Loading...
2023-10-24 Special MeetingEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES October 24, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED 2024-2029 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English explained this agenda items is further discussion on both the Parks and Public Works CIP/CFP. No presentations are planned; presentations have been made twice to council committee and the full council. The planning board's recommendation is included in the packet. A follow-up memo from the planning board chair corrected reference to a sidewalk project in the memo, rather than 236t' Street from 84' to Highway 99, it should be 84t' to SR 104. Mayor Nelson said Council President Tibbott recommended, and he concurred, beginning council questions via a round robin. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating that decision was not made by the council president and the council should vote whether to proceed that way. Mayor Nelson responded it a Roberts Rules of Order issue, but he did not have a strong opinion, and invited a motion to do questions via a round robin. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AS A ROUND ROBIN DISCUSSION OF THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOTING NO. Mayor Nelson advised councilmembers will ask one question each Councilmember Teitzel referred to PWT-32, 84' Ave. W walkway from 238' St. SW to 234t1, St. SW, commenting there has been a lot of discussion with the community about that walkway, it is highly desirable because there is no walkway along that stretch and it is heavily traveled. He has personally witnessed individuals in wheelchairs using the travel lane with vehicles whizzing by which is simply not safe. Most of the funding in the CIP/CFP has been moved back to 2027. He asked if there was a way to move funding around so that project was moved forward to no later than 2025. Mr. English responded last year the city council added that to this year's budget; it was funded with ARPA funds. An RFQ was issued, a consultant selected and a predesign consultant scope of work was ready to go, but then funding was removed from the project. Given reduced REET projections and lack of additional funding sources, it is a difficult project to move forward, especially when the estimated construction cost is over $1 million. Preservation has been the priority, for example there is supposed to be $2.8 million for the overlay program, and the City is at $1.5 million this year plus a federal grant. He summarized it is hard to prioritize a new project over trying to maintain the existing street system. Councilmember Teitzel advised the council will be looking at ARPA funds again. He asked if funds could be freed up for this project, would staff have the ability from a workload perspective to move it up in the schedule. Mr. English answered from a staff capacity in 2024, it could be moved forward. Councilmember Paine said she had that same question. She referred to preservation and maintenance projects such as PWT-5, 6 and 7 which are all scheduled in the future with significant unsecured amounts. She asked if that was based on REET projections or other contingencies. She was not worried about the schedule, but if funding for these three projects and others could be funded via the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). Mr. English answered those three projects are signal upgrades/maintenance and typically grants programs fund new capital infrastructure, there are not a lot of grant sources for maintenance. He reminded the funding for the last three years of the CIP/CFP is unconstrained, projects that are needed but don't have secured funding sources. He did not envision those projects would be good candidates for grant funding programs in the future. Councilmember Paine said it would be helpful for the council to know if staff identified projects that would be good candidates for BIL funding because having additional revenue sources in the future will be important for the community. She expressed interest in knowing which projects would be eligible for BIL grants. Mr. English answered staff could go back through the infrastructure bill's grant programs to see if there are any opportunities, but he anticipated there would be few because for the most part these are maintenance upgrades of the traffic signal system. If a safety component can be tied to the upgrade, there may be an opportunity to security a transportation safety grant to fund a portion of the cost. Councilmember Paine acknowledged she did not understand all the limits of the BIL, but it would be great to find some opportunities. Councilmember Chen referred to DP# 19, the Lake Ballinger ILA, recalling $200,000 was a budget amendment for 2023 and the Mountlake Terrace City Council and the Edmonds City Council already approved the ILA. He asked if funding needed to be pushed back to 2024. Ms. Feser agreed the council approved the ILA, but did not believe there was a budget amendment for 2023. Staff was aware the project would not be completed in 2023 so there was no reason to do a budget amendment in 2023 to authorize the funds. She anticipated the project will be completed in 2024 so it is listed in the CIP/CFP and in other materials as a carryforward into 2024. It is in the budget and will be accounted for via the formal carryforward process in February 2024. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 2 Councilmember Chen clarified during the 2023 budget discussions, that was an amendment to the budget. Deputy Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Burley advised it is in the 2023 budget, but the check will not be written in 2023 because the ILA states the check won't be written until the project is complete. The project won't be complete until 2024 so the budget includes a request to carryforward the 2023 budget allocation into 2024 so it can be paid once construction is complete. Council President Tibbott referred to PWF-06, 07 and 08, maintenance projects in 3 fire stations over the next 4 years. He observed some stations may also have inefficiencies related to operations, and asked if there have been any discussions with South County Fire regarding needed upgrades. Public Works Director Oscar Antillon answered a lot of the information regarding maintenance comes from the review of facilities that was done in 2016 and 2018/2019. The more critical maintenance projects are prioritized in the CIP/CFP such as roll up doors. Council President Tibbott asked if that was considered maintenance. Mr. Antillon answered it was considered maintenance, but it is a capital maintenance expense. Council President Tibbott commented at some point it will make sense to look at capital facilities improvements that are required to bring fire stations up to modern standards. Mr. Antillon answered the fire stations are some of the best facilities in the City, they are taken care of pretty well. Unlike Frances Anderson Center, where huge needs are expected in the next couple years. Staff is going through the assessment now; the state is requiring a lot of work be done to bring that facility up to new standards. Councilmember Olson observed the CIP/CFP does not include a HAWK signal at Firdale Village which is a safety, access, and economic development issue for that plaza. There are a lot of residences in that immediate area with pedestrian usage of that center and a HAWK signal definitely needs to be added to the CIP/CFP. She realized 2024 was a scant budget year, but if it is in the CIP/CFP, staff could pursue grants for it. She asked if a council vote was required to add a project to the CIP/CFP. Mr. English answered that would be appropriate to add or delete something from the document. Councilmember Olson asked if council was doing decision packages for CIP/CFP. She asked if council needed more information or did they know enough about it to vote without more information. Mr. English said it is one thing to add it to the CIP/CFP for potential funding, but it is another thing to add it as a decision package in 2024 budget with an identified funding source. Councilmember Olson recalled staff recently quoting her a price of up to $600,000. Mr. Antillon said that estimate is without considering all the factors such as right-of-way acquisition or other things that may make it more complex. The first step is to justify the project via an analysis of the intersection, etc. which could be included initially. The transportation plan is being updated and what needs to be done to improve the crossing might be flushed out through that process. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD IT TO THE CIP/CFP FOR DESIGN IN 2025 AND MOVE IT UP SOONER IF A WAY CAN BE FOUND DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS BUT AT LEAST THIS WAY WE WILL NOT LOSE TRACK OF IT AS AN ITEM OF INTEREST. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the estimate of $600,000 for a HAWK signal at Firdale, recalling the Pine Street HAWK signal was $20,000 and the City received a state grant due to the location on SR 104. Mr. English answered the cost of the HAWK signal installed by the state was close to $400,000; the City's contribution was $20,000. He noted even the rectangular rapid -flashing beacon (RRFB) at crosswalks typically cost $7500 each. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the cost of a crosswalk with flags without a HAWK signal. Mr. English answered one of the options discussed was potentially a RRFB in lieu of a HAWK signal which would cost $15,000-20,000 depending on striping and signage. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that could be installed first in anticipation of a HAWK signal in 2025. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 3 Mr. English said that would be a sunk cost if the RRFB was replaced with a with a HAWK signal; he did not recommend installing the RRFB anticipating a HAWK signal in the future. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a HAWK signal was needed, noting that stops traffic for 30 seconds versus the RRFB where traffic just stops to allow people to cross. Mr. English answered if the intent is 3' Avenue, there is a horizontal curve that affects sight distance. There will need to be some evaluation to determine the best location for the crosswalk and at least pedestrian counts done to determine if there is enough use to warrant a HAWK signal which is a major investment. He summarized there would need to be some preliminary evaluation before anything like a HAWK signal could go forward. Councilmember Olson added it is not a very safe intersection right now, she would not want to cross that street, so she was unsure a pedestrian count would be a valid indicator of use. Councilmember Paine commented the cost information is important, but there needs to be data to back it up. There are also requests for a pedestrian crossing at Pine Street across 5t1i. She asked if the transportation committee will be developing non -motorized opportunity. Mr. English answered yes. Councilmember Chen referred to the increase in the traffic calming program budget and asked if that funding source could be considered. He agreed time was needed to develop a more detailed analysis related to traffic counts, etc. Mr. English answered the traffic calming program is a separate source of funds to calm speeds. The HAWK signal is more of a pedestrian safety issue and traffic calming funds would not be used for that type of improvement. Given the magnitude of the cost, another funding source would need to be identified. Neither the pedestrian safety program nor the traffic calming program have enough funding for a HAWK signal. Councilmember Chen suggested traffic calming may be a way to mitigate the situation to where a HAWK signal is not needed. Mr. English commented this conversation is getting into the weeds; an evaluation of that area has not been done and he was not aware of accident history on that stretch. He agreed with Mr. Antillon's suggestion to wait for the transportation plan update to evaluate the entire City best rather than a one-off addition to the CIP/CFP. Councilmember Chen said he liked that approach better. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the timing, cost and negotiation aspect of the Lynnwood plant and why it is not in the CFP. Mr. Antillon answered not all the facts on that plant are known, Lynnwood is going through a very preliminary exercise. Lynnwood is doing value engineering on their preliminary design so it is still early in the process. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the timeline, recalling it took Edmonds a couple years to get the Edmonds WWTP approved for design. She asked if a lower amount would be negotiated. Mr. Antillon answered the full analysis of growth of both cities will determine Edmonds' fair share. Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla said he has been in discussions with Lynnwood; they are planning to have phase 1 start construction in 2025. The reason it is not in the CIP/CFP is because it is a Lynnwood project and it is in their CIP/CFP. Edmonds' obligation is only to provide its fair share to build the project. With regard to value engineering occurring now, that is being done because the location of the site is very challenging, in the middle of a canyon. There is an expectation that the cost estimate is actually low. A specialist in wastewater treatment design is doing the value engineering. Lynnwood has a 10% design after working on it since 2019. Lynnwood approved new rates effective in 2022; 21 % increases this year, next year and the following two years and then 12% increases for a couple more years. Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to ensure Edmonds' 11% was accurate and Edmonds was not funding Lynnwood's growth which is much greater than Edmonds' growth. Mr. De Lilla answered at the beginning a lot of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 4 plant work is work that Edmonds depends on as well. It will probably be 2-3 cycles until there has to consideration of bonding. Most of the upfront costs fall within that but Edmonds will be actively negotiating to ensure the City only pays its fair share. Councilmember Nand asked why the Lake Ballinger flood plain purchase is under Public Works and Utilities and if there was any possibility that that lakefront purchase could benefit the public as park land or lake access. Mr. De Lilla answered no, the property was purchased using a grant from the Department of Ecology which does not allow public access. Another issue with public access is how people will enter the property which would require paving or a road and a pier and the whole point of this property is a stormwater mitigation facility. Cars would also have to queue on SR104 to reach the site which is not a good idea. Councilmember Nand asked about the stormwater usage of the property. Mr. De Lilla answered it would be for stormwater quality. In addition to restoring the site, there are future plans for installing rain gardens and other stormwater quality mitigation because east of the property is a large storm drain pipe that catches flows off SR-104. This can be thought of as another version of what is being done off SR-104 by the Edmonds Marsh, retrofitting catch basins. On this site, flows from pipes can be captured before it enters Lake Ballinger. Councilmember Nand observed the last time the property was on the market it was $400,000, but the City is paying $120,000. She asked what depressed the price. Mr. English answered $120,000 is in the 2024 budget; the Department of Ecology grant for acquisition was $500,000. The property was appraised and the appraised amount was $480,000. The City is currently in discussions with the property owner. Mayor Nelson reminded this is round robin with only one question per councilmember. Councilmember Nand responded her questions were quite topical and brief compared to other councilmembers. Councilmember Teitzel referred to PWT-69, 7' Avenue sidewalk repair along the new Civic Playfield, relaying it was scheduled in the CIP/CFP in 2028 for a total of $750,000 and has been moved up to 2024. He walked that sidewalk recently, several sections have already been improved including a new ADA compliant sidewalk curb ramp and other sections have been repaired. The sidewalk, although not in great shape, appears serviceable. He wondered if that could be a source of funding for the 84' Street walkway or was it too late to reschedule that. Mr. Antillon advised there is a JOC contract for the sidewalk and the work is scheduled for next year. It is a complete replacement of the entire sidewalk because with the patches that have been done, it will be difficult to continue patching it to make a uniform surface. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding of Mr. Antillon's explanation that it was possible to move that project back if council wishes so he could potentially offer a budget amendment to make that change. Mr. Antillon answered the contract would need to be cancelled and he was unsure what that cost would be. Councilmember Teitzel asked if that was doable and what the penalty would be. Mr. Antillon advised it would need to be negotiated with the contractor. Councilmember Teitzel asked Mr. Antillon to let him know the cost to cancel the contract. Mayor Nelson reminded round robin is one question per councilmember. Councilmember Paine referred to PWT-53, ADA Transition Plan update, observing it was scheduled for 2025. She recognized plans take time, but without an active plan the City is not eligible for any ADA grants. She asked if there was any way to move that up, noting some funding was provided by REET but the bulk was General Funds. She asked if it was scheduled in 2025 due to funding or staff capacity or both. Mr. English answered the $440,000 represents a comprehensive ADA transition plan. An ADA transition plan for the right-of-way was done in 2017. The ADA Transition Plan scheduled for 2025 would include City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 5 facilities, parks, and updating the right-of-way. There would need to be an identified funding source for the General Fund contribution related to facilities and parks. If the council identified a funding source, it could be moved up into 2024, but that is a challenge because the General Fund is in a difficult position. Staff applied for a SS4A (Safe Streets and Roads for All) grant though PSRC and expect to hear the results next month. Once that plan is complete, the City could apply for funding for the ADA Transition Plan update for the right-of-way and have it paid for with infrastructure funds. That was one of the reasons it was moved to 2025. Councilmember Paine asked if staff had the capacity in 2025. Mr. English answered yes. Council President Tibbott referred to page 37 of PROS Plan related to acquisition to complete the Interurban Trail. He asked if there were other anticipated acquisition or improvements anticipated along the Interurban Trail other than regular maintenance such as lighting or expanding the trail to make it more useful as a recreational resources. Ms. Feser recalled Public Works mentioned at the last meeting that they are considering a lighting study for the Interurban Trail so those funds would be in Public Works not Parks. There are funds identified for Interurban Trail expansion in 2029 focused on the piece in Mathay Ballinger Park going southwest to 240t1i or SR-104 and improving that connection to other nonmotorized transportation routes. There is not much else left of the Interurban Trail to the north. There are opportunities for other trail corridors that may become available between now and 2029. The intent is expansion of trails, the Interurban Trail is the second intent in the second priority. Council President Tibbott advised he would email Ms. Feser the second part of his question. Councilmember Olson observed the green streets project was moved from 2023/2024 for design and 2025/2026 for construction. She was surprised to see it that soon in the CIP/CFP as she did not remember that was the result of last year's budget season. She recalled it was farther out and just a placeholder in case there was a grant opportunity. She wondered if that project should be moved out further or even taken out of the CIP/CFP. At the community engagement for the Burlington site, there was discussion of actual flooding happening in the streets in that area. If the City wanted to do a project, it seems like it should be moved closer to where the flooding is happening. This was also one of planning board's comments, to move this project further out. Mr. English answered two projects were proposed last year through green streets, one on 238t1i and the other on Dayton. The council took action in last year's budget discussions to remove the Dayton portion of that project, but 238' Street was retained and ARPA funding assigned to that project. Councilmember Olson recalled it was kept in the CIP/CFP but not the budget. Mr. English explained it was up to council to decide if they want to slide that project into the out years; there is no funding identified in the current CIP/CFP document. Councilmember Olson recalled the concern was seeking grants for something that would need matching funds when it was not a priority, and that neither the council nor the community wanted to spend the time going after those grants. Mr. Antillon commented in thinking about projects that can be competitive for grants, this is one of those, it has all the necessary pieces that everyone wants to do. Therefore, it is nice to have it in there, but if council wants to remove it, it can be removed. No resources are being spending on it, but if there is a grant that could be a good source of funding, it could be brought back. Councilmember Olson said she was concerned because it seemed grants almost always require matching funds from the City. Mr. Antillon agreed it was usually at least 20%. Councilmember Buckshnis said removal of creosote -treated logs from Marina Beach was in the media recently. She recalled there was a grant to remove the creosote -treated logs from Haines Wharf which she assumed had expired. She asked if removal of the creosote -treated logs was in the CIP/CFP or did it need to be added and had consideration been given to the creosote piers at Haines Wharf that collapsed into the water. Ms. Feser advised removal of the Haines Wharf creosote piers was not included in the capital program and she believed it was earmarked as a potential mitigation project which is the reason it sits as is. There is great potential for other projects along the water where mitigation needs to be provided so it is being held for that. Councilmember Buckshnis commented DNR has grant programs to remove them for free. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 6 Mayor Nelson told Councilmember Nand that as everyone is interpreting this as a broad one question, he will extend that same courteous to her. Councilmember Nand thanked Mayor Nelson, relaying she had intended to make a motion in the interest of fairness that councilmembers be allowed to ask two follow-up questions or comments because some councilmembers are allowed to and others are being scolded which she did not feel was fair. Regarding the beautification programs and plans Parks & Recreation developed over a five year period, Councilmember Nand said she was aware work had already started at Five Corners with filling in and hardening of the flowerbeds and removal of irrigation and planting of succulents. She asked staff to describe plans for 2024 and whether Firdale was next. Ms. Feser answered the agreed upon beautification project for 2024 were the hanging baskets at the Five Corners roundabout which requires installation of arms and 10-12 flower baskets. The project being completed now, although it coincides and supports that, was a separate project. Councilmember Nand asked if the flower beds in Five Corners will be available for adoption by local businesses and community groups. Ms. Feser answered that has not been considered yet, but it could be part of the corner parks adoption. Councilmember Nand asked if there would be Floretum Club involvement in the Five Corner flower baskets and corner parks. Ms. Feser answered Edmonds in Bloom, not the Floretum Club, has offered to help pay for materials and equipment to make that happen so they will be assisting with the development of the new hanging flower baskets. Councilmember Teitzel referred to PWT-52 Traffic Calming, recalling at a council town hall at the Meadowdale Clubhouse last summer attended by approximately 35-40 people and a majority of councilmembers, they clearly heard concerns from citizens about speeding and accidents on the 1.5 mile stretch of 76t'', approximately 15 serious accidents in the past 10 years as well as a number of accidents that weren't reported to the police. The council appealed to Public Works to help with some mitigations and he learned last week the Public Works team installed a 3-way stop at Meadowdale Beach Road & 76t1i. He relayed citizens are thrilled by that and appreciate the responsiveness and care for that community. Mr. Antillon thanked Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss who did the analysis and determined the intersection met the warrant requirements to install a 3-way stop. Councilmember Paine referred to PWT-27 Olympic View Drive & 174' Street Intersection Improvement and asked what an acceleration lane was and whether it was needed. Mr. English answered an acceleration lane helps vehicles merge into the general purpose lane. That is a project from 2015 and it may not be the right solution for that area. Councilmember Chen recalled discussions about the library roof and asked if there was any follow-up or study about accelerating the roof repair or possibly replacing the roof. Mr. Antillon answered no, reminding that the flooding issue and the roof issue are not related and are completely separate. Over the years, the facilities team has implemented mitigation measures to control the library roof leaks and those have not caused any damage to the library or the tenants who use it. Sno-Isle knows about that and are replacing and revamping that to catch the leak. The roof is nearing the end of its expected life and funded of a full design, scope, etc. will probably need to be funded in the next five years. Councilmember Chen recalled a study about the mold issue in the library and the result that the air quality was ok. Mr. Antillon answered there is no mold and the air quality inside the space is fine. An industrial hygienist did the analysis and it all came back with good results. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the WWTP, advising her question is about the $40 million set aside to comply with the nutrient removal standards. It is listed as construction and she asked whether more would be constructed onto the building or was that the only category available. She also asked how the $40 million Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 7 estimate was derived. Mr. Antillon answered it is a preliminary estimate from the consultant regarding possible options; there will be some modification. Mr. De Lilla said in talking with the consultant and WWTP staff, it should be on site within the treatment plant campus and the consultant is estimating the cost at $40 million. There is also space across the street; the preliminary plan is to put it on the site. Councilmember Buckshnis observed it was scheduled for 2024 or 2025. Mr. De Lilla answered there is 1- 2 years of design followed by construction. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the same company used for the pyrolysis project would be used for that project. Mr. Antillon answered that company would probably be used, they have done a lot of plants in the area. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not see any revenue from the biochar and asked if that would be included in the budget if there is ever any revenue from biochar. Mr. Antillon advised it would be added to the budget; it is still in the early stages of identifying a source to purchase it. The goal is to at least get someone to take it for $1; as long as it is sold, the Department of Revenue will provide a tax break for a large portion of the equipment. Councilmember Nand referred to the Lake Ballinger regional facility design and construction, commenting due to a lack of footprint in SE Edmonds, there is a lot planned for the park such as permanent restrooms, picnic shelter, etc. She asked it would make sense to also run the stormwater infiltration through there or possibly look at other sites so less is concentrated in that very small footprint at Mathay Ballinger and asked how that would impact usage of the park. Mr. De Lilla answered based on the original findings, the entire facility could not fit on that site so other sites are being considered, possibly a smaller footprint and not retaining and/or treating as much of the water as originally planned. Staff is still determining what else can be done and identifying grants to fund the project. Councilmember Nand asked what sort of above ground footprint that will have versus underground. Mr. De Lilla answered most of it should be underground facilities to decrease peak flows and treat the stormwater. With regard to surface usage, Public Works can talk to Parks, but he assumed that would be smaller role because it is a park, possibly there would be a way to have it as a feature in the park, but he assured there would not be an entire rain garden in that area. Councilmember Chen asked whether a study to look at the bike connection between King County and Snohomish County through SR 104 should be a budget amendment or could that be worked into the CIP/CFP. MR. English answered that project along with the other project that was mentioned earlier could be evaluated in the transportation plan update which is currently underway. Mr. Antillon added staff will continue discussions with Shoreline and collaborating with them. Once it is determined an analysis needs to be done, staff will come back to council. Councilmember Buckshnis asked where the red light cameras are in the CIP/CFP. She recalled the school zone cameras were not in the CIP/CFP because it was related to police. The eight new red light cameras and the costs are not in the CIP/CFP. Mr. Antillon agreed it not included in the CIP/CFP. It will come back as a project once there is an agreement like the agreement for the school zone cameras. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if any studies had been done to determine the intersections, traffic counts, traffic impact fees, etc. Mr. Antillon answered he believed the police department had that information. 4. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. sa-:4- SCOTT PASSEY; CKCLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 24, 2023 Page 8