Loading...
2023-12-05 Regular MeetingEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 5, 2023 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Neil Tibbott, Council President Vivian Olson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir. Loi Dawkins, Assistant Police Chief Kim Dunscombe, Deputy Admin. Serv. Director Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Nand 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 PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO REORDER THE AGENDA, MOVING ADOPT THE 2024-2029 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO AGENDA ITEM 8.2 AND LANDMARK 99 OPTION AMENDMENT TO AGENDA ITEM 8.1. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 1 Councilmember Olson explained if the council voted in favor of the Landmark 99 option amendment, it would make sense to include such a significant capital investment in the CIP/CFP. Reversing the order of those agenda amendments would provide an opportunity to make an amendment to reflect that project in the CIP/CFP. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Robin Wright, Edmonds, spoke against the Landmark 99 project because she did not think it was the best use of taxpayer money and the risk that it could end up being way too expensive. The high density Highway 99 corridor needs open public space as an oasis form the concrete jungle it is becoming. The Landmark 99 property is large enough for a true recreational center including playfields. She cited Green Lake Community Center, Bitter Lake, Loyal Heights Community Center or to a lesser extent the Anderson Center as examples, noting playfields large enough for organized outdoor sports such as soccer, football, softball, cricket, etc. are needed. With all the housing being built, she questioned where residents will be able to enjoy these popular healthy activities, anticipating the few existing facilities will be overwhelmed. Landmark 99 was an opportunity for the City to provide a safe place for people of all ages to participate in outdoor recreation. She is not the only one with that viewpoint; the top three results in the City survey were community center, recreational facility and park space. Instead of what residents asked for, they ended up with a private housing project where less than 10% of the land will be available for public use. Although it doesn't meet the need for public space, she liked the design of the property as a housing project and suggested requiring all projects have 5-10% public space. However, a private housing project is not where the City's very limited public resources should be directed. She wondered how much money would need to be sunk into the next phase if this project goes forward; the City has already spent nearly $140,000 in 5 months just to get a very high level design concept. She wondered whether 3-5 times that amount would be required in the next 12 months for an in-depth analysis. If the council proceeds now, they are gambling not only the non-refundable deposit, but also the subsequent undefined spending to assess the viability of a project which may never come to fruition. The risks and rewards of property development are high and it is not the business for a City to be in. There is not enough benefit to the public to continue this project. She recommended wisely investing public money in projects that benefit the public. Jared Johnson, Edmonds, expressed his disappointment with the tax increase that the council approved which he understood was the maximum amount the council could approve. That tax increase affects not only people paying off their homes or who own their homes but also renters when landlords pass the cost on to their tenants. The increase sounds small but with other cost increases in food, carbon taxes on gas which are the highest in the country, utilities, insurance, etc. it all adds up to a huge amount and it hurts. Many people are hurting financially in this area and it just another increase on top the amount property owners pay on the increased value of their homes. Economist Milton Freeman said, keep your eye on one thing, how much the government is spending. That's the true tax. From his brief review of the City's budget on the website, revenues in 2021 were over $44 million, revenues in the 2024 budget are over $62 million, a 40.9% increase in just 3 years. He was glad he waited to vote until the last minute and was able to vote against councilmembers who voted in favor of the tax increase. He wished the council Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas and a blessed new year. Lisa Summers, Edmonds, voiced her support for the Landmark 99 project. It is important to continue to explore this project because the likelihood of a property this size coming up in the near future is slim. South Edmonds has been neglected for a long time and needs to be improved. This would be a very beneficial way to make improvements to the area. To counter what the first speaker said, housing on that property along with community spaces benefit the community. As a resident on 242" d, she understands the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 2 implications of what opening 242" could mean for her neighborhood. However, increased traffic flow, which she assumed would be properly mitigated with sidewalks and perhaps speed bumps, would create a very nice space when entering Edmonds. A development that provides housing, retail, and green space will benefit the area and she was willing to suffer the consequences of increased traffic on her street. She wished the council Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah and Happy Holidays. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, recalled asking the council a simple question, has city staff approached the council to ask what information they need to make their decision on the Landmark property purchase. He reiterated that question and asked whether council received the requested information. Without information, he was unsure how council makes an informed decision. With regard to the budget, he has not seen a proposal for funding in 2024 if the council votes to proceed with the Landmark property purchase. That project will not be free in 2024 and he recognized the council was struggling to balance the budget as is. He wished the council good luck with their budget deliberations tonight. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, referred to her announcement last week about launching a grassroots public opinion survey about whether to proceed with the Landmark 99 project. She emailed the council her survey report and will share the results tonight. She expressed appreciation for the local press, relaying they have agreed to publish survey results. Survey respondents identified where they lived; the results for those who live on the Lake Ballinger side east of Highway 99, 72% gave a thumbs up to proceeding. For those who live downtown, 19% voted yes and 81% voted no. A self-selected survey attracts extremes in public sentiment; from her survey, the council does not know how the general population of Edmonds thinks. Likewise, staff s attempts to reach out to the community to ask about uses on the site was another self- selected survey. There were some quality ideas in that survey; for example, she would use a public indoor pool, but that is not a valid representation of the entirety of Edmonds' population. She is a stickler for process; she encouraged the council to cancel the option to purchase and have the $100,000 refunded. If in 18-20 months a single admin assistant has to be laid off from the City of Edmonds because there isn't enough cash for payroll and the Landmark 99 project is canceled losing the $100,000, the council will have to reckon with her. Citizens are tense about this project and they think about finances a lot; there were a lot of responses in the first few days of this amateurish survey effort. The timing of the deal as well as the purchase terms for 10 acres or none favors the seller. The council is in the driver's seat; she urged them to cancel this deal and if they wanted to proceed, to get expert advice and use the power they have. Greg Brewer, Edmonds, said due to the City's poor financial situation, the council should walk away from the Landmark property acquisition. The inflated price and the risk of unknowns alone should tip the balance. The City has indicated that a master developer would be brought on to foster design and private partnerships. Once this happens the City will likely have less control over how the property gets developed. In order to attract developers, it has to pencil out to be profitable which is why the civic portion is so small. It really doesn't matter that it's a hard to find 10 acre property if the civic portion is only one acre. This development is more about high density housing than offering amenities to the Highway 99 corridor. A small civic portion will be surrounded by high density apartment buildings and won't meet the needs for current Highway 99 residents very well. Increased housing will require more jobs; he asked if the ratio of dwelling to jobs had been considered. The unprecedented traffic and congestion this project will bring to this geographically hemmed area will be staggering for the surrounding residential area. The $5 million in impact fees expected to be generated by this development is a drop in the bucket for the necessary infrastructure improvements that will be needed in the surrounding area. Safety and traffic flow will be impaired until improvements can be completed which will likely be 15 years in the future. He encouraged proponents of this project to broaden their perspective of the needs facing the Highway 99 corridor. He envisioned this development would not increase the quality of life for nearby existing residents. He urged the council to pull back, regroup, do better for the Highway 99 corridor, start smaller and strive for quality amenities that can positively impact existing citizens in the area without blowing up a 10 acre area with unprecedented density and congestion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 3 Kathy Brewer, Edmonds, commented the City is in a council -declared financial crisis and Councilmember Chen has warned of possible bankruptcy. Hours have been spent at multiple special meetings to work out the City's budget and painstakingly cut expenses, yet staff and consultants continue to pour time and money into Landmark 99. Council will be voting tonight whether to forfeit the much needed $100,000 and continue this ill-advised, costly pursuit. With the situation the city is in, it is a no brainer. The City needs common sense and restraint, to fund needs not wants, and to see Landmark 99 for what it is and put an end to it. At $37 million just to purchase the property and millions projected to develop it, Landmark 99 is a bottomless pit. Even with partners, the city does not have the money and it is insanity to continue down this road, putting the city in financial peril. Anyone voting for this is not being responsible with constituents' money and the city's well-being, and are jeopardizing the city's financial future. Furthermore, Landmark is not the wonderful community amenity for the residents of the Highway 99 corridor that it is being touted as. Instead, it is a high density apartment complex with minimal public and commercial space offering only 7% or less civic space. With 800+ units, it will cause a residential and traffic cluster. The surrounding neighborhood with be besieged with construction and traffic for years. Once completed, there will be well over 1,000 vehicles flowing onto neighborhood streets. Do the neighbors understand the impact on their quality of life? So many other problems, the location is wrong for such a large residential development in terms of access and crime. What about infrastructure and the loss of viable commercial space and potential jobs? What about the destruction of 3 acres of trees? This does not jive with the city's tree code or climate action plan. What about all the unknowns including what can go wrong in public -private partnerships. This is a risk the city cannot afford to take. It is easy to see this is not the right property at the right time for the right reasons. She urged the council not to bend to external pressures and political influences and do the right thing for the city and citizens and vote no to stop this wrong for Edmonds plan. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, commented in support of the continued investigation of the Landmark Highway 99 site. She believed it could be a cost-effective, expedient way to provide services to this underserved area of Edmonds. She expressed gratitude for Theresa Hollis and the survey she conducted to identify community sentiment, and for the tremendous amount of time that went into the study design and grass roots engagement to achieve one of the highest response rates from the SR 99 community. The 72% thumbs up response from the SR-99 corridor is for a project with significant tradeoffs and compromises from the community. Regarding the 5-7% proposed public investment, this is not the $19 million investment with no strings attached that was Civic Field. This is amazing favorability for a community that had limited outreach and investment following the passage of the 2017 upzone. She reminded the 2016 PROS Plan acknowledged a significant disparity in park resources and then the city did Civic anyway in the most well- resourced area of the city. People in Esperance came out in droves to say the Taste of Edmonds could not be held at Esperance Park due to safety issues and lights. She wondered if councilmembers would still be fiscal conservatives when the marsh comes up for purchase within a year. She concluded there is no parity. Megan Joplin, Edmonds, wished everyone a Happy St. Nicholas Eve if they celebrated it. She expressed her strong support for continuing with the Highway 99 project, a very exciting opportunity to give something to the entire community at the gateway to Edmonds and higher density is better for the environment. Continuing to explore this opportunity is relatively low stakes; city staff s plan is to partner with another entity that would foot most of the bill and as it is still exploratory, there are many offramps if the city chooses not to go forward. Hitting the brakes now seems premature. Carl Zapora, Edmonds, representing himself and not any organization or company, said he has not heard in 19 years of watching city government that the city is approaching bankruptcy. The city is facing a situation where its reserves are less than $3 million which is honestly scary and an unacceptable reserve amount for a city Edmonds' size. If the city proceeds with the Landmark project, it will require raising taxes to pay for it. He did not think the city needed to raise taxes and doubted the citizens would approve a vote to raise taxes. As the city frequently says, affordable housing is a problem, raising taxes will not help the affordable housing problem. $37 million is a lot of money; the council has already done a good job of reducing expenses as much as possible. If the voters do not approve a tax increase, it will be impossible for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 4 the city to afford $37 million. He encouraged the council to invest in the basics and in staff. If at the end of 2024 the city is in a situation where it is approaching bankruptcy, the council will then be in a position of facing employees in council chambers who are being laid off. He urged the council not to put themselves in a position of voting for a $37 million project and the likelihood of facing employees who are being laid off. He did not think that was the right decision and urged the council to focus on basics. Barbara Steller, Edmonds, commented no more land is being made and asked what the vision for the future is. She acknowledged Landmark 99 was a risk, but just stepping out of one's front door each day is a risk. She acknowledged she was ignorant of all the details regarding city finances, capital investments and codes, but she viewed the acquisition of the Landmark 99 property as an opportunity not to be missed. Citizens of Edmonds need to have a say in development that occurs there in the future. Three proposals have been presented based on successful experiences in other communities. She lives near Swedish - Hospital and walks and takes the bus weekly to or past this area via Community Transit buses, the Interurban Trail or the sidewalk -less 84t' Avenue. Despite the recent Highway 99 improvements, she wished a pedestrian overpass like the one in Shoreline on Highway 99 intersecting 228t' could be built so people could easily access the Mountlake Terrace transit center and future light rail without relying on vehicles. This might reduce the traffic and have a cost-effective, positive impact on the environment and connect Edmonds to its eastern borders. Rebecca Yalch, Edmonds, expressed support for the Highway 99 improvements and for all neighborhood improvements and was disturbed by the this versus those kind of discussions. In terms of the Landmark project, she hoped councilmembers had read the Puget Sound Business Journal article that explained what happened in Woodinville. Cascade Investment is a developer that is better than most and truly cares about the community. The long and short of that article was it was the right project and the right time, but now it's the wrong project and the wrong time because the economy doesn't support the development. The idea of hoping the city can get a private -public partnership going is potentially pie in the sky. There is a huge risk that the city could end up with property it cannot develop. As a business owner for many years, there are always consideration of lease versus buy. There are other large properties in Edmonds, including the former car dealership with a huge open space. She asked why the city hadn't considered alternative such as leasing a space and building a community center, library, and/or police substation versus buying something the city may not be able to find a partner to develop. It is usually lease what depreciates and buy what appreciates, but a lease would be a lower risk. She encouraged the city council to say no on this investment, not because it's a bad property, but because it's not the right time and everything hasn't been considered. Shanna Hobbs, Edmonds, voiced her strong support for pursuing the Landmark 99 project, a project that would vastly improve an area of the city that is neglected and to serve an underserved and underrepresented population. The work completed to date has been informative and meaningful. The relationship between the city and citizens has been extremely positive as staff has eagerly listened to feedback, providing an opportunity for members of the community to share their ideal outcomes and voice their concerns and regardless of tonight's decision, she wanted the hopes for improving south Edmonds to be heard. The strongest opposition is often for budgetary reasons which is shortsighted. The investment to date has been minimal and tonight is not even a firm commitment to purchase the property, but to continue exploring how the city would work with the developer to help fund, build and ultimately create an amazing place for the citizens of Edmonds. This is a rare opportunity; the comparative locations shared last week are not viable alternatives and the city wouldn't have to enter into a purchase agreement until late 2025 for the project. In actuality, this may be the only place for a project like this and even if the timing isn't perfect, it's never going to be perfect and it doesn't mean this good work should stop. She urged the council not to let this great work and this great opportunity end tonight. She would love to see this project move forward, not just for herself, her family and her neighbors, but for all the future families who will call Edmonds their home. Ellen Mauro, Edmonds, expressed her big-time support for this project. Her family purchased the first house behind the old Mick Finster's about eight years ago and they have been excited about development Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 5 occurring on the property because even though they love their house and Edmonds, this is a terrible little area. Most people who live in or around the bowl don't support this project because it doesn't benefit them. She understood there is no surplus in the budget for a project like this and taxes would likely have to be increased, but as someone who has been paying increasing taxes for many years and not being able to easily access any of those projects from her home, it feels like it's the residents east of Highway 99 turn to have some positive development. She was concerned if the city did not proceed with this project, the city and residents would have no say about how the property is developed and it would inevitably be an apartment building. She loved the idea of the city purchasing it so they can chose what goes there. Tonight's vote is not the purchase agreement, it was her understanding tonight's vote was just to proceed until something changes. The people who this project directly affects have their fingers crossed and she invited councilmembers to knock on their doors and hear how excited they are about this project. Matthew Spaziani, Edmonds, said he and his wife attended last week's council meeting and found it very informative. One of the things they have heard repeatedly is that there are a lot of unanswered questions. Further exploration of this project will provide those answers. Regardless of whether the city has the answers, investing in green space and community centers is both desired and needed, especially in this part of town. There is a lot of green space in the bowl. He lives between the bowl and the Highway 99 area and it is sorely in need of development. His and his wife's fear is this area may be neglected for another few decades if the city does not continue to explore this now. As Councilmember Nand and others have said, that area needs development, has needed it for a very long time and this is an opportunity to do that now. He expressed his and his wife's support for moving forward with the Landmark 99 project. Joe Wack, Edmonds, expressed support for moving forward with the Landmark 99 project. He lives very close to the site and that area has been underserved and has not gotten 1/100t1i of the opportunities that the residents in the bowl have received. The arguments he has heard against this project, such as increased taxes, have not convicted him. Most of that is unknown and as the previous speaker said, much of that won't be known unless the council moves forward. He has heard people object because there's too much crime in the neighborhood and some have been very disparaging of the people who live in his neighborhood. Moving ahead is not committing as much as people say and he wanted to support this project. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 2. BUDGET QUERIES - COUNCIL BUDGET QUESTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION/STAFF RESPONSES 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 20, 2023 2. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2023 3. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 28, 2023 4. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 30, 2023 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. 2023 BOARD AND COMMISSION RETIREMENTS 7. 2024 BOARD AND COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS 8. ORDINANCE TO REZONE 9530 AND 9620 EDMONDS WAY (PLN2023-0024) 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 2. LANDMARK 99 OPTION AMENDMENT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 6 Community, Culture and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum reviewed: • Tonight's decision o Authorize the mayor to sign the amended option which attaches the negotiated purchase and sale agreement (PSA) as an exhibit and amends the timeline and "assignment clause" language o This action results in ■ $100,000 becoming nonrefundable ■ The option continuing, thereby allowing further consideration until we execute the option or we choose to discontinue pursuing this project ■ Staff advancing the project as described in this and previous presentation Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin reviewed: • Policy Framework: Promoting Partnerships o Comprehensive plan o PROS Plan o Subarea Plan o Community renewal plan • Community Conversations o What should the site be used for? ■ Common themes: - Senior housing - Low-income housing - Work force housing - Retail - Coffee Shops - Community Center -flexible space - Hotel • Masterplan Design Options o Site Plan options Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 7 The Town Square The Village Green The Neighborhood reaJon antl yank Cemer unity wwu.ca <a.m. aeV FtMical oniu auileiry 9p ��e^�w[wi ana pazitlwm rF / playprpw ary Spacaa r— # 1 a� unl[ya Oapua[ccm[er ouN pudk waza NuW kwkai antra pu�Fanp pi ba�[�u ma --wan ana wvtlenual n xalpFEomaotl w,k / ggpnuntl i,zabneornootl parF / pr:pmuna Community Uses N Retail Uses 0 Open Space Metrics are approximate, conceptual only and subject to change with further design study ■ Each option has a community center and civic use such as a library, a police annex and a significant amount of public open space. The amount of space allocated to those uses differs between options ■ 7% of the site is built civic uses; there are an additional 2 acres of public open space Expression of interest o Staff sent out Request for Expression of Interest on November 16 o Received four response from both master developers and smaller entities that would likely partner with a master developer o A mix of interested uses — affordable housing, senior housing, commercial, medical office and civic uses Roadmap: Public/Private Partnership o PSA and Option Amendment o Request for Proposals o Due Diligence o Negotiate terms o Assignment of portion of right to purchase o Development agreement o Secure financing o Earnest money and closing Mr. Tatum reviewed • 2024 Anticipated Costs Activity Amount Due Diligence Alta survey, title, environmental $100,000 Real Estate consulting $25,000 Development agreement $1004150,000 Communication and outreach $15,000 Total $245,000-$290,000 *Partnership arrangements may impact individual line items 2024 funding options 0 75,000 — in negotiations for Snohomish County grant o $300,000 — currently available from Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales & Use Tax Where we are heading Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 8 With regard to comments about staff time, Mr. Tatum acknowledged a yes vote tonight absolutely ensures staff time will be devoted to this project for several years to get it right, and whether that is abandoning this project in 2024 or signing the PSA in 2025, the City will need to put its best efforts forward. This is a big project and it will require combined efforts to do it correctly. The roadmap lays out a path for partnerships over the next 15 months, but what will be truly critical to success will be the ability to come together to identify and manage risk and make big decisions about finances and to negotiation from a position of foundational strength. If the vote is yes tonight, he hoped one of the first moves in 2024 would be to bring the mayor, council and staff together to determine a collaborative process to bring forward policy decisions related to this project. Mr. Tatum continued: Local fiscal example — Civic Field Council Bond k2, REET 2 (Fund 125), 91.634.000 $1,307,488 Council Bond #1, $3,700,000 Park Donations, $400,OC Verdant/Fitness_ Grant, $170,000 REET 1 (Fund 126(, $108,389 eneral Fund, $1,784,786 Park Impact Fees, $1,352,620 Grant - RCO/Local Parks/YAF , $850,000 Grant - RCO/LWCF, 5500,000 Grant - Hazel Miller Grant -Snohomish County, $450,000 Foundation, $1,500,000 Financing example o What is the annroximate cost of financing $8M Term Interest Interest only payments Interest + principle payments (annually) (annually) 15 years 4% $32,000 $710,000 20 years 4% $320,000 $582,000 *does not include bond/loan origination fees Staff s recommendation o Authorize the mayor to sign the amended option which attaches the negotiated PSA as an exhibit and amends the timeline and "assignment clause" language o This action results in ■ $100,000 becoming nonrefundable ■ The option continuing, thereby allowing further consideration until we execute the option or we choose to discontinue pursuing this project ■ Staff advancing the project as described in this presentation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 9 • Staff is requesting a decision tonight, however, the option does not require a decision until December 31, 2023 • The packet includes the substantive pieces of the option and PSA. The city attorney emailed council the complete version of all exhibits referenced in the PSA earlier today. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for the presentation and their answers to difficult questions over the last six months. On Friday's field trip to Federal Way, the council was welcomed by the mayor, several councilmembers, members of planning & development, and communication personnel. She found the field trip very interesting and was able to see Federal Way's vision in putting together their 10 acre project via interest -only bonding. The decision before council tonight is to do more investigation to see if this project is feasible. She asked if there was any flexibility in the $37 million price. Mr. Tatum responded a price of $37 million has been negotiated. The due diligence will be critical; for example if soil sampling finds contaminants, that will be something to be discussed. A development partner will help with determining if a project will pencil out, market forces, and what the market will support. As the city gets into the financial details with a development partner, it will quickly be clear whether the price needs to be changed. Councilmember Paine asked if there is that capacity in the PSA. Mr. Tatum answered the PSA contemplates a sale at the price of $37 million. The council is not signing the PSA tonight, the PSA is attached as an amendment to an option. A lot of work will need to be done before handing over $37 million. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for providing information regarding anticipated 2024 expenditures. She relayed her understanding some of site does not have any concrete on it but during her tour of the site, there are not many trees and it certainly isn't green. The furthest east three acres has some shadows that might look like trees but they are mainly large brambles. She asked if that was a fair assessment, that there were not a lot of trees on the site. Ms. McLaughlin answered the back three acres is a myriad different landscape types including brush, bushes and some trees. A proper tree survey has not been done of their sizes which would determine whether they would be preserved or replaced. That will be something that will be looked into. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said staff has done a good job of clarifying the question Councilmember Paine asked. He wanted to make it very clear if council chooses to go forward with the addendum in the packet, there is a pre -negotiated PSA and the addendum gives the council the option 15 months from now to essentially require the seller to sign that document in the event the council wants to purchase the property. What an option does is for the next 15 months, the council holds in its back pocket the ability to require the seller to sell on these terms. With the $100,000 premium the council is potentially about to pay, the council is paying for the right to force the seller to enter into that contract 15 months from now; that is what the $100,000 buys the council. It is possible in 12 months the council may decide $37 million is too much and decides to go back to the seller to see if there is some flexibility. That cannot be ruled out, but the council is not paying for that now; the council is paying $100,000 to force the seller in 15 months to enter into a particular contract that has already been negotiated. A lot of things could change, but right now the decision is whether the council wants to spend $100,000 now to be able to force the seller in 15 months to enter into the PSA. Councilmember Nand emphasized it is important to understand that the council is voting on an agreement separate from the final PSA, the terms of which are still negotiable as who knows 15 months from now whether $37 million might be a bargain or may be something the council has to walk away from to force a counteroffer and renegotiation with the property owner. To address the public's concerns, if the council decides in 15 months to execute on the PSA and then go into some sort of agreement with a master developer, the council is in the driver seat. For example, if the council wants to preserve significant trees on the property, those can be put into a master planning agreement as well as conditions related to open space. The council has heard a lot of interest and a lot of concerns from the public about going forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 10 Councilmember Nand thanked staff for clearly identifying the costs and sources of revenue that cannot be put into the General Fund and are most appropriately applied to a project like this which makes it logical to proceed. She thanked the public for their passion and for taking the time to comment and contact councilmembers over the last week. Councilmember Olson thanked staff for a well -prepared package and the numbers. The council needs to know what they are committing to financially because that's where the rubber hits road, it takes it from theoretical to the realistic. She appreciated that there was funding for some of the due diligence, but once that money is spent, it is not available for any other project. So if there is not a lot of confidence in moving forward at the end of the process, there is reason to pause and not enthusiastically spend that money. She referred to the example of the amount being financed, pointing out especially if any of the spaces is a community center, $8 million will not be the City's part so that is not an accurate representation of the ongoing General Fund expenditure. Councilmember Olson continued, timing is definitely an issue. One of the issues with timing is the City is still paying the bonds on Civic. Regardless of whether anyone wants to revisit whether that project was a good idea or not, the City is still paying for it. It would be preferable to time the start of a project like this when the bond service for Civic was completed. The other part of timing is the comprehensive plan. She preferred to do the comprehensive plan and have it drive purchase decisions versus having this project drive the comprehensive plan which it most definitely will. Fundamentally from her observations of the plans that have come forward, this has become a housing development. That is not objectively a bad thing, but since the City is buying the property at market price, not at a huge bargain, that cost will be passed along to partners such as HASCO. She did not understand why the City needed to be in the middle; it if is a good price, a development could move forward and if there is an opportunity to supplement with some small city expenditure for a public use as part of the development, the City could ask for that as an investment in the plan without the City being the underwriter and middle man. Councilmember Olson continued, the council has received so many emails this week and she was making no assumptions that her colleagues and/or staff read this. She participated in the field trip and had a lot of takeaways. One of the things she learned is these public -private partnerships are of interest and manifest an opportunity for the council to keep in mind on other projects. When visiting Tukwila Village, it was very similar to the project that is being discussed in Edmonds and included many of the same things. She read from her notes: This one seems most like the ones we're considering and would benefit from at the Landmark site. I liked it and see the value. I have a couple of thoughts to assert. This was the project with the smaller footprint of the ones given as comps, 6.4 acre, which diminishes the once in a lifetime reason and pressure with the 10 acre opportunity. In fact if we did go for the current parcel now or in the future and could get the land for a more reasonable price, perhaps the forest on the slope could be retained or even add more trees, funded with grants from open space conservation sources and only develop the other parts of the parcel. If the cloverleaf and the roads were not restructured in the short term or even, a pocket forest could be planted on the half -acre cloverleaf. Perhaps a pocket forest is exactly the welcoming image of Edmonds to have at the gateway. Councilmember Olson continued, in the Federal Way discussions, it was clear the administration and most of council championed this project from the very beginning and every step of the way and did years of relationship building with the developers, community and business stakeholders in the area such that most were on board. Edmonds has not yet done this and case in point, one of the business community members on Highway 99 is very against the project, someone who owned one of the large businesses on Highway 99. The City cannot go back in time to build support for this project, but it can start fresh and build that foundation now for a new start for this project or another one in the future. Asking the business community on Highway 99 what their vision is and how the City can help create it and what the businesses can do to help create it means we can all be in action together. This will be just as important for success in any Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 11 upcoming conversations and projects under the community renewal umbrella which is another tool the council has been learning about. Councilmember Olson continued, it isn't possible to get the majority of the council and community on board when the City's finances are the way they are. We have to fix our financial house first. There are many who were on board for the theoretical of this and she had received some emails in that regard, like people who thought it was a great idea theoretically, but not the right time. It is not just that people are in the yes or no camp, it is a nuanced yes, I'm interested but not now. Our mayor -elect does not have the enthusiasm for this project and with the other major and time critical issues to address, you can't blame him. That enthusiastic championing by the Federal Way mayor is not an element of success that Edmonds will have on this project. Council and staff working together, council needs staff input to know what expenses signing the PSA commits the council to in 2024. The council cannot and hopefully will not vote to approve signing the PSA without knowing the impact on the 2024 budget at a minimum and it would be really nice to know the impact in 2025 too. She pointed out she sent this email on Saturday and this information was received tonight. Councilmember Olson continued, this is not a question of whether we are theoretically in favor of a plan at the Landmark site; this is whether we and our community are making this a priority for our time and our money now. She agreed with another councilmember who stressed our action is critically needed on revenues and she was ready to jump into that as soon as the current budget is approved. She reminded that community support is an important component of revenue asks in the future as their votes will be needed to pass a levy, join the RFA, etc. to adequately address the budget imbalance that exists without this project. We are more likely to have the community support it will take to pass whatever the ask is if the council doesn't commit to expenses that a healthy majority do not want the council to, at least not now. Council President Pro Tern Olson continued, it will take four votes to walk away from this. It will take all seven votes walking away to restore the community's faith that the council will do what is needed to dig out of the financial hole the City is in. After so much stress over plummeting reserves, she urged her fellow councilmembers to give the community that sigh of relief and the belief that council will right the ship by everyone voting no on signing the option and voting for the budget cuts that the council has been in the process of doing. She thanked councilmembers for making suggested budget cuts and looked forward to working with the council to set up the city for a sustainable course correction, one that addresses both revenues and looking big picture at how we do business and where there may be opportunities or less expensive ways to accomplish the City's many missions. Councilmember Olson thanked the many residents who have written to council, commenting there has been an incredible amount of email on both sides. She has read them all and has tried to respond to all of them but apologized she might have missed some. She learned a lot about the needs and wants of the community including snow removal and addressing houses and neighborhoods that flood during the heavy rains. She looked forward to working with community members to prioritize the needs of all residents in all neighborhoods. Councilmember Eck thanked Directors Tatum and McLaughlin for all the work they have put into this. Having heard them speak many times regarding this project, they are always very well prepared and she was grateful for the work that they and their teams have put into this. She has heard concerns about crime in the area and that being a reason not to do a project on this site. She asked if their research included the effects of this type of development and increased community involvement on crime levels. Ms. McLaughlin said she would not give a scientific response but more of a design response. Under urban design and general development, there are design principle for designing buildings in spaces to reduce crime and that has a lot to do with eyes on spaces in terms of the number of hours during the day that there are active uses and people in the area; critical mass makes crime more difficult. The community renewal plan studied how the existing built form lends itself to crime in terms of the current broad surface parking lots and the singular Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 12 format uses which do not encourage people to linger for longer periods of time throughout the day. She anticipated an integrated community development would result in more activity throughout the day and she speculated the integration of a police annex would assist in reducing crime. She summarized her response was somewhat anecdotal and also based on design principles. Councilmember Eck recalled during a ridealong in another jurisdiction a couple of years ago, the officer said something similar, that that is a well know strategy to cut down on crime. She relayed her utmost respect for the community voices that have spoken on both sides of this issue as well as the voices of her council colleagues. She reminded this is not a vote to develop this site for certain or to spend $37 million of the City's money. She did not see this as just a housing project, but a serious decision and a pivotal moment. This is an opportunity to address many of the community needs that the council has been hearing for a long time especially in the immediate community. This neighborhood is worth taking more time to discover what can be and to see how the City can provide amenities, green spaces, civic uses and gathering spaces for the community today and in the future. She has heard those types of things are a priority for the council so she wanted the council's actions to match their words; The neighborhood and community are worth taking time to dream what this could be. She thanked staff for the work they have done, noting it is time well spent. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for providing numbers which she found very helpful. She thanked Councilmember Olson for her soliloquy. This is not current market price, it is an off -market price or as some realtors call it, an under the table price. She agreed with Councilmember Eck that the three designs are really wonderful housing developments, but unfortunately it is not like Civic Field which was a park and not a housing development. She was unsure Councilmember Eck knew, the council repealed Ordinance 4079, a planned action ordinance for the Highway 99 area, because the administration did not address many of the things in the EIS. Her concerns include the City does not have code including a development agreement code, and has no codes related to infrastructure needs. It is important to get code related to a development agreement in place because she knew of a lot of cities who have made developers very wealthy because they have bad code. She emphasized a bad code is a weak council. Councilmember Buckshnis continued, Mr. Taraday sent the council the PSA at 3:40 pm today and she has several questions that she did not see answered. She relayed a question from a commercial broker, why was there a non-refundable $500,000 earnest money after clear title. She did not see that that had been redline changed in the document. Mr. Taraday answered this is a long, detailed PSA and there is more than one way to negotiate and draft a PSA. He was not the primary negotiator of the PSA but that is where the parties landed with regard to the refundability of earnest money, a phased non-refundability where part of it becomes non-refundable at one stage and the second part becomes non-refundable at a later stage. He summarized that is just the way the deal got worked out. Councilmember Buckshnis said that was concerning due to the City's very low General Fund balance. Mr. Taraday answered a proposed PSA is attached to the addendum. If a councilmember's decision tonight will turn on the refundability of earnest money being 60 versus 90 days, it's possible that could be negotiated differently, but he highly doubted that would change a councilmember's vote. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she has received numerous emails from brokers and developers and that was one of their concerns, a $500,000 non-refundable earnest money. Mr. Taraday answered it is not immediately non- refundable. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged it was after clear title. Mr. Taraday reiterated if that was a dealbreaker for the council, staff would go back to the seller to negotiate a different refundability on the earnest money and see what the seller says. He concluded that was a very small detail in the grand scheme of things. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed it was a small detail considering it is $37 million. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many developers contacted the City in response to the RFI. Ms. McLaughlin answered more developers contacted her and there were four responses from actual interested developers with specified uses they would like to engage on the site. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 13 they were all housing. Ms. McLaughlin answered no, there was interest in affordable housing, senior housing, commercial development, civic uses as well as medical office, a mix of uses that were desirable from a development perspective. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the repeal of Ordinance 4079 and the medical district on Highway 99 that has not been defined, but there is a medical district in the Highway 99 subarea. Ms. McLaughlin answered the repeal of Ordinance 4079 was the planned action; the underlying zoning still exists so there is a medical office area on the corridor. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, noting the zoning is all CG with 75 foot building heights. Councilmember Buckshnis continued, stating she was very concerned with the City's financials and she did not think if the council walked away that this property would sell anytime soon. The property is not worth $37 million and developers and realtors have confirmed that. This is taxpayers' money, not monopoly money. The City could continue looking at this, but there is so much diversity in terms of people are wildly anxious and angry on both sides. Because it is such a difficult situation, she wished the vote could require all seven councilmembers, recalling only three councilmembers voted in favor of continuing in the past. It is very important to realize that just because this project is moving into the next phase doesn't mean the entire staff will continue to do the great work they are doing. The presentation materials have been great, but it is giving people false hope. She emphasized this is taxpayers' money and $37 million is a lot of money. She preferred to start a taskforce related to Highway 99 and do this the right way. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the amount of work and effort that Directors McLaughlin and Tatum have put into this project, providing many details, communication, outreach and input pro and con from the community. He also appreciated residents who care about the City regardless of their opinion, it shows they are engaged and care. With regard to the $37 million price, plus the $137,000 that has already been spent and another $290,000 in estimated 2024 costs to engage consultants for a master plan and site planning. He estimated the total before the council signs the PSA would be $38 million and asked if that would be a fair assessment. Mr. Tatum responded there is a bunch to that question. When the council signs the PSA, as the project is envisioned, the City's retained portion would be much less than $37 million. For example, if the City retained 2 acres or whatever is negotiated with the development partner for $10 million. He assured that was just a number he came up with. He envisioned the estimated 2024 costs identified in the presentation were an accurate representation of what will be spent during 2024 in addition to staff time so $300,00 plus $137,000. With regard to the Affordable and Supportive Housing Sales & Use Tax, Ms. McLaughlin relayed the currently accrued amount in 2024 is approximately $300,000 and accrues annually. The purpose of those funds is to explore affordable housing options in the community. There will be times when those are explored and it does not work out or is deemed not to be the best option. That is the intent of that funding source and it continues to accrue over time. Councilmember Chen referred to Mr. Tatum's comment about the portion of the property the City retains relates to the price the City pays. However, for the City to have the right to reassign or sell the property, the City has to buy it first. Mr. Tatum answered in the original option agreement and in the option agreement and PSA as negotiated, the City has the right to assign the right to purchase. For example, the City could purchase the entire site for $37 million and sell to whoever they City wants. As the PSA and option are currently drafted, the City can take its option to purchase and assign it to someone else. The City does not have to purchase the property first; the City can determine what portion to retain and the price and allow another entity to purchase the remainder. For example, if the City negotiated retaining 2 acres at a price of $10 million, the other entity could purchase the other parcels for $27 million. In that instance, when the PSA is signed, there would be two PSAs happening. Councilmember Chen said he was excited about the opportunity for this scale of affordable housing; based on the three designs, it was clearly a housing project. It went from 75% public use down to 7%, a dramatic change in terms of public uses. In this magnitude of housing development, affordable housing is definitely Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 14 needed so it becomes more of a regional project rather than just an Edmonds project. Since the City has the ability to assign it, he asked if it would be wise to bring in more partners such as Snohomish County to make it a county project rather than a City project. Mr. Tatum responded this will likely end up being a partnership with a lot of partners and he would not be surprised if there was a Snohomish County or other governmental partner. In each of the three options, there were undefined civic use spaces which is a huge opportunity to bring in partners in those spaces. When the RFP is done, the City will hear from the development community about the partners they will bring to the project. This would also stir up the dust on other partners sitting in the wings wondering if this project will happen. He envisioned over the course of the next 15 months, the City will hear from a number of partners with a number of interests and the process will include integrating those interests and partnerships into a development agreement and partnership agreements. Councilmember Chen commented over the last 2-3 months, the council has discovered the City is in a financial crisis. That situation targets the General Fund because the reserve is being drawn down to a historical low. The current estimate is $3 million compared to the requirement of approximately $9 million. He appreciated staff identifying funding sources which include $75,000 from Snohomish County and $300,000 from the state which is enough to cover the $290,000 in expenses in 2024 if the council votes to continue to explore this project so these expenses will not impact the General Fund. Mr. Tatum agreed. Ms. McLauglin agreed it would not impact the General Fund. She noted the lack of development on the Highway 99 corridor in 2022 and 2023 has impacted property tax and impact fee revenues. She referred to the Federal Way development, noting in times like this, it is the civic investment that stimulates economic development which helps supplement the General Fund and provide a higher level of stability economically. In Federal Way, it was that level of civic confidence in moving forward with a public -private partnership that as they are finalizing their development agreement, they are being approached by adjacent parcels that are now turning over, stimulating additional economic redevelopment, bringing prosperity to the central core of their downtown which hadn't seen any redevelopment until the city got involved. Councilmember Paine noted the council has received a lot of input both via correspondence as well as comments in person and virtually. There are a lot of aspects that are true and involve things that the council has discussed over the last 10 years. There are several planning documents including the Highway 99 subarea plan as well as the PROS Plan which now have life breathed into them via this potential. There have been numerous comments about the need for parity and equity across all of Edmonds. The downtown area is beautiful and has aspects that are the envy of neighboring cities. Edmonds has a downtown, Federal Way is creating a downtown, a civic center that will be important for them. Having civic aspects in all parts of Edmonds will make Edmonds that much stronger and add more diverse uses and vibrancy particularly along Highway 99 the City's most traveled corridor. It is important to consider parity and investments in civic, commercial, office, etc. She loved the idea of a development agreement. She was surprised and not surprised by the price; it takes a lot of negotiating by smart people with sharp pencils to work out all the details that will work for the City and the developer. A development agreement needs to be put into place because if the council decides to do this, it is up to the City to decide what they want. For example, if 7- story buildings are not desirable, the development agreement can go outside the code maximums. Things can also be done with neighboring communities such as shared community contributions from Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline related to a pool. Market rate housing has been developed in Edmonds, but there is a need for low income housing of the type HASCO builds. HASCO is a good partner, they are well run and low income housing will not be built by a private developer; HASCO has the funds to do that and would be good neighbors and good partners. Councilmember Paine continued, the Federal Way project will include ownership opportunities in buildings of 18 units or less to avoid condominium liability issues. There are many condominium complexes in Edmonds and across the region that are smaller than 18 units. The City has 12-15 months to talk with commercial property owners and stakeholders on Highway 99. She referred to Councilmember Olson's observation that a business owner expressed some discomfort, but she wondered what that would look like Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 15 in six months with more engagement in that community. One of her big takeaways was engaging the community. As Ms. McLaughlin said, a development agreement doesn't have to require City ownership but it helps to redevelop and reimaging what the kickoff along Highway 99 would look like and re -exciting the commercial areas along Highway 99. She hoped some of the sites that need development could be re - excited, but she also wanted to retain the character which requires engagement with all the stakeholders particularly the current landowners and enterprises. She concluded she was in support of continuing to look at this project and wanted to ensure the full panel of stakeholders along that corridor were included because the neighborhood has been very clear about wanting more development, particularly this project. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AMENDED OPTION AGREEMENT. Council President Tibbott said he was one of the early supporters of this, he supported the community conversation in a big way and wanted to hear more about what the community thought about the opportunity and to explore options of how the property might be used. He was really impressed with the amount of input the City solicited and received including people attending meetings. During the process, he also learned about development opportunity for the site. When the council visited Federal Way and Tukwila, he was under -impressed with their development agreements, particularly the public -private partnership in Tukwila where housing occupied a very large part of the space although there was 20% open space and community amenities, but it didn't seemed energized. There were enough concern in both visits that it was very difficult for him to support the Landmark project. His two main concerns are 1) timing, both economically and for the City budget wise, and 2) time. More time is needed to build a consensus among the council, citizens, staff and city leadership about how to move forward. More time is needed to complete the comprehensive plan and community renewal plan and to consider options other than a private -public partnership. There can be development agreements to guide development of any properties along Highway 99 and a community renewal plan could look at currently occupied properties. It is time for the City to go back to the drawing board and to continue move forward. He believed this was not the end, but the continuation of much more exploration. He will continue to support community conversation and he valued the community's to move forward with this. Councilmember Nand did not support the motion. She remembered there was significant discussion about local control during the 2023 legislative session, a desire to have community input in the development and changes to the community. That was strongly expressed by this council and Edmonds' engaged citizenry. Ideas that have been floated tonight include asking other partners to take leadership, something that has already occurred on Highway 99 where the Snohomish County Council completely bypassed the Edmonds City Council to acquire and begin planning the American Best Hotel and the City just has to wait in a passive position to find out what will happen with that property and how it will impact the City. Becoming the council of no, and telling the private sector to do whatever they want and that the city council will be as hands off as possible because they don't want a say and don't want the community to have a voice in community -driven development is not forward looking or economically wise for the City. She was not looking forward to sitting in the backseat and seeing what someone else with vision and courage decides to do with this property. She was strongly against the motion, especially since staff, as the council requested, has identified specified funding sources for this exploration and this development to give a voice to the community and allow them to provide inputs they would not have if the private sector is controlling the conversation about what happens with redevelopment of this property and that does not impact the General Fund. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, CALL THE QUESTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 16 Councilmember Olson commented Federal Way's finances are truly solid, evidenced by certificates of excellence available on their website. With regard to what money is spent, the council is committing General Fund money to this project in 2025 and forward. She opined it was rather conservative to think the City would only be on the hook for 10% of the total development costs which puts the cost at $20 million. That is quite significant starting in 2025 when realistically the City will be in a fiscal crisis for a solid five years to rebuild reserves to fund reserve policy levels. She honestly couldn't image entering into this option and putting the time, money and focus of staff and the community into something the City cannot step forward and do a year in the future. She did not understand how councilmembers could have been engaged in the budget process and looking at the really hard choices in front of them and the very big financial hill the council has been climbing and want to at this moment in time to commit to $1.5 million/year from the General Fund starting in 2025. The urged the council to seriously consider that. Councilmember Chen said he has been very skeptical from the beginning, first was the purchase price. In June he asked the directors to see if there was opportunity to negotiate the price, but that has not changed. His other question was how the City would pay for it. This will still be a 5-6 month exploration stage and there are funding sources for the 2024 exploration costs, but if the $300,000 is not used on this project, it would be available for other projects which is another consideration. The financial situation the City is in is real; the council needs to focus, but he hated to let go of an opportunity. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CONSIDER THE OPTION TO BE REASSIGNED TO ANOTHER AUTHORITY WHO HAS A BIGGER BANDWIDTH TO TAKE ON THIS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INSTEAD OF EDMONDS TAKING ON THE RISK ALONE. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification, was Councilmember Chen asking for staff to find a partner to put up the $100,00 option premium. Staff has already negotiated the right to assign the PSA once the option is exercised, that right is already included in the PSA. Councilmember Chen answered that would help with the City's financial situation. Mr. Taraday said the problem is the option expires on December 31, 2023 unless an agreement is reached. The amount of time left in the year to find that type of assignee would be very difficult. Council President Tibbott expressed concern the amendment was not compatible with the motion. He suggested addressing the first motion and then consider the other. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Council President Tibbott's motion to reject staffs recommendation. She reiterated the $37 million price is off market. As the seller seems to want to sell the property, she suggested a right of first refusal and let him put the property on the market. The Burlington Coat Factory lease is in effect until 2029 which provides plenty of time to map this out completely which most cities do before they purchase property like this. This is too much money, too high a risk and the price is off market. An off market price is not normal, as a regulator, that was considered a huge red flag, and raised the question of who is getting what. It is not a good look for the City to engage in an off market price. To Councilmember Buckshnis' concern, Councilmember Nand explained the option agreement is a right of first refusal if the City exercises it and loses it if the City does not. She asked about Councilmember Buckshnis' alternative proposal. Councilmember Buckshnis answered her proposal was to reject this $37 million off market deal and have the property owner put it on the market and possibly engage in a right of first refusal. Without putting the property on the market, the council has no idea the property's value and it would be reckless for the council to engage in an off market price of $37 million. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 17 Council President Tibbott said he believed the work on the east side of the City is just beginning. As he has said many times in the past the largest redevelopment project in the City's history is currently underway on Highway 99, both the landscaping strips and reimaging transportation. There are a lot more opportunities to discover and a lot more ideas that need to come to the surface. There have been some great conversations and ideas, for example moving the entire police station to Highway 99 which would serve the city well now and into the future. That is something that has surfaced in conversations and is worth considering in the comprehensive plan and the community renewal plan. Council President Tibbott continued, the opportunity to purchase this site came up quickly and caught community members by surprise. There have been some great conversations as well as some very angry conversations. He requested the City do three things, first, lean forward and not sit back when it comes to community conversations. Second, he asked the City to remain curious. He has been shocked by some emails and the assumptions people are making about Landmark and the motivations of staff, councilmembers and neighbors. Prejudice never leads to good solutions. The City needs to remain curious and look at that area of the City holistically which is what the comprehensive plan and community renewal plan does. Third, he asked the City to stay positive. The City will get through these budget challenges and get through the stress of not having reserves. The fact of the matter is the City will need new ideas and will need to stay positive as it is difficult to reach positive solutions without working together. Council President Tibbott continued, the largest previous redevelopment project in the City happened 50- 60 years ago with the development of the waterfront marina. That was the last generation's redevelopment project; redevelopment of Highway 99 is this generation's redevelopment project. The marina faced tremendous struggles moving forward including a devastating snowstorm that collapsed buildings onto boats. The City rose to the challenge, got through that and brought hope and solutions and now has a highly desirable marina. The City is in that kind of redevelopment phase with Highway 99 and the south and east side of the City. The City needs to lean into it and remain curious and positive. He liked to think this was not an end, but a continuation of some really important work that is still left to do. Councilmember Nand thanked Council President Tibbott for his comments. It is important when discussing the history of this area to look at annexed areas and potential annexation areas and consider the City's responsibility for investment in those areas. The council is failing annexed areas and potential future annexation areas by not aggressively investing in redeveloping Highway 99; planters in the median do not cut it when it comes to that community's needs. If the City's growth strategy is to annex areas to add money to the City's coffers, the City has to make a credible argument that it will be beneficial to them to support Edmonds' budget because money will flow back to their neighborhood. Voting to walk away from Landmark 99 now and saying the City could use the affordable housing funds for another project would be foolhardy. This is a project that deserves exploration and she hoped the council votes against this motion and continues exploration to show a commitment to annexed areas and future annexation areas who will be asked to invest in the City budget that they will get a return because the City is committed to serving all of Edmonds equitably across all geographic zones. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AMENDED OPTION AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 18 Council President Tibbott advised some of the budget deliberations will impact the CIP/CFP. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE ADOPT THE 2024-2029 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO THE DECEMBER 11TH MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADOPT THE 2024-2029 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This item was postponed to the December 11, 2023 council meeting. 3. COUNCIL 2024 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS Council President Tibbott advised the first two items are from a previous meeting and additional information has been provided. He invited Deputy Administrative Services Director Kim Dunscombe to describe the impact of the council's previous decisions. Ms. Dunscombe thanked Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson for her assistance developing this information. She displayed and reviewed Status of 2024 Proposed Decision Packages which included the decision packages, the 2024 proposed expenditure budget, decision package status, and the impact. Council actions have affected different funds and this document does not illustrate the outcome of the decisions on the General Fund. She noted a change to DP82 related to Yost Park is not reflected in the spreadsheet; she will update the spreadsheet following tonight's meeting. CM Fund Description Dept $ Nand 016 to GF Bond Proceeds in Fund 016 to reimburse Bldg Maint $400,000 General fund for Police and court Facility Remodel Councilmember Nand explained the above is based on the recommendation of Administrative Services Director Turley and Ms. Dunscombe. However, with late -breaking input from the public works director, she was willing to defer this until the CIP/CFP discussion to discuss impacts to deferred projects if that would be preferable. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 016 TO THE GENERAL FUND UNTIL AFTER ADOPTION OF THE CIP/CFP. Council President Tibbott wondered if this would be something to bring up in early 2024 versus trying to squeeze it into the 2024 budget. He asked the impact of acting on this now versus waiting until the first part of 2024. Ms. Dunscombe answered the council could certainly wait to do this as a budget amendment in early 2024 in order to get more information. If the council does not approve these for the 2024 budget, the ending fund balance for 2024 is what it is. Council President Tibbott said he just learned from Public Works Director Antillon that moving these funds impacts projects in the CIP/CFP. He was concerned about acting on this now when the council needs to understand the fiscal impact on capital projects. Mr. Antillon said finalizing the budget is the priority to ensure it is consistent with the CIP/CFP. Whatever decisions the council makes now, the CIP/CFP can reflect those adjustments. Council President Tibbott suggested discussing and deciding how to handle this now so adjustments can be made to the CIP/CFP although council may need information regarding the impacts. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 19 Councilmember Nand said she had planned to bring forward two recommendations from finance staff to transfer $400,000 from Building Maintenance Fund 016 to the General Fund to reimburse the General Fund for expenditures on the police and court facility remodel. Ms. Dunscombe explained the first proposal was to move $400,000 from Fund 016 to the General Fund to support the police and court facility remodel that in part has already taken place. She has 4 invoices paid to date that total $130,000 which is all she has to substantiate that transfer as of today. Those are eligible expenses although not originally part of the reason for the bond. She asked if council wanted her to speak to the transfer related to bond interest or discuss this transfer first. Councilmember Nand suggested considering the transfers separately. Councilmember Paine said she was more comfortable talking about the interest transfer first because it does not impact a major project and then talk about the project impacts separately. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concerned with the round number of $400,000 and preferred to wait to have an actual amount associated with it. She also preferred to consider the impact on the CIP/CFP versus doing a blanket transfer of $400,000. Councilmember Chen did not support using a round number without matching it up with invoices, fearing that would invite a potential audit issue in the future. Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmembers Buckshnis and Chen. COUNCILMEMBER NAND WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO TABLE TO GIVE THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT MORE TIME TO GATHER SUBSTANTIATION AND DOCUMENTATION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, OLSON, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Council President Tibbott asked if that item would be tabled to the Monday meeting or the next regular meeting. City Clerk Scott Passey said a tabled motion has to be taken from the table at the same meeting or at the next regular meeting. Council President Tibbott advised the next regular meeting is December 19. CM Fund Description Dept $ Nand 016 to GF Bond Proceeds in Fund 016 to reimburse Bldg Maint $529,083.33 General fund for first three years of interest expense Councilmember Nand said she wanted to bring this forward for discussion on the dais and was uncertain council would take action tonight. This is the second recommendation from Mr. Turley and Ms. Dunscombe. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO REIMBURSE THE GENERAL FUND FROM BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 016 FOR $529,833.33 EQUIVALENT TO 3 YEARS OF BOND INTEREST FOR CIVIC PARK AND OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS. Ms. Dunscombe explained give the legislation and everything she has read, these are eligible expenses for the first three years. This portion of the bond was divided into two separate projects, civic park and other capital projects. Because there was one issue, both sides of the interest probably apply. She said she would defer to legal to substantiate that, but that was the math provided from bond counsel. City Attorney Jeff Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 20 Taraday relayed Bond Counsel Marc Greenough indicated the $529,833 represents interest on the civic portion of the bond issuance and not interest on the entire bond issuance and he was solid on that number being transferable. Council President Tibbott relayed his understanding that $529,833 is an acceptable amount that could be transferred from the building maintenance fund to reimburse the General Fund. Ms. Dunscombe agreed. Council President Tibbott expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Taraday shared with Mr. Greenough that Civic Park is paid for from Fund 322 and only totals $143,809 and that facilities is paid from Fund 001 which was $385,274. Mr. Taraday answered he did not originally reach out to bond counsel, Mr. Turley did and did not share that information with him. If that changes the number, staff would have to confer with him. He was unable to verify whether Mr. Greenough knew that information. Councilmember Buckshnis guessed Mr. Greenough may not have that information. She recommended postponing this motion to allow bond counsel to see this breakout. Payments on Civic Field come from Fund 322 so it does not impact the General Fund and the remaining, $385,274, does come from the General Fund. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember Buckshnis was referencing where the interest payments are coming from. Councilmember Buckshnis answered yes, she had the source data. She suggested tabling this until clarification is provided. Mr. Taraday recommended not tabling any more motions tonight due to the regular meeting problem. He suggested the last motion be taken from the table and a separate motion made to postpone it to Monday, December 11, because hopefully the council does not have any more regular meetings this year. He suggested instead of tabling motions, the council postpone to a date certain. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO POSTPONE THIS TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 11Tu TO GIVE MR. TARADAY THE RAW DATA TO SHARE WITH BOND COUNCIL. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is clear the $148,809 for civic park was paid from Fund 322. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the postponement. This number includes 3 years, 2021, 2022 and 2023, and 2021 has been audited and it was his understanding the City cannot go back and change that. Ms. Dunscombe answered it would be okay to reimburse the General Fund for all three years even though those two years have already passed. She has the journal entries to support that all the interest payments have been made from the General Fund. The 2023 journal entry was made on December 1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DP CM Fund Description Dept $ 17 Chen GF End 76th Avenue Rental Space Parks $49,000 Councilmember Chen explained DP 17 is regarding space that Parks rents on 76t' Ave W, $7,000/month for 7 months. He suggested it could save the City $49,0000 if Parks used existing facilities. Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser advised she shared an email with the council today with details regarding this item. She highlighted impacts of breaking the existing lease, 60 days' notice is required so the lease would continue to be paid for 2 months (January and February). During that time staff would have to make arrangements to relocate the equipment, trucks, vehicles, materials, supplies and staff currently housed at the satellite Parks shop. The two options for moving into existing City facilities, although those options have not been explored and the tenants have not been identified, are the James Wade Theater and the old public works facility which is leased to a handful of community organizations. Tenant improvements would be required in either location that would cost money and require permitting. Security fencing would also have to be purchased and installed at the James Wade Theater. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 21 Ms. Feser continued, a second option would be to move the equipment, trucks, vehicles, materials, supplies and staff into the City Park parking lot adjacent to the entrance and the parks maintenance shop or possibly the lot to the east. That would also require installing security fencing, and likely a job shack to house employees. The expenses related to those changes would be approximately $2,000/month as well as permitting to install a job shack which would require time and money. She summarized there are tradeoffs to this breaking lease and moving into another facility. Further details are provided in the email she sent to council. Councilmember Chen said it sounds like more trouble than saving $49,000. He pointed out the City has been supporting community partners using City facilities and charging them under market rate rents. Although he was fully supportive of community partners, when the City is in financial distress, it may not be too much to ask for some help from them to pay market rate. He asked how the City could proceed with that. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, requesting the council focus their discussion on the proposed amendment. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Chen said with the information Ms. Feser provided he will not make a motion. Page CM Fund Description Dept $ 127 Chen GF Youth Coordinator - .5FTE Parks $40,000 Councilmember Chen advised this amendment is related to the 0.5 FTE youth coordinator position which he estimated at $40,000 although it may be more. He asked if there was a possibility that City staff could cover those duties and free up 0.5 FTE to help out the General Fund. Ms. Feser explained that is a 1/2 time staff person whose sole job responsibility is to support the Youth Commission. As Deputy Parks Recreation and Human Services Director Shannon Burley supervises and manages that program, she can describe what this position provides for the youth commission and the City. With regard to whether another City staff could cover those duties, Ms. Burley answered yes, of course someone could, but there are tradeoffs. The youth commission is very engaged as evidenced by ten applicants for three positions when many other boards and commissions are starving for teens to participate. The youth commission is thriving due to the dedicated staff person; what you put into it is what you get out of it. The youth coordinator focuses on keeping the youth engaged, connected and interested in volunteering to support City government. That is very hard to do and doesn't happen if it is just part of someone's job. When adults volunteers for boards and commissions, they are more aware of the expected time commitment; for teens, their motivator is often to put it on their college application. The young people on the youth commission are very high achieving individuals who sign up for nearly every club in their school, tend to be part of the IB program and tend to be very over extended. Ms. Burley continued, the youth commission has two meetings/month and everything in between that constitutes progress, engagement and a favorable opinion of the youth commission amongst teens could be lost without a youth coordinator, that level of engagement and hyper focus on keeping teens interested in government. When the current youth coordinator was out on leave, someone filled in, but during that time, not much happened because it was a lesser priority for them. She asked council to consider their expectations of the youth in Edmonds and whether this level of engagement is something they would like to continue. Councilmember Chen said he was committed to youth and their development, but was looking for opportunities to help the General Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis commented as the youth commission liaison for three years, she found this a very short-sighted amendment and was shocked to see it proposed since Councilmember Chen said no Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 22 employees would be let go. The youth coordinator is a wonderful position and it would look bad if the City retained all the workforce and let go the part-time youth coordinator who is trying to mold the youth. She agreed with Ms. Burley that the current coordinator is a very good; there have been times when she has had to be very copacetic and understanding of what's going on. She anticipated the youth would be very upset to know their coordinator was let go because the budget was tight. If the council is going to start making cuts like this, they might as well start cutting everybody. She found this proposed amendment very disturbing and she was very upset to see it. Councilmember Chen said he will not make motion related to this proposed amendment. Councilmember Nand commented the council has had significant difficulty filling the student representative position. She asked if it would be feasible to get more bang for the buck from the youth coordinator by putting recruitment for that position under her purview. Ms. Burley responded that was a loaded question. Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, requesting councilmembers focus on the budget deliberations. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Page CM Fund Description I Dept $ 49 Olson GF Reduce Interfund Transfer to Sister City Mayor $5,000 Councilmember Olson explained this is a proposal to reduce the interfund transfer to the sister city account. She spoke with Carolyn LaFave, the staff liaison for the sister city commission, who said they could do their program without an additional transfer this year. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE INTERFUND TRANSFER TO THE SISTER CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DP CM Fund Description Dept $ 63 Olson 016 Reduce $80,000 (specific to the City Hall Bldg Maint $80,000 - Interior main stairway hand railing replacement) Councilmember Olson advised she spoke with Public Works Director Antillon and Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan regarding this proposed change. She supported removing this project and using the funds in Fund 016 for other projects including ADA improvements. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO REDUCE THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 016 BY $80,000 (SPECIFIC TO THE CITY HALL - INTERIOR MAIN STAIRWAY HAND RAILING REPLACEMENT). Councilmember Nand assumed this would defer that project, not eliminate it entirely. Councilmember Olson said that was correct. Councilmember Nand asked when it would be deferred to. Councilmember Olson said it was a combination of thoughts, the fiscal emergency, moving projects out of the timeframe when funds are as tight as they are now, and outcomes of the facilities study that will be done in 2024. Councilmember Nand asked Mr. Antillon for input on deferring that project. Mr. Antillon answered it will be deferred until the funds are identified to do it. Councilmember Nand asked if there was a public safety component to that project. Mr. Antillon answered there is a risk with deferring it, but the condition has existed since the City purchased the building. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 23 Councilmember Paine did not support the motion; this is a safety concern and includes money to plan the redesign. She preferred this project go forward for safety reasons. Councilmember Chen pointed out this amendment is related to Building Maintenance Fund 016, not the General Fund. Councilmember Olson agreed, but there are many other deferred maintenance projects. She was also looking into whether the funds could be used for sidewalks or streets as deferred maintenance projects and a more imminent need at this time. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Chen commented there are hundreds of employees working in city hall and this is a public safety issue. He did not support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING NO. DP CM Fund Description Dept $ 64 Olson 016 Reconsider previous vote that removed Bldg Maint +$65,000 $65,000 for replacement of motorized ate Council President Tibbott explained he conferred with Councilmember Olson on this amendment and it will be reconsider at the beginning of 2024. DP CM Fund Description Dept $ 7 Paine GF Initiate a red-light camera program for Police 3 intersections, and recognizing that red light infractions are a helpful method for reducing driver behavior which causes vehicle, pedestrian and/or bicycle collisions Council President Tibbott explained this is a reconsideration of a decision package that the council majority removed. Before reconsidering that decision, he wanted an indication from council that they were willing to reconsider the decision package. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO POSTPONE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2024. Council President Tibbott commented the council has already discussed this decision package and due to a lack of information, a much longer discussion will be required which was one of the reasons the decision package was denied. Councilmembers have asked to consider several other decision packages to which he has advised more information is needed so it is preferable to postpone them until there is time to collaborate with staff to get all the necessary information. He expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Paine said this is a modification of DP7, red light cameras for three intersections. Since the decision was made to reject that decision package, six people have been injured by vehicles. This is strictly a public safety measure and getting data for three signalized intersections. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 24 Council President Tibbott raised a point of order, asking if Councilmember Paine was speaking to the motion. Councilmember Paine argued her point was timeliness. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken as Councilmember Paine was describing the need to vote now versus delaying until 2024. Councilmember Paine reiterated it is a public safety concern which is why she proposed the amended DP7. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday asked if the council wanted to pull the earlier motion from the table and move to postpone until Monday December 11. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO TABLE MOVING BOND PROCEEDS IN FUND 016 TO REIMBURSE THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE POLICE AND COURT FACILITY REMODEL AND POSTPONE IT TO DECEMBER 11. Council President Tibbott expressed support for the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked staff, and all the community members in Edmonds, particularly those on Highway 99, who weighed in on the importance of potentially considering the Landmark 99 project. There have been a lot of comments about uncertainties, that people are afraid, financial uncertainties, etc., but it is clear this project will continue to move forward to consider the potential and possibilities which he believed in the end will benefit all of Edmonds. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Paine thanked all the community members who emailed, called, and talked to councilmembers about Landmark 99. Landmark 99 is an opportunity the City should continue to explore. She appreciated Council President Tibbott's comments about looking to the future and considering all the neighborhoods. She appreciated the support for this effort and looked forward to getting more information and learning about the possibilities for the project. Councilmember Nand thanked the community, her fellow councilmembers and staff. It was very inspiring to see democracy work at the local level where it does much more than at the national level. Last year she wrote a letter to the editor about banning backyard breeding; she had hoped to bring that proposed legislation forward in December, but the council is in the midst of budget discussions so she will propose it in January and hoped to have the community's support. Councilmember Chen said his decision to vote for moving the Landmark 99 forward was not taken lightly. The risk is real, the City's financial situation is in a difficult stage, but like Council President Tibbott, he was optimistic the council can get through this and set the City on the right path. His comfort level for continuing to explore Landmark 99 is the fact that there is $375,000 to cover the expected 2024 expenditures which are estimated to be $290,000 so it will not impact the General Fund. The council is working diligently to come up with funding to get through these financial difficulties and he was optimistic the council would find a way to get through this and get development that is right for the entire City. If further exploration determines it is not a good deal, the council can back out. He thanked the public for sticking with the council, commenting if we work together we can get through anything, we're a strong city. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 25 Councilmember Eck agreed with Mayor Nelson's comments about Landmark 99. This is an effort to discover what is possible and the council can still walk away. She admired Council President Tibbott's comments, remarking she has already seen the council work together collegially and respectfully and although they do not agree on everything, she has felt that level of respect from most councilmembers during the past few days. She looked forward to continuing that tone as councilmembers worked together with respect for each other and the community with the intent of doing their best to represent everyone in Edmonds. Council President Tibbott commented it had been an interesting evening, the council has heard a lot of comments about Landmark 99. He was ready to lean in, remain curious and stay positive on that front and see what comes out of it. The council obviously has a lot more to learn about the potential. He looked forward to the holiday season; he and his wife attended a concert this weekend and have enjoyed other activities with family and friends. He hoped everyone was having a great start to their holiday season. Councilmember Olson thanked her fellow councilmembers for looking for budget cuts. She recognized it was difficult and whenever it becomes personal for anyone due to a relationship, a job, etc., there is a tendency to get testy. She hoped the council would support each other due to the importance of looking for places to make cuts to the budget. Councilmember Olson said goodbye to Bert Flynn, a wonderful community member who loved his family, sports and Edmonds, a fun -loving person who always had a glimmer in his eye. He was the father of her youngest daughter's peer. She was disappointed such a young guy was lost too soon. Councilmember Olson relayed her disappointment in today's decision, but independent of the comment by Councilmember Nand, she is grateful to live in a democracy and that's how democracy works. She has no ego about being right and frankly hopes she is wrong. She looked forward to the outcome of the process and hoped after continued engagement people will still be willing walk away if in fact it is a poor fiscal choice or a poor choice for any other reason. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone that contacted her. She received an email from the new mayor and plans to respond to it. She hoped the council would start initiating code right away, because she has seen disastrous projects happen. As a former regulator, she knew that market prices can be under the table, someone gets a pat on the back and you get another million dollars. She felt it was really irresponsible that the council still thinks this can happen. She hoped the price could be lowered to a market rate and that councilmembers would talk to developers and realtors. Regardless of what Councilmember Chen says, the bandwidth of staff has never been considered nor has the cost of their salaries and benefits; a lot of money will be spent on this project including soft costs that have not been calculated. Staff is also working on the comprehensive plan update. She remarked life goes on and she get to retire and it is the remaining councilmembers' problem. She appreciated Council President Tibbott's comments about leaning in. ff�\ 1a1o111 711u_I_0101" With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:13 pm. SCOTT PASSEY, CM CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 26