ability to access grants and other funding sources due to the various aspects of this large project such as stormwater, environmental, restoration, recreational access, etc. When she thinks of the Edmonds Marsh, she does not think of it as a drainage system as some people have called it and she did not want to lose an opportunity for funding due to characterization of the marsh that is very limiting. Mr. Williams answered absolutely not; those questions have been asked of RCO staff as recently as the last budget cycle and the one before that. They look at it as a city application and evaluate it on its merits. The goals for the project are clearly environmental and habitat related. The fact that it takes some stormwater, urban drainage from the developed portions of the city is a fact but does not dominate the design. Funds are invested not for stormwater but improving habitat and meeting environmental goals. There are no stormwater grants available so there is no point in trying to characterize it as a stormwater project. Where the money is in the budget is not a key factor; the funds could continue to accumulate in the marsh fund but eventually an expense budget needs to be developed to make the project happen. RCO has said they do not care what departments are involved, how many or which ones; it is a city project and whatever commitments are made to the granting agencies will be made by the City at large, not a single department. Ms. Feser said her experience has been the same. She has had numerous successful grants through RCO and there is never a qualification about where the match money comes from, it just needs to be provided and committed. Agencies do not qualify or score the project based on where the other funding comes from. In fact the two $500,000 grants the City received this year could match each other. Councilmember Olson said she has heard it said a lot, even in the Mayor’s budget address, that the budget is a reflection of values and that is what she is hearing from citizens. When citizens think about the marsh, its value is as a natural space, an estuary and hopefully improved wildlife habitat and having the project in stormwater does not pay honor to that. Mr. Williams said he hears that too, but personally rejects that thinking. If citizens think Public Works is a one-dimensional bunch of linear thinkers that do not deal with habitat outcomes and understand the current and changing environmental regulations and do things the right way, they haven’t been paying attention. Public Works does that a lot such as working on the Perrinville basin which is basically a habitat project. He did not understand why people think the project would look differently based on where the money is in the budget. Mr. Williams recognized there have also been concerns expressed that paying for this large project will impact stormwater rates. He assured that was never the intent. There will be a match from the City; it does not matter what department or fund it comes from, it could be General Fund, REET or some stormwater funding. It has been assumed for the last decade that at most 25% of the project cost for the marsh would come from local dollars. That is an aggressive assumption; most of the successful restoration projects in the state include a lot of local money. The City needs to plan how to assemble matching funds. As Ms. Feser pointed out, quite a lot has already been set aside, but over the years more will likely be required and it can come from general governmental dollars but some can certainly come from stormwater because there is also a stormwater element to the project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 16 Councilmember Olson referred to Mr. Williams’ statement that the intent was not to affect utility rates and asked whether it would or would not affect utility rates if the project is in stormwater. Mr. Williams answered in the last rate study, some money for the marsh project was assumed to come from stormwater rates, approximately 25%. There are no funds in the budget for acquiring property rights to do the project; that is still an unknown. It would be nice to think the City would get it for free; that seems unlikely, and that cost has not included in the budget. The park improvements also were not in the original budget for the marsh project. Councilmember Olson asked if the marsh project was moved out of stormwater, the next time the utility rate study was done, would there be a lower basis. Mr. Williams answered if the assumption was that no stormwater money would go into the project, that would need to be accounted for in the next rate study. He personally felt that was unrealistic. He wished the entire project could be funded with grants and every effort will be made to keep the City’s match to a minimum but there will be a match required even at the $17.2 million estimate for the west side of the tracks for the daylighting project; 25% of that would be $4.3 million in local match. A 10% match could be assumed if the Council wished, but he did not see projects like this working out that way. For example, the project to the north, 50% came from Snohomish County REET along with funds from six granting agencies and from the railroad for a new bridge. He hoped the marsh project could get a higher percentage of funding participation. He recalled the City received a grant a couple years ago that had to be returned because the timeline changed on the property transfer. The City has shown its ability to get grants; but to assume it will all come from other sources is unrealistic. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled mention of the marsh as an estuary and a wildlife preserve; NOAA’s definition of estuary is a coastal body of water where the river mixes with the sea water. It provides ecosystem and services and functions that serve as natural filters of runoff and for providing nursery grounds for many species of birds, fish and other animals. She said the goal for many who have been involved is habitat restoration, but you cannot lose sight of the natural stormwater function. There needs to be a comprehensive plan that includes both elements. She was unsure where the divide is; it is wildlife preserve that the City is trying to restore, but according to the definition of an estuary, it is also natural stormwater detention. She referred to packet page 370 where during the Planning Board meeting Ms. Feser mentioned the current funds for the marsh are utility funds and they cannot be moved to park funding. She asked Ms. Feser to expand on that. Ms. Feser said the current budget has stormwater utility funds allocated toward the $17.2 million cost, utility funds have to be used for that purpose and cannot be moved to the Parks CIP because they are not park related dollars. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding that the reason utility funds could be placed in the marsh fund was in recognition of the stormwater component of marsh. Mr. Williams agreed, explaining ultimately that will be the challenge, to determine the appropriate role for utility rate revenues, the nexus between the drainage utility and this project. So far in the preliminary phases where conceptual work has been done such as feasibility study and preliminary design, half the funding has come from stormwater and half from general governmental revenues. That effort has provided a pretty good idea of the challenges, that it is doable, and there are no fatal flaws. The next step is more detailed design regarding the channel, how it is structured, etc. That has not yet been done as the preference has been to wait until the property issues are cleared up before further investments are made. He summarized there is a stormwater component to the project, once that amount is determined, the remainder of the match will need to come from general governmental funds. Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not want to miss any opportunities. As someone who has studied the impact of tire chemicals on humans and the ecosystem, she objected to the idea of defining this project as either/or and potentially missing an opportunity for funding it with stormwater especially with new information tying tire dust to the death of salmon. She wanted this comprehensive project recognized as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 17 both a restoration project and a stormwater project because she did not want to lose opportunity for grants. Mr. Williams said the small project in the 2022 budget will deal with runoff from the state highway; treatment that will be installed that will be able to pick out that small, divided crumb. Runoff from further up in the drainage basin on City streets where that material is also produced has not been addressed yet. One of the wonderful things about the marsh is as long as it isn’t insulted too much, it does a nice job of treating some of that. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the 12 years she has been on Council, she has watched numerous projects built in the City and it is usually done by two departments; she was unsure who led people to believe that a project had to be done only one department. She encouraged Council to continue to support departments working together as a team. She was confidence that Ms. Feser and Mr. Williams will work this out moving forward. Council President Paine asked what will happen to the side streets off Highway 99 once the project that will add medians and other amenities along Highway 99 is completed and asked whether there was a plan to ensure streets adjoining Highway 99 were not damaged by heavy equipment. She asked how addressing that issue could be included in the CFP. She also wanted to ensure equitable distribution to ensure roads in other parts of the City were repaired. Mr. Williams did not anticipate that would not be a major problem. There may be some damage where construction occurs, requiring the first few feet of the street to be repaired and repaved as part of the project. Haul routes will be audited and documented before and after the project to check the pavement ratings. Mr. English explained it is a huge project that will be broken into stages. The first stage next year is the median work. The stages that will be designed next year are the more comprehensive improvements such as widening sidewalks and adding capacity at some intersections. The City will work with the State on those projects to not only widen sidewalks but provide an overlay with the overall improvements. An overlay would not go a great distance down an adjacent street but it typically goes around the corner. Council President Paine asked how that would impact the regular overlay program and whether it would take resources away from other areas. Mr. Williams did not anticipate that would happen. The City has been seeking a steady source of revenue dedicated to an ongoing, planned, disciplined pavement preservation program. The City is better off now than it was a while ago but has a ways to go. He did not anticipate that the median project or subsequent projects on Highway 99 would have a big impact on the citywide pavement program. The Highway 99 project is funded in the capital program; citywide pavement funds should not be used to supplement capital project costs. Mr. English said the success so far has been via lobbying the State, initially receiving $10 million last year and the administration was able to get $6.5 million added to the Highway 99 effort. It will be necessary to secure additional State funds to implement future stages on Highway 99. Traffic Impact Fees also can be used at some of the intersections where capacity is added. Councilmember Olson referred to letters the Council and City has received regarding the suitability of the community park and athletic complex phase 2 in the Comprehensive Plan. Apparently there had been a LUPA complaint regarding whether this can be sited there. She asked how it affected this project and whether the project was appropriate to continue pursuing. Ms. Feser said Monday’s email was the first she’d heard of that. She suggested Mr. Taraday address the former Woodway High School’s non- conformance with zoning. The project is listed as a long term project in the CFP and to explore partnering with the school district. She anticipated that project would be highly eligible for grant funding. Councilmember Olson offered to forward the email to Mr. Chave and Mr. Taraday. Council President Paine referred to the ADA projects, commenting it appeared only $100,000 was identified for 2023 and none in later years. She asked if that meant all the ADA improvements would be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 18 completed in 2023. Mr. Williams asked if she was referring to the Parks Department conducing an ADA study of parks facilities. Council President Paine answered no, it was the Citywide ADA Transition Plan. Mr. Williams said a transition plan was developed for the transportation system and for most public building. There are things in parks that are not ADA compliant. Council President Paine referred to packet page 223 and page 59, Public Works Citywide ADA Transition Plan. Mr. English advised the plan is due for an update which is planned for 2023. Mr. Williams answered the update would show what things have been done and add new items that have been identified. When the plan was presented several years ago, the cost of citywide ADA upgrade was $146 million. The City is required by law to update the plan. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to packet page 224 or page 60, the Transportation Plan Update, which he assumed was the 6-year TIP update and asked if the update would use the City’s Complete Streets Code as a basis. Williams answered yes, the City has made that commitment and it will be part of update to Transportation Plan. Councilmember Olson referred to the Marina Beach Park improvements, relaying her surprise that a Council committee recommended forwarding it to Consent when the Council has discussed prioritizing park improvements in other areas of the City where parks are in bad shape. She appreciated the time and effort that has gone into the grant applications and the concept and it looks lovely, but in many ways, it is already a lovely park. She acknowledged the park needed bathrooms but Mathay Ballinger also needs bathrooms. Those two grants are a match for each other but part of getting the grants is committing to the other $4 million in the project, much of which is recreation amenities, the boat launch, upgrades to the park and it is not all about the marsh estuary. People are concerned with doing those things when the channels leading up to it are not yet determined. She understood the complexities of having a project of this size and selecting a starting point, but she was concerned about the City committing to $4 million in the relatively short term in this area of the City except for the funds directly related to daylighting. Councilmember Olson recommended the City thank RCO and not be beholding to the commitment of those short term dollars that will be spent in this area. The City has been down this road before. She tends to be more cautious about grants, recalling some of the grants the City received for Civic Park did not allow parking in some areas of the park. In the short term it was great to get the $1-2 million in grants toward the purchase, but it prevented providing angle parking for 80 cars on the north and south sides of the park and providing that parking now will cost much more. She was concerned and possibly did not adequately appreciate the grants and what they required due to the commitment to an extraordinary investment in this area of the City when spoken priorities are elsewhere. Ms. Feser was uncertain what Councilmember Olson’s question was; whether it was related to the process of accepting grants. Councilmember Olson said she may be only one who wanted to remove this from the CFP or move it further ahead in the timeline so the City was not investing in 2024. Ms. Feser said it has been identified as a project in the CIP. A key point for the Council and a big step in the project is acceptance of the grants and approving the contract for the grants. That was discussed by the Parks & Public Works (PPW) Committee last week and is on the Finance Committee meeting agenda for next month because there was no Finance Committee meeting last week. It will then go to full Council for consideration and approval and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreements accepting the grants and adhering to the grant conditions. The City Council has the option to turn down the $1 million in grants for the project. The tradeoff would be that quite a bit of time would need to pass before the City sought funds from RCO for the project. The grant process is quite extensive and to be awarded two grants and then turn them down, RCO would remember that. Ms. Feser agreed it was a fair to discuss the PROS Plan and the lens toward equity in the community. She recalled discussion about Civic Park, the amount of park-related capital investment in the Bowl in the last couple decades. A similar discussion is appropriate for Marina Beach Park, whether the City is willing to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 19 invest $4-6 million in yet another project in the downtown area or should those resources be considered for investment east of the Bowl. To the question of whether it should remain in the CIP, she explained the CIP is a planning document; keeping the project in the CIP does not commit the City to spending those funds. Things happen at different points; one of those points will be approving the grant contracts. Councilmember Olson asked whether it was critical to keep the project in the CFP/CIP. Ms. Feser answered the critical points are when the Council makes decisions to move forward with the project in the form of contracts and decision packages allocating funding for those projects. Deputy Parks, Recreation, Cultural and Human Services Director Shannon Burley pointed out the importance of having a project in the CIP in order to apply for grants; removing it from the CIP would have an adverse impact. Ms. Feser agreed, commenting that is why there are some projects in the CFP with no dollars assigned. It is important to identify them as desirable community facilities at some point. She recommended not taking the project out of the CFP/CIP, but there are touchpoints where the Council can decide whether to move the project forward or not. As Chair of the PPW Committee, Councilmember Distelhorst said when the committee discussed this last week, it was pointed out that it had been reviewed by the same committee a year prior when two different Councilmembers were on the committee as well as by the Council on the Consent Agenda in 2020. The PPW felt very confident in the level of review and how many different Councilmembers in different forums at different times have had the opportunity to review the two grants. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked City staff and the directors, especially Mr. Turley for budget. He appreciated the level and tenor of professional discussion and knowledge on all the topics and everyone’s responsiveness and work to answer questions for Council, local media and the public. Mr. English relayed the staff recommendation is to approve the project list in both Public Works and Parks documents and authorize the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final approval at the December 14th Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE PROJECT LIST IN THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS 2022-2027 CFP/CIP DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE DECEMBER 14, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Olson suggested putting the deletion of page 73 to a vote, relaying she felt strongly that it should be a City parks project. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND TO DELETE PAGE 73. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-0), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. As this was his last Council meeting, Mr. Williams said it had been a pleasure for the last 11½ years o work with several different versions of the Edmonds City Council. He enjoyed the work and the process which can be animated and difficult at times with a lot of different opinions, but that is the definition of a good process. He has tried to staff the Council in a way that gets things done eventually. It has been a pleasure, he looked forward to what he would be doing next, will stay in touch and wished everyone the very best. Councilmember Olson thanked Mr. Williams, noting a lot of people in the community may not be aware of what a huge umbrella Public Works is. She thinks very highly of Mr. Williams and the job he has done and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 20 his aptitude as a manager; his team does a great job for the community which is a testimony to him. She thanked him for everything he has done for the City over the years. Council President Paine commented the imprint of Mr. Williams’ work on the City will be recognized for decades. She thanked him for his work, including the wastewater treatment plant and his responsiveness to the community particularly the odor scrubber this past year. It has been a wild two years and being on Council during that time made her appreciate his creativity, flexibility and responsiveness to issues in the community. He and his teams have been very responsive and professional, a credit to the entire Public Works Department. Mr. Williams commented the City was fortunate to have Mr. English. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mr. Williams for his service to Edmonds, noting his expertise has helped shaped the City for the better. She personally enjoyed working with him both as a citizen the couple times they engaged, but especially as a Councilmember. He has always been very responsive to her questions even as a new Councilmember who had so much to learn, he never made her feel green and was always extremely respectful and forthright with information. She wished him the best going forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had had a lovely talk with Mr. Williams the other day and she was very excited for him to move forward and eventually retire because they are both under the same retirement plan and she knows how nice it is. She thanked him for all the work he has done, he has been an important part of Edmonds. She enjoyed her discussions with him, regardless of whether they agreed, and she appreciated everything he has done. She told Mr. English he had big shoes to fill for a while and thanked him for stepping up and said she was excited to see a new future in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson said he had the pleasure of working with Mr. Williams first as a Councilmember and later as Mayor. Mr. Williams was in charge of the largest department and budget in the City and has had a profound impact. He is a wonderful advocate for Public Works staff, has explained very complex things in a very understandable way, and has a passion for the job, for Public Works and for helping the community understand how critical it is and the sacrifices that Public Works staff make everyday to keep the community safe. He recognized Mr. Williams’ ability to solve whatever problems arise, whether it is a broken main, flooding, or the collapse of something, he has embraced the challenges and done a magnificent job and will be missed. Mr. Williams thanked the Council and Mayor for their comments. He said he may have been in the room when a lot of things got done or a plan developed to get them done, but it takes a lot of dedicated people to keep a city running from an infrastructure standpoint and Edmonds is blessed with wonderful employees throughout Public Works. Mr. English will have the pleasure of leading them and is up to the task and he will be smiling while watching them from a short distance away. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS To Councilmember Distelhorst, Councilmember L. Johnson said it has been a pleasure to serve alongside him. As many have noted, he is prepared, passionate, respectful, fully engaged and the true embodiment of a dedicated public servant. Serving with him has challenged her to go further in considering what is possible, to be more informed and to think bigger. Through his example and their many discussions, she has grown as a legislator, citizen, advocate and parent. Councilmember L. Johnson said some of the public comments made last night took her off guard. She is the great niece, granddaughter, daughter, niece and sister of loved ones who served our country, one of who was killed in action and another who sustained permanent injury serving in Afghanistan. She has a deep respect for veterans and their service and was saddened by the use of veterans as pollical fodder and found the reference to spitting on the graves of deceased veterans to be extremely disrespectful. People should be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 21 able to disagree without being disrespectful and should hold themselves to a higher standard than one that would misuse the memory of veterans. Councilmember Olson thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his hard work and service over the past two years. Council President Paine said it has been absolutely wonderful working with Councilmember Distelhorst on projects. As Councilmember L. Johnson said, she learned from him how to leap into projects, and to do something when you see something. He has been very responsive to the needs of the community with foresight and thoughtfulness. She appreciated his work and the guideposts and standards he provided; he is respectful, funny and has the right tone for a lot of people. Council President Paine was thankful for all the work done by staff, all the Council’s questions and responses that lead to greater appreciation for the work done by the administration on the budget. There are three meetings remaining in 2021, November 23 and December 7 and 14. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson regarding the comments regarding veterans. Both her parents served in WWII, her mother was an officer in the Navy and her father flew in the Air Force, and she also had a nephew who served in the Middle East who is now deceased. She found the public comments offensive because Councilmembers are actually very patriotic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his service, commenting she depends on him for his understanding of things. He has been a joy to work with; after serving on Council for 12 years, she has served with a least 20 Councilmembers and Councilmember Distelhorst is in the top 2% of the people she has served with as far as being prepared, ready, understanding the issues, and asking questions. He has been an absolutely fabulous Councilmember and she will miss his calm attitude and approach to the issues. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked the Council for their kind words, relaying it had been his complete and absolute honor to serve along side them and with Mayor Nelson, staff and residents. He is extremely proud of a lot of the work the Council has done, recalling projects he has worked on with Councilmembers from the HASCO agreement with Councilmember Olson to Driving While License Suspended with Council President Paine, the Code of Conduct with Councilmembers L. Johnson and Olson and a number of other projects with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. It has been his honor through all the ups and downs and he thanked the Council for allowing him to serve the residents of the City. Student Representative Roberts relayed a huge thank you to all the City staff who worked on the budget; he was glad the City was able to continue to take steps toward equity and continue to support the human services division. He relayed a huge thank you to Councilmember Distelhorst for his service, making decisions with the entire community in mind, not just the most vocal. He was grateful Councilmember Distelhorst stood up for the minority that has been unengaged with local politics. He has been an inspiration to many and an example for everyone in the community including himself and he was stoked for what he will do in the future. He thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for standing up for what is right and keeping things real on Council. Representative Roberts thanked Mr. Williams for his service to the City. Public Works is the backbone of the City and he did a wonderful job leading the department. He relayed his congratulations and best of luck in Redmond, noting he couldn’t wait to see the positive outcomes of the projects he led this year, especially the new gasifier at the WWTP. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 22 Representative Roberts recalled a few weeks ago now Councilmember-elect Will Chen received racist comments. He found such comments unacceptable but it goes to show that hate and racism is alive and well in Edmonds. As community leaders, we need to do everything we can to fight against this behavior. He encouraged the public to continue wearing masks and get their children vaccinated against COVID. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked Mr. Turley and his wonderful finance staff for putting together the budget, for answering Councilmembers and citizens’ questions, posting all the updates and amendments and tracking everything with so many moving parts and moving dates. He thanked all City staff for their time answering questions and providing explanations for decision packages. He thanked Council for their work making the budget possible. Mayor Nelson thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his service, relaying he will miss his passion, recalling when he was appointed, he hit the ground running and has been non-stop to the very end. He appreciated his dedication and looked forward to seeing him involved in the community in some other capacity. He wished him well on his next adventure. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.