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.