Loading...
2023-04-18 Regular Meeting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES April 18, 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 Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Rose Hahn, 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 TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO REMOVE ITEM 8.4, TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - LICENSING FEE INCREASE. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 2 Bill Derry urged the council to support the MOU with WSDOT for the Unocal property. He read the language in the legislation, noting there is an impression that the City already has an MOU for first right of refusal. “During the 2023/2025 biennium if the department takes possession of the property situated in the City of Edmonds for which a purchase agreement was executed between Unocal and the Department in 2005, and if the Department confirms that the property is still no longer needed for transportation purposes, the Department shall provide the City of Edmonds with first right of purchase at fair market value in accordance with RCW 46.12.063 for the City’s intended use of property to rehabilitate nearshore habitat for salmon and related species.” He emphasized the City does not have first right of refusal; the legislation simply directs WSDOT to negotiate a first right of refusal with the City. He urged the council to support the MOU because denying it means the City has no first right of refusal for purchase of the property. He asked what message that would send to the legislature if they go to the trouble of adding a provision and the City of Edmonds says, oh, never mind, we changed our mind. He noted there was nothing in the MOU that affects the City’s ability to direct land use now or in the future. The MOU can be renegotiated or terminated, it is non-binding, is a first right of refusal and can be refused if the terms are not acceptable when the time comes. Since it is a legislative action, it only applies to the current biennium and legislation currently under review would apply to the next biennium, but then would terminate; it is not a permanent agreement, it is a just a directive to WSDOT. Jim Pomelo agreed with Bill Derry’s comments, the MOU is a non-binding agreement. Lynn Pomelo agreed with Jim Pomelo’s comments. Laura Walls, Edmonds, spoke in favor of signing the MOU between the City of Edmonds and WSDOT regarding the purchase of the Unocal parcel. She understood there were differences of opinion regarding when to sign it due to uncertainty about the toxicity report and the mandate for high density housing coming from the State. She feared the goal of preserving and expanding the marsh may be lost through delay and trusted that the city council would work closely to prevent that calamity. She purchased her property in Edmonds specifically because it looks out on the marsh, its shifting moods in all weathers, the tidal surges, the continual pageantry of wildlife, and constant visitors strolling the boardwalk. Few people know about the marsh, hidden behind a shopping mall and built over the marsh’s northern third, the boardwalk gives only limited access to what’s left and no trespassing signs barricade the marsh’s southern half, the Unocal parcel. What people can’t see is that the Edmonds Marsh is part of a single and spectacularly diverse ecosystem and the disputed Unocal parcel is the missing piece that pulls it all together. Acquiring and restoring the Unocal site to a fully functioning estuary is absolutely crucial to reuniting the larger pieces into a larger vision. Ms. Walls continued, imagine Edmonds Park, the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery, the restored Edmonds Marsh and estuary and Marina Beach all interconnected into a single natural area, a priceless necklace of cultural, historic, artistic and natural treasures reaching from lowland forest to freshwater marsh, to saltwater estuary to shoreline beaches. The educational potential for a restored marsh estuary complete with trails, viewing stations and the interpretive center at Willow Creek Hatchery is enormous. Edmonds tidal marsh is the heart of this entire system, nothing less than the heartbeat of Edmonds and the remediated Unocal parcel is the missing piece, the one that joins together the other elements of this ecological whole. As the resident of a condo complex, she recognized that high density housing is also essential, but without protected public commons open to everyone, high density housing becomes crowded and oppressive. By contrast, Edmonds thrives because of its great diversity of public spaces. Losing the beautiful and vibrant wilderness at Edmonds backdoor, the greater Edmonds Marsh and estuary, will be the loss of the heart of Edmonds. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, said the MOU is a significant step forward and should be signed. She reviewed the following to dispel misconceptions, 1) the MOU locks the City into the current development zoning for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 3 the purpose of determining fair market value. No, the MOU does not address zoning and does not bind the City to anything. 2) the current HB 1110 will increase the possibility of housing density on the Unocal property. No, the MOU does not do that, it is impossible to walk to the train station in ½ mile or less unless one walks on water. Although she could dispel other misconceptions, she trusted the council could figure them out. Signing the MOU is important and should be done sooner rather than later. The City’s most important marsh-related need is raising its negotiating status with WSDOT. The MOU does that by beginning communication about the Unocal purchase. The fact that WSDOT has already signed the MOU is huge; they have made a gesture of goodwill demonstrating their willingness to work with the City and she was pleasantly surprised and very relieved by that. Less than four years ago, the council voted down the waterfront connector agreement that the former mayor negotiated with WSDOT. She still believes that was absolutely the right decision; however, it has had repercussions because WSDOT felt burned by the City. In subsequent discussions about marsh restoration with Senator Marko Liias and Representative Strom Peterson, each made it clear that WSDOT’s biggest takeaway from that was that Edmonds’ government was not unified and thus not a reliable negotiating party. To work with WSDOT in the future, they advised the City to ensure that the administration and council were on the same page. Signing the MOU will demonstrate that. The City needs WSDOT more than WSDOT needs the City; the MOU is not just a goodwill gesture, it describes the process that can be used to transfer the property which no other current document does. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, completed Ms. Sears’ comments, if I have learned one thing in my 72+ years on this planet, it is that relationships are important. She encouraged the council to exemplify this value by authorizing the signing of the MOU. Ms. Fields began her comments, everyone wants what’s best for the marsh. Whether the MOU helps or hinders that goal has obviously led to arguments and questions and concerns about the wording and impact of the MOU have be raised. Those questions and concerns have been taken seriously by her colleagues and her in the Edmonds Marsh estuary advocacy group. After carefully studying the issues, they came to the conclusion that many of the concerns are extraneous to the scope of an MOU, some are not supported by facts or are best dealt with after signing, and others are covered in other documents. They see no risk in signing the non-binding MOU now. Their team is convinced that not signing would carry enormous risks, sending a message to WSDOT that the City is not serious about purchasing the property and indicating to the legislature and potential funding sources that the City is not serious about restoring the marsh. WSDOT does not need Edmonds; if Edmonds looks like an unreliable business partner, WSDOT can sell the property elsewhere. Grant agencies don’t need Edmonds either. Edmonds needs to show they are committed to purchasing the Unocal property and using it to restore the marsh to a fully functioning estuary. Similarly, legislators do not want to waste their time supporting Edmonds and restoring the marsh if Edmonds cannot agree on what it wants to do. Lack of commitment is the message that would be sent by rejecting the MOU. Mike Mitchell, Edmonds, speaking as a Pt. Edwards owner, said he worked on getting the permit for the land use action on the Pt. Edwards slope and is familiar with the issues and work done by the planning board. He returned from vacation to discussions about the MOU; Pt. Edwards is the largest abutting land owner (261 residences) with more viewpoints of the marsh than anywhere else and no one notified them about this issue. There is the boardwalk near the businesses, two viewpoints on Pine Street, and another on the loop road and a path with views of the marsh that is open the public that was imposed upon the developer; there is no good viewpoint from SR-104 or the railroad tracks. Someone put up notices at the viewpoints encouraging people to take photos which some residents objected to. With regard to views, he did not anticipate housing would be built on the Unocal property, more likely it would be recreation, salmon restoration, wildlife and urban forest. He urged the City to ensure viewpoints of whatever occurs in the marsh. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he has spent more time in the marsh than everyone in the room collectively. He knows the marsh, he has spent time there, he has talked to WSDOT, he knows the facts and the misconceptions, and knows BS when he sees it. The council has a serious challenge before it, making a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 4 decision that will have huge implications on the waterfront and the Edmonds taxpayers. He asked about the SEPA document, required when decisions of significance to the environment or human health. He suggested without a SEPA document, the council could not make a decision tonight. He referred to the FAQ in the packet, noting one question everyone has been asking is not included, why doesn’t the MOU mention the marsh? He asked how people can say the MOU is beneficial to the marsh when the words marsh or salmon do not appear in the document. He was offended and suggested the city attorney should be offended by the fact that there is essentially a blackmail attempt in the MOU; WSDOT is saying they have documents that may change the City’s mind on the property, but they will not release them until the City signs the MOU. He questioned why the MOU does not refer to the tidal negotiations that WSDOT will be entering into with the Department of Ecology, and Chevron purchase and sale agreement, Clause 4.3.7 refers to restricted covenants. If councilmembers were not aware of that issue, he suggested they needed to vote no on the MOU. Susie Shafer, Edmonds, said she has talked to the council about the marsh many times since the early 80s but did not plan to talk about it tonight. She provided a copy of the governor’s proclamation on native plants, recalling she read it in its entirety at past meetings. She suggested when the council meets with various committees and departments, they should ask what they are doing for native plants. She questioned why some areas of the City do not include native plants. There are plans to plant a beautiful Nootka rose hedge in City Park and native plants like the Nootka rose could be planted in other areas of the City. She suggested permits the City obtains should include native plants. She displayed a book, “Nature’s Best Hope” by Douglas Tallamy regarding planting of native plants. Bernie Zavala, Edmonds, said he has been following and volunteering for the restoration of the Edmonds Marsh for a few years. The Edmonds Marsh is a true treasure for the City. It was once a true estuary, providing a pathway for salmon habitation. WSDOT listed the former Unocal Edmonds bulk fuel terminal cleanup under the Model Toxics Control Act and has been working with Unocal and Chevron to remediate the toxic site. The cleanup is not complete and only early or interim action has taken place. Documents will be released in summer 2023 that will lead toward a final remedy. He works in the environmental field and recommended the city council not sign the MOU until all the data and recommendations have been put forward by Ecology. It is important that cleanup standards are set to ensure sediment, groundwater and surface water cleanup is adequate to protect the marsh and its habitat from the marsh to the Puget Sound. He concluded it was too early for the City to sign an MOU with WSDOT. Megan McDonald, Edmonds, a resident of Pt. Edwards and strong supporter of the marsh and estuary, asked why the City was not changing the comprehensive plan and what was the City’s overall position related to the marsh. There is no shame in being a prudent buyer; being a prudent buyer does not mean the City is an unreliable buyer. Greg Ferguson urged the council to approve the signing of the MOU between the City and WSDOT for several reasons, one of which is Section 3 of the MOU states “It is the intent of WSDOT to first offer the purchase of the former Unocal property to the City as outlined in this MOU.” This right of first purchase is important in maintaining Edmonds’ options. The MOU discusses a first offer to purchase, not a first right of refusal. If the MOU process is followed, there will not be a bidding war; as explained in the MOU, the price of the property would be set by a professional appraisal and Edmonds would be in a position to accept or decline that appraisal. The appraisal will be based on the conditions of the property at the time of sale, not the current condition. Those conditions include the future zoning classification, future critical area designations, and the remaining levels of contamination. The MOU does not restrict the City’s rights to make decisions about zoning and critical area designations and does not force the City to purchase property that may have high levels of contamination or that other natural resource agencies may be willing to own. With regard to the first right of purchase, a March update from Ecology describes a site cleanup process that will extend until the end of 2025. Edmonds’ first right of purchase included in the next State budget will not be in effect when the Unocal parcels goes up for sale. The MOU clearly states WSDOT’s intent to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 5 provide that right with no time limit. Without the MOU, the City runs the risk of not being in the first position when the Unocal parcel is sold. The MOU is a good deal for the City and he urged the council to sign it before it goes away. Brock Howell, Executive Director, Snohomish County Transportation Coalition (Snotrac), explained they bring together human services providers and transportation providers and planner to find mobility gaps for people with disabilities, older adults, and low income individuals. He referred to the agenda item related to increasing the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) fee by $20. Undoubtedly the City has a need and he applauded the City for identifying a funding source to address its transportation needs. He recalled several elementary school parents speaking to the council a few weeks ago about the need for safety improvements and their support for school speed zone cameras. As the council considers this increase, a key consideration is what to do with the funds; he urged the council to think about priorities related to safety, encouraging people to walk and bike, addressing the needs of people with disabilities by implementing the ADA transition plan, and addressing climate change. He suggested dedicating the funds from the school speed zone cameras to safety projects at locations where cameras are located and making the same considerations for funds generated by the TBD fee increase. Ron Eber urged the council to sign the MOU, commenting it is a classic situation of seeing the forest and not just the trees and getting buried in the weeds/reeds of non-native plants. When dealing with complex negotiations between people who do not see eye to eye, keeping everyone at table, talking and working through the issues, particular since a lot of the points are non-binding, is the way to go. If the City does not sign the MOU and there is no willingness to renegotiate it, then all there is the new budget note that directs WSDOT to get first right of refusal. That is down the line and all the other steps that are needed and relationship building will be lost. He could nitpick provisions of the MOU, but it is big picture that’s important. There is a lot of misinformation about whether the MOU affects the City’s authority to do planning and zoning in next 1-2 years. As stated in his written comments along with supporting documents, the MOU does not say anything about past, current or future zoning or planning, and does nothing to curtail the authority in ECC Title 20 or what is expressly in the contract to rezone the property that the City approved for Chevron in 2002. He agreed planning and zoning changes are needed in the future because the current master plan and zoning will allow a lot of development that is absolutely incompatible with protecting the marsh. As a longtime planner, he knew doing that will be difficult; the waterfront study identifies some of the steps, but much more work is needed. He urged the council to sign the MOU and keep the process going. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. FEBRUARY 2023 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 4. COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO A BOARD/COMMISSION 5. CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION - SUPERIOR COURT FEEDBACK 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Teitzel requested Item 7.6, Ordinance Adopting Minor Code Amendment Package 1 (AMD2023-0003) be pulled from Consent and added as Council Business Agenda Item 1 for a brief discussion and to renumber the remaining agenda items. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 6 1. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2023 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT TO A BOARD/COMMISSION 7. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BHC TO PROVIDE DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PHASE 11 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. APPROVAL OF WATER QUALITY COMBINED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND CITY OF EDMONDS (WQC-2023-EDMOND-00101) 9. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC (DEA) FOR THE ELM WAY WALKWAY PROJECT 10. EDMONDS ARTS FESTIVAL, 4TH OF JULY & TASTE EDMONDS EVENT AGREEMENTS 11. PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER JOB DESCRIPTION UPDATE 12. EPOA - LAW SUPPORT 2023-2024 | COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 13. COMMANDER BENEFIT 14. WASHINGTON STATE ALLOCATION AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS PAID BY CERTAIN SETTLING OPIOID MANUFACTURERS AND PHARMACIES 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ORDINANCE ADOPTING MINOR CODE AMENDMENT PACKAGE 1 (AMD2023-0003) Councilmember Teitzel advised there were three items in the minor code amendment package related to the ECC which was not addressed in the ordinance the council passed which focused primarily on the ECDC. He asked if it was appropriate for the council to consider approving the three ECC code amendments. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the reason the ECC code amendments are not addressed in the ordinance that created this special streamlined process is because ECC amendments do not go to the planning board and this was an effort to take non-substantive amendments, things unrelated to policy, and not clog up the planning board’s agenda. There was no need to create that special process for ECC amendments because those amendments can go straight to the council. The fact that there are non- substantive ECC and EDC cleanup amendments in same ordinance is fine because the ordinance is drafted in a manner that is broad enough to encompass them all. Councilmember Teitzel was glad the ECC amendments were included because it was council’s intent that the code rewrite include the ECC and ECDC. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the second paragraph under background/history in the agenda memo related to the three ECC amendments, “These changes are not subject to the minor code amendment process in ECDC 20.80 but can be included with regular omnibus revision packages…” He asked about “omnibus revision packages” and how that relates to what is proposed tonight. Mr. Taraday said the memo was written by staff so he wanted them to have an opportunity to supplement his response, but omnibus package is a shorthand way of referencing all the amendments attached to the ordinance for this quarter. In a future quarter, there will be another omnibus package of non-substantive amendments. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin agreed with Mr. Taraday’s explanation, explaining the intent was to provide minor amendments quarterly in an omnibus approach. Councilmember Nand referred to Section 5.4.040 unlawful possession of library books, commenting it appeared a previous section was removed, but not replaced. Ms. McLaughlin answered this is an outdated reference; Sno Isle does no longer collects fines for overdue library materials. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 7 Councilmember Olson referred to Section 2.10.050 References, “Wherever references are made in the Edmonds City Code, the Edmonds Community Development Code or any ordinance of the city to the community development director, said reference shall hereafter be construed to mean the planning and development development services director. She was concerned without truly vetting that change, planning and development may be incorrectly substituted where the community services department or director of that department is correctly referenced. Ms. McLaughlin acknowledged this can be confusing. The reference to community services is so outdated that it previously referred to the public works department and at times community development which was the previous name of development services. The change in the name from development services to planning and development will not change that authority unless it was already erroneously assigned. The language, community services shall hereafter be construed to mean planning and development, is already in the code. This minor code amendment package flags the need to change that reference to ensure the authority by code is accurate. That is the intent of this very iterative process, to catch all the erroneous statements and ensure everything is accurate. Making this change does not change any authority that was not previously given in the existing code. Planner Rose Hahn said this is an excellent opportunity to illustrate what is being done, Chapter 2.10 is an artifact of what happens when not the code is not treated as a living document; things get missed over time such as department name changes. The amendments need to start somewhere, Exhibit A is the first set and many other items have been identified for future amendment packages. Councilmember Olson referred to the amendment in ECC 9.05.010 related to the dadum line, commenting that was a fun historical note that the historical society may want to document if they haven’t already. She understood why the reference was proposed to be removed, but wanted to ensure removing outdated information was not failing to refer to something in the code that should be. Ms. Hahn answered it is an outdated reference. Dadum lines and points are now evaluated through the federal government; NAVD 88 and NAV1983 are the dadum lines used throughout North America and are established by the National Geodetic Survey. There are secondary buried dadum points throughout the State of Washington used for streets and sidewalks that are maintained by WSDOT. Building development usually uses smaller dadum points such as street monuments that are based off of the State dadum points. The reason this reference can be removed from the code is because it is not something the City has authority over. Councilmember Olson referred to Section 17.110.030 Recreational marijuana uses permitted only in the following specified zones, where the proposal is to remove the CG2 zone because it does not exist anymore. She suggested the word “and” be removed in Section A and B prior to “CG2.” Ms. Hahn agreed with that suggestion. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO REMOVE “AND” BEFORE CG2 IN SECTION 17.110.030.A AND B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Olson referred to Section 20.010.003.A Permit Types, and inquired about the removal of outdoor dining as a permit types, assuming there was still outdoor dining even without streateries. Ms. Hahn answered per Ordinance 4232 adopted in 2021, outdoor dining no longer needs a conditional use permit (CUP) which is what that section of code references. Councilmember Olson referred to Attachment A, Section 20.80.015 Minor zoning code and map amendments, C.2 states, “Remove one or more of the proposed amendments from consent for additional discussion about the suitability of an amendment for the minor process or remove an amendment from the minor process roster altogether for processing as a major amendment…” She explained when a packet of amendments is presented, to make a change, the council would need to pull the entire package of amendments from consent to discuss one or more of the proposed amendments. She asked if C.2 accurately Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 8 reflected that process. She clarified the council could not remove a single amendment from a packet of amendments on consent. Ms. McLaughlin answered it was not problematic to staff for council to pull the full package from consent for discussion. If the council decided during its discussion that a single item needed to be removed, excluding that item could be included in the motion, and the rest of the package adopted. Mr. Taraday explained Section 20.80.015.C states, “At its discretion, the council may” and the intent of C.2 is to make it easy for single items to be pulled out of the ordinance and sent to the planning board for further analysis and consideration. That is not the request tonight so this is a hypothetical question, but if that were to happen, this code is silent about the mechanism for the actual amendment of the ordinance once an item is removed. The code does not address whether the ordinance comes back the week after on consent with that item removed which he envisioned would be the cleanest way if/when there is a situation arose where there was a desire to pull an item from consent. Councilmember Olson said where it wasn’t hypothetical was the council is approving this code change as part of Attachment A and she suggested cleaning up that section of code to state something like “pull the package from consent to remove one or more of the proposed amendments for additional discussion and suitability…” She clarified her question is whether the code as written, which the council is approving tonight as part of Attachment A, accurately reflects the process of pulling things from consent. Mr. Taraday clarified C.2 is the process that’s used and was previously adopted by ordinance. He agreed C.2 did not describe what happens when something is pulled from consent. If any single councilmember objects to an amendment going forward using the process in 20.80, it is removed from the ordinance. He wanted to ensure there was no objection to an amendment in this package. If there is an objection to an item in a future package of amendments, likely the ordinance would come back the next week on consent without that item. Councilmember Nand said she understood Councilmember Olson’s point; once the council removes the entire package from consent… Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, explaining this agenda item is about a package of minor amendments and now the discussion is about code that was approved in the past. She suggested discussing that as part of a different agenda item at a different meeting as the council has a busy agenda and a lot of people are present for the MOU and this discussion is off topic. Councilmember Nand disagreed, stating her comments were germane to the procedure the council was utilizing. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken and suggested councilmembers be aware there are a lot of people waiting. Councilmember Nand commented the council is utilizing this procedure for first time and there questions about how it is utilized in accordance with a recently passed ordinance. The language in C.2 seems to state the council can remove items from the suggested minor code changes and then is obligated to pass the remainder of the items which does not seem to comply with actual practice of going on consent on a later date. That point needs to be clarified in utilizing this new procedure. Councilmember Olson commented the council always has the option of pulling something from consent and passing it as regular business. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE NEW COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM 8.1 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. WSDOT/CITY OF EDMONDS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Mayor Nelson advised tonight is for discussion only, and no action is requested. He explained for decades there has been talk and studies by councilmembers, mayors, and community members, but no steps have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 9 been taken that have led the City to actually restoring the marsh. It continues to this day to be polluted, not functioning properly, salmon cannot reach it. His administration has tried every avenue of approach; they have met with the governor, the state… Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting the council did not need the mayor as the leader to indicate the story behind this. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken, commenting as the chair of the meeting and many other meetings, he has listened to thousands of hours of minutia from councilmembers and had earned the right to introduce this topic. Mayor Nelson continued, his administration has tried every avenue of approach. He has met with governors, State legislators, Ecology, WSDOT, environmental and nonprofit organizations, and the current land owner, the big oil and climate polluter Chevron, all trying to find a path forward to restore the marsh. No State agency wants this property. The City has not had a productive relationship with the future owner, WSDOT, in a desire to protect the marsh until now. This MOU comes down to who do you trust to restore the marsh, the City or the free market? The City’s path is to restore the marsh; the alternative path will fast track the marsh to development and continue the dissemination of salmon. The City is now at the table and moving forward with productive and collaborative discussions with WSDOT. An example of this collaboration is WSDOT’s willingness to make changes at his request to expressly state the City’s intent for this MOU. This MOU will now state the City’s interest, “for the purpose of expanding the marsh estuary.” To reject the beginning of this productive relationship that provides a path to acquire and restore the marsh is a giant step backward. Mayor Nelson continued, as mayor, he has proposed, lobbied and persuaded the legislature on the purchase proviso for the City so he has a good understanding of what the proviso can and cannot do. The proviso was done at the time because the City did not have a seat at the table. There is a lot of misinformation out there; the City cannot force a State agency to sell property to the City. If WSDOT disagrees with the City on the value of the property, they can sell it to a developer. The proviso provides no details on how to legally get the marsh property. The alternative path being championed tonight by some is unfortunately misinformed and very limited and will prevent the City’s ability to purchase the marsh and instead allow developers to purchase it in the open market. Mayor Nelson continued, the relationship the City just started with WSDOT is very fragile; the amount of resistance to this MOU that has already been expressed by some before even hearing the presentation is giving WSDOT second thoughts. Internally there are discussions saying they should pull out. He urged everyone not to fall into this trap being promoted by those with misinformation who seem to revel in being in a perpetual state of conflict. Councilmembers have before them the first opportunity in decades, a mutually agreed upon road map between the City and WSDOT to take action to acquire the marsh for restoration. The MOU is a fragile document with the weight of decades of conflict that has gotten the City no where closer to saving the marsh until now. He urged everyone to see this for what it is, a genuine and real path forward for the City to restore the Edmonds Marsh. Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum commented a myriad tense, cordial, curious, accusatory, collegial conversations over the past weeks have shown that everyone can benefit from an open public process that gets all stakeholders to a shared level of understanding about the process to get to a sale with WSDOT. That is one of primary reasons for the MOU, to daylight staff’s work, legal requirements, and the process to get to a sale and increase the understanding of the process. The first step was a proviso that directed WSDOT to give the City the first right of purchase, but that does not discuss how to get there. Staff wants to provide more clarity around the purchase process; WSDOT came to the City, bringing their staff and leadership to the table, to discuss the how in depth. He assured directors, the City’s legal team and real estate consultants have all had a chance to look this over, ask questions, and challenge points and assumptions, to get the document to where it is today. This MOU is not the culmination, it is beginning that allow the parties to focus on next steps with confidence. He reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 10 • Why an MOU and Why Now o An MOU  Expresses a convergence of will between two parties  Is non-binding, but signals the intent to move toward a contract  Sets the tone and expectations of the parties o Why now?  It’s needed  It helps to focus our attention on our next steps  It gives us a framework for productive conversations (internal and external) about a sale • Background o WSDOT and Unocal entered into a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) dated January 27, 2055 o Unocal’s interest in the PSA transferred to the Chevron Corporation upon Chevron’s acquisition of Unocal o Before WSDOT acquires the former Unocal Property, Chevron/Unocal is required to remediate the existing environmental contamination on the property in accordance with the criteria set forth in the PSA o Title to the former Unocal property will transfer to WSDOT after Chevron/Unocal obtains written confirmation from DOE that Chevron/Unocal has satisfactorily performed the Capital Remediation Work, to the extent that the Monitoring Work may commence • MOU calls out continued coordination o Section 2.9:  Upon execution of this MOU, WSDOT and the City shall negotiate and execute an Addendum to this MOU that authorizes the City’s access to the information, opinions, and recommendations (excluding risk analysis) that WSDOT has obtained from Landau Associates about the property and the Capital Remediation Work.  WSDOT acknowledges that Landau’s work, once assessed and understood by the City, could cause the City to reevaluate its interest in acquiring the property on the terms contemplated herein. • Requirements before a sale can occur o Close of PSA escrow o Recording and title o Edmonds confirms interest o Property declared surplus o Edmonds and WSDOT execute a PSA  MOU covers topics to get to a PSA o City pays agreed upon fair market value • Next steps – potential amendment o Section 2.8: the City has expressed an interest in acquiring the former Unocal property for the purpose of expanding the adjoining Edmonds Marsh Estuary.  WSDOT is comfortable with adding this language • Next steps o Sign the MOU o Begin our internal work plan o Negotiate and execute an addendum to the MOU granting the city access to the information, opinions, and recommendations WSDOT has obtained from Landau Associates • Recommendation o Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the MOU Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the addition to Section 2.8. She commented the Department of Ecology or the documents about to be given to the City were not mentioned. She asked how those will affect the MOU, commenting in her opinion, the City needs to worry about cleanup costs. As long as Unocal is involved with WSDOT and they are trying resolve cleanup issues, and now the City is entering into an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 11 MOU, why is the information about documentation DOE will provide not mentioned. As one of the retired experts in the community knows, disasters could occur which raises the issue of who pays. Mr. Tatum answered the MOU covers the process to get to a purchase and sale agreement with WSDOT. The Ecology documents could have any number of effects; there will be some restrictions on buildability on the land, there will be a feasibility study about removing the culvert. Those documents will certainly be included in the City’s own risk assessment and determination of fair market value. They will be incorporated not in the MOU but in the MOU process when it gets to fair market value. They could have catastrophic effects on the ability to restore the property to an estuary and cause the City to reconsider the approach to the land after the City owns it, but it would not change the purchase process which is what the MOU details. Councilmember Buckshnis said to be a prudent buyer, the City should look at all the details available. She questioned why the City would not wait until July when those documents will be available and allow the City and the public time to look at them. She referred to WSDOT and administration’s involvement in the connector project which excluded the council and the public and later blew up. She wanted to be very pragmatic and was being overly conscious due to the previous process with WSDOT that blew up. She preferred to wait three months to obtain the data and allow public comment. She feared receiving those documents after the City has signed the MOU. There are some who want to sign the MOU and move forward like the administration and others who want to know all the information first so a prudent decision can be made. She asked if WSDOT was willing to wait until the Ecology documents were available. Mr. Tatum said he could ask, but he was not sure it would change anything. The MOU is about the process of purchase, not necessarily the risk of purchase or what those risks mean as far as the City’s project plans. He was unsure what would change by waiting other than a desire to no longer enter into the MOU. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not saying she was not interested into entering into the MOU, but it would be nice to have the public on the same train by allowing everyone an opportunity to look at the documents before making a decision. For example, the new Ecology terrestrial evaluation deals with chemicals that cannot be seen; a report she is interested in seeing. Mr. Tatum said the MOU is not creating a purchase and sale agreement which would have warranties, representations, limitations, deed restrictions, etc. The MOU lays out the process for a purchase. The Ecology documents color what is done during that process but they do not change the process. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she will provide information to Mr. Tatum regarding WSDOT’s transfer of land to DNR for I-90. She summarized locking this in without looking at all the options may cost taxpayers a lot of money. Council President Tibbott commented what he is hearing described tonight is tandem tracks; the State is working on cleanup and preparing the land for a future transfer. The second track is the City who has designs and ambitions for what that property might eventually look like. During the coming year, the City will be working on the vision and zoning for the comprehensive plan which is separate from the MOU. He asked what the benefits were of entering into an MOU now, knowing that the City and the State are doing their work in preparation for a future eventuality. Mr. Tatum answered the MOU sets a baseline understanding about what the process of getting to a purchase and sale agreement looks like. Everyone is on different sheets of music, different levels of understanding about how this may occur. Putting the City and WSDOT on level ground regarding the process to get there via the MOU allows for more productive conversations with WSDOT. For example, if something unexpected comes out of Ecology process and changes what the City thinks is possible for the land or changes the value, the MOU establishes a framework to discuss that with WSDOT. There is a willing seller and motivated buyer and the MOU is an agreement that allows the parties to agree more. Council President Tibbott observed that would be the benefit. He assumed those conversations were occurring without the MOU. Mr. Tatum answered sort of yes. When parties sign an MOU, it is like the line in the Robert Frost poem, good fences make good neighbors; the MOU means the parties agree to talk to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 12 each other. Conversations with WSDOT have not been entirely productive because they come from 14 different points of view and 14 different points of entry. The MOU helps get to a more central point of view about how to deal with problems and issues of selling this property to the City. Councilmember Teitzel referred to HB 1125 and SB 5162 being considered in the current biennium budget; a decision on the budget will be made in the next couple weeks. The budget includes a provision in Section 214, “Total appropriation. The total appropriations in this section are subject to the following conditions and limitations. During the 2025 biennium if a department takes possession of the properties situated in the City of Edmonds for which a purchase agreement was executed between Unocal and the Department in 2005, Tax Parcel number 262703-2-003-009, and if the Department confirms that the property is still no longer needed for transportation purposes, the Department shall provide the City of Edmonds with the first right of purchase at fair market value in accordance with RCW 47.12.063(3) for the City’s intended use of the property to rehabilitate nearshore habitat for salmon and related species.” If the budget passes, the City will have right of first refusal through the end of 2025. Mr. Tatum advised it would be through June 30, 2025. Councilmember Teitzel continued, the budget provision also provides for the intended use of the property for salmon and related species. WSDOT acknowledged that by including the additional language in Section 2.8 of the MOU. Mr. Tatum advised WSDOT is amendable to including the additional language. The existing MOU that has been signed by WSDOT does not include that language. Councilmember Teitzel summarized if the budget passes with that provision, WSDOT will be required to recognize that use of the property. Including that language in the MOU means WSDOT agrees to what they are already obliged to in the budget. Mr. Tatum advised the proviso language was prepared in cooperation with WSDOT at the beginning of the last biennium. Councilmember Teitzel commented there likely was no one in the room tonight, in the audience or on the dais, that wants to see mixed use apartments or condos on the Unocal property; everyone wants the property restored for fish, wildlife, nature habitat, conservation and ecology purposes, etc. He identified high priorities at the State level: salmon recovery, recovery of the southern resident orca species, carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction, open space preservation, and bird and wildlife restoration. The City will be partnering with the State in the marsh property to make those things happen. His concern about the MOU, even though it is nonbinding, it sends the City down a path toward a purchase. That may be what ultimately happens if the State does not want the property, but he wanted to explore the transfer of the property to another State agency and Edmonds committing to be a partner in supporting the stated objectives. He preferred to wait to see what passes in the budget not only related to the budget provision, but the various housing bills. He supports marsh restoration and felt articulating the mutual interests in the property to the State, the governor who is a green governor, and the various State agencies would be very powerful. If the budget passes, he did not see the urgency of approving the MOU. Mr. Tatum said City and WSDOT staffs have discussed a possible transfer with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and those conversations were not particularly fruitful. He agreed with Councilmember Teitzel’s comments about the State’s priorities related to environmental restoration, sequestration, etc. and said those are great levers to pull when gathering funding sources for purchase and project. Those are great talking points with the State and discussion points for how to determine fair market value. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was good to know that some discussion is happened between WSDOT and DNR and potentially other agencies, but that was the first he’s heard of that happening. He asked why that was not of interest to other agencies, especially due to the shared interest in the environment, wildlife, fish and orcas. He anticipated there was opportunity for partnership and wanted to explore that further. Councilmember Paine said the Unocal parcel, combined with the Edmonds Marsh, is something that almost 100% of Edmonds wants restored. Activists have been working on it for a long time, including buffers to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 13 protect the marsh from encroachment. She was pleased to see that that work helped inform what is being done now and letting WSDOT know, who does not need City, about the City’s hope and desire to restore the land. She asked about how many hours staff has been spent on this process, anticipating discussions had been occurring for about 1½ years. Mr. Tatum answered certainly a year, his predecessors have all been involved in discussions leading to what is included in the MOU and the FAQ. An incredible amount of staff work has gone into it for many years and certainly in the past 1½ years. Councilmember Paine commented the MOU is focused on finding a path and allowing for discussions to occur when not all the details are known. The process will allow for exploration and shows the City is committed to the process. The MOU is a great way to memorialize the discussions and put a process in place. She appreciated staff and the administration’s work, WSDOT’s work because they certainly did not have to agree to the MOU, and the legislators who added the proviso. The MOU is a gesture of diligence and goodwill and she would love to have the MOU passed to memorialize the path for both parties. Councilmember Chen observed the State has already signed the MOU which shows they are a willing seller and are interested in working with the City proactively. He used to work for a pulp mill in Everett and recalled it took almost ten years to find a potential buyer and eventually the city took over due to the contamination and humungous cleanup costs. The Unocal property has the same potential. With that being said, this property is a jewel in the heart of Edmonds and has so much potential. The current and former administrations have been involved and during his involvement with the City since 2019, he learned many in Edmonds are passionate about the marsh and this partnership potential. The MOU is a great first step that can move the City closer to acquisition, it is a way of opening communication with WSDOT. The City needs to go in with eyes wide open of the potential risk. Councilmember Chen asked for assurance that signing the MOU with WSDOT did not bind the City to anything such as if further investigation/study found the cleanup costs were more than the City could bear. Mr. Tatum said that was correct. The proviso does not guarantee the City will be the purchaser and neither does the MOU. The MOU provides a path to help answer questions to get there. As called out in Section 2.9 regarding the Landau documents, that was important information to add; as staff is thinking about this property, the risk is significant and some risk will remain latent with the property for a long time. The first big step for the City is the risk analysis which will help color the rest of the steps in the MOU so the City does not arrive at the end surprised at what it is attempting to purchase. Councilmember Chen summarized the MOU is a good first step for both sides to show their willingness to have a conversation in a more formal way. He reiterated the City needed to be aware of potential risks. Councilmember Nand observed the marsh and the Unocal property is a topic that excites a lot of passion because of the level of engagement from the community. People have a lot of questions and that is valid. This process has become somewhat politicized; there is a robust community engagement and public process for a reason. The City is potentially spending millions of taxpayer’s money and the community has a right to have their questions answered. She complimented Mr. Tatum on the amount of work he did preparing the FAQ about the MOU. Councilmember Nand referred to Section 6.4, Remediation Plan and Work, and asked if the council signs the MOU, could the City ask for more transparency from Ecology and WSDOT about the remediation steps that Chevron and Unocal and their subsidiary have already taken on the property and what cleanup can be expected to where the PSA is triggered. Mr. Tatum answered the MOU puts the City in a more constructive dialogue with WSDOT. For example, getting the Landau documents and the City doing its own analysis on them will be a big step. There is a huge amount of documentation on Ecology’s website which the City could spend a long time trying to digest. The City will have an opportunity as a key stakeholder to review the Ecology documents this summer and integrate those into its decision making. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 14 Councilmember Nand said the main concern she has heard from the community is there has not been enough transparency which may be a gap in the level of expertise with Ecology and WSDOT that needs to be digested so citizens understand. Mr. Tatum agreed that is what is missing, context for ourselves. There is a lot of documentation on Ecology’s website about the cleanup, but there is an interpretation piece missing, not what this means to Ecology or to WSDOT, but what it means to the City for its purposes. He recommended spending some money and effort to put that information into context. Obtain the existing documents, the City do its own analysis, having a risk analysis done and apprising the legislative and executive branches and the public. Councilmember Nand assumed that would be part of the City’s due diligence as a stakeholder and potential buyer or group of buyers. Mr. Tatum said signing the MOU is a good platform to start doing that due diligence so the City can arrive at an informed place when the property is available for sale. Councilmember Nand summarized the MOU functions as a statement of intent at the start of a real estate transaction. Councilmember Olson commented there is some value in the council supporting the MOU, drafting a letter, or utilizing some other tool. The fact that the City and WSDOT went down the road on this tool may be a reason to support this route in the end. She referred to a question about whether the MOU is the right tool. The FAQs state the MOU is nonbinding and despite what another councilmember said, the City is not committed to this process. She was concerned about having a false sense of security with this MOU and wanted to recognize that the MOU was a nice to have supplement, but it was not standing in place of things that are binding like the current proviso. She wanted to ensure the City asked for another budget proviso in two years even if the City signed the MOU because the MOU is non-binding. She asked Mr. Taraday or Mr. Tatum to comment on her interpretation. Mr. Taraday commented on the extent to which the proviso is binding, explaining what a first right of purchase is; it is basically WSDOT giving the City the first opportunity to purchase the property when they decide to sell. It does not require WSDOT to sell it to the City on any particular terms other than fair market value which is also set forth in the proviso. The rest of the terms are not set forth in the proviso, it does not say when WSDOT is ready to sell, it will sell to Edmonds according to the terms of this 40 page purchase and sale agreement. There are a lot of ways in which the right of first purchase could end up not materializing into a purchase and sale agreement even if the parties could agree on fair market value because there are other terms that will be material to a future purchase especially in a property like this where there are environmental factors to be considered. The proviso is helpful and the MOU is also helpful, but it was overstating the proviso language to characterize it as binding. It requires WSDOT to come to the City first, but it does not require WSDOT to consummate a sale with Edmonds. Councilmember Olson observed the MOU would not be binding on WSDOT to come to the City for the sale. Mr. Taraday agreed, the MOU is a relationship building document, but is not in any way a binding document. Councilmember Olson observed the MOU does less for the City than the proviso, although she could appreciate that relationship building was important especially considering the past. Mr. Taraday said he was not sure he agreed, the proviso will only be in effect one biennium at a time, and the proviso is not really something WSDOT is very supportive of. From a relationship building standpoint, he was unsure that the proviso did as much to build relationship with WSDOT as the MOU does. How that question is answered, which one is better or more valuable, may depend on how one weights the aspect of relationship building in the overall context. If the council thinks that relationship building is important, the MOU may be the way to go. If the council feels relationship building is not important, then the proviso may look like a better path. That is how he saw them being materially different. Mr. Tatum said what is clear through the discussions in recent weeks is there is a gap. Like Mr. Taraday said, the City has the first right of purchase, but that does not mean the City has the means to get to a purchase and sale agreement and own the property. There is a gap of due diligence, work that needs to be done to ensure the City understands the risk, the process, the steps, requirements, etc. With regard to which Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 15 is better, the MOU provides a framework, a stable platform as the City works to do that due diligence and helps get to a place of understanding where a sale could be consummated rather than just having a proviso and needing to do all the work when the property is available for sale. Councilmember Olson related her sense from talking to community members and councilmembers that the amendment to Section 2.8 will be important. She asked whether that would be included when this comes to the council to authorize the mayor to sign the MOU. Mr. Tatum answered there are several ways to proceed, the MOU could be signed and then amended or it could be amended, resigned by WSDOT and then presented to council for authorization for the mayor to sign it. Councilmember Teitzel commented although there has been a lot of discussion and it may feel like people are divided on the issue, he believed everyone on the dais and everyone in the audience were in agreement and their goals were the same such as salmon recovery, carbon sequestration, wildlife and open space preservation, etc. and that should be expressed to the State. He supported Councilmember Olson’s idea of a letter regardless of whether the council authorized the mayor to sign the MOU. A letter could express the City is willing to partner with the State to support their high priorities in the areas he listed. If that involves the State retaining ownership in some capacity and the City being a partner in supporting those goals, that would also be acceptable as would WSDOT selling the property to the City. There would be value in showing that the electeds are unified and he invited the mayor to sign such a letter along with councilmembers. He referred to Mayor Nelson’s comment about other agencies potentially controlling/owning the property and wanted to explore that further. A letter showing the elected and the community is unified could be powerful. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO DRAFT A LETTER, JOINTLY SIGNED BY THE MAYOR AND EACH MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL, EXPRESSING FULL SUPPORT OF THE GOALS HE ENUMERATED EARLIER AND HE OFFERED TO PREPARE THE FIRST DRAFT OF A LETTER FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized the importance of keeping the State legislators involved. She has been on WRIA 8 for eight years and on the grant funding committee for nine years and knows the people from DNR, WDFW, and RCO. She supported Councilmember Teitzel idea of a letter. She referred to SEPA and issues related to contamination, noting there is a lawsuit between Chevron and WSDOT. The MOU is a means of going down a path that many have been working on for a long time including the council allocating $1 million for marsh restoration/purchase. She has dedicated her entire council career to the marsh. It is important the council does not pigeonhole itself into something it does not understand because all the documents are not available yet. The previous proviso did not specify “for the city’s intended use of property to rehabilitee nearshore habitat for salmon and related species” and by including that in the proviso, it’s clear the State wants the City to be a working partner. Many environmental organization’s goals are related to salmon recovery because by extension, that is orca recovery. She suggested using that tool first before binding the City to an agency that is already involved in a lawsuit over the property. She recognized this information has nothing to do with the discussion but there are other aspects that people need to understand. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, suggesting council comments focus on the motion. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Councilmember Teitzel’s motion. Councilmember Paine said she was in full support of the MOU and had no objection to a letter in support of goals that are in alignment with the MOU and having that information spread more broadly to the county executive and other players in the region. The first thing the council needs to do is support the MOU as written with the amendment to Section 2.8. A letter cannot take the place of the MOU; the MOU describes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 16 the path, a letter is an offer of support and possibly additive as long as it was in support of the MOU. If the letter did not look like that, she would not support it. Councilmember Nand said while she applauded Councilmember Teitzel’s intent in proposing a letter, from her prospective in the private sector, the typical process for real estate acquisition is a non-binding MOU followed by a letter of intent which is binding on the parties and hopefully eventually getting to a purchase and sale agreement. She acknowledged it could be very different in municipal property acquisition. She feared a letter could cause a level of confusion if the council was somehow skipping steps. If the council is not ready to proceed with the MOU tonight because they want to have more information about the information Ecology has published and there are concerns regarding contamination and environmental related to acquiring the Unocal property and committing taxpayer dollars, it would be more beneficial to do due diligence and direct Mr. Tatum or secure a consult to advise the council and do the due diligence and then proceed with the normal sequence of documents which starts with an MOU, followed by a letter of intent and eventually hopefully consummated with a purchase and sale agreement. Councilmember Olson asked Mr. Taraday whether a letter showing the City’s intent to expand the marsh estuary as stated in Section 2.8 would be confusing. She did not think the letter should reference the proposed MOU to show the City is not conflicted and is ready to make a clear statement to that effect as a leadership body representing the community whose desire is to expand the marsh estuary. As others have said, this doesn’t preclude councilmembers from voting for the MOU. She anticipated a letter could be quick and easy and could be done right away to address some residents’ concern that the council is sending a message they are not interested in the property which of course is not a message the council wants to send. Mr. Taraday said he was hesitant to speculate about how WSDOT might receive a letter as opposed to or in addition to also receiving a signed MOU. Mayor Nelson said since council had involved him in the letter, he would be happy to consider the letter after the council supports the MOU. The council should be legislating, not writing letters. Councilmember Chen said he would support the MOU with the addition of a letter to expand the intent in Section 2.8 to include the points mentioned by Councilmember Teitzel. He envisioned a letter would strengthen the City’s position so he would support both. Council President Tibbott did not support the motion, finding it premature. He preferred the council make a decision one way or another on the MOU and at some point a letter like this would be germane to conversation. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR CONTRACT Community Services/Economic Development Director Tatum reviewed the Cultural Corridor 10% contract: • Why is this contract in front of you today o Mayor is authorized to sign A/E contracts when the consultant contact fee is greater tan $50,000 but less than $100,000  This contract is for $68,000 - Up to $34,000 in ArtsWA grants - Up to $34,000 in City funds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 17 - ECA contributes for portion related to ECA’s concept design up to $20,000 o The RFP allows for the successful bidder to be selected for future phases.  This could put the total of all work done by the company on planning and construction above the mayor’s limit, so we thought it best to bring it to council now. • What are we doing o Leveraging funding o Elements of the contract  Preliminary 10% design - ECA Frontage - Engineering preliminary plan - Preliminary illustrative plan - Art Corner “Park”  Funding and implementation plan • Art Corner “Park” o Finance committee requested this come to full council to discuss the “park” o Edmonds, Sprague, and 4th Avenue intersection is confusing and has a large amount of excessive right-of-way o Intent is pedestrian streetscape improvement with green street design and possibly art, not really a park • Funding and implementation o Cost estimating o Grant funding o Funding and implementation plan • Summary and next steps o We have budget and authorization for this project o This project leverages three different funding sources, two of which are not City dollars o This project allows us to present to council funding alternatives which bring in outside dollars, minimize cost to the City and maximize public works projects which will be necessary regardless of the overall status of the corridor o Staff will conduct public processes as we move through the project and include council in milestone updates • Recommendation o Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the contract COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE THE MAYOR’S SIGNATURE ON THE CONTRACT. Council President Tibbott pointed out the City’s portion of this project was already approved in the 2023 budget. There is a desire for some discussion regarding particular elements such as the parklet. He was intrigued by the idea of a parklet and what it would look like due to his interest in the possibility of mini parks or beautification of street corners in other parts of City. He expressed support for the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 18 Councilmember Paine referred to the scope of work (Attachment A) which includes a public engagement plan. She noted stakeholders include parcel owners whether they are residences or commercial. The scope of work also refers to the 2019 survey that had limited information regarding the location of the right-of- way and some presentations have referred to one way streets, wider streets, etc. She wanted to ensure when information is shared with parcel owners, that the location of the right-of-way is part of the discussion as some lawns actually extend into the right-of-way. She wanted to have nearly perfect outreach to property owners who would be directly impacted. She was happy to see the design moving to 10%. Councilmember Teitzel commented in looking at the schematic and the artists’ rendering, it appears the end of Sprague Street becomes quite narrow with the addition of the park and asked if would be one way. Mr. Tatum did not think that had been contemplated as there is a lot of space there. Councilmember Teitzel asked the same question about Edmonds Street where the park would constrain the street somewhat, expressing concern with fire trucks navigating that intersection. Mr. Tatum assured that would be considered in the design. Councilmember Olson referred to a picture of the pocket park on packet page 604 that includes angled parking leading up to the park. She was hopeful one of the options for that parklet would be a continuation of the angled parking. She asked if that could be added, noting the community has been very vocal about the desire to increase parking and the extra space could accommodate an additional six parking spaces. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, suggesting councilmembers speak to the motion. Design features and questions will arise in the context of study. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Olson said the scope of work describes having more than one design for the parklet. If the council did not specify that one of the designs alternatives would be parking, it would probably not be included in the designs. The contract specifies two designs for the parklet and she assumed if an option for parking was not specified, it was unlikely to be included in the design. Mr. Tatum answered the scope of work includes the parklet; the conceptual design includes some parking. Councilmember Olson’s desire for parking in the vicinity could be discussed as the project proceeds. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. 2023 APRIL BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE Administrative Services Director Dave Turley advised these 14 amendments were discussed in-depth at the finance committee. He reviewed: • If approved, the budget amendment would increase budgeted revenues by $2,984,257 and increase budgeted expenditures by $7,409,280 • Proposed amendments 1. Teamster Salary Increases approved by council in January 2023 - $1.5 million 2. AFSCME Salary Increase approved by council in November 2022 - $1.6 million 3. Non-Represented Salary Increases approved by council in December 2022 - $538,000 4. Stormwater On-Call Professional Services Agreement - $125,000 5. ERP Project Manager - $60,000 6. Extension of “Let’s Go” Bicycle Education Program - $15,000 7. Creative District Grant for Conceptual Design - $34,000 8. Leasehold Improvements to Neighborhood City Hall to comply with police safety protocols in preparation for hiring a storefront officer - $85,000 9. Library Repairs - $800,000 (reimbursed by insurance) 10. Adjustment to Contingency Reserve balance per the Fund Balance Policy (4% of General Fund Adopted Operating Budget) 11. Household Grant Fund Increase - $420,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 19 12. Add new FTE Fleet Mechanic Position- $117,000 beginning in 2023 13. Adjustment for WCIA Insurance Increase - $63,387 14. 76th Ave Overlay (196th St SW to Olympic View Drive) – $1.2 million grant funded, $285,000 REET and remaining approximately $31,000 from General Fund Councilmember Chen advised the proposed amendments were reviewed in-depth by the finance committee. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE THE AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW FTE FLEET MECHANIC POSITION AND APPROVE THE REMAINDER. Councilmember Chen acknowledged Public Works Director Antillon was not here to discuss removal of the fleet mechanic position. The City’s fleet is growing, but the additional vehicles are not on site so this amendment could wait until the 2024 budget cycle. Councilmember Nand observed the City has had issues with finding employees to fill positions. Even if this is not a present need, she asked if the position was advertised now would the City be more likely to have an FTE hired by the time the additional vehicles are acquired. Mr. Turley said he could only speak to his own experience trying to hire accountants, finance people and administrative assistants; it is extremely difficult to find good applicants. He did not know what the market was like for mechanics. Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for Councilmember Chen’s motion, agreeing the fleet is not growing as fast as expected or hoped. He was concerned the amendments added significant more expense than revenue; the City needs to be very careful about spending down the fund balance as was discussed during the last budget cycle. He preferred to consider the addition of an FTE in the context of the 2024 budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the amendments would be corrected and placed on consent. Mr. Turley recalled when changes are made, the amendments they are typically put on consent the following week. There is nothing extremely time sensitive that it needs to be done this week. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will email Mr. Turley about the numbers in the contingency reserve. Councilmember Paine said she would like hear from Public Works Director Antillon, who submitted the request, before delaying the additional fleet mechanic position until the 2024 budget. Councilmember Chen pointed out with this budget amendment packet, the increase in salaries and benefits was already over $3.6 million. He suggested councilmembers keep that in mind when considering the addition of another FTE halfway through the year. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Turley advised the amendment would be on consent next week with that change. 4. TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - LICENSING FEE INCREASE This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 4. 5. CITY ATTORNEY ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE - COMPARATOR CITIES SURVEY RESULTS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND TO 10:20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 20 Councilmember Teitzel thanked Councilmembers Paine and Nand for their diligent, professional effort. He provided an overview of the process: • January 3, 2023 – council approved formation of the city attorney assessment subcommittee consisting of Councilmembers Nand, Paine and Teitzel o Subcommittee committed to collect and share information to assist the council make informed decisions about obtaining long term city attorney services o The subcommittee strictly collects and distributes information and does not provide any recommendations or make any decisions • January 17, 2023 o Council approved the subcommittee work plan which included collecting information from comparator cities about their city attorney arrangement • March 7 o Council approved list of nine comparator cities: Lynnwood, Lake Stevens, Issaquah, Puyallup, Bremerton, Bothell, Burien, Shoreline and Mukilteo o Council approved questions the subcommittee would ask the cities o Council approved the subcommittee developing a list of pros and cons about contracted city attorney services versus in-house city attorney service  Pros and cons list reflects input received from comparator cities as well as input from subcommittee members • April 4, 2023 o Target date for sharing findings, revised to April 18 due to delays in receiving information • April 18 o Present to Council the information collected regarding city attorney services for 9 Puget Sound- area cities, input from Snohomish Superior Court judges before whom Lighthouse has appeared and a pro/con assessment of continuing to contract for city attorney services vs. hiring an in- house city attorney team. • April 25, 2023 o Final decision whether to issue an RFP to continue contracting for city attorney services or proceed with hiring an in-house city attorney team Councilmember Teitzel explained the nine cities’ detailed responses are summarized in a tabular form in the packet for ease of reference. The backup material provided in different formats from each city is available in a binder in the council office. Each city’s arrangement is unique and an apples-to-apples comparison was very difficult. The packet also includes a comparator city legal investment summary which summarizes the total cost and number of attorneys. The packet contains a comparison of hourly contracted rates for cities who contract, five including Edmonds. He encouraged the council to carefully consider all the information provided up to this point and to be prepared to vote on April 25 whether to continue to contact or hire an in-house legal team. He invited councilmembers to ask questions and if there are any additional questions, to email a member of the subcommittee who will respond to the requester and bcc the remainder of council so everyone has the information and the response conforms with OPMA. On April 25, subcommittee members will discontinue their role as a committee and provide their own views on the information and how they would personally prefer to proceed related to city attorney services. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the work plan on packet page 633, advising the dates beyond April 25 are aspirational and aggressive and may need to be adjusted. May 5 is targeted as the date to issue a job bulletin if council decides to hire an in-house city attorney team or, if the council decides to continue to contract for city attorney services, issue an RFP and begin collecting responses. In May and June the applicants would be assessed, vetted, check backgrounds and references and in July an offer extended to the chosen provider. The reason the dates are aggressive is the need to work the process efficiently and expeditiously to ensure it is complete well before the budget season begins. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 21 Councilmember Teitzel referred to packet page 635 that lists pros and cons of hiring an in-house city attorney, packet page 636 lists pros and cons for contracting for city attorney services and the data obtained from each of the nine cities including the question and the responses begins on packet page 637. He encouraged council to carefully review the information over the next week in preparation for making a decision at the April 25 meeting. Councilmember Teitzel referred to packet page 650, the comparator cities legal investment summary that shows the total legal budget in 2022 for each of the 9 cities and the city attorney billed services based on the type of provider the city used. It also identifies the city attorney in each city, whether they are in-house or contracted and the number of attorneys to the extent that information was provided by the comparator cities. For Edmonds the total legal budget for 2022 was $1,350,952 which includes the city attorney, prosecutor and public defender so the city is in the mid-range with other cities. The city attorney billing 2022 for Lighthouse was $570,031. Councilmember Teitzel continued, packet page 651 is more of an apples-to-apples comparison, showing contracted city attorney hourly rates for 2023 based on current contracts. The top line illustrates what Edmonds pays Lighthouse for Tier 1 and 2 attorney time compared to what Lynnwood, Lake Stevens, Issaquah and Mukilteo paid for their contracted city attorneys; Edmonds is essentially in the midrange. It also identifies the contract city attorney for each city. He encouraged the council to carefully review all the information and be prepared to discuss it next week in preparation for making a decision. He also invited Mayor Nelson to review the information and provide his input because the decision will also impact the administration. Council President Tibbott thanked the subcommittee for their painstaking work putting this together, recognizing it takes a lot of effort to get information from cities. They did a fantastic job and he was amazed at the amount of information provided. He suggested sharing the information with the cities who participated. Councilmember Teitzel answered that was the plan. Council President Tibbott observed Bothell has much higher legal expenses compared to Lake Stevens or Edmonds. He asked if some cities had unique circumstances that increased their legal bills. Councilmember Teitzel answered each city is unique and it is difficult to compare them apples-to-apples because the issues are different and there is different usage of contracted attorneys beyond the primary city attorney. Bothell apparently had a very active year and required a lot of legal support. Councilmember Nand referred to packet page 650 Comparator Cities: 2022 Legal Investment Summary, adding information provided by Lynnwood; their City Attorney Services Billed or Salaried (2022) is not $35,000, it is $276,646.49. Councilmember Paine referred to the Legal Investment Summary, noting there were other updates that were not included due to a lot of last minute information. As Councilmember Teitzel mentioned, all the cities are different so instead of apples-to-apples, she referred to it as fruit salad. In response to a question about Burien, a lot of the costs associated with Burien are broken out in additional contracted positions on the summary sheet. She called Burien, Bothell and Bremerton and could offer additional information on those. Councilmember Buckshnis complimented the subcommittee’s work, noting it was very well done and very informative. Councilmember Nand commented the subcommittee was able to collect a plethora of information for cities. If councilmembers are interested in looking at other city attorney contracts or RFPs, they are available in the council office. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2023 Page 22 Mayor Nelson had no comments. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel relayed last week Councilmember Nand and he interviewed four excellent candidates for the Economic Development Commission (EDC). He announced his appointment of Matthew Cox to the EDC and welcomed him to the EDC, anticipating he will do a great job. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for the high level of citizen engagement regarding the Unocal property. It is a very important subject and many people showed up to tonight’s meeting. Councilmember Nand announced her appointment of Natalie Seitz to the EDC. Ms. Seitz has done a lot of homework on the subject and she looked forward to her work. Councilmember Nand recognized the community’s loss of a great resource, Betty Lou Gaeng, who often wrote articles about the history of the area which she enjoyed reading. The community also tragically lost 30-year old Patrick Babb-Henry in a one-car collision in Lynnwood. Council President Tibbott congratulated the council on the work they did to complete the first quarter objectives. The city attorney project is well under way, Councilmember Buckshnis is working on information on bridge housing and she has been working with Councilmember Teitzel on funding for stormwater projects. He was impressed with the way the council stayed focused on getting those top five objectives underway. The objective related to annexation of Esperance will be moved into the second quarter. He was thankful for the work the council has done, pulling together in a remarkable way which has made the council better. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the discussion about the MOU with WSDOT regarding the Unocal property, it is both exciting and a little scary. There are a lot of big emotions and she is here to help that project move along; it has been a long time coming. She thanked everyone who contributed tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone for their calls, emails and letters. The marsh has been on the WRIA 8 list since 2010, moving forward will take time. She was positive the City would get it eventually, but needs to be patient. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to emails she received about hate crimes occurring at places of worship, the most recent was last Sunday morning at the United Methodist Church where graphic flyers were placed on windshields opposing transgender and the LGBTQ+ community. The parishioners notified the police who did a great job. She commented the council cannot really do anything but hope for peace, calm and kindness. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ____ SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK