Loading...
Cmd112222 spec mtg Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES November 22, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Vivian Olson, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tem Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor STAFF PRESENT Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Olson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Nelson. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY PROCLAMATION Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 2 Mayor Pro Tem Olson read a proclamation proclaiming November 26, 2022, as Small Business Saturday, and urged the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Olson described procedures for audience comments. David Cohanim, Seattle, developer’s representative on the project at 236th & 84th W, spoke regarding the interim ordinance on the CG zone. Their concerns include that it may have been made in error, it did not interpret the EIS correctly as it was stated, and the original ordinance was previously debated and unanimously approved. The biggest problem with the interim ordinance is it does not address the issue the council is trying to deal with, it calls for a reduction in the impact of the building through a reduction in the massing by imposing step-backs. The degree of the step-backs are not an issue; if they build in that location, there will be 200+ units regardless of whether there are step-backs. It will be a large building in a neighborhood that hasn’t not experienced that yet. He suggested instead of step-backs, taking a longer look at what the neighbors are interested in now versus what they may have been interested in in the past and to perhaps have a system in place for design review where buildings of a certain size trigger a review that includes contacting the neighbors to determine what the real issues are and put in place mechanisms that can truly mitigate impacts to the neighborhood such as design guidelines that address modulation, color, material, etc. They did a shadow study that showed even if they reduced the number of units by 20%, it does not impact the shadowing of neighboring buildings; it is still a big building. The best thing that can be done is to implement design guidelines that make the project amenable to the neighborhood in a better fitting fashion; the emergency ordinance is not the way to do that. David Preston, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, announced Port Executive Director Bob McChesney will make a presentation regarding Port District facts to the Edmonds Civic Roundtable next Monday. The Edmonds Yacht Club is presenting Holiday at the Docks with boats lit up for the holidays December 3 through January 12. The Port of Edmonds is presenting Holiday Night at the Marina on December 15th. He invited Edmonds and Woodway residents to attend the events. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said there is one glaring omission from the extensive list of topics and items on the legislative agenda, the City should be advocating for its right to self-determination particularly as it pertains to land use and zoning policies and ordinances. Over the last few sessions, the legislature has tried to change or eliminate single family zoning either regionally or statewide. Such a change was proposed in the last legislative session which eventually failed but not due to lack of trying. He expected the legislature would try to pass a similar change during the upcoming session. He suggested the council make the City’s position perfectly clear by drafting a resolution that would be forwarded to the state representatives in support of upholding the City’s ability to control its own destiny, where the City retains control of its land use policies and zoning codes, and tell the legislature to stop the nonsense. After all, 78% of Edmonds citizens support the neighborhood character. One needs only to look at the Land Acknowledgement Statement for inspiration, “We respect their sovereignty, their right to self- determination…”; if the City does not respect its right to self-determination, he questioned how these words could be mimicked at every council meeting. If the City gives up this right, they are giving up an important role they were elected to fulfill. He urged the council to control how Edmonds should grow and prosper and do it on our terms by drafting a resolution to make this clear. Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, extended her appreciation to the council for their interest in neighborhood concerns and City staff’s attempts to provide some consolatory effort to address problems created when the entire Gateway area of the Highway 99 subarea was globally upzoned to Commercial General without implementing adequate transitions to single family neighborhoods. She had hoped the discussions with the developer of the proposed Terrace Place Apartments would reveal alternative potential mitigation for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 3 the impact of massive structures currently allowed by the code across the street from a single family residential area, but was disappointed it did not have that result. While she welcomed the developer’s creativity and design to make the building more appealing, no alternatives to step-backs in the emergency ordinance were identified to get around the mass and bulk of a 6-story building. The 2016 Edmonds comprehensive plan indicated a growth target of an additional 5,705 housing units between 2011 and 2035. The Highway 99 subarea plan had a target of an additional 3,325 housing units by 2035 just for that area. That number makes up a substantial amount of the target identified in 2016 comprehensive plan. Planning for such a sizeable number of units in the Highway 99 area puts less pressure on the rest of Edmonds to densify. Ms. Gladstone continued, at the time of the subarea plan, equity was not the topic of discussion it is today. There was not as much consideration for the type and amount of investments made throughout the City which may have made it easier to make it the only area in the City where a 75-foot tall building can be directly adjacent to or across the street from single family residential areas. Eliminating the multifamily zoning at the time eliminated the transition between the two. Implementation of step-backs now is the only measure she has heard to address the mass and bulk of buildings that the CG zone allows. Their neighborhood is only one of several areas adjacent to Highway 99 that will be impacted in this way; many will not be as vocal as their neighborhood has been until the development is at their doorstep. Some will not have the wherewithal or time to voice their concerns and will just live with whatever happens. Continuing the emergency ordinance will buy time to continue working through this issue with the council to make all Edmonds neighborhoods appealing. She hoped the council’s decision about the step- back emergency ordinance would be more inclusive than the decision in 2017 to upzone the area. Mike Rosen, Edmonds, thanked the council for their service and commitment to the community, not just the hours they invest, but also their emotional investment. Although the council does not hear thank you very often, he assured many citizens appreciate their work. He encouraged the council to add to the legislative agenda a request to leave zoning to cities. There are issues that should be handled at a national or state level, but zoning is not one of those. People chose to live in Seattle, Tacoma or Edison and others choose to live in Edmonds. He acknowledged the mobs are coming to western Washington and that needs to be addressed, but he preferred the residents figure out how to do that in Edmonds. He encouraged the council to send a message to the state saying we’ve got this and thanks, but no thanks. With regard to the budget, he said he once heard someone refer to a budget as an orderly system of living beyond your means and would appreciate if the City did not do that. Next year is looking rocky at best; some experts say it will be a really soft landing and other experts say the worst is coming. Edmonds is in a great position to ride this wave, but he feared the City was not going to that. Spending one-time dollars and setting the City up for future expenses is not good and spending down reserves does not set the City up well. He urged the council to honor the commitment to residents that the vital services they need will be there and additional tax burden will not be placed on them in the future to pay for decisions made today. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, requested the council continue the interim ordinance affecting commercial buildings in the CG across the street from single family houses. The intent of the interim ordinance was for the City to come up with mitigations for the mass of a 6-story building across the street from a single family residence. For historical context, the buildable lands report showed that housing development activity for the 23 years 1995-2018 averaged 58 units per year throughout the whole City. The council knew there had been sluggish growth year after year when they approved a redevelopment plan and upzone for Highway 99. Then-Development Director Hope reported to council in 2017 that code changes impose new requirements on developers and the council needed to balance the interest of developers with the interests of residents which is hard to do. The cover letter accompanying the annual update stated, “Permitting activity was at historic highs in 2021 and development in Edmonds continues at a healthy pace.” The development update report showed six projects on parcels in the CG zone that represent 888 housing units. Assuming there are four years between a project’s submission and completion, that will Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 4 increase from a rate of 58 units per year at the time the council voted to upzone the area to CG to 222 units per year in just the Highway 99 corridor’s CG parcels. Developer’s whose multifamily parcels were upzoned received a substantial increase in the market value of the property. Ms. Hollis continued, with regard to her comments to council last month, she got it wrong; she was thinking of step-backs as a solution to an engineering problem, however, this isn’t really an engineering problem, it is a problem of residential neighborhood experience. When the problem is redefined, a richer set of possible solutions can be discovered about what could make a better neighborhood experience for the houses across the street from tall multifamily buildings: should the developer get an incentive to build mixed use so there are retail shops and pubs on the ground floor to build community like the site of the field trip she asked the council to take to Mountlake Terrace; should the council place art next to the sidewalk at these large projects that defines the three districts in the subarea that has been talked about, distinct design and identity, art would provide a lot toward that goal; should the City give grants to low income homeowners across the street from the tall CG zones to build plant landscapes or fences in their front yards to create their own new focal point; should the City install power pedestals on the rights-of- way so food trucks can feed the neighborhood during special events; should the developer of a large project be required to provide EV charging stations as a public amenity? She was not satisfied that the most forward-thinking solutions had been presented to council yet which is why the interim ordinance should be continued. The council spent a lot of time getting the tree code right and is investing in creeks and wetlands. She recommended pivoting from trees and fish to people and to get the neighborhood experience right. Things are known now that were not known in 2017. Patricia Evulet, Edmonds, referred to Jim Ogonowski’s letter in My Edmonds News and agreed it was important that Edmonds decide how to zone the city. Looking at the land mass and population of cities in Western Washington, Edmonds is overly developed and has more people than Olympia, Tacoma and other cities. There are no jobs in Edmonds for affordable housing; for example, housing should not go to lawyers, dentists and doctors. The only jobs in Edmonds are being a barista or waitress. There are plenty of union jobs with pension plans in the Tacoma/Bellevue/Seattle corridor where the population density is so much lower, less than 1,000 per square mile, versus Edmonds which is 4,700 per square mile. This needs to be considered instead of letting the state blindly decide for Edmonds and homogenize the population. Edmonds shouldn’t be the victim of someone in Olympia who plans this and hasn’t seen how nice Edmonds is and why people moved to Edmonds. A recent survey found 72% of Edmonds residents support single family zoning. She referred to a denser area at the intersection of 220th & 76th, a narrow alleyway with houses on both sides where if residents left their garages at the same time, they would crash into each other, and there is no extra parking. That is not what Edmonds residents want; they want it to look like a village with pretty flowers and a little bit of space. Frederick Law Olmsted, who created Central Park, said without green around the houses, temperatures increase and people are unhappy. Matt Richardson, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Evulet. He said King County’s population actually decreased last year and the idea of population increase is a myth, it has been steady for the last 3-4 decades. Seattle’s population year over year has been steady without any inflection point whatsoever. Edmonds is incredibly overbuilt; in places like Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, the builders have anticipated the crash that’s coming, Edmonds has been building into it and has a surplus of housing, more bedrooms per capita than ever before. If one believes in affordable housing, why invest at the top of the market? The longer the City can wait without overdeveloping is equity in the bank. He referred to Chief Pruitt who was suing the City because the process did him dirty. The man put his name in the ring to apply for the police chief position; he didn’t misrepresent himself and the reason he was not appointed was he didn’t disclose that he had a job application in Lake Stevens a decade before. He pointed out Mayor Nelson did not disclose that he was a registered lobbyist for the SEIC union while the City bargained with the union or disclose that he was being fined by the Washington State Deputy Attorney General for illegal electioneering. He questioned why Chief Pruitt was being held accountable for not disclosing that he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 5 applied for a job in Lake Stevens when the mayor got away with it. The mayor got on the city council, got his foot in the political system by failure to disclose. He said he recused himself, but Edmonds’ ordinances indicate recusal is not a method for conflicts of interest, a one year hiatus is. He thanked Chief Pruitt for putting his hat in the ring and was sorry he was punished for the process. Denise Cooper, Edmonds, referred to Porchfest hosted by businesses and the City as part of the Reimagining of Edmonds, and suggested instead of reimagining streets, using one of the many beautiful parks in Edmonds for community get-togethers. She felt it was part of the mayor’s push on housing and the use of a City intern as part of the Porchfest planning made her suspicious about what was behind it. She supported reimagining street safety in all neighborhoods such as better crosswalk signals and more sidewalks especially near schools where children walk every day and put their lives at risk. There are great community events in Edmonds that awesome businesses contribute toward but City planning events should consider what citizens really need. Citizens should be allowed to vote on zoning in the neighborhoods; over 70% already said leave the neighborhoods alone, that they live in Edmonds because they love the community. Ms. Cooper extended her apologies to the Pruitt family and expressed her support for his lawsuit against Mayor Nelson. She assured Mayor Pro Tem Olson will be cleared, recalling the city attorney said she did her job. She thanked Mayor Pro Tem Olson for her investigation to answer questions and represent the citizens. Mayor Nelson should be held liable for the hiring debacle and should immediately apologize to the Pruitt family and should step down as mayor, a feeling she has had for a long time. The City needs leadership that bring people together, not a mayor that divides this beautiful City. She suggested calling the tree lighting what it is; Hannukah lights are Hannukah lights, a Christmas tree is a Christmas tree. The City celebrates diversity and should be inclusive of the Christian holiday. She wished all a Happy Thanksgiving and thanked the council for all they do. Debra Arthur, Edmonds, said she did not support blanket zoning in Edmonds. The concrete buildings proposed by developers are not affordable housing; buildings with no yard or trees that have only tiny bit of green will only worsen the environment. Such buildings create more chaos between citizens and the less fortunate, just asking to overwhelm infiltration systems and power grids. Both 212th and 220th lead into the bowl are and are only 2 lanes; continuing to overbuild is ridiculous. She lives in Five Corners which is multifamily on the east side of 80th from 220th to 212th and there are several new condominium developments that abut the high school. Her neighborhood is very culturally and politically diverse, but everyone gets along great because they care about each other, their yards, the bowl, water running down the hill, etc. She suggested homes that are in disarray be turned into duplexes instead of selling them to a developer to build a large building where units sell for $880,000 for a studio. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to an email he sent to council on November 7th regarding the city attorney contract that the council considered that evening. The rules of professional conduct created by the Washington State Supreme Court allow for a flat fee contract, but do not allow a triggering option or a termination liability agreement. In fact a flat fee contract is required to have a special paragraph; in RCP 1.5.f.2, the law firm agrees to provide for a flat fee in the amount of the following services. The flat fee shall be paid as follows and there is a place to fill in the amount, and upon receipt of all or any portion of the flat fee, the funds are the property of the law firm and will not be placed in a trust account. The fact that the fee has been paid in advance does not affect the right to terminate the client-lawyer relationship. In the event the relationship is terminated before the agreed upon legal services have been completed, the client may or may not have the right to a refund of the portion of the fee. Mr. Tupper said all the language in RCP 1.5 indicates that the fees have to be reasonable. He was disturbed that this evaluation had occurred in private for the purpose of excluding the public and that there had been no notice regarding the date or time of meetings, redacted documents have been provided, documents and requested by the public have not been provided because they need further legal review. He questioned the city attorney reviewing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 6 those documents and whether there was a conflict of interest. He referred to an email he send today indicating tonight’s meeting was illegal. Stanley Piha, Seattle, one of the owners of the vacant land at the corner of 84th & 236th, said following the passage on October 4, 2022 of the General Commercial emergency ordinance specific to step-backs for CG zoned property across the street from single family zoned property, a thorough investigation of the step-back issue within the Highway 99 subarea planned action in 2017 by the City’s planning department concluded that their proposal and the council’s adoption of the ordinance was an exercise in futility. It was confirmed that the subject of step-backs had been fully vetted during the public hearing process and council meetings in 2017. Proof of this is clearly found in the public record and video of city council meetings. Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and then-Councilmember Nelson were in attendance and provided comment and questions. At the conclusion of the August 15, 2017 public hearing, the city council voted unanimously to approve the planned action. In 2017, the consultant and planning director routinely focused on encouraging transit oriented development in the Highway 99 corridor. By definition, their property is a TOD site as it is within ¼ mile walking distance to two bus rapid transit stations at 238th and Highway 99. Not everyone has the ability to own a home in Edmonds; Edmonds and the region has an affordable housing crisis. As the approved planned action intended, modern multifamily housing in the Highway 99 corridor is one approach to addressing this challenge. Complaints from some residents after the adoption of the planned action to create barriers to building and denying those who would like to make Edmonds their home simply sends the wrong message. Mr. Piha continued, their property and the proposed building checks all the boxes as described in the planned action. Due to its location within ¼ mile walking distance to two BRT stations, it is an opportunity to allow individuals easy access to public transportation. With the programs being developed by Community Transit, this site will be minutes away from the Mountlake Terrace light rail station. This property is adjacent to a major shopping center allowing residents to walk to the grocery store and pharmacy without using a vehicle. This property is across the street from the surface parking lot of a faith based institution serving the community which also has a preschool. The property is on a full city block facing Highway 99, mostly occupied by a shopping center and does not encroach into the single family neighborhoods. Until yesterday, no notice of any kind of the ordinance has been received by property owners affected by the ordinance. This council has an obligation to govern with equality; targeting this one project with conditions that do not exist in the code does not meet that standard. The City’s planning staff on two occasions recommended the council vacate the ordinance. Those two recommendations, along with the lack of proper notice, should be given the consideration they deserve and the ordinance should be vacated. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM AL ANSARI & PAUL STROMME FOR FILING 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2022 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 7 3. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 5. EPOA COMMISSIONED MOU WAGE REOPENER & COMMANDERS 6. EPOA LAW SUPPORT MOU WAGE REOPENER 7. EDMONDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 3517 (AFSCME COUNCIL 2) 2022- 2024 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 8. CONFIRMATION OF DIVERSITY COMMISSION APPOINTEES ANIL DECOSTA & JESSIE OWEN 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum introduced the City’s lobbyist Debora Munguia. He reviewed: • Background o Every year we prepare a formal Legislative Agenda and present to the city council for approval prior to the upcoming Legislative Session in January o Compiled from ▪ Remaining items from last session ▪ Items for all City departments ▪ Items from other agencies ▪ Items from individual councilmembers o Presented this evening – draft 2023 Legislative Agenda for review o After this session, the document will be formalized and forwarded to the December 6th consent agenda for approval Ms. Munguia reviewed: • Preview of 2023 session o Long session: 105 days - begins January 9, 2023 o Governor will propose his budget in early December o Bills will begin to be pre-filed in early December o Three biennial budgets ▪ Operating ▪ Capital ▪ Transportation o Democrats retained majority in both House and Senate o Legislative changes ▪ Representative Joe Fitzgibbon elected new House Majority Leader o 2023 anticipated legislative focus ▪ Affordable housing/homelessness ▪ Behavioral health ▪ Climate ▪ Revenue ▪ Public Safety Mr. Tatum reviewed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 8 • Edmonds Priorities o Highway 99 Corridor Improvements ▪ Program $22.5 million allocated under the Move Ahead Washington Transportation package in the 2025-27 Biennium for SR99 Revitalization Project Stage 3 and begin work to secure funding for future phases for the 2027-29 Biennium. o Edmonds Marsh ▪ The Legislature in the 2021 Session approved a proviso for the duration of the 2021-2023 biennium that provided Edmonds first right of purchase of the former UNOCAL site when it transfers to WSDOT. These provisions are in effect until 6/30/23. The clean-up process will take through 2025, and therefore will require an extension of the first right of purchase. ▪ In 2021, the Legislature earmarked $258,000 to help fund the potential purchase of the UNOCAL property. Request that these funds be reallocated to the 2023-25 Biennium. o Gun violence prevention ▪ Support continued efforts for legislation addressing the prevention of gun violence. o Environmental and climate-related issues ▪ Support items highlighted in our climate action plan ▪ Broadly support environmental protection measures • Other significant issues 1. Housing affordability & availability & accessibility ▪ Support a proactive approach to create new tools/incentives/revenues for cities to use to support increasing housing supply and addressing affordability. ▪ Support increased funding for the Housing Trust Fund. 2. Infrastructure funding ▪ Fully fund the Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA) ▪ Explore expanding state funding opportunities to assist with maintenance and operations of local infrastructure. ▪ Support legislation which helps local municipalities with ongoing maintenance due to the expansion of Complete Street mandates. 3. Support Parks and Open Space ▪ Support robust funding for Capital Budget programs that invest in the outdoor recreation sector. ▪ Support funding to help local parks agencies address severe maintenance backlogs exacerbated by COVID-19 ▪ Support technical change to the Derelict Vessel Removal Program statute 4. Puget Sound Health and Salmon/Orca ▪ Support WRIA8’s legislative agenda ▪ Support legislation and funding requests that promote stormwater management, planning, coordination and implementation on a watershed scale 5. Blake decision response ▪ Support additional investments to help cities with the costs created by the changes resulting from the Blake decision ▪ Support more state investment in alternative response teams and treatment facilities ▪ Support creating greater access to behavioral health services including substance abuse treatment and dual diagnosis treatment facilities* 6. Transportation funding ▪ Identify sustainable, ongoing transportation funding with a specific dedicated revenue directed to cities. ▪ Support funding and options for cities and counties to create innovative “last mile” solutions. 7. Funding for arts and the creative economy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 9 ▪ Support efforts to create funding sources which support creative businesses and nonprofits’ abilities to connect communities, particularly youth, with the arts. 8. GMA Planning & permitting ▪ Engage in the GMA reform conversation and look to secure dedicated planning funding in recognition of proposed new responsibilities in areas such as climate change and salmon recovery that cities can support. 9. Behavioral health (combine with Blake)* ▪ Support creating greater access to behavioral health services including substance abuse treatment and dual diagnosis treatment facilities. ▪ Support continued state funding to help communities establish alternative response programs – also in Blake statement. 10. Public safety vehicular pursuits ▪ Support clarification of the ability to conduct vehicular pursuits using a reasonable suspicion standard • Next steps o Finalize legislative agenda based on comments/issues raised tonight o Attractively package the agenda for use in handouts o Include on the 12/06/22 consent agenda o Meet with legislators before and during the session Councilmember Nand observed this was a very comprehensive list that addressed a lot of the objectives of City staff and concerned citizens. She referred to the Blake decision response, and asked Mr. Tatum to elaborate on the 3rd bullet (in the materials in the council packet) “Support clarification regarding the crime of possession of a controlled substance…” and “Revise the current system of two referrals prior to criminal charges…” She asked what that revision would be. Ms. Munguia responded she hasn’t seen any draft legislation yet, but the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s draft legislative agenda seeks to enact a simple possession criminal offense statute that incentivizes treatment first and foremost, but also accountability for those found in unlawful possession of controlled substances. They are also seeking an audit and assessment of the additional treatment capacity created with an appropriation. AWC is also looking at legislation that would do away with the two referral system due to the difficulty in determining if someone was given a referral in another city or county. Mayor Pro Tem Olson advised the council will need to provide at least head nods or vote on motions to give direction regarding any proposed changes to the draft legislative agenda. Councilmember Nand asked if the 3rd bullet point would support recriminalizing simple possession. Ms. Munguia answered that is something the Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs is discussing, not something that the City would necessarily support. She expected that would be a potential bill. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD A BULLET POINT TO NUMBER 8, GMA PLANNING AND PERMITTING, “REJECT MANDATORY DENSITY SCHEMES THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE LOCAL CONTROL OF ZONING DECISIONS.” Councilmember Nand explained she made this motion in response to the significant volume of concerned citizens who have reached out to the council this week in response to a letter to the editor in the Edmonds Beacon regarding concern there will be a renewed push toward changing statewide law. There have been efforts in the past to institute mandatory upzoning statewide. This is causing considerable alarm to citizens and is not something the City would support. To calm the community’s concerns, she strongly supports including affirmative language to reject mandatory density from state law. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 10 Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis expressed her support for the motion. During Christmas break, she will draft a resolution for council consideration. She was concerned with the legislature’s continued effort to push this through every year and believed that zoning should be done locally. WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council which includes 26 cities and the Puget Sound Partnership Salmon Recovery Council which includes all the WRIA 8 cities and all the tribes are concerned about this effort because every city, county, tribe area is different and do not have the same topography, character, etc. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nand recommended also including a bullet point regarding bridge housing which is something Edmonds has proactively engaged in before WSDOT decided to start partnering with nonprofits to purchase motels such as the City’s motel voucher program for people in the community experiencing the crisis of homelessness. This is something that local municipalities have been asserting leadership on, waiting for the state to catch up. She wanted to include discussion about the efforts the City has already undertaken and the desire to have more information and connectivity with WSDOT and the state as they pursue these objectives. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO INCLUDE A NUMBER 11 REGARDING BRIDGE HOUSING AND SEEKING MORE INFORMATION FROM THE STATE AND THE LEADERSHIP EDMONDS HAS ALREADY PROVIDED AT THE CITY LEVEL WITH MOTEL VOUCHERS. Councilmember Nand suggested allowing Mr. Tatum and Ms. Munguia to craft the verbiage. She requested the content include a desire for more communication from the state regarding the addition of bridge housing to Edmonds and more explanation about what is already being done at the local jurisdiction level. Councilmember Paine asked if there was any active legislation being proposed by the housing folks regarding bridge housing for communities. She knew there were federal funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law, but was interested in what the state was thinking about. Ms. Munguia answered she had not seen anything specific about this, but will look into it. It may be there will be something in one of the budget bill about work that needs to be done and if so, language could be included to ensure the state is communicating with cities and getting information about leadership that cities have provided. She will check to see if there is anything brewing on this topic and work with Mr. Tatum to craft language for the council to consider. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested including this as a bullet point under Item 1, Housing affordability, & availability & accessibility. Councilmember Nand agreed it could fit under Item 1. She was specifically concerned due to the controversy generated by the Mayor of Everett’s letter resisting the addition of bridge housing in Everett and specifically targeting WSDOT. Councilmember Nand summarized it is something that should be addressed at the state level. Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding that bridge housing was a local issue at the county or city level, but he would like to learn if the state has any initiatives or bills. Ms. Munguia said she hasn’t heard of it being an issue, but she will look into it and follow up with Mr. Tatum who can provide the council the information she finds. Councilmember Chen suggested the council not vote on this tonight because there is not enough information. Mayor Pro Tem Olson suggested the motion be for staff and the lobbyist to look into it. Councilmember Nand restated the motion as follows with the agreement of the seconder: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 11 REQUEST THE LOBBYIST AND DIRECTOR TATUM LOOK INTO THIS AND PROVIDE LANGUAGE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONSIDERED UNDER SUBHEADING 1 UNDER OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OR A SEPARATE BULLET POINT. Councilmember Paine suggested a vote was not necessary as it was simply direction to staff. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said a motion had been made and seconded and amended. COUNCILMEMBER NAND WITHDREW THE MOTION. Since staff and the lobbyist would be spending time on this issue, Mayor Pro Tem Olson recommended the council vote on the motion. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, pointing out Councilmember Nand had withdrawn the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked for input from the city attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded it is always helpful for the council to express its direction to staff. If the council does not vote on things like this, staff doesn’t know which things the council supports having staff research. He concluded a vote would be appropriate especially if the request is for staff and the consultant to spend time researching something. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER CHEN ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD TIRE DUST POLLUTION UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES. Councilmember Paine explained tire dust pollution is up and coming science and an environmental issue that directly affects Edmonds due to the proximity of roads to the water. This is an important issue as tire dust is one of the things killing salmon and tire dust mitigation should be included in the City’s legislative agenda. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented this a huge topic of discussion at the Puget Sound Salmon Partnership and WRIA 8. She supported looking into ways to mitigate tire dust pollution. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine referred to House and Senate bill 1099 during the last session regarding climate resiliency and asked if that would come back during the upcoming session. Ms. Munguia answered it is something a task force of cities, counties and other stakeholders have been working on and a draft may be coming out next week. As soon as that is available, she will send it to Mr. Tatum. Councilmember Paine explained House Bill 1099 was about adding climate resiliency into the GMA standards and was not completed during the last session. Ms. Munguia advised that was Representative Duerr’s bill and she anticipated Representative Lekanoff’s bill adding salmon recovery to the GMA will also be back during this session, possibly combined. Councilmember Paine asked if the council will be provided an update about what is happening in the legislature when the session starts early next year. Ms. Munguia answered she provides weekly reports to the City with a summary of what is happening along with bills that have been introduced, hearings that are scheduled, etc. and is always happy to talk by phone or meet in person in Olympia to talk about specific items. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 12 Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis relayed her interest in the Edmonds Marsh and referred to Resolution 1508 passed on October 4, 2022 requesting an extension of the right of first refusal for the UNOCAL property be included in the transportation budget for the 2023-2025 biennium. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis acknowledged the resolution was sent to the members of the transportation committee, but recommended it also be included in the legislative agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked about the request to reallocate the $258,000 that Senator Salomon included in the transportation budget for that purchase. She asked if was done because there were other issues in the watershed that were more important. Mr. Tatum answered the purchase will not occur by the end of this biennium and the City did not want to lose that money. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said the City could request a carryforward. She wondering why there was a recommendation to divert the funding to a different project versus asking for a carryforward. Ms. Munguia answered two different legislative actions occurred in 2021 regarding the marsh. One was in the transportation budget, the proviso that gave the City the right of first purchase; the other was in the capital budget to earmark the state’s support for the City doing this, basically a placeholder. The capital budget appropriation expires at the end of the biennium, June 30, 2023; the City can ask for another appropriation in the capital budget for the new biennial budget that the legislature will pass, but if the City has another capital project that would be eligible for funding from the capital budget that they would like to request the funds be redirect to, the City may be able to use that $258,000 for another project while still asking for an appropriation in the next capital biennial budget for the marsh. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis observed that would be simpler than a carryforward. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked about project PW-01. Mr. Tatum said it has been called the Edmonds Marsh, it is the infiltration, the collection basins along SR 104. One is funded now, this would allow the City to make headway on others. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if the council needed to do anything since the legislative agenda already includes a request to reallocate the funds to the 2023-25 biennium. Mr. Tatum answered no. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if the council should request funding in the 2023-2025 capital budget for the marsh. Mr. Tatum answered that could be done. Ms. Munguia commented there are two diffident things, 1) whether to seek a capital budget appropriation similar to the one in the current biennial budget that would go toward the purchase of the march if that will happen in the 2023-2025 biennium, and 2) whether to ask the legislature to reappropriate the $258,000 for the supplemental budget that will come out in early 2023 for the current fiscal year. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO REQUEST ANOTHER CAPITAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE MARSH IN THE 2023-2025 BIENNIUM AND REDIRECT THE CURRENT FUNDS TO A DIFFERENT PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Chen referred to Item 10, public safety vehicular pursuits, which currently reads, “Support clarification of the ability to conduct vehicular pursuits using a reasonable suspicion standard…”. He asked if the intent was to seek clarification or was it supporting reconsideration of vehicle pursuits using the reasonable suspicious standard. Ms. Munguia said she did not craft that language; depending on the council’s position, the language could be modified to be more general and not as specific. Mr. Tatum said his understanding of this item is support for legislation that would give police Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 13 the ability to conduct vehicle pursuits using a reasonable suspicion standard as opposed to probable cause which is the standard now. Councilmember Chen answered if any bills had been proposed to reverse that standard. Mr. Tatum answered he did not know of any specific bills, but it is on the WASPC’s agenda. Ms. Munguia added some legislators are entertaining sponsoring that, but she has not seen any language yet. If it is pre-filed, that will be available soon. Councilmember Chen proposed changing “clarification” to “reconsideration.” The current standard is probable cause which is a much higher standard and results in public safety concerns when immediate danger occurs. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND ITEM 10 TO READ, “SUPPORT CLARIFICATION RECONSIDERATION OF THE ABILITY TO CONDUCT VEHICULAR PURSUITS USING REASONABLE SUSPICION STANDARD…” Councilmember Nand asked if this was seeking to lower the burden of proof on police officers for their assessment of when they engage in a vehicular pursuit; the generality of the language made it difficult for her to understand. Mr. Tatum answered he is not a police officer, but his understanding was there is a difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicious, probable cause is a much higher level of certainty that someone has engaged in criminal activity as opposed to reasonable suspicion. The use of probable cause as a standard has increased the number of people who run from the police because they know that high standard must be met before police can pursue them. This language would lower the standard. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding that the duty of care that a police officer who decides to engage in a pursuit owes the general public versus whoever is effected by the criminal behavior usually comes into play during litigation if there is a fatal accident where a bystander is killed. She questioned whether taking a position to change that standard was something the City should pursue as part of its legislative package. Mr. Tatum explained the reason it is included on the legislative agenda is because it is a challenge the police are dealing with and they have seen an increase in flight from police. The police department requested to have this clarified. Mayor Pro Tem Olson suggested a different approach, removing “clarification of” so the bullet point reads, “Support clarification of the ability to conduct vehicular pursuits using a reasonable suspicion standard…” Councilmember Chen said his motion was to change the wording to reconsideration and Mayor Pro Tem Olson’s suggestion has the same effect, basically just asking the legislature to reconsider using the lower standard versus probable cause. Councilmember Tibbott expressed his support for either version of the motion . Councilmember Nand did not support the council taking a position on this. It is a very sensitive issue and an officer’s decision to engage in a vehicular pursuit usually only arises in the context of litigation where a bystander or the suspect themselves is seriously injured or killed due to a pursuit. She was not comfortable with lowering the legal standard for an officer’s decision to engage in a pursuit; there should be probable cause because it is a dangerous activity that can kill members of the public, the officer or a suspect. She summarized this was not something the council should be undertaking in its legislative agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said she has heard a lot regarding this topic from parties including mayors and police officers. There has been a real uptick in blatant violations, knowing there is no ability for the police Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 14 to pursue. Most jurisdictions do not want to do high speed pursuits, but the fact that an officer cannot pursue without meeting the really high standard of probable cause has made it difficult for law enforcement to keep the community safe from people who are joy riding and doing other reckless things. She expressed her support for the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN AND TIBBOTT AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the 5th and 6th bullet points in Item 4, commenting in communities like Edmonds, storm drains were installed many years ago and the related culverts are almost always undersized. That needs to be pointed out because the culvert issue in the City is related not only to stormwater management but also salmon recovery efforts. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THE 6TH BULLET POINT UNDER ITEM 4, TO READ, “SUPPORT LEGISLATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS THAT PROMOTE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION AT A WATERSHED SCALE INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF IMPROPERLY SIZED CULVERTS ON CITY OWNED, STATE OWNED, AND RAIL SYSTEM OWNED LAND.” Councilmember Teitzel explained he had an opportunity to visit the Perrinville Creek situation near Talbot Road and observed the stormwater system that is not functioning well due to the culvert under Talbot Road as well as the undersized culvert under the railroad bridge. That area often floods during heavy rain events and scouring in the streambed is making it flood prone as well as resistant to fish recovery efforts. Councilmember Nand asked whether the change would also include privately owned land. Councilmember Teitzel said he did not mention privately owned land but that is a good point. He is aware of property owner rights and in some cases there are privately owned culverts, but agreed privately owned land should be included in his motion. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amended motion. “SUPPORT LEGISLATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS THAT PROMOTE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, COORDINATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION AT A WATERSHED SCALE INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF IMPROPERLY SIZED CULVERTS ON CITY OWNED, STATE OWNED, PRIVATELY OWNED AND RAIL SYSTEM OWNED LAND.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Tibbott said the wording in the legislative agenda regarding the Blake decision addresses the issues that originally brought the Blake decision about, but it needs to be strengthen by changing the two referral requirements for legal certainty. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO REQUEST THE STATE LEGISLATURE REMOVE THE TWO REFERRAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE BLAKE DECISION. Councilmember Tibbott commented as Ms. Munguia pointed out, it is very difficult for cities to apply that rule and is an issue that police departments wrestle with. The legislature needs to make that change and he recommended the City’s legislature agenda be strengthened by adding that wording. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 15 Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to Item 7, funding for arts and the creative economy, pointing out the arts stimulates the economy and Edmonds is a Creative District. As the arts connect everybody and have a tremendous impact on tourism, she suggested adding language about supporting the creation of creative districts and funding for creative districts. Mr. Tatum offered to revise the language in Item 7. 2. RESOLUTION ON FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE EMERGENCY INTERIM CG STEP- BACK ORDINANCE 4278 Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin advised this is a follow-up on last week’s public hearing and subsequent action by council to request findings of fact. This is related to the Commercial General (CG) zone step-back and the emergency interim ordinance that was approved on October 4, 2022. She thanked community members and the Terrace Place development team for taking the time to meet with City staff and councilmembers to get a better understanding of the implications on one particular site. She emphasized all parcels across the street from residential in the CG zone would be subject to this emergency ordinance which equates to 39 acres, 10% of the CG zoned properties. She reviewed: • Highway 99 Subarea Planning o Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077) o Updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) o Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079) o Vision 2040 award from PSRC • Interim Ordinance Process o October 4 2022 – council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) ▪ With assumption that information in the DEIS was not carried forward into the FEIS and subsequent code amendments in ECDC 16.60 ▪ Following further research, staff recommends not include step-back across the street from single family o November 15, 2022 – council held a public hearing and directed staff to return with findings of fact o Tonight – council must issue findings to retain or vacate interim ordinance • Step-back means the upper portion of a building that is required to set (or stepped back further than the minimum setback otherwise required by ECDC 16.20.020(A). • Interim CG step-back across from RS zone 2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step-back no less than eight feet from the required street setback. That portion of building over 55 feet in height shall step-back no less than 16 feet from the required street setback. • Critical information discovered since emergency interim ordinance o Step-backs across the street from RS zones were considered and dismissed in 2017 ▪ Council discussed on June 20, July 18, and July 31, 2017 - July 18 staff agenda memo offered step-back options of an even lesser extent of 5’; Council did not include step-backs in their recommended draft language although it was discussed at hearing and staff made explanation of why they were not recommended. ▪ Council unanimously approved CG code without step-backs across the street from RS on August 15, 2017 (along with unanimous approval of Subarea Plan and Planned Action SEPA FEIS) ▪ Step-backs adjacent to RS zones were included in the CG code in revised ECDC 16.60, those across the street were not included Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 16 • Design rationale o The street adds significant separation which reduces the potential impacts to the property across the street o Coupled with the setback requirements on both subject properties, the distance between structures could be 80-100+ feet o Example of Terrace Place and the effect of the right-of-way separating buildings ▪ Total of 115’ - 25’ setback - 80’ street width (84th) o From a shadowing perspective, step-back oftentimes do not make much if any difference in providing relief from shading o Other mitigating factors for massing across from single family include: ▪ High quality streetscape especially street trees (required in streetscape zone) ▪ High quality façade (glazing requirements) ▪ Strong design guidelines to provide variety and interest in architectural details, façade articulation, site features and building materials • As part of the planned action and updates to the code, this is an administrative decision. Staff makes discretionary decisions on how well projects comply with the design guidance in Chapter 16.60. • Staff recommendation/next steps o Based on new information, staff recommends vacating the interim ordinance ▪ Recognizing benefit of early collaboration with neighborhood, staff recommends neighborhood meeting requirements be amended into the CG code (16.60) on the December 6th consent agenda ▪ Staff has the ability to require shadow studies ▪ Staff also has the ability to require setbacks or step-backs on a case by case basis (beyond existing code) by administrative discretion to determine compliance with CG zone o If the emergency ordinance is retained and findings of fact are adopted, staff will take project through the planning board to consider modifications, and back to council in early 2023. Councilmember Teitzel asked about the comment if the emergency ordinance is abandoned tonight, staff has the ability to require step-backs on a case by case basis. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes, that is in Chapter 16.60.030. With regard to the Terrace Place project specifically, Councilmember Teitzel observed the north side, the 236th street side, borders a street with a church and a large parking lot across the street; there are no single family homes on that side of the building within 100 yards. The property the church is located on is zoned residential and he asked if the step-back requirement could be waived on that side at staff’s discretion. Ms. McLaughlin said she did not want to get into design review of the Terrace Place project at this meeting, but the shadow studies indicate given the right-of-way width, the location of the existing buildings and the required setbacks, there will not be a shading issue. That being said, if staff had complete discretion and there was no ordinance requiring step-backs of a certain dimension, staff could require step-backs on the north side. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 17 Councilmember Teitzel explained the reason for his question was to make sure he and the residents were clear that staff has the ability on a case by case basis to require step-backs on a project if it is warranted. Ms. McLaughlin agreed. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Ms. McLaughlin, Mr. Clugston and the residents who met with him and Councilmembers Paine and Olson at the site; it was very helpful to have an informal two-way dialogue that is not limited to three minutes at a council meeting. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to the SEIS that council approved on October 18, 2022 on the subarea plan and asked how this impacts that. Ms. McLaughlin explained the issue at hand, stepbacks across the street from residential zoned properties, was discussed and identified in the DEIS, but was determined not to have a significant impact and was not a mitigation measure in the FEIS for that reason. Relative to the SEIS, there are issues that the neighborhood identified such as displacement, transportation, analyzing adjacent corridors particularly 84th, etc. that may not have been thoroughly analyzed as part of the previous EIS and that would be an addendum or supplemental EIS. The council already adopted that as direction to staff and staff will be pursuing that SEIS. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis opined the SEIS should be done sooner rather than later on these large projects. If the council adopts findings of fact, she will make that amendment. The council approved having an SEIS and she was trying to figure out the timing. Ms. McLaughlin asked if Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis was wondering how the step-back issue rolls into the SEIS. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said she was not concerned about the step-back although the step-back may/may not have an impact on the SEIS, but that was unknown because the SEIS has not been done. It was her understanding the SEIS would be started before “all this stuff came forward.” Ms. McLaughlin explained an SEIS is a significant undertaking for staff and consultants and includes a request for proposal (RFP) process which tends to take quite a while. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis observed a SEPA checklist was completed recently. Ms. McLaughlin answered this discussion is not about an individual project; each project is required to go through a threshold analysis to ensure it is consistent with the impacts and associated mitigation identified in the FEIS for the planned action. Mr. Taraday said the expedited type of SEPA review that happens through a planned action is still happening, nothing changed with the planned action ordinance. As of right now, when new applications come in, they use the expedited SEPA that is allowed through the planned action ordinance. He distinguished that from regular SEPA which would include a full blown threshold determination, analysis of impacts, whether impacts needed to be mitigated, etc. That regular SEPA does not happen as long as the development thresholds are under the levels set forth in the planned action ordinance. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if council approved the planned action. Mr. Taraday answered it was approved by council in 2017. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested relooking at that. She asked about the thresholds in the planned action ordinance. Mr. Taraday said he did not have them memorized but guessed there was still quite a bit of room before the thresholds were met. Ms. McLaughlin answered that was in the planned action 5 year review packet. Development is well within the thresholds. The number of dwelling units anticipated in the cumulative environmental impacts in the planned action was 3,325. There are also other thresholds in the planned action EIS. Councilmember Tibbott commented it was interesting to review the documents related to the council’s decision in 2017, recalling at that time he raised questions about transition zones and step-backs. When the council was presented with the opportunity for step-backs or setbacks with public space and landscape amenities and moving buildings further back from the center of street, the council opted for setbacks that would provide public amenities as well as landscaping. In this particular situation, not only is the building moved back from street, but wider sidewalks and trees are also added. Whenever tall buildings are proposed in the CG zones, they come with landscaping and other public amenities. He was confident the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 18 council made the best decision it could at the time with the information they had. The code was written and developers complied with code in terms of their plans for the project, ,went to great expense to remove hazardous waste on that property, and made plans for public space and landscaping. He expressed support for vacating the interim ordinance COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO VACATE THE INTERIM ORDINANCE. Councilmember Tibbott advised there were a number of reasons for the motion, including the comments he already made, and that there are better ways to evaluate any project proposed in a CG zone. In particular, the City is entering into the largest redevelopment project via the redevelopment of Highway 99. This will not only provide amenities for existing businesses but also future residents who want to take advantage of transit options as well as business development options. He personally looked forward to the upgrade that can happen as development occurs along Highway 99 in the CG zone. He also wanted to ensure this was a time to add greater improvements and priorities in that area. He did not find the interim ordinance helpful at this time. If the emergency interim ordinance was extended and findings of fact adopted, Councilmember Paine asked when it would expire, whether it would be in six months. Ms. McLaughlin advised if findings of fact were approved tonight, a decision would need to be made by April 2023. Mr. Taraday advised the emergency interim ordinance was adopted on October 4, 2022 and he assumed it became effective immediately. Therefore, if the council adopts the resolution tonight, it will remain in effect for six months from October 4, 2022. Councilmember Paine commented this is such a big issue and she is feeling on fence about it now that a motion has been made. Councilmembers have heard from this community, a community they have not heard much from in the past and it is vitally important to listen to them now that specifics are available. She anticipated the City could do a bit better because the massing of a 75’ tall building next to single family housing is huge. Conversely, there absolutely needs to be consistency within the code so developers can do the work they want to do. As Councilmember Tibbott said, redevelopment of Highway 99 is the biggest project the City has undertaken. She was unsure there had been enough consideration given to how vehicles exit off Highway 99 and travel on side streets into neighborhoods. She was hopeful the area would be more transit oriented so there needs to be better pedestrian paths. She was aware there were some things in the budget to address it and that there are federal funds that can be used. She was torn, relaying she respected the need for good design standards, and good developers; a developer does not clean up a site without being mindful of what is happening in the neighborhood. With regard to access points, sidewalks and transit oriented development, Ms. McLaughlin clarified the issue today is only step-backs. With regard to TOD, there are some aspects in the existing design guidelines that speak to transit access, particularly because Highway 99 is the most transit oriented corridor in the City. The requirements in the new CG zone for sidewalks are greatly improved compared to the old CG standards. Transitional zoning, massing and height is not the issue at hand today with regard to step-backs. Massing can be mitigated in a variety of ways and those tools are already in the CG zone. She reviewed the CG requirements in Chapter 16.60 and was reassured regarding the amount of discretion staff has, even the ability to recommend step-backs and setbacks for certain buildings. The distance of 118 feet between single family and a standard CG zone building equates to almost 2-3 parcel; a couple feet is unlikely to make much difference. Other issues such as equity, displacement, etc. will be discussed as part of the SEIS. Councilmember Paine said one of the issues is this development is underway and the necessary sidewalk infrastructure is not in place. She recalled when visiting the area yesterday seeing a person using a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 19 wheelchair who had to use the street. She acknowledged with development comes better infrastructure, but it is not there now. Councilmember Nand recalled during audience comments someone speaking from the perspective of a developer seemed to indicate the City lacked a design review process and Ms. McLaughlin indicated during her presentation that it may be desirable during the next project to have more neighborhood contact than was undertaken with the Terrace View Apartments. She questioned why the subarea plan did not foresee the need for neighborhood contact and asked staff to speak to that from an equity perspective as it seemed like there was extensive neighborhood contact when any zoning changes occur in the bowl because it is a high attention area. Ms. McLaughlin recalled the first time this was brought up to council, her recommendation was, regardless of what happened with the emergency ordinance, a community meeting needed to be required at the onset of new projects in the CG zone. She agreed it was an equity issue as it was required in other areas of the City. That was done with some intentionality; five years ago the City may not have been as well versed in that regard. The notification where property owners receive a postcard about a public meeting for a proposed project process can be very formal. Ms. McLaughlin continued, she did not think a notification process was the right approach given that a lot of people are not comfortable with a public process. She recommended an actual sit-down with the developer and the neighborhood. Other jurisdictions do that and they have better outcomes via informal conversations instead of a microphone and a public process. She recommended amending 16.60 to require a neighborhood meeting. With regard to design review, the person who spoke is not the architect for the project; the City has design guidance as part of the CG zone which she reviewed extensively today. Those can always be improved upon, possibly via the SEIS process. The current design guidance is actually pretty good and offers a lot of design discretion. Design review was intentionally not included in the CG zoning requirements largely due to an attempt to streamline development and put design guidelines in place that staff can administer. With regard to the motion, Councilmember Nand expressed appreciation for the work staff has done to remedy the lack of neighborhood contact and allow affected property owners to have contact with the neighborhood, but she felt this was a significant equity issue and therefore the council should uphold the emergency ordinance. There is a significant perception that it is okay to impose these changes from the top down on a more working class community with more people of color, something that has to be remedied within the political and planning process and may be accomplished via the comprehensive plan update. The council needs to send a signal to the community that their concerns are being heard and that their desires and wants for their community will receive the same level of care as the much more affluent community members who live in the bowl and are more comfortable with the political process. These are people who are attempting to engage in the political process and voice their concerns for the first time. For those reasons, she will support extending the emergency ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin said her comment was not that people to date have not been familiar with the public process, she was just talking about the standard notice that is provided to the broader neighborhood. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation to Ms. McLaughlin for bringing this together in tonight’s presentation. With regard to timing, the interim ordinance was adopted October 4, 2022 and adopting findings of fact will buy six months until April 4, 2023. He asked what the City could do during those six months to change the situation in this area with regard to the lack of parks, sidewalks, amenities and the concerns that have been voiced. Ms. McLaughlin answered this emergency ordinance, similar to the recent BD2 zone process, would an immense amount of staff resources to move through a public process which includes both the planning board and the council, for an issue that staff has researched thoroughly and finds the step-back is not warranted from a design perspective. She advised the SEIS also needs to be resourced so these items are actually competing with each other and added to that is the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 20 comprehensive plan update which is a colossal citywide effort. Taking this very focused step-back across the street from residential through to adoption in six months will be a resource challenge and will delay the SEIS. Councilmember Chen asked if it would be enough time to perform the SEIS. Ms. McLaughlin answered until the scoping of the SEIS is completed, she was not sure of the breadth of that effort and did not know how long it would take. An SEIS or an addendum can take 6 months or 18 months, it is hard to say without scoping, especially when dealing with transportation. She would like to move on the SEIS quickly, but the planning manager position is currently vacant and she hopes to have that position filled by the end of the year so both the comprehensive plan scoping and the SEIS scoping can proceed. Councilmember Chen commented the budget process includes a couple of decision packages to improve the sidewalk on 84th as well as the green street decision package which would improve the situation in this area. Ms. McLaughlin advised the Housing Hope and Terrace Place developments along with capital investment will help complete the micro sidewalk network in that area. Councilmember Teitzel said council has clearly heard the concerns from residents in that area about the massing and mitigating it to the extent possible. Until he arrived tonight, he was strongly leaning toward continuing the emergency ordinance because it would provide a tool to require mitigation in the form of step-backs. He recalled Ms. McLaughlin’s answer to his question about the ability for staff to require step-backs in specific instances such as this development. He asked how clear that commitment was; not a recommendation to the developer, a requirement if staff felt step-backs were necessary for aesthetic purposes. Ms. McLaughlin agreed it was a commitment. Asking for a shadow study provides a sense of the need and allows adjustments to be made to a building’s massing to mitigate shadows, tools that are already available to staff. Before this started, staff had already discussed and required a shadow study for Terrace Place. Councilmember Teitzel agreed shadow studies are helpful, but in this case regardless of whether there were step-backs or not, it would not affect shadowing of residences across the street. However, the issue is the mass of the building and single family across the street from a 70-foot vertical wall without any modulation in the form of step-backs; that is an aesthetic issue that he agreed with. He was feeling more confident now that staff has a tool to address that. Council has also heard about the need for additional sidewalk improvements, traffic safety improvements, and additional park space and are addressing that in the 2023 budget on a separate, but parallel track. He anticipated the residents will be pleased with what they will see in that regard when the budget is complete. Ms. McLaughlin referred to 16.60.030.D.2.b which states the bulk and scale of buildings over 3,000 square feet of footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as façade articulation, modulation, setbacks, step-backs, distinctive rooflines or forms, or other design details. She noted 3,000 square feet was about the size of a single family residence these days so it will cover almost 99.9% of buildings. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said she tries to make her decisions rationally and thoughtfully and not based on emotion and had to work hard not to let emotion creep in on this issue. She feels for the community and the stressors already on this neighborhood in the context of the infrastructure that is and is not there today. Placing that emotion in the proper place, being fully committed and invested in making sure that the improvements they want to see is the right move. In the context of doing this and being rational and looking at the decision to leave out the mitigation for across the street step-back confirmed in her mind that the 2017 council got it right. In her impression even up three levels, what a pedestrian experiences is not that altered except for the shade the building casts or the views it blocks. After taking pictures at eye level of a building of this height from across the street at the distance this would be, she felt the experience was not altered by the height of the building but by the building’s aesthetics. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 21 Mayor Pro Tem Olson continued, she was hearing from the community that they were looking for mitigation, but she did not feel this mitigation would deliver anything that made them happy. In fact, the City needs to double down on the design standards and other amenities that will make a difference for each project. She was personally committed, felt staff was committed and heard a lot of care from the developer about delivering something that will be a real positive for the neighbors. She was happy for the communications that have occurred between staff, the neighbors and the developer and expected to get to a good place with the focus on design standards and changes to the code to require neighborhood meetings. She looked forward to moving those things forward at the first opportunity, maybe even before the new year. If she lived there, she wouldn’t be excited at having a four story building across the street, but she didn’t see a difference with a seven-story building; what someone sees when walking straight out their front door is what needs to be mitigated. Mr. Taraday pointed out the motion on the floor is to repeal the interim ordinance. The council packet does not include an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Staff was following council direction to draft a resolution with findings of fact to continue the ordinance. He suggested to the extent the council wanted to vote on this motion, staff will interpret it as a preliminary motion to direct staff to bring back an ordinance to repeal the interim ordinance. Because this is a special meeting, final action cannot be taken on something that is not on the agenda. If this motion is approved, staff will bring back an ordinance on the consent agenda at the next council meeting to repeal the interim ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said she takes responsibility for putting forward the motion at last week’s meeting directing staff to only provide a resolution with findings of fact in the packet. In hindsight that was a mistake and coupled with tonight being a special meeting, she created a difficult situation. UPON ROLL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3); COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Pro Tem Olson declared a brief recess. 3. CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT EXTENSION DISCUSSION Councilmember Teitzel explained on September 20, 2022, the council discussed forming a council work group to investigate issues around the city attorney contract; those issues included vetting the data presented on August 23 in the city attorney annual report. The work group verified the numbers reported were accurate in terms of the effective hourly rates for 2021 and 2022. The work group has worked through several options for council to deliberate on tonight regarding how to proceed with the contract. The goal is to share the information with council, deliberate and get direction from council about where to go from here. The work group is also asking for council approval of up to $2500 in additional spending from the council contingency fund for an independent legal review by Madrona Law Group of whatever contract the council agrees to pursue as well as an associated issue regarding public record requests about the contract. Councilmember Teitzel advised he will provide an overview of the project, Councilmember Paine will present the various options she has been working on with Lighthouse, and Councilmember Chen will present the revenue and expense effects of the various contract options. As context, he relayed the work group learned in March 2022, Lynnwood signed a city attorney contract with a Kenyon Disend; in that contract, the lead attorney Michael Kenyon charges $370/hour and junior attorneys charge $195- $310/hour. He suggested councilmembers keep those hourly rates in mind during tonight’s discussion; they represent the market rate for contracted city attorney services. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 22 Councilmember Teitzel said one of the prime reasons for having a contract extension with Lighthouse for one year is to allow the council to do its due diligence. There are various schools of thought about how the City should obtain city attorney services; some believe that function should be brought in-house and be a direct report to the mayor, others want to consider another contractor, and others want to continue with Lighthouse. The work group will work through those issues and ensure all the data is brought to council so the best informed decision can be made with regard to how to proceed next year. He requested clear direction from council regarding which option to pursue and once that direction is provided, the work group will work with Madrona to refine that contract and bring it back for final approval on December 6. He also requested council approve funding of up to $2500 for an additional external legal review with Madrona Law Group. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF THE MADRONA CONTRACT FOR UP TO $2500. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion, advising the work group needs the outside advice. Councilmember Teitzel clarified the request is for up to $2500. Depending on the option council chooses, a complete legal review of the contact may not be needed as they already reviewed one version of the contract. There needs to be review of the public records requests that have been made recently due to legal overtones. He concluded the actual expense maybe less than $2500. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST THE $2500 COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND INSTEAD OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked why Councilmember Chen wanted it funded from the general fund when there are funds available in the council contingency fund. Councilmember Chen said the city attorney contract benefits the entire City and not just the council. Councilmember Paine commented this is very specific to council work and is directly related to the work group needing specific legal advice and there are adequate funds in the council contingency fund. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND CHEN VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine restated the motion: APPROVE AN AMOUNT OF UP TO $2500 FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MADRONA LAW GROUP CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Paine referred to Attachment B which includes a description of the two options that will be presented tonight and seven other scenarios that the work group or Mr. Taraday considered but they were discarded. She reviewed: Option 1: Flat fee contract • Includes 7.5% CPI-U increase from 2022 rates • Removes the need for city attorney attendance at council committee meetings as well as other board/commissions, unless requested Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 23 • No changes in available hours • Adds language allowing Lighthouse Law Group to respond to community commentary from time to time, and within the bounds of Rules of Professional Conduct. Councilmember Paine invited City Attorney Jeff Taraday to speak to the last bullet. Mr. Taraday explained one of the roles the city attorney should play in the community is making sure decision makers are informed with regard to their choices and the laws surrounding their choices. He is noticing an increase in dialogue about City business in the community outside council chambers in a way that is not accurate. In the interest of a more informed civil discourse in the community, the city attorney can play a role with council permission in contributing to that conversation. He currently does not have that permission. RPC 1.6 states lawyers are not supposed to discuss the representation, a term that is pretty broad. He believed the community would benefit from having the council giving the city attorney permission from time to time to chime in when it could enhance the civil discourse; it would not be a duty and the city attorney would not have to answer every question they receive from a citizen. For example, during public comment tonight it was represented that the proposed contract violates the Rules for Professional Conduct. Although he disagreed with that assertion, but could not address it unless a councilmember asked whether the assertion was true or false. Councilmembers could do that at council meetings, but it takes up a lot of council meeting time. This would allow that to happen outside council meetings and get a more informed perspective out in the Edmonds community. Councilmember Paine advised the original Lighthouse contract included a 9% CPI-U increase; they are now agreeable to a 7.5% CPI-U increase. Councilmember Nand referred to Option A, Section 3, Payment for services, and asked if it was a bargained for term that the working group recommends the council agree to these triggering events in which if the City attempts to terminate the contract with Lighthouse, there is a surcharge. She asked how the work group arrived at that in Option A and whether it was a bargained for term that the council can continue to negotiate with Lighthouse. Councilmember Paine answered the lookback provision has been a part of the Lighthouse contract for the last three years. Because the City pays a flat fee, it allows Lighthouse go reassess their fees if the council decides to terminate the contract. It allows Lighthouse to recover fees in a more typical range. The lookback offers Lighthouse an opportunity to recoup unachieved income if the council decided to terminate the contract. Councilmember Nand relayed her concern that this is just a standard contract and the City has a bargained for agreement with Lighthouse where they agree to provide services and the City agrees to pay them X. If for whatever reason the council decides to terminate, such as hypothetically something unethical occurred, she did not see why in normal business practices the City should have to a pay a surcharge if the City agreed to pay the bargained for rate of $58,809/month. The risk that Lighthouse could have made more working for someone else should have been part of the risk that Lighthouse assumed in making the bargain with the City. She suggested trying to drive a better bargain for the City’s taxpayers. Councilmember Paine answered that was Option B. The lookback section was added to the contract three years ago. The City is getting a very good deal; last year’s functional rate was $185/hour, this year’s rate is $175/hour which is unrealistically low and not even close to market rate. Option B looks at restricting some hours and getting closer to what other attorney’s fees include and that option still includes somewhat of a lookback. The lookback was included because the work group felt there was little risk the contract would be retracted anytime during the coming year and she did not anticipate Lighthouse would do anything wildly unethical so the work group was comfortable with the lookback in Option A. It was also a non-negotiable with Lighthouse. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 24 Councilmember Nand asked for confirmation of understanding that there has been an attempt to negotiate this term with Lighthouse, but for the 2023 contract, Lighthouse has informed the City that unless they are allowed to tack on this surcharge if the City decides to discontinue their services, they would choose not to enter into a contract for 2023. Mr. Taraday answered that was essentially correct. Edmonds is the only city he knows of in the State of Washington that contracts for municipal law services on a flat fee arrangement and Lighthouse only offers that in the context of a long term agreement. The City has already stated they plan to do an RFP in 2023, but that RFP tells Lighthouse it is not possible to see beyond 2023 whether Lighthouse will be the city attorney for a long period of time. The flat fee comes at such a deep discount to their market rates that it does not make sense to do that in what could be their final year of representing Edmonds. If the council wants the flat fee, they are willing to do that, but only with the lookback provision. If, after the RFP process, the council wants to retain Lighthouse on a four- year contract, they would go back to a flat fee without a lookback provision, but with the City’s plans for an RFP, it doesn’t make sense to do it this year. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis recommended removing from Option A, “Adds language allowing Lighthouse Law Group to respond to community commentary from time to time, and within the bounds of Rules of Professional Conduct.” She anticipated this would be a rabbit hole; she probably has more negative press than any councilmember, there are two sides to every story but she does not care to engage. She preferred to stay high, if someone says something inaccurate, a councilmember can ask the city attorney a question during a meeting and the city attorney can respond. She feared this would be very subjective, recalling she and the city attorney worked with citizens at the direction of council in the past. She feared adding that language to the contract would dilute Lighthouse’s work and people will get into fisticuffs because people are not happy, are divisive and are armchair quarterbacks. The city attorney works for the City and provides advice. If there are questions, it can be handled via an op-ed on the city attorney’s behalf. She feared it would go down a rabbit hole, recalling occasions when she has gone back and forth with citizens on budgetary questions 12-15 times. Mr. Taraday said he did not disagree with what Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis was saying in terms of the risk. It would not be his intention to get into a back and forth with citizens over points on which they did not see eye to eye. He assured Section 2 was not a deal breaker; he was okay if the council did not want to include it. He viewed it as something that would help the City due to the amount of misinformation in the community. This language would allow him for example to contact Teresa Whipple and inquire about printing a clarification on something. It would not be responding to attacks on the city attorney but attacks on the City about what the City has allegedly done incorrectly. He would love to be able to respond to some of those comments and explain that the City is actually doing things right. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented there can be two accountants or two attorneys in a room that think differently. She wanted the city attorney to spend their hours on City business. There will always be someone who doesn’t like what the City is doing. If something substantial is incorrect, a statement can be made by a councilmember or the mayor. She preferred to utilize the city attorney’s hours effectively and efficiently and this would not be effective or efficient. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO REMOVE SECTION 2. Councilmember Tibbott said he liked the provision and the way the city attorney described it makes a lot of sense. He would like to see how it works and if it is not a useful or efficient way for the city attorney to provide correction, it could be changed next time. He summarized it was worth trying. Councilmember Teitzel said he tends to agree with Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis. He was concerned it would open the door to pandora’s box and result in a lot of issues to respond to. There may be other ways to address it. He was concerned if the council chose an hour by hour billing option, that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 25 time would be billable. The next option will include discussion about how the city attorney’s time is used; the hours are quite high and that is caused by the City. The council will need to think careful about what they are asking the city attorney to do. He expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Chen had the same concern; 43,000 residents as well as people who live outside the city limits can make comments/attacks at council meetings. If the council approved adding that language, he could not imagine how many hours the city attorney would spend responding. For that reason, he will support the motion. Councilmember Nand said Mr. Taraday raises an interesting point in that as the city attorney, there may be times where it would be beneficial for him or another attorney at Lighthouse to address concerns from the public. The council’s concern is that they perceive this as something that might happen on the basis of email which she felt would be inappropriate. If the city attorney wanted to have an agenda item to address a public concern he felt rose to a level of importance that it needed to be addressed at a public meeting, the city attorney should have that ability. However, she did not think it would be helpful or useful to the public for the city attorney to engage in one-to-one email communications with members of the public. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented there have been problems in past and the council president delegates authority to a councilmember. The City has very good communication with the city attorney, if he has concerns, it can be addressed via the legislative or administrative branch. She summarized it was too subjective to include in the contract. Councilmember Paine said she can see both sides; she liked how Councilmember Tibbott framed it. Edmonds is a lively community and at times information is inaccurate and she wished an explanation could be inserted. She did not mind including the language in Option A, but not in Option B. Lighthouse can add an accounting line so the hours spent on that activity could be tracked. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said one of her overriding goals is building trust; to the extent this would be helpful, she would like to try it in the one year extension of the contract. She also liked the idea of a clarification/correction being an agenda item that goes through council and can be reflected in the media versus a back and forth email. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND CHEN AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine reviewed: Option B – Retainer fee contract • Assumptions – the hourly rates are 95% of another long term client of Lighthouse; the hours allocated are 85% of the average of the past four years of Edmonds usage. • Hourly rates are divided into two classes; each rate class has a certain number of hours anticipated to meet the contract budget o $253/hour for class 1 and $336/hour for class 2 o Hours included in retainer: 2,998/year o Month payment toward retainer: $69,594 • Removes the need for city attorney attendance at council committee meetings as well as other board/commissions, unless requested • Includes language allowing Lighthouse Law Group to respond to community commentary from time to time, and within the bounds of Rules of Professional Conduct. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 26 Councilmember Paine commented this option is closer to market rate. The council should talk about hours; the City has gotten used to an abundance of city attorney hours and would need to figure out how to dial that back. It will be reduced slightly by the city attorney not attending committee meetings. The council may want to try this to see what more of a market rate contract looks like; additional funds would need to be added to the 2023 budget. This options also includes somewhat of a lookback. Mr. Taraday advised there is no lookback in Option B. Councilmember Teitzel said there is no lookback; there are a certain number of hours included in the retainer amount and the hours are tabulated over the course of a year. If the City exceeds those hours, Lighthouse charges for the hours used in excess of the retainer. That is a not a lookback like the flat rate option. Councilmember Chen confirmed Councilmember Teitzel’s comment that there is no lookback in Option B. The hours included in Option B are a total of 2,998 hours. If the City did not use all the allotted hours in a certain month, those hours would carry forward to a future month within the year. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked Mr. Taraday to speak to a public comment that alleged one or both of the proposed contracts were illegal. Mr. Taraday recalled during public comment a speaker cited RPC 1.5(f) which states fees and expenses paid in advance of performance of services shall comply with Rule 1.15(a) subject to the following exceptions. One of those exceptions, (f)2, says a lawyer may charge a flat fee for specialized legal services. Lighthouse’s contact specifically states the flat fee is paid on the last day that services are performed. This rule is not applicable to their contract, it applies to circumstances where the flat fee is paid in advance. This is an example of the type of information he would be able to provide if he had that permission. Councilmember Teitzel said if the council considered the retainer option, it would include approximately 3,000 hours. The run rate for attorney hours in 2022 will be about 3700 hours. Choosing the retainer option will require going on a pretty extensive city attorney hour diet in 2023, otherwise the City will be paying by the hour in addition to the retainer. He cautioned the council to keep in mind that the retainer model will require some discipline. He recalled Councilmember Chen saying the current model with Lighthouse is a buffet style, all you can eat and go back for seconds and thirds which is attractive, but that is not the real world in terms of the way contracts typically work. The options before council include the buffet option and a more real world retainer option. If the council chooses the retainer scale, the number of hours the city attorney is asked to work will need to be scaled back somehow, otherwise it will be very expensive. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said in looking at the remaining items on the agenda, it was unlikely the council will have time for the council budget discussion and still get home before midnight. The council agreed that that item would be postponed and staff could plan accordingly. Councilmember Paine relayed she asked Mayor Nelson if a reduction in hours would work for the administration and he said absolutely not. There is enough going on, some of it was in the legislative agenda as well as changes to policing, the code rewrite, etc. and those are things the council needs to keep in mind. Lawsuits can crop up at any moment and there is no idea how much time they will take. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said based on her knowledge of 10 years working with Lighthouse, Ebb Tide took a significant amount of time and lawsuit that has been concluded. She agreed the City needed to be more conscientious of the city attorney’s time. Not having the city attorney attend committee meetings will reduce his hours by 8-9/month. She hoped to get back to a more even hourly working relationship with Lighthouse. She was in favor of Option A. To ensure the council was not operating under any misconceptions, Mr. Taraday advised Ebb Tide has appealed so the appeal will be ongoing in 2023. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 27 Councilmember Chen relayed the financial impact of the two options. Option A: Flat rate with a lookback clause • The 7.5% CPI-U increase to the 2022 rate of $53,953 is $58,000 or $696,000/year • If the City disengaged with Lighthouse anytime in 2023, the lookback clause kicks in. o Worst case scenario would be if the council decided in December 2023 to disengage, the maximum lookback would be 8 months of legal services based on the average hours for four years for the 2 tiers of services ▪ Tier 1: $266/hour, average hours is 1,624 for a total charge of $431,984 ▪ Tier 2: $354/hour, average hours is 727 for a total charge of $257,358 ▪ Added together is a total of $689,342 ▪ Under that scenario, the City receives a refund for 8 months of the flat rate so the net maximum lookback is $225,342 Option B: Retainer • 85% of average historical hours requires cutting back 15% of the average hours used in prior years. • Lighthouse offered 5% discount from the rate they charge Maple Valley • Class 1: 2,071 hours/year at $253/hour = $523,963 • Class 2: 927 hours/year at $336/hour = $311,472 • Total charge under the retainer option = $835,435. • Comparing Option B to option A (not including the lookback), is a savings of approximately $140,000. • The $140,000 savings is less than the net lookback payment of $225,342. Councilmember Chen summarized the work group does not have a recommendation regarding the options, it is up to the council to decide. Councilmember Teitzel summarized the work group is asking council for clear direction regarding which of the two options they want to pursue and depending on that direction, they will take that option back to Madrona Law group to review it from an independent legal standpoint to ensure everything is proper. The contract will come back to council for a final vote on December 6. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE OPTION A. Councilmember Paine said she also likes Option A; it is what the City is accustomed to, it is a good option, and it has ease of use. Councilmember Chen commented even though Option A is appealing, the City still needs to be cautious about how much they eat at the buffet, it is not free. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked Mr. Taraday to speak to Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) requirements related to three councilmembers meeting outside a council meeting and the need to advertise the meeting. Mr. Taraday answered there is no requirement for less than a majority of the council to meet openly. It was his understanding they were meeting in a group no larger than three. The work group did not make a recommendation to council, but even if they had, committees are allowed to make recommendations to the council even if they have met privately. That is straight from San Juan County case that stated making a recommendation is not acting on behalf of the council and therefore is allowed to happen in private. This work group did not make a recommendation so it is less removed from the facts in the San Juan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 28 County case. From what he knew of the work group, they were on solid ground from an OPMA standpoint. 4. 2023 COLA FOR NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised this is the recommended COLA adjustment for non- represented employees and recommended benefit changes. She reviewed: • Personnel Policies – Chapter 5 Compensation o Annual Salary Adjustments ▪ Personnel Policy 5.10 NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES’ ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS - The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary schedule for non-represented employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process. • 2023 Wage Adjustments for Represented Groups o Currently the AFSCME, Teamsters, and EPOA Law Support collective bargaining agreements are not settled for 2023 ▪ Given current contract language though it could be anticipated that these groups will receive a wage adjustment of 5.5% for 2023 o The EPOA Commissioned contract is settled for 2023 but as this is a represented group that has binding arbitration, taking this group’s wage adjustments into consideration for the non- represented employees would not be appropriate. • 2022 Wage Adjustments o When considering the 2023 wage adjustment for non-represented employees, City Council should take into account the 2022 Wage Adjustments o In 2022 City Council approved the implementation of a market study for all City positions. This was the first time that the internal equity of positions was addressed in addition to the external compensation data. The intent is to ensure all positions of similar requirements are aligned internally. o Going forward, the City will want to address the issue of maintaining some consistency in the annual wage adjustment between all groups so as to maintain the internal equity. o EPOA Law Support received a wage adjustment of 3% in 2022. The City has since reopened that contract for wages to address the inflation rate and has provided an additional 2.5% wage adjustment. Total adjustment for 2022 will be 5.5% o The City is currently in bargaining with both the Teamsters and AFSCME for 2022 wages. ▪ Given contract language it is most likely that both groups will receive a wage adjustment of 5.5% for 2022. o The non-reps received a wage adjustment of 3% in 2022. ▪ This places the wages for non-represented positions 2.5% behind other employee groups for 2022 and are therefore entering 2023 with a deficit. • Other Data points o Using “comparator” organizations is often the standard in establishing compensation and has been used by Edmonds for both represented and non- represented employees o Using the Consumer Price Index for Urban wage earners in the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue area is also used as data point to establish compensation levels. • Comparator Organization proposed non-rep adjustments for 2023 City COLA Bothell No information Shoreline 7.76% (considering 9.5% wage adjustment) SeaTac 5% (looking at other ways to provide staff with more money Olympia 4% Lacey Not yet established Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 29 Issaquah 6% + 4% lump sum payment Puyallup 5% Burien 6% Lynnwood No information Mukilteo Not yet established The median wage adjustment of comparators is 5.5% • Using CPI-U (and not CPI-W) o The CPI is calculated for two population groups: All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The CPI-U represents about 93 percent of the total U.S. population and is based on the expenditures of all families living in urban areas. The CPI-W is a subset of the CPI-U and is based on the expenditures of families living in urban areas who meet additional requirements related to employment: more than one-half of the family’s income is earned from clerical or hourly-wage occupations. The CPI-W represents about 29 percent of the total U.S. population. o Because the CPI-U population coverage is more comprehensive, it is used in most wage adjustment calculations • How to use the CPI-U o In order to determine the cost of inflation from one year to the next the year a period is established be setting a base month between two years. The June to June period is the most commonly used. o The 2021 CPI-U, which is used to establish 2022 wages, was 5.5% o The 2022 CPI-U, which is used to establish 2023 wages, was 10.1% Year June 2018 3.3 2019 2.3 2020 0.9 2021 5.5 2022 10.1 • Washington State Minimum Wage Increase for 2022. o Washington State minimum wage will increase to $15.74 per hour in 2023 o This is an increase of 8.63% o State law requires an automatic annual inflation adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for the August to August period. • What was proposed and what has occurred o At the time the budget was submitted, June to June numbers for the CPI-U was not yet available. o The non-rep wage adjustment proposed in the budget was 5.5% o Since then, the June to June numbers have been released which places the CPI-U at 10.1% • 2023 COLA Recommendation o In order to maintain internal equity of positions it is recommended that the non-represented wage schedule be increased by 7% o This will take into account the deficit from 2022 o Represented wage schedules will most likely be increased by 11% in total over the two year period of 2022 and 2023 o Providing a 7% adjustment to the non-rep schedule in 2023 will provide a total of 10% over the two year period of 2022 and 2023. • Benefit changes recommended for 2023 o In addition to wage adjustments for 2023 the following benefit changes are being recommended in order for Edmonds to stay competitive in the labor market so that we may retain and attract the most qualified staff. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 30 o Health Care Premiums ▪ Currently the City pays 90% of employee health care premiums. It is recommended that this be changed to 100% for employees. 90% for spouses and dependents would be maintained ▪ Currently, part-time employees are required to pay a pro-rated share of their health care premiums. With a part-time salary it is often too costly for the employee to afford the premium cost share. Part-time employee demographics are often women and older workers. - It is recommended that Council consider providing the same health care benefits to part-time employees as is provided to full-time employees. - This is not a common practice but will address issues of equity and place Edmonds as a highly desirable employer for part-time positions, which are very hard to fill. - Edmonds currently has 9 part-time employees. 2 are on the City health care plan with only one of those being non-represented. Should Council approve this, additional discussion should take place to address represented employees. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:20. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. In response to a question whether a special meeting can be extended, Mr. Taraday advised the council is allowed to extend a special meeting, a super majority is still required to pass the motion. Ms. Neill Hoyson continued. o Health Care opt-out ▪ It is recommended to establish a health care opt-out program that will provide employees who opt-out of City provided health care with 50% of the premium cost of the City’s lowest cost medical plan. - The current lowest cost plan is the Kaiser Permanente HMO with a monthly premium of $712.20 for 2022. Employees who opt out would receive $356.10 per month. o VEBA Contributions ▪ Provide a VEBA contribution of $300 to all non-reps. Non-represented employees received a $600 contribution in 2022 in order to address that this employee group had not received a VEBA contribution for multiple years. Cost for this would be approximately $15,000 in 2023. o Update to Management Leave Policy ▪ Current Policy - To be more competitive in the market place, the City will provide non-represented employees who are ineligible for compensatory time with 24 hours of management leave annually. Management Leave will have no cash-out value and will not be carried over at the end of the calendar year. ▪ Comparator organizations provide, on average, 71 hours of management leave to qualified positions with the most common amount being 80 hours. ▪ Would recommend updating the policy to 80 hours of management leave for qualified positions. • Recommendation o Current proposed COLA in the 2023 budget is for a 5.5% wage adjustment. ▪ This will cost $364,955 in wages and $113,603 in benefits for 2023 o Should council approve the 7% wage adjustment this would cost an additional $99,533 in wages and $30,983 in benefits for 2023 o Recommend the following be approved ▪ 7% COLA for 2023 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 31 ▪ Provide 100% employer paid health care premiums for employees ▪ Provide part-time employees with the same health care benefits as full-time employees ▪ Establish an opt-out program for health care providing a payment of 50% of the premium of the lowest cost medical plan that the City offers ▪ Increase management leave to 80 hours per year Councilmember Teitzel asked how many cities near Edmonds provide 100% benefits to part-time employees. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she was not aware of any that do. Councilmember Teitzel observed the City would be a leader on that. He asked the cost per year. Ms. Neill Hoyson displayed the current health care rates, advising the rate for employee only for the most expensive plan, Regence HealthFirst 250, is $834.50. If all nine enrolled, the cost would be $7,510.50/month, multiplied by 12 months is $90,126/year. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to the proposal to provide employees who opt out from health care $356/month. She asked why 50% of the premium was selected versus a different percentage. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the comparators cities that have an opt out programs provide 50% of the cost of their lowest health care plan. The amount paid to employees who opt out will always be 50% of the lowest cost plan, the HMO which is Kaiser. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested rounding that to $300/month. Ms. Neill Hoyson said that could be done, but it would not increase when health care premiums increase every year. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented a flat amount would be a better budgeting tool. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, noting information regarding premiums is not received from AWC until late in the year. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if the 80 hours of management leave would be in addition to their existing vacation leave, recalling non-represented employees get more vacation. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered directors get 22 days of vacation. The 80 hours of management leave would be for directors and division level managers who also do not quality for overtime. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis observed 80 hours was an additional 2 weeks. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, they currently receive 24 hours of management reserve. Councilmember Paine expressed surprise that the City did not offer management leave. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised they currently get 24 hours of management leave. Councilmember Paine said that is very, very low. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, advising it is something that has been on her radar since she joined the City, but this was the first year she had an opportunity to look at it. Councilmember Paine loved the equity lens of offering payment in full for health care for part-time employees. She was aware from going through the hiring process in her own personal world that it is brutal and she had no objection to any of the proposals as they support the employees and honor their work. Everyone knows how much time directors put in every Tuesday; it is a huge lift. She expressed her appreciation for the proposed package, indicating she was happy to support all of it. Councilmember Chen referred to the proposal to pay 100% of health care premium for part-time employees and asked if there was any study about the usage of health care services. He wondered if everything was free, would it have the opposite effect on the use of health care. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it would not change the structure of the health care plan; employees are still signing up for health care and paying the $83.45/month and are most likely using the health care in the same manner. There is no change to the deductible, out of pocket max, co-pay, etc. that are built into the health care plan. The things that drive usage are co-pays, out of pocket max, family deductibles, etc., the City providing 100% of the premium would not increase an employee’s use of the plan. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 32 Councilmember Nand referred to the wage adjustments for represented groups (packet page 262) and anticipation of a 5.5% wage adjustment for 2023, CPI-U of 10.1% due to inflation, and the request for a 7% wage adjustment for non-represented employees. To provide a perception of fairness, she questioned whether it would be better to have more lockstep between the represented and non-represented groups. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that is what would be created. The contract for the Teamsters and AFSCME, two of the City’s biggest employee groups were not settled for 2022, the City has been in bargaining with them all year. The AFSCME contract was just settled today and council approved it on the consent agenda; they received a 5.5% wage adjustment in 2022. Given trends and current contract language, she anticipated Teamsters will get no less than a 5.5% wage adjustment in their contract for 2022. The non- represented employees received a 3% wage adjustment in 2022. The proposal is trying to address represented groups who are getting 5.5% plus retroactive pay back to Jan 1, 2022 and even out the wages for 2023 for the non-represented employees. Councilmember Nand observed the 7% wage adjustment represented more of an average for the 2 years. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, and to catch up to the represented groups. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE A HEALTH CARE OPT OUT OF $300/MONTH. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested trying this since it is a new concept and if there is a lot of squawking, it can be changed. She anticipated a percentage would be an accounting nightmare. Ms. Neill Hoyson offered to bring it back to council during the next year’s budget process to see if it achieved the desired result of impacting costs. Councilmember Chen expressed support for a flat opt out rate. He asked if there would be different opt out rates depending on the health care premium level. Ms. Neill Hoyson said if an employee chose to opt out, they would receive 50% of lowest priced plan or $300 if the motion is approved. The original proposal was to provide 50% of the lowest cost health care plan; that would not change based on the plan the employee would have chosen Councilmember Nand did not object to setting a flat rate to make accounting easier, but questioned why the amount would be rounded down. If the opt out saves the City money, she did not want to deny employees the extra amount. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND SET THE OPT OUT FLAT RATE AT $350. Councilmember Nand said if the intent was to thank employees for opting out of health care and the City does not have to pay the premium, she preferred to be slightly more generous instead of less. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5) COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, AND TIBBOTT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said one of the things she was most excited to see was more comp time for staff; staff put in a lot of hours and that is really warranted. She questioned the amount and offered an amendment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 33 MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO CHANGE MANAGEMENT LEAVE FROM 80 HOURS TO 75 HOURS. Councilmember Paine advised 80 hours of management leave is normal and customary across a lot of organizations and municipalities and she found it surprising the City only offered 24 hours. When she worked for the City of Seattle, management leave was 80 hours. If the City wants to retain its professional non-reps, being competitive is certainly important. Those employees work their tails off for the City and the council so when they need vacation time, they should have what they need. Mayor Pro Tem Olson referred to the comparison of management leave that showed an average of 71 hours and asked what the average would be if Edmonds was not included. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised Edmonds was not included, that was an average of comparator cities. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said it was such a jump from 24 to 75 that that would be a good start and it can always be reevaluated next year. Councilmember Nand observed management leave is hours that salaried workers basically bank in lieu of being paid for overtime. This reflects extra work/extra time that management level employees already put in but are currently not compensated for. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed, explaining it does not carry over, it has to be used in the year it is earned, and it cannot be cashed out. Councilmember Nand asked if 80 hours was the ceiling of the amount that could be earned. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it is not accounted for in that way. Under current policy, 24 hours of management leave is loaded at the beginning of the year that can be used throughout that calendar year. That is how all agencies do it because what Councilmember Nand described would be keeping track of comp time for salary exempt employees which is not appropriate per Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) laws. Management leave takes into account management employees who have duties outside work hours, but they do not receive overtime; in recognition, they are provided a bank of management leave at the beginning of the year. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding it is allotted to employees with the assumption they would earn it via extra hours worked. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, and it is only for the FLSA exempt employees who are not eligible for comp time. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING BE APPROVED: 7% COLA FOR 2023, PROVIDE 100% EMPLOYER-PAID HEALTH CARE PREMIUM FOR EMPLOYEES, PROVIDE PART-TIME EMPLOYEES THE SAME HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AS FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, ESTABLISH AN OPT OUT PROGRAM FOR HEALTH CARE AS AMENDED, PROVIDE A $300 VEBA CONTRIBUTION FOR 2023, AND INCREASE MANAGEMENT LEAVE TO 80 HOURS PER YEAR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. 2023 HR BUDGET REQUESTS HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained two positions are requested in the HR budget, the first is an HR assistant which is an existing classification. The HR department does not currently have any administrative support and in such a heavily papered and operational department, that becomes everyone’s job so the result is paying more highly compensated employees to do administrative type work which is not the best use of funds and does not make the HR department the most effective. The other position is an HR manager, a new classification that will provide a direct supervisory position under the director who can assist with higher level HR functions that she currently performs and prevents her from looking at more strategic initiatives that make the City more competitive, avoid litigation, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 22, 2022 Page 34 Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the HR department is understaffed, that is evident via comparing HR staff to 100 employees. According to SHRM, the rate for an organization Edmonds size, under 150 employees, should be approximately 3.4 HR staff; Edmonds’ ratio of HR staff to employees is currently .96 - .93 of HR staff. Comparing the professional recommendation of 3.4 and Edmonds’ ratio of .96-.93 illustrates the understaffing in HR. Additionally if the additional positions requested in the budget are approved, increased staff support, recruiting, onboarding, etc. will increase HR’s workload. HR is also dealing with the “great resignation” which has resulted in a lot of recruiting. If the council approves the additional two HR positions, the HR ratio would be approximately 1.3, still very low, but at least moving in the right direction. Ms. Neill Hoyson continued, another aspect to consider when staffing HR is whether the department has the technology to make systems more automated. The City does not have a very robust human resources information system, it is a tack on to Eden, the City’s financial system which the administrative services director is looking at changing. The role of HR is to be highly operational, engaged in supporting the operations, and numerous daily tasks. With regard to growth and turnover, Ms. Neill Hoyson explained City staff is growing and there is a massive amount of turnover which increases HR’s workload. She referred to a list of items HR has not been able to get to that would help improve employees’ experience, avoid grievances, avoid potential litigation, etc. She offered to email councilmembers her presentation. No action is required tonight, it is information for a budget decision. 6. COUNCIL BUDGET DISCUSSION Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS 12. ADJOURN The council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.