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