Loading...
2023-01-17 Regular Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES January 17, 2023 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine 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 City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described procedures for audience comments. Jay Grant, Port of Edmonds commissioner and liaison to the city council, explained Port commissioners have oversight of Port operations and have encountered some challenges recently. The first is flooding that occurred for the second time. Public Works Director Antillon gave a great overview at the committee meeting, but basically concluded there wasn’t much more that could be done. More has to be done, because the flooding resulted in the closure of some businesses in Harbor Square, difficulty reaching some Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 2 businesses, and hampered access to the Port. A lot of people have electric cars and unlike a combustion engine, the batteries are on the bottom and they cannot drive through that much water. He acknowledged the need to involve WSDOT, but Washington State Ferries have an alternative, they can relocate to the Unocal property where there are no water problems. Second, the City and Port need to work together on the waterfront comprehensive plan. Third, there is nearly 1-foot high hump in the joint Port/City parking lot which is an ADA violation. The City is responsible for maintenance of the parking lot under the agreement. He recommended the City’s public works director talk with the Port’s executive director regarding these issues. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to agenda item 9.2, Draft Ordinance Amending ECC 10.01 Board and Commissions, and stated providing consistent public noticing will be beneficial to the City and having vacancies clearly identified with clear open and closing date would be a tremendous improvement to the current process. She recommended the council consider having the mayor interview all candidates deemed qualified by the council. She did not regret her advocacy over the past two years; there have been times she was critical of council, speaking on what she believed to be both accurate and needed. This is her role as a resident. There have also been times when she was critical of the City administration, most recently with the SEPA determination. She did not regret her advocacy around trees, parks or SEPA and most importantly equity which connects all these issues. She likes almost everyone she meets and has huge respect for anyone who chooses public service either on council, boards or the City. Her goal in virtually showing up at council meetings and to City events is to challenge the council with a different perspective; business as usual is not acceptable to address equity or the environmental challenges the City faces and it is a universal truth that change and growth requires discomfort. Ms. Seitz congratulated the current appointments to the planning board and thanked them in advance for their time and commitment to the City. There are many important decisions ahead with the comprehensive plan and she hoped they would put equity for all Edmonds residents at the center of their deliberations and examine institutional bias with the information they receive. The reasons often given for not investing in underserved areas of the City are often overlooked when it comes to resourcing wealthier and wider areas. She urged them to ask themselves why, to question their assumptions and to allow themselves to get uncomfortable. Planning board members are vested with the ability to change Edmonds for the better and create a more equitable future for all residents. It is a responsibility for which they have her complete support and she urged them to use it wisely. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. NOVEMBER 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 3. PROJECT STATUS: TREE CODE AMENDMENTS ADM 2022-0004 4. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2023 3. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2023 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES JANUARY 10, 2023 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 3 5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 7. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 8. TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 763 | 2022-2024 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 9. SNOHOMISH COUNTY AGREEMENT TO RELINQUISH REAL PROPERTY INTEREST 10. TREE BOARD CANDIDATE APPROVAL 11. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE 12. APPROVAL OF SENIOR PERMIT COORDINATOR-ENGINEERING JOB DESCRIPTION 13. CODE UPDATES TO CHANGE MEETING LOCATION OF PLANNING BOARD, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, TREE BOARD, AND ADB 8. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD REVIEW AND BUILDING STEP-BACKS FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained this is a public hearing on the ordinance the council adopted on December 10, 2022; the council is required to hold a public hearing within 60 days since it was an emergency interim ordinance. The ordinance did two things, it created a new process for design review of projects in the CG zone with buildings taller than 35 feet. Currently design review for the CG zone is done entirely by staff. New projects with building 35 feet or taller would go to Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ordinance also added step back language for those buildings in the CG zone. Step backs were covered in a previous version of an interim ordinance, but this language was included with the current ordinance. Step backs are not a requirement, but in their review process, the ADB could require them at their discretion. Mr. Clugston explained the packet contains Ordinance No. 4283 that the council approved on December 10, 2022 as well as the minutes of that meeting. The packet also includes a resolution from 2016 which staff was not completely aware of at the time the emergency ordinance was adopted. Resolution 1367, adopted in 2016, indicated the council’s desire to get the council as well as citizen boards out of making quasi-judicial decisions. Quasi-judicial decisions are when a board or council essentially sit as a judge listening to land use permits. In the case of the council, that was typically closed record reviews; the council still hears closed record appeals of conditional use permits and variances that go to the hearing examiner. No changes were made to the ADB code as a result of Resolution 1367 and the ADB still issues quasi- judicial decisions although Resolution 1367 indicated the council’s intent to remove the ADB from making those decisions. The current interim ordinance is asking the ADB to do another review so the current ordinance and Resolution 1367 are somewhat in conflict. The intent of tonight’s public hearing is to take public testimony and issue a resolution with findings in support of the interim ordinance. Staff will then go back to the planning board over the next few months and bring a recommendation to council for final regulation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 4 Public Testimony Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident of the Gateway neighborhood of the Highway 99 subarea, spoke in support of emergency Ordinance 4283. She felt residents had been heard with the council’s recent vote to approve funding for the SEIS for the Highway 99 subarea plan and sidewalks on 84th Avenue West between 234th and 238th Streets. She thanked the council for making those a priority. Another demonstration of how the council is listening to neighborhood concerns is voting to make Ordinance 4823 permanent. The ordinance is a good solution to address the lack of transition between the CG zone and the single family residential area identified in the Highway 99 subarea plan in 2017. ADB review of building design over 35 feet allows for the right expertise to guide design elements that soften the transition between the zones and provides public process and accountability. Voting tonight to approve the code revision adding one more architect bolsters the ADB’s expertise. ADB review in the Highway 99 subarea also allows for parity with the downtown business district which also has building design review by the ADB. Further, including step backs in Ordinance 4283 is very important to eliminating a barrier for addressing neighborhood concerns. The existing code for the ADB in section 3A reads, “The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.” This puts the burden on every community whether this is an issue to produce the clear and convincing evidence required which can require expertise and studies, potentially requiring more resources than most neighborhood groups have at their disposal. It creates a potentially unresponsive process for the very residents most impacted by these types of development. She urged the City to continue their consideration of emergency Ordinance 4283 and make it permanent to maintain the City and council’s commitment to their community. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, expressed support for the emergency ordinance and appreciation for the persistence shown by council and staff to respond to the neighborhood concerns when large developments in the Highway 99 planned area raise issues. She reminded council that a significant issue remains; the planning board recommendation and the council decision in 2018 to eliminate transition zones that existed around the boundaries of the Highway 99 planned areas. She did not want to wait until the 2024 comprehensive plan update and the possible zoning changes that will come with that work effort. She emailed council last week with possible comprehensive plan language to add to Ordinance 4283; if that amendment does not occur, she will meet with the planning board to propose a code amendment that requires CG buildings on the boundary of an RS zone to use site and building design to transition to the less intensive residential area. A technical definition of transition is in other cities’ codes but is missing from Edmonds’ code. That language is a tool the ADB needs. She asked the council’s support for adding the transition requirement to the CG code regardless of whether Ordinance 4283 is amended or a code revision vetted and forwarded to council by the planning board. Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, a resident on 236th Street SW, spoke in support of interim Ordinance 4283. She thanked the council for funding the SEIS for the Highway 99 planning area and for moving up the timeline for installing badly needed sidewalks on 84th Avenue West. She also thanked the council for listening to and coming to their neighborhood to see and discuss the impacts of this development firsthand. She applauded the idea of involving the ADB in review of projects that intersect with single family zoned properties. She requested step backs be included in the code revisions as defending the need for them on a case-by-case basis will be difficult for residents with limited resources. She hoped the council would vote to make the ordinance permanent. Stanley Piha, one of owners of the vacant land at the corner of 84th & 236th, commented since October 4, the city council has stopped an application from a builder to develop a market rate multifamily building totally in compliance with all City codes and provisions of the Highway 99 subarea plan on this vacant Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 5 parcel. Blocking the project was first accomplished by enacting the emergency ordinance related to step backs and now continues with the implementation of an emergency ordinance requiring ADB approval when none is required under the Highway 99 subarea plan. Also since October 4, there has been a public outcry from Washington state officials describing the housing and homelessness crisis in the state due to a lack of affordable housing. Governor Inslee has gone so far as saying a lack of affordable housing drives the state’s homelessness crisis. State Senator Markus Liias expressed to the Snohomish County Alliance that one obstacle is the permitting process for new projects and supports streamlining the process to encourage new development. Once property is zoned, projects also need to be built, something that is not seen in Edmonds; there is a vision, but there need to be units on the ground. While state officials including the governor describe the housing crisis as the main cause of homelessness and promote ways to encourage housing so desperately needed, Edmonds’ governance and actions to date are exactly the opposite. Mr. Piha continued, the council’s actions discourage building housing and as a result ignore the plight of the homeless population. The council’s actions create an insurmountable barrier to building in the Highway 99 corridor and adding housing to the City’s stock as mandated by the GMA which turns a blind eye to the crisis at hand. Following an extensive public process in 2017, the Highway 99 subareas plan was adopted to incentivize building in the corridor by removing uncertainty in the permitting process. Passing the emergency ordinance on tonight’s agenda does exactly the opposite and penalizes those considering building in the corridor. Additionally, a vote to pass the emergency ordinance is simply a vote of no confidence in the planning director and planning department. The planning director has expressed to council on numerous occasions the protections in place in the administrative review process to guide projects in the corridor to their best outcome. Professional planners working with professional designers and builders to provide housing complimentary to the corridor are the experts, yet by passing this emergency ordinance, the council’s actions undermine that authority. The wordsmithing in the ordinance and ignoring constructability consequences is a prime example of creating so much confusion and uncertainty that building in the corridor will come to an immediate halt. Like the prior emergency ordinance, this ordinance should be vacated. Dean Williams, Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koloušková, speaking on behalf of the applicants for the Terrace Place building, explained the purpose of the Highway 99 subarea plan and planned action EIS was to provide developers with certainty and predictability while streamlining the environmental review and permitting process, furthering the goals of SEPA and the GMA, a direct quote from the subarea plan. Recent actions by the City have eliminated the certainty and predictability that made this subarea plan an attractive development opportunity for investors like his client. A project like this requires an immense amount of due diligence, planning, and prep work to even submit a preapplication. Under the current regulations, his client could not even submit a vest-able building permit until they go through the design review process. Most recently the City upended that predictable, streamlined process they worked so hard to implement in 2016-2017 so instead of predictability, the process has been changed in the middle of their submittal and there is no clear guidance on how to shift gears from one process to the next. Instead of an administrative review for something as fundamental and encompassing as designing their building, his client is being told there will be a two phase public hearing, first a preliminary concept design, a hearing where findings of fact are established and then the applicant redesigns their project and submits another set of plans to comply with priorities design guideline checklist criteria. Mr. Williams continued, the ADB then decides upon conditions that will be imposed, establishing a guess and check review for what should be a relatively simple process for constructing a building that the City invited and exhaustively planned for. This is a 5-over-1 apartment building, not an Escala-type high rise in the center of downtown. This is a working class building in a working class corridor. The ordinance is inconsistent with the GMA and the City’s comprehensive plan. The subarea outlines much of the work that went into it, including consolidating the CG zone to allow for a cost effective 6-story mixed use building to be constructed with comfortable floor to ceiling heights. Page 58 notes the construction type of five wood Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 6 frame floors over a ground floor concrete podium, also known as a 5-over-1 building, is efficient and cost effective. This statement is only true because for issues like step backs, the City established regulations that required step backs adjacent to single family and no step backs across the street. The reasoning for this came from the EIS, there have been no new facts to warrant throwing out that EIS which is required under SEPA when adding to existing environmental documents. The subarea plan the City came up with is well thought out and provides the efficiency and predictability that was missing before. He urged the City to stick with it and avoid reversion to the prior litigious system. Jeremy Mitchell, Edmonds, said he generally supports the design review process as it helps cities guide architectural, aesthetic and transitions from neighborhood to neighborhood which is very beneficial. He referred to the upper story step backs adjacent and across the street, finding the language in the packet to be too vague looking at it from an applicant’s point of view, “these requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to design review or the ADB.” In his mind when going into a phase 1 design review whether an applicant is meeting with the ADB or City staff, they want to know upfront what is and is not prescriptive because at the phase 1 hearing with the public is where departures are presented. If not clearly aligned, it is hard for the applicant to put the departures in the submittal. If the intent of the language is to put the onus on the applicant to justify its use, he recommended taking out “unless deemed not to be necessary” and just making it a strict requirement and let the applicant do the rest via departures. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented in support of the emergency interim ordinance to require ADB review and building step backs for certain projects in the CG zone. Although relatively new to the neighborhood, three years, she moved into an area that until recently has had very little turnover. Her house, like many in the areas, was built in the 50s and they are only the third owner. People have stayed in this neighborhood, raised families and developed communities. Her neighbors talk about how the areas is changing, sirens are common if not nightly and property theft and vandalism are growing concerns. People who spent their lives there now feel unsafe and lock their doors. The area is also changing due to displacement. In the past three years, half the houses on her street have turned over at least once, amazing for an areas where the tenure used to be 30 years. The issues of lack of resources and displacement of population especially lower, fixed income and elderly population are a reality in the corridor every day. Ms. Seitz said was telling the council this because when talking about the emergency ordinance and what it does, it is often framed as anti-housing. She is not anti-housing; she is anti-displacement and anti- gentrification, but that is exactly what the CG zone is doing. Residents know the buildings in their community will not be the same and they are completely supportive of low income housing; the fact is the City’s actions are displacing residents in the community and she feared it would only get worse. The emergency ordinance gives the community a voice and allows greater participation in community redevelopment, a recognized anti-displacement strategy. In addition to supporting the emergency ordinance, she thanked the council for funding the SEPA in the most recent budget, advancing sidewalks on 84th, and finding creative solutions to help meet the community’s needs. She supports including more architects on the ADB and making additional code amendments to allow ADB to utilize a full range of design guidelines applicable to the SR-99 corridor and the SEPA required step backs. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Council President Tibbott thanked the public for their comments and for showing up when it is very important for the council to hear from the public. With regard to design review by the ADB, he asked how the ADB would be improved by adding an architect to the board. Mr. Clugston answered having more architectural experience on the board would be helpful. Currently the position is very general, anyone with a related background. Changing it to an architect provides more architectural context. Planning & Development Manager Susan McLaughlin answered design professionals go to school for that, they learn the design vocabulary, materiality, dimensions and depth, how to design a building in context and scale, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 7 and are able to speak architects in the same language. Often lay people may not see things the same way or be able to articulate how to improve a building in the same language as an architect. Council President Tibbott asked if that could be added that to the ordinance through the hearing process with planning board. Ms. McLaughlin answered that change was approved on the consent agenda tonight. She relayed staff still supports administrative review, but the question was how to strengthen the ADB’s composition, and that was staff’s recommendation. Council President Tibbott asked if the ADB’s review was always quasi-judicial. Mr. Clugston answered it is always quasi-judicial. If a building is in one of the design districts in the BD and CG zones, it is a two- phased hearing. General Commercial design review is a one-phase hearing, but it is all quasi-judicial. Council President Tibbott asked the type of hearing. Mr. Clugston answered it was Type IIIA. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the comments at the public hearing. She suggested next time this comes to council, it would be helpful to have a flowchart of the applicant process with this change. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Resolution 1367 regarding quasi-judicial, pointing out the council is still involved in quasi-judicial processes. She asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to explain. Mr. Taraday answered the resolution Councilmember Buckshnis referenced was an aspirational statement by the council to direct staff and the planning board to develop code changes that would reduce or eliminate the council’s role in quasi-judicial processes. One outcome of that resolution was adoption of Ordinance 4154 which was adopted in 2019 and referenced in the council packet. Resolution 1367 can be looked at as the beginning of the process and Ordinance 4154 as a potential end of the process. With the adoption of Ordinance 4154, it was unclear whether the council was done tinkering with the quasi-judicial process or if there would be future reductions in the council’s involvement in quasi-judicial processes. Whatever the council thought in 2019, decision makers may have a different opinion in 2023. Resolution 1367 did not do anything other than set a goal. As historical background, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the quasi-judicial process has been back and forth for many years; it used to be called Title 20. In 2009 the council voted to remove itself from quasi- judicial, and when she was appointed to council, the council moved back into quasi-judicial in 2010. In 2019, via a process led by Councilmember Tibbott and the late Councilmember K. Johnson, a modified approach was adopted where certain parts would go through the council and certain parts would go to supreme court. She preferred to have citizen’s voices heard at local level. Although this issue was not part of the public hearing, but she wanted people to understand what was stated was not entirely true, that everything is quasi-judicial and council is totally out of the picture. She recommended this be addressed sometime in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the SEIS and EIS, relaying her understanding that those have nothing to do with the emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered they are related in the sense they are addressing the same neighborhood and the same zoning district so they are not completely unrelated, but it is a separate process. The SEIS is a much longer term project and will allow for a much broader review of the council’s long term vision for the neighborhood. This interim ordinance is not directly related to the SEIS process. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to go on record that the SEIS process came through as a report for filing and the council pulled it and asked to have a supplement done right away which of course has not happened but it is in the budget. The council did not agree with the report for filing stating that the CG and subarea were environmentally fine. She wanted people to realize that the timing of events have muddied the water. She thanked staff for their hard work and the citizens for their comments and continued concern and encouraged them to continue to comment to council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 8 Councilmember Teitzel said his perspective about the ADB is it is a board that is best equipped to monitor development activities to ensure they are in concert with the charm, character and livability of Edmonds and in his opinion, that is their charter. The description of the ADB on the City’s website includes, Establishes goals, objectives, and policies for design districts, which was in line of his view of the ADB. He asked if the emergency ordinance complied with the current code relative to development in the CG zone; in other words, does the ADB have the latitude under the existing code to do what council is suggesting they do in this draft ordinance or are they precluded from quasi-judicial rulings like this. Mr. Taraday answered the ADB is certainly not precluded from conducting quasi-judicial review; the ADB is largely a quasi-judicial body. In that respect, the ordinance is not giving them anything new. In the absence of the interim ordinance, design review in the CG zone would not be a quasi-judicial process, it would be an administrative (staff reviewed) process. That is one of the most significant changes in the interim ordinance, who does design review. Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation of his understanding that the draft ordinance does not mandate that step backs are required, there is flexibility in the wording of the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered there is certainly a presumption that they are required, but it is not an absolute mandate. Councilmember Nand thanked the stakeholders who took the time to share their views with council. She recognized this is a very hot button issue and emotions are running high. Everyone’s input is very important to council and City staff is taking feedback and trying to find ways to meet the stated objectives and desires of various stakeholders. She encouraged everyone who participated tonight to come to the next planning board meeting on January 25 because this process will take many months. The council is looking at a draft ordinance and a full public and political process will follow. She urged stakeholders to continue providing feedback to the planning board, council and City staff. 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE WORK PROPOSAL Speaking on behalf of the assessment subcommittee, Councilmember Teitzel explained the subcommittee will present the 2023 city attorney assessment work plan and key target dates associated with the plan. At the end of the presentation on the workplan, he would like to have council vote to approve the work plan. The subcommittee will also present regarding the performance evaluation survey tool to evaluate Lighthouse’s performance. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Councilmembers Nand and Paine for their work during the past two weeks to reach this point, recognizing there is a lot more work ahead for the subcommittee and council to reach an end goal and make decisions. He reviewed a list of tasks and key dates for collection information to support the Council decision process (Attachment A): • January 3, 2023 o Council approved the formation of the City Attorney Assessment Subcommittee (Councilmembers Teitzel, Paine and Nand) • January 17, 2023 o Present draft for discussion and approval of 2023 city attorney assessment work plan o Present draft for discussion and approval of city attorney internal client satisfaction survey o Consider costs/benefits of external audit of communications involving Lighthouse, the administration and Councilmembers leading up to the 2022 budget discussions, and request Council vote regarding proceeding. • February 1, 2023 o Issue city attorney satisfaction survey to internal city attorney clients, requesting responses by February 16 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 9  Responses aggregated for submission to Council by February 28 • February 7-February 28 o Contact judges who have handled litigation involving Lighthouse to solicit input regarding quality of Lighthouse’s work • March 7, 2023 o Present aggregated client satisfaction survey results to Council • February – March 2023 o Conduct research and present cost estimates and pro/con findings to Council regarding contracting vs. in-house city attorney services. o Contact cities of similar size to Edmonds to collect key information about their city attorney service arrangements, their views of pros/cons of their arrangements and annual city attorney costs. Share this information with Council. • April 4, 2023 o Council decision regarding contracted city attorney services vs. hiring in-house city attorney team • April 24, 2023 (if council decides to hire in-house city attorney team) o Issue job bulletin requesting applicants • April 24, 2023 (if council decides to continue to contract for city attorney services) o Issue RFP requesting proposals from alternative city attorney service contractors • May 2023 o Assess applicants, conduct background checks, check references • June 2023 o Extend offer to chosen provider With regard to the external audit of the 2022 budget process, Councilmember Teitzel said the subcommittee believes this would require hiring an outside, impartial attorney. The council has worked with Madrona Law Group in the past and would likely turn to them for this effort. The fee for the attorney the subcommittee has worked with at Madrona is $295/hour. If Madrona was hired to do this work and it took approximately one month of work time, 160 hours, the cost would be approximately $50,000. The time that effort would take is unknown, it could take longer than 160 hours as it will require looking at minutes, emails, text messages on council and personal cell phones, reviewing recordings of council meetings, etc., a fairly detailed assessment. In an informal discussion with Madrona about this to get their preliminary view, they cautioned some information could be attorney-client privileged and some information may be redacted. The benefit would be to determine if any rule, code, statute violation occurred, who made them, whether Lighthouse had any knowledge of it, etc. There is no reason to believe that Lighthouse was involved or had any knowledge that anything occurred, but this review would drive to a set of facts that might reveal if that happened. He invited Councilmember Buckshnis to provide additional background. Councilmember Buckshnis said she watched the November 16 meeting again and has sent council the four emails from the State Auditor’s Office (SAO) and the Attorney General (AG) as a result of citizens’ complaints. The issue at hand is the continuation meeting was spur of the moment and brought forth through the council president and actually defined as an adjournment meeting by Mr. Taraday later on in the meeting which shows he did in fact provide the correct quoting of the ECC and the RCW that the council president brought forth. In terms of proper posting, that is something the SAO may have looked at and they will be providing their findings. The SAO will not rule on the legality aspect and the AG said they do not provide legal advice to citizens. Regarding the truncating of the public hearing where citizens were not allowed to speak a second time, no one asked for a ruling from Mr. Taraday and she had no idea how that opinion came about or how it was determined the public could not speak a second time on new material or on a different subject. She suggested everyone watch the November 22 meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 10 Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Buckshnis was getting off topic, the subcommittee’s work plan, by describing what happened in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis explained from a legal standpoint, that is what Madrona would be looking at. Mayor Nelson said from a parliamentarian standpoint, he wanted councilmembers to stay on topic. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated from a legal standpoint, that would be something Madrona would look at because there was no opinion requested from the attorney so it was possible citizens’ right of free speech may have been violated. She relayed a citizen’s suggestion to form a task force to assist Madrona. The issues Madrona would consider include how the process came about and who decided on a continuation meeting which has never happened in the past. Mr. Taraday was asked about the RCW and ECC and he in fact answered correctly and the adjournment meeting was part of those laws. Councilmember Teitzel attempted to continue his presentation. Mayor Nelson interrupted, stating he was the chair of the meeting and would call on other councilmembers. Councilmember Paine asked Mr. Taraday for his thoughts and opinions about what Councilmember Buckshnis was searching for regarding what happened 15 months ago. Mr. Taraday answered he has always maintained that procedurally speaking, what occurred during the 2021 deliberations on the 2022 budget was procedural allowed under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). He was so convinced that what was done was legal that he was happy to have other law firms look at it if the council was unconvinced. He knows what was done was legal and welcomed and thought it would be good thing if it helped the community put that issue to rest. He was tired of hearing allegations of illegality when he knows for a fact it was not illegal. Whether the council wants to spend the money is the council’s choice. He was tired of hearing unsupported assertions of illegality or unsupported assertions that he provided incorrect legal advice. Councilmember Paine said she was unconvinced that this item should be included in the work plan because if an investigation/audit is going on during the time when the attorney assessment and a report after the fact, she wondered how the entire assessment would look and feel. She would like to have this looked at externally as it is something that keeps coming up which seems very unfair. At a public meeting in December 2021 she was found not to have violated any code of ethics. On December 13, 2021, regarding the subject of a group email, the state auditor reminded all councilmember that efforts should be made not to violate the quorum rule because it could be considered a meeting. There were extensive emails in November and a number of public records requests that indicated there was plenty of knowledge and information. There was an absolute assertion by Mr. Taraday when the meeting was adjourned because of the late hour due to 40-50 public comments which delayed the agenda and would have prevented the meeting ending before midnight. At the adjourned meeting, the public was not allowed to come to the back end of the line. She questioned whether having an external review done now would interfere with the city attorney assessment process. She summarized nothing found to be illegal and the word illegal gets thrown around too often and adding it here is about as useful as saying the council should investigate other things that happen on council. She concluded it did not belong in this assessment process. Councilmember Nand explained she joined the council in 2022 and just joined the city attorney assessment committee in January. Councilmember Teitzel has been very helpful in explaining it is not the subcommittee’s job to make recommendations but to transparently present information to other councilmembers to make decisions. The work plan transparently lists, Consider costs/benefits of external audit of communications, an item one councilmember wanted added to the review of Lighthouse and Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to present a countervailing point of view. It is not the role of the subcommittee to make a recommendation whether or not to fund an external review. Speaking as a councilmember, not as a member of the subcommittee, she acknowledged there were lingering questions in the minds of the public and some councilmembers regarding the budget process in 2021 before Councilmember Chen joined the council. However, she did not see how spending $50,000 for an external audit would benefit the City in 2023. Speaking only as a councilmember, not as a member of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 11 subcommittee, she recommended voting against the external audit. She thanked Councilmembers Teitzel and Paine for helping educate her. Councilmember Olson said she was opposed to this being an element of the city attorney evaluation process. She is on record back in 2021 thinking there was wrongdoing in the 2021 planning and execution of the 2022 budget process although she never said that wrongdoing was illegal. She has and continues to have no reason to suspect Mr. Taraday of any of that wrongdoing and said it was misplaced to put that here. She agreed with Councilmember Nand that spending $50,000 or potentially considerably more does not seem like a good use of taxpayer resources. As he was the councilmember that joined the council in November 2021 in the midst of the budget deliberations, Councilmember Chen said he felt obligated to express his opinion. He agreed with previous council comments that taxpayers’ money could be spent elsewhere to make a bigger difference. Having now participated in two budget processes, the timeline was adjusted during both according to circumstances at the time and he was fully confident that the city attorney provided good advice. There was always room for improvement, but at this time, it would be better to focus the City’s limited resources on the issues in front of the council. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE ITEM 3, CONSIDER COSTS/BENEFITS OF EXTERNAL AUDIT OF COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING LIGHTHOUSE, THE ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCILMEMBERS LEADING UP TO THE 2022 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS AND REQUEST A COUNCIL VOTE REGARDING PROCEEDING, FROM JANUARY 17 2023 ON THE WORK PLAN. Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the motion due to his concern with looking at the information and spending a fair amount of money, $50,000 or substantially more, and if some of the records are redacted due to attorney-client privilege, the situation will end up in the same place it is today, having spent a great deal of taxpayer money for no good benefit. Councilmember Buckshnis did not believe she ever said Mr. Taraday did anything illegal so she objected to his supposition that she said that. She recalled saying Mr. Taraday said it was a legal meeting and that he was not asked about the public hearing. She recognized trust has deteriorated which is the reason she felt it was important to do an external audit. She thinks Mr. Taraday should come back next year because he has a history with the City, but this issue caused a lot of mistrust in the City. She assured she never accused Mr. Taraday of doing anything illegal. Mayor Nelson requested councilmember keep their commentary relevant to motion. Councilmember Buckshnis encouraged everyone to watch the November 16 meeting and make their own decisions. It would have been better to have a taskforce and spend less money although she recognized it could dilute the timeliness of getting this done. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel asked council if there were any amendments to the proposed timeline in the work plan. He would like council to approve the timeline so subcommittee can proceed with its work. Councilmember Olson referred to February 1 on the timeline, the city attorney satisfaction survey, relaying there has been some public input that the survey should also be administered to members of the public and that failing to do that would be a flaw in the process. The public is not included in the list of who would be issued the city attorney satisfaction survey. She wanted the public to know that she considered that input Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 12 and why she did not agree. Unlike electeds who represent citizens 100%, the citizens of Edmonds are not the city attorney’s client; the client of the city attorney is the municipal corporation of the City of Edmonds. Additionally, members of the public are not in the ideal position to judge as they often only know half the story, for example, how council votes versus how council was advised by city attorney. In her opinion, surveys will be issued to appropriate parties such as electeds. Electeds read the public’s emails and have heard the public input and that input will be reflected in the electeds’ input once they are synthesized with other information available on subjects the public has weighed in on. Councilmember Nand agreed with Councilmember Olson. The subcommittee discussed whether they wanted citizen input but because Mr. Taraday is in an attorney-client relationship with the municipal entity versus other structures where a city attorney might be elected and is directly accountable to community members. Mr. Taraday’s imperative is to act in the best interest of the City and he may be criticized by someone involved in litigation who has a weighted interest and a personal dislike of Mr. Taraday or decisions or recommendations he’s made. The political process in Edmonds is set up so that the city council gets negative or positive comments during the process. The entire point of the survey is for Mr. Taraday and Lighthouse to get feedback from the people who consume the legal services they provide, the electeds and City staff as employees, agents and affiliates of the municipal corporation. In thinking about an attorney-client relationship, she suggested thinking of members of public as floating nearby, not directly intersecting with Mr. Taraday. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the subcommittee is asking the council to consider going in-house, but there were no numbers provided such as the number of attorneys, support staff, purchasing the law library, etc. She was concerned with putting the work into a thorough evaluation without having any information regarding the cost of an in-house attorney. It is similar to proceeding with a project without knowing the cost. She was unsure who would do those calculations. She did not think a city Edmonds’ size could function with only one in-house attorney. This is a flaw she found in the timeline. Another issue is the council has never contacted judges in the past. When Lighthouse was hired in 2010/2011, there was a lot of leftover work from the previous attorney that Lighthouse cleaned up. She also questioned asking the chair of boards and commissions to provide input, recalling in the past, only the council and the administration completed the performance evaluations. Councilmember Teitzel said Councilmember Buckshnis’ first concern is addressed in the February-March timeline in Attachment A, conduct research and present cost estimates and pro/con findings to council regarding contracting vs in-house city attorney services. With regard to contacting judges, the subcommittee is focused on collecting as much information as possible regarding the quality of Lighthouse’s work which would include the quality of their briefing, oral argument, preparation, etc. Judges will be contacted and if they are willing to provide information, it will be provided to council. With regard to boards and commissions, the subcommittee wanted to ask any City entity, elected official, administration and the mayor, city clerk, boards and commissions, etc. about their experience with Lighthouse if they have regular, direct interaction. That is a proposal; if council does not want the subcommittee to do it, they won’t. Speaking as a councilmember and not as a member of the subcommittee, Councilmember Paine agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE HAVING THE EVALUATION SENT TO THE CHAIR OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Councilmember Paine explained the reason was to not have input from community members and volunteers. It is appropriate for electeds, administration, and directors to provide input and she anticipated here would be plenty of material to evaluate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 13 Councilmember Nand did not support the motion. The proposal is to send assessments to the chair of boards and commission who interact with the city attorney. As a component that is consuming legal services provided by Lighthouse, it would be entirely appropriate to get their assessment. The intent is to build an objective tool to provide metrics on job performance for Lighthouse and to make a fair and objective recommendation to council later this year. The more information that can be collected from those who consume legal services, the more evenhanded and fair the assessment tool will be. She was opposed to removing the chair of boards and commissions who consume legal services through their City volunteer role. Councilmember Olson commented good points have been made on both sides. She will vote no on the motion for the reason the assessment might be used on an ongoing basis to provide feedback to the city attorney and the chairs of boards and commissions may be able to provide helpful feedback on an ongoing basis. Councilmember Chen said he will vote against the motion for the reasons stated by other councilmembers. Chairs of boards and commissions are volunteers, but they dedicate their time and expertise, they may be involved with the city attorney, and their input would be valid. Council President Tibbott asked how many chairs have interaction with the city attorney. Mr. Taraday answered it is very uncommon for him to have direct interaction with any board or commission chair. Every once in a while he may have a brief email exchange with the chair about what to include in training he is providing. In recent memory, that has only happened with only one board. If the council decides to keep that in the scope of the review process, it would be a pretty limited number of people. Most often City staff that serves that board or commission acts as an intermediary between him and the board/commission. If training is planned, it is usually the staff member who reaches out about doing the training and to describe what the board wants covered and there is very little direct interaction with the chair. Based on Mr. Taraday’s answer, Council President Tibbott said he would support the motion to remove the chair of boards and commissions, partially because the interaction with the city attorney is so limited that it strikes him as being additional work that would add very little to the outcome and the understanding of the city attorney services received. Councilmember Teitzel clarified, the survey was not just asking for input about Mr. Taraday specifically but Lighthouse attorneys. For example, a Lighthouse attorney attends most if not all disability board meetings. In that instance, the chair would have a clear view of the quality of Lighthouse’s work. Councilmember Nand commented as the council shifts from a flat rate fee with Lighthouse to an hourly basis, part of the decision making process will be whether Lighthouse will provide attorney services at the board/commission level. Feedback from that level could be helpful to the council in the future when making decisions about how to tailor services. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, OLSON AND NAND VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE LEGAL COMMITTEE TO ADD AN OPT OUT FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO THE SURVEY BEFORE THEY SEND IT OUT SO THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE INTERACTION DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE POOL OF INFORMATION. Councilmember Teitzel pointed out the motion not to send the survey to chairs of boards and commissions was passed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 14 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT THE 2023 CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT WORK PLAN. Councilmember Nand expressed appreciation to councilmembers who provided input. The subcommittee would like to get underway; this a very truncated work plan and a lot of work needs to be done. The target of June 2023 is proposed so there is not a surprise late in the year about the city attorney for 2024. She hoped the subcommittee had been able to adequately address all the council’s concerns about the assessment work plan and would empower the subcommittee to move forward as presented and amended. Councilmember Teitzel reiterated as the subcommittee proceeds through the work plan, they will collect information but will not make any recommendations or decisions. The subcommittee is simply collecting information for council’s use in considering how city attorney services should be obtained long term. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Regarding the performance survey document, Councilmember Teitzel advised after the council approves the survey, the subcommittee plans to submit it to respondents on February 1. The document will be emailed to internal clients who have regular interactions with Lighthouse which would include elected officials such as councilmembers and the mayor, directors, department heads and managers. The subcommittee would like to ask the mayor for a list of respondents who should receive the document because it will be important to get 100% response. The subcommittee will convert the evaluation document in the packet into an online Survey Monkey questionnaire for ease of use by the respondents. He anticipated it would be a brief effort; Attachment C is an example of the Survey Monkey format with boxes to check, 1-5 ratings, and an N/A option if the question does not apply. Councilmember Teitzel explained the first page of the survey in the packet is a set of instructions; that will not be included in the survey document but will be sent in an email to the respondents. Respondents will be asked to return the survey by February 16, giving them approximately two weeks to complete the survey. The survey should take only 15-20 minutes to complete. Response will be confidential with no names attached to assist in more accurate, forthcoming responses. The respondents will be grouped by category, for example elected officials, department heads, and managers. Councilmember Buckshnis said for those who have been around a long time, it may take longer than 10-15 minutes to complete the survey as she felt it was an extremely serious survey. She asked if the intent was to review all four years or just one year, pointing out things have changed drastically over the course of a couple years. She also hoped responses would not be limited to 120 characters. Councilmember Teitzel responded the instructions will ask respondents to think over a three year timeframe. His reference to 15-20 minutes to complete the survey may have been too offhand, it may take more or less time depending on the input provided. The Survey Monkey tool will make it much more convenient for respondents. There will be a comment box under each question and there will be no limit on the number of characters. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR LIGHTHOUSE CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 15 Councilmember Nand commented this was a work product of primarily of Councilmembers Teitzel and Paine as she just joined the subcommittee but she found it very comprehensive. As an attorney, she would find it very helpful to get this feedback from her clients. If there are no additional tweaks, she hoped the council would adopt the survey so it can be distributed to City staff and electeds. Mr. Taraday pointed out a tension between two things on the survey. One question asks if invoices accurately identify tasks and expenses in sufficient detail to provide accountability. Another question asks does Lighthouse maintain appropriate confidentially with regard to all matters discussed with the mayor, city council, department directors and city staff. He cannot maintain confidentiality if he includes a ton of detail in the invoices so the responses on those questions may be in tension with one another. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has a problem with question 6 in its entirety because council does not see the invoices, does not know who authorizes tasks, and some of the questions are too subjective. She asked if N/A would be an option in Survey Monkey. With regard to cost effectiveness, she recalled when the council began meeting via Zoom, suddenly Lighthouse was at all committee meetings which takes a lot of time. She suggested providing an N/A option because few of the respondents would have seen the invoices. Councilmember Teitzel answered there will be a N/A option on every question. With regard to costs, some respondents may have knowledge and be able to answer questions such as the finance department or some councilmembers. If they did not, N/A would be an option. With regard to Mr. Taraday’s comment about a potential tension between questions between 6c and 8b, Councilmember Nand assumed the administrative services director was reviewing the city attorney invoices. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding that the subcommittee will be reviewing invoice narratives this year; in the past there was no incentive to review the invoice narratives because the flat fee resulted in the same payment and he was unsure who reviewed them. He suspected the invoices would be looked at more closely this year and knowing that, Lighthouse was being careful about how bill narratives were phrased to not reveal the substance of conversations. Councilmember Nand aid she could see the sensitivity with serving different branches of City government. If that is a challenge, possibly the assessment subcommittee could provide guidance regarding the narrative. Speaking as a councilmember and not as a subcommittee member, Councilmember Paine she also had trouble with this questions because most respondents would not be qualified to evaluate that. The council sets the rate through the contract and also have oversight opportunity. The survey is looking backward three years when the fee was a flat rate. A better question would be whether time has been used effectively and efficiently. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE QUESTION 6 FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE BECAUSE IT WILL NOT NET USEFUL INFORMATION. Councilmember Teitzel explained the questions were developed by the subcommittee. Speaking as an individual councilmember, he did not have a strong concern if question 6 was removed because the City has been on a flat fee billing arrangement for the past three years with Lighthouse and the responses would not be as relevant if the City was on an hourly billing arrangement. Councilmember Nand suggested retaining question 6 as there will be an N/A option. Further, selecting your general role at the City in Survey Monkey, such as elected officials, director, department head or manager, will tailor the questions provided. Obviously directors and department heads will not be very concerned with cost or fiscal accountability or control so there would be no reason that question would be provided to them when taking the survey. For people like electeds who work on the budget, that would be a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 16 consideration and was a considerable consideration of the subcommittee in 2022 in providing options for an hourly or flat rate fee. She recommended retaining question 6 for electeds. Councilmember Chen agreed with previous comments to retain question 6. For anyone participating in the survey that did not have enough knowledge about that issue, they can always select N/A. Some of the respondents will have the knowledge, such as the finance team who review invoices. Councilmember Buckshnis said there is value to question 6 but the finance team does not look at it. For example, question 6d, Does Lighthouse display the ability and knowledge to research issues in a minimum amount of time, respondents will need to either guess or select N/A. With a flat rate, it is difficult to ascertain if Lighthouse is spending the right amount of time on tasks. She advised the finance committee has never looked at Lighthouse invoices. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, OLSON, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Teitzel recalled a councilmember saying this document could be the basis for an ongoing performance evaluation. The council does not have a formal evaluation process for the city attorney. If the performance evaluation tool works well, it could be done annually in the future. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 10.01 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Council President Tibbott explained this is a draft ordinance, An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, amending Chapter 10.01 ECC and establishing new processes related to the filing of openings on the City’s boards and commissions. He emphasized for the council and the public that the ordinance simply seeks to improve the way vacancies for all boards and commissions are filled. As due diligence was done looking at the process for appointment planning board members, it was realized the steps for filling vacancies have never been spelled out. The process relied on historical practices that had been followed for decades. He emphasized this was not an attempt by the council to control the administration or for the council to cover up its own lack of consistency in applying the process for selecting board and commission members. It is simply to address a gap in the process for forming boards and commissions and filling vacancies when they happen. He emphasized there was no wrongdoing and no rules were broken in the process of bringing forward recommendations for the planning board. The way those recommendations were brought forward was in line with the unwritten ideas and former practices. Council President Tibbott expressed appreciation for those who volunteer on boards and commissions; they play a very important role, some in an advisory capacity and others are citizen input groups that provide information to the council and as a sounding board for the community. The City’s boards and commissions are very important so it is critical to outline how positions are filled. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised in drafting the ordinance, he primarily worked with the Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson. It started with a conversation to outline concepts that needed to be addressed in an ordinance and to kick around ideas and generally establish the scope of what would be included in this chapter. Ms. Peterson sent him her notes/thoughts and he developed the draft ordinance with a few tweaks along the way. As with most code chapters of this type, it is entirely subject to council discretion; there is no state law that governs these processes so council is free to make changes. He provided an overview of the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 17 • 10.01.010 Public notification of service opportunities o States the city will provide public notification of all opportunities to serve on boards and commissions including vacancies, terms that are ending even if the incumbent wants to renew. o Provides timelines for when notice should occur: 14 days after a vacancy occurs or 90 days prior to a term expiring. • 10.01.020 Means of notification. o There are three types of notification, posting on the City website, media release and including in the Received for Filing section of the council packet. o The posting on the website would be in place for at least 30 days • 10.01.030 Content of notice. o Identifies the particular board or commission that has the vacancy or opportunity, what position, the length of the term, application materials and where to find them, the submission deadline, inviting incumbents to reapply, and anticipated timeline for making the appointment. • 10.01.040 Incumbents o States incumbents need to submit an application to be considered for reappointment • 10.01.050 Timeline for submission, review and appointment o Section A  Submission for a vacant position cannot happen until at least 14 days after the last of the three types of notice was provided.  Submission deadline for positions whose term is expiring cannot happen until at least 30 days after the three types of public notice was provided. o Section B  For positions that become vacant, appointment shall occur no later than 90 days after the vacancy occurs  For positions whose term will be expiring, appointment shall occur no later than 30 days prior to expiration of term. o Section C  In the event of no qualified application responds by the application deadline public notification process restarts o Section D  Notice of appointment shall be provided to city council within 5 days • 10.01.060 Multiple contemporaneous openings o Appointing authority can treat an application for one position as an application for another position on the same body. • 10.01.070 Resignations o A vacancy caused by resignation shall be deemed to occur upon the effective date of the resignation. Where an intended resignation is announced in advance, no vacancy occurs until the date set forth in the resignation announcement. Would allow someone to withdraw an announced resignation. o Consistent with state case law that addresses this type of situation • 10.01.080 Roster of positions o City clerk will maintain a roster of all board and commission positions and their term expiration dates • 10.01.090 Council confirmation o Contains portions of existing Section 10.01.010 o Requires city council to act on proposed confirmation no later than 30 days after notification • 10.01.100 Noncompliance o City council can still confirm an appointee even if there was a flaw in the process o Any noncompliance brought to the city council’s attention after confirmation would not result in forfeiture of office. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 18 Mr. Taraday summarized the goal is to develop a process that meets the City’s needs. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.01 ECC ESTABLISHING NEW PROCESSES RELATED TO FILLING OPENINGS ON THE ON CITY’S BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Council President Tibbott explained in developing the ordinance, consideration was given to, 1) best practices in other cities, 2) the city attorney was asked to ensure the ordinance was consistent with other appointment and hiring process in the City, and 3) recapture best practices used in the past to appoint board and commission members. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND 10.01.020 MEANS OF NOTIFICATION, SECTION B, MEDIA RELEASE, TO INCORPORATE A REQUIREMENT OF PAID ADVERTISEMENT IN AT LEAST TWO LOCAL PUBLICATIONS. Councilmember Nand explained the reason she supports putting funding behind the publication is because it is a constant struggle to get people who are geographically diverse and from non-traditional backgrounds to participate in City boards and commissions. Widening the reach through paid advertisement would expand the pool of applicants instead of the usual suspects. She would like to see a wider pool of applicants that are more geographically diverse, represent a bigger age range and non-traditional backgrounds get involved in City governance and the political process via volunteerism. Councilmember Paine asked if the motion was to include other languages. Councilmember Nand said she would defer to the administration’s communications coordinator Kelsey Foster. That would be a valuable addition if that was something she was able to incorporate. Councilmember Chen asked if that was already covered in 10.01.020.B Media release. Councilmember Nand explained her reading of .020 is it would be just a press release that is sent to various publications who can choose whether to publish it. A paid advertisement would place the open position in a more prominent way and guarantee that it is carried in at least two local publications. Councilmember Chen said 10.01.020.B Media release already cover a lot of media. He suggested specifying Korean, Chinese, or Hispanic publications, because otherwise it would not help. Councilmember Nand asked if he was suggesting instead of just paid advertisements in a minimum of two local publications, there also be a requirement that one be in a non-English language. Councilmember Chen began to amend the amendment to add the above. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order that there cannot be an amendment to an amendment. Mr. Taraday advised an amendment to an amendment is allowed. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO SPECIFY THE PAID MEDIA MUST BE THE MAIN MINORITY LANGUAGES SUCH AS HISPANIC, KOREAN, AND CHINESE MEDIA. Councilmember Chen commented it was a good idea to expand the reach in terms of advertising board and commission openings. In Edmonds, the three main minority languages are Korean, Chinese and Hispanic. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Councilmember Chen meant Spanish rather than Hispanic. She asked if that meant there would be interpreters as part of boards and commissions. If the City is publicizing in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 19 foreign languages, she asked if there would be a requirement that the applicant understand English or would individuals from minority populations be selected and the City provide interpreters as part of the board or commission. She suggested this needed to be thought through a little more. Councilmember Olson said Councilmember Buckshnis’ point was also on her mind. She understands the idea behind this, but was uncertain advertising in foreign languages was of value if the applicants did not speak English, the language the board and commission’s business would be conducted in, and feared it may cause frustration. She will vote against all of these well intentioned, good thoughts in the big picture in terms of trying to achieve something. If these amendments were not approved, the council could add an intent to achieve outreach to minority communities through appropriate means and each time there is an opening, the City administration can determine what that means for the particular board/commission opening. It could be an announcement at a community center or church, a bulletin board or through people who are in contact with a specific community, etc. She understood what the amendments were trying to achieve, but she did not think being that prescriptive added value. Councilmember Nand strongly disagreed with Councilmembers Buckshnis and Olson’s comments. If an member of the deaf community applied and needed an ASL interpreter, the City would find a way to accommodate due to the value of that person’s input. Saying it would be too arduous for someone who speaks English as a second language to participate on a board or commissions is very offensive to communities of color of which she and Councilmember Chen are members. Both she and Councilmember Chen come from bilingual households, she is the daughter of immigrants and Councilmember Chen is himself an immigrant. She felt it was saying the City didn’t want people from the English as a second language community because it might be too difficult to incorporate them into a board or commission. Councilmember Nand expressed support for Councilmember Chen’s amendment. Her original amendment was paid advertisements in a minimum of two local publications. Councilmember Chen added to include advertisements targeted to the English as a second language community. To anyone listening who speaks English as second language or is a member of deaf community, she assured the City would find a way to accommodate them if they wanted to participate in a board or commission. Councilmember Buckshnis said Councilmember Nand put words in her mouth that she did not say. She has no problem with what Councilmembers Nand and Chen are attempting to accomplish but was thinking of the unintended consequences. There have been deaf individuals on the diversity commission. She referred to Councilmember Nand’s clarification of English as a second language. She was unsure why Councilmember Nand was stating the council was attempting to not be inclusive; she welcomed English as a second language individuals. Her question was if the person did not speak English, was the intent to have interpreters. She was offended that Councilmember Nand was accusing her of making gestures when all she was asking for was a response. Mayor Nelson encouraged councilmembers to maintain respect for each other. Councilmember Olson pointed out the original discussion was not English as a second language, it was advertising in a different language where it was very likely to find people who do not speak English as a second language. That was her point, not that she did not welcome people who speak English as a second language. If someone who did not speak English wanted to participate, consideration could be given to what logistics would be required to accommodate that. Seeking people who will have that additional difficulty interacting with other members of the board or commission and doing the work and business of reading packets, etc. is a lot for the City to take on. Councilmember Chen assured all councilmembers were open minded and welcoming and the questions and discussion are for the good of order. No one has any judgment against non-English speaking people. His Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 20 amendment was just to make it available and provide for a broader reach. In the United States, business is still conducted in English. Mr. Taraday said he heard the original motion as one of the two publications would in a non-English speaking publication and it was subsequently refined as publishing in Chinese, Korean and Spanish. He asked that the amendment be restated. Councilmember Chen restated his amendment: TO HAVE BOARD AND COMMISSION OPENINGS PUBLISHED IN THREE MAJOR NON- ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS INCLUDING KOREAN, CHINESE AND SPANISH. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine asked who would manage this process. It appears to be council directed but she questioned whether it would be managed by the administration and then turned over to council for the application review. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, stating the council should vote on the amendment. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Nand restated the amended amendment: REVISE 10.01.020.B MEDIA RELEASE TO INCLUDE PAID ADVERTISEMENTS IN A MINIMUM OF TWO LOCAL PUBLICATIONS WHICH WAS AMENDED TO BE PAID ADVERTISEMENT IN A MINIMUM OF FIVE LOCAL PUBLICATIONS INCLUDING THREE IN MAJORITY LANGUAGES OF CHINESE, KOREAN AND SPANISH. Mr. Taraday agreed that is how he interpreted the effect of the passage of the amendment. He was familiar with statutes that require paid advertising and many include a frequency element. He suggested the frequency be clarified. Councilmember Nand suggested a minimum of two weeks of at least once week paid advertisement. Councilmember Buckshnis said it was her understanding there would be three publications but now five are proposed. She questioned what department would fund this and hoped it would not come from city council funds. If it was not paid from city council funds, the mayor should have some say in this. Mayor Nelson said councilmembers have reached out to other cities but have not reached out to the administration. He was also concerned that the council was ready to vote on this the same night it was introduced which was usually not done. He questioned how this very elaborate, thorough, in-depth outreach would be funded, who would do it, and what it means for boards and commissions. It has big implications and he found it surprising that none of the City’s directors had been contacted. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was just as concerned because this has morphed into a very expensive proposal. She suggested going back to the drawing board and that the administration have some input because this could get very costly, an issue for a fiscal conservative like her. She was trying to figure out what councilmembers were trying to accomplish and suggested it be considered in a committee or subcommittee that works with the administration. She was not in favor of the amendment without further information about the cost. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 21 Council President Tibbott said he was under the impression that the amendment was to publish notice in two publications and one of the announcements would be in three different languages so it was not necessarily to publish in three separate publications. He supported publication in two hard copy publications to extend the reach, but found it difficult to agree to more than that. Councilmember Olson commented it was unlikely the council would get through all the conversation and amendments on this tonight and suggested tabling it. The council has no idea of the cost of the additional advertising that has been proposed, an off-the-cuff idea from the dais that has not been vetted which she felt was a very bad idea. She suggested moving on to the vote and reconsidering it when information regarding the cost is available next week. There has been a lot of board and commission turnover and vacancies in the past 2-3 months so it is probably not prudent to pass this tonight without any forethought on the subject. Councilmember Chen agreed with what has been said regarding taking more time to digest this and do further research. His amendment was meant to replace the two original publications, not increase it to five. Councilmember Paine said if a board member needed sign language, it would be an ADA violation not to provide it. The council should always be thinking about people with differences that need to be accommodated. Councilmember Nand liked Council President Tibbott’s suggestion for two local publications in multiple languages and anticipated Councilmember Chen would also support that. Mr. Taraday said he was confused where to go now procedurally because prior to the last 5-2 vote, the intent of that amendment was clarified to publish in three publications, a Spanish publication, a Korean publication, and a Chinese publication. Maybe Councilmember Chen was saying he wanted to advertise in three languages other than English but in an English-speaking publication which is different. He suggested going back to that vote and get additional clarification and revote if Councilmember Chen was saying the effect of his amendment was not what he intended. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday’s comment was for the council to recall the vote to Councilmember Chen’s amendment to her amendment and call the vote on her amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said what is needed is a big board on the wall that shows the text of pending motions so the council can agree on the motion they are voting on. He was still unclear whether Councilmember Chen’s motion was publishing in three languages in an English publication or in a foreign language publication. Councilmember Chen commented it would not make sense to publish foreign languages in an English publication; it has to be in the foreign language publication that reaches that audience. His original intent was to publish notice in Korean, Spanish and Chinese publications. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember Chen’s amendment was instead of two English plus the Spanish, Chinese and Korean, it would be no English and Spanish, English and Chinese. Councilmember Chen said the media releases in English were not paid advertisements. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember Nand’s original amendment was to have paid English advertisements of the vacancies. He was trying to understand if the intent was to substitute the paid English ads for the Spanish, Korean, Chinese ads or supplement the paid English ads with Korean, Chinese and Spanish ads; it is either three ads or five ads. Councilmember Chen suggested tabling and do some research. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin said what has been done in the past with ethnic media sources through the equitable engagement framework such as regarding the comprehensive plan this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 22 summer, was to send a press release in multiple languages, for example to the Korean newspaper, and they can choose whether to publish it just like a press release sent to other media channels. She recommended doing that, sending a press release which can be translated into multiple languages and the ethnic media sources can choose whether to publish it or not. Councilmember Teitzel expressed concern the council was getting bogged down in detail which was not productive. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE FOR ONE WEEK AND DIRECT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO MEET WITH THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF TO WORK THROUGH DETAILS AND BRING THIS BACK NEXT WEEK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND A VOTE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. 2023 COUNCIL RETREAT PLANNING Council President Tibbott referred to the proposed agenda in packet and suggested the retreat not be held virtually. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO HOLD THE COUNCIL RETREAT IN A NON-VIRTUAL FASHION UTILIZING THE RESOURCES OF RECORDKEEPER. Council President Tibbott commented the council has not had an in-person retreat for at least 3 years. The design of this retreat includes a lot of movement around room and the formation of discussion groups making it difficult to provide microphones and capture multiple people talking at same time. The room will be large enough to accommodate the public, all are welcome to participate and notes will be available. The most important reason not to have a virtual environment is to avoid misinterpretation of comments made on the side or jokingly as attendees are working. He asked the council to approve a non-virtual event for this retreat and looked forward to a lot of interaction. The results of the planning process will be available for everyone to see. Councilmember Paine said although she has a better understanding of why Council President Tibbott wants the retreat not to be virtual, it eliminates the ability for the public to watch, listen and observe the process. Although people will be moving around, there will also be time for discussion which she felt would be helpful for the community to watch in real time. The Brackett Room has great equipment; she attends committee meetings there regularly and it has good virtual function. The council could all agree to attend in person unless they are ill to facilitate face to face conversations. She preferred to have the virtual opportunity available for the public, not necessarily for the council, as that ability is provided for all other meetings and this is no different. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Tibbott. A retreat has a lot of moving parts. A lot of people like the virtual aspect, but when it was done for the Housing Commission, it was very difficult to follow. The public can read the minutes or attend the meeting if they wish. It would be wonderful to have a retreat in person and not worry about the virtual aspect. For example, she tried to listen in on a virtual Rotary meeting today, but it does not work well. A retreat should be informal, fun and invigorating. A virtual format does not work well with in a large group setting and retreats in the past were never virtual. Councilmember Olson said it will not be a great spectator event via virtual means. The press will cover the meeting and it is an open meeting for anyone to attend. Hybrid meetings are not required, the council does it to provide access. When the experience of that access will not be good, won’t add to the spectator experience and makes it more difficult for the participants, there are reasons at times, such as this retreat, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 23 to suspend that extra hybrid aspect. She was asked in advance about not holding the retreat virtually and although she initially was skeptical, after the logistical aspects were described, she agreed that was the right choice. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. Council President Tibbott said the agenda will include a presentation by CEO, Association of Washington Cities Deanna Dawson, a former Edmonds councilmember, who will talk with the council about her ideas for efficient and effective council meetings. That agenda item will include Q&A and he invited councilmembers to submit questions to him in advance. Councilmember Paine asked if the agenda will include discussion about budget planning. There are two appointed council positions; the person who is elected will be installed the day the election is verified which is in the middle of budget season. She was hopeful there would be an opportunity to discuss council budget planning to get ahead of that before candidates file for council positions and in a way that honors the integrity of the budget process. Council President Tibbott agreed there would be. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reminded of the Lunar New Year Celebration beginning Saturday at 10 a.m. in downtown Edmonds. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nand asked Councilmember Chen since it is the Year of the Rabbit, would it be appropriate for her to bring her pet rabbits to the celebration. Councilmember Nand answered definitely. Councilmember Nand encouraged the public to attend Saturday’s New Year Celebration and pet a real rabbit. She expressed her appreciation for to her fellow councilmembers, recognizing discussions sometimes get feisty. She wished all a joyful and lucky Year of Rabbit. Councilmember Paine wished everyone all the good fortune of Lunar New Year and assured she will attend the Lunar New Year Celebration. She thanked the community members who put on the spectacular Lift Every Voice program at the Waterfront Center, a full day of activities including 500 kids in the morning and a program in the evening that was all about love, a very powerful, uplifting, joyful message. She got a lot out of it and hoped that program would continue in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she thought she would never get COVID because she has been so cautious but she did and is recovering. She opined the integrity of the budget process in 2021 was very flawed and suggested everyone watch that meeting. She was out of town at the wedding of her brother’s only daughter on November 18th, an event the council president knew about. She has called in during vacations, during Packer games, and from Lithuania, so was upset at being blamed for not calling in. Weddings and funerals take precedence over a budget process and there was no reason to have the vote on the budget occur with an appointed councilmember. She hoped Council President Tibbott realizes the budget process does not have to occur prior to installation of the elected candidate. She recalled Will Chen spoke on November 17 about a lot of her budget amendments. All councilmembers have a voice and the council president should represent all councilmembers. She was never called or even told what an adjournment meeting was. She hoped the council learned from their mistakes including that the integrity of the budget rests on the entire council, not just four members. Council President Tibbott said when he spoke with Deanna Dawson, former Edmonds councilmember and now CEO of AWC, he bragged about the council. The council has improved so much in the last year in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 17, 2023 Page 24 how they deliberate, listen to each other, and make decisions. Part of the retreat is to develop a work plan that will help the council move to the next level with the achievements made in 2022. Councilmember Olson commented it is time to circle back to the statement made by Finance Director Dave Turley at the December 13 meeting that he felt disrespected by the council motion and 6-1 vote at the December 10 budget meeting to direct him to post the budget spreadsheet and impacts so that council could feel confident about approving the final budget on December 13. His statement included a non-specific request for a public apology. She revisited the meetings and communicated with MSRC. This event occurred at the tail end of a four hour meeting and an intense three month budget season where all members of the administration and council and especially the finance director and council worked together collaboratively to develop and deliver a budget they were proud of and that represented the community’s priorities. Director Turley, the whole administration and the council worked very hard with the best intentions and no one has anything to apologize for in that regard. In response to Mayor Nelson saying if council wanted to direct staff to do something that a motion was needed, she offered the motion that directed staff. That was a crossed line as it is never appropriate for council to direct staff. The motion should have been directed to the mayor that his administration post the spreadsheet on the website. She will do it that way in the future and she apologized to the mayor and Director Turley for the misstep. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:10. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Councilmember Chen commented on how lucky he was to be part of this community where all voices are heard. His experience as resident and as councilmember is he feels included and accepted. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Day celebration and the artists who put up the welcome figure at the Waterfront Center also expressed the same feeling. Korean American Day on January 13 was a big celebration as well as Martin Luther King’s message that love overcomes hate. There are red lanterns around the City for the Lunar New Year and he invited everyone to attend the celebration. Councilmember Teitzel said he attended the Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration at the Waterfront Center; it was very well done and he applauded Lift Every Voice Legacy, Donnie Griffin in particular, for putting on such a great event. He found it very uplifting and the main message was love conquers hate, something everyone needs to keep in mind. As he heard that message yesterday, he reflected on how the council and administration should take that to heart and work together and give each other grace and slack at times when things get tense. Election season is approaching and things may get more tense. Councilmember Teitzel congratulated Kevin Fagerstom, his appointment to the tree board on tonight’s consent agenda. There were two excellent candidates to consider and it was a very close call, but Mr. Fagerstrom, in addition to having very strong tree knowledge and living in Edmonds for over 30 years, was also the code manager for the City of Everett and has a very strong knowledge of code. The tree board will benefit from his combined knowledge of trees and code. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. ____ SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK