20160719 City Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 19, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
M. Bower, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 12, 2016
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM AND PAYROLL CHECKS
3. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
4. WILHOIT PROPERTY DONATION
5. AMENDMENT #3 ILA WDFW FISHING PIER
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 2
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
BERGERABAM FOR THE FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT
7. PRESENTATION OF GOODS & MATERIALS AGREEMENT FOR SOLE SOURCE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF STONE CLADDING, PAVING AND
SITE FURNISHINGS FOR THE VETERAN’S PLAZA FROM COLDSPRING
8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
NEOPOST FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT
9. CITIZEN BOARD CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS - EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT CANDIDATE APPOINTMENTS
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed concern with reducing the buffer on the Edmonds Marsh and
recommended retaining at least a 100-foot buffer all the way around. He pointed out there was little
information in the State and Council’s materials regarding wildlife and species in the marsh. He and the
Pilchuck Audubon have put out a call for data regarding species that live in the marsh; there are 177
species that they know of based on 1,200 checklists by volunteers. He provided a handout from a birder,
Bill Anderson, whose data is divided into habitats within the marsh including the buffer zones, the marsh
wetland, the hatchery, etc. includes approximately 95 species. He looked forward to receiving more
information to assist with understanding the utilization of the different areas of the marsh by birds and
wildlife. He also provided a bar graph of the number of species that Mr. Anderson has recorded over the
past three years. Mr. Anderson has also photographed many of the birds and wildlife in the marsh. Mr.
Mearns referred to a photograph he provided the Council of a Sora, a rare, distinct marsh bird that lives in
the cattails around the periphery of the marsh. Most of the birds are on the migratory bird list and are
protected, 93 of the 95 on Mr. Anderson’s list are protected species.
Gene Wisemiller, Edmonds, spoke regarding the downgrading of the category of the Edmonds Marsh.
In his research he found a 1910 map of Edmonds and was amazed to see the City had already divided and
subdivided into lots except for a large area that would eventually be called the Edmonds Marsh. All the
lots were eventually built out but due to its nature, the marsh area was not developed as quickly and
eventually the ownership passed to the City. As the City grew, even this undesirable land became more
attractive, first a highway was built across it, then a commercial development built on one side and a
seawall that cut off the tidal exchange; activities that began to degrade the pristine estuary and it
eventually no longer deserved to be classified as Category I and pressure mounted to downgrade it to
Category II. His research indicated Category II status would result in relaxed buffer widths needed to
protect the wetland from adjacent development as well as reduce the amount of mitigation required for
impacts to the wetland which will compromise the permitted uses. The Washington State Wetland Rating
System states a Category I wetland represents a unique and rare wetland. He argued the Edmonds Marsh
is a unique and therefore the current Category I status should be retained. The alternative is a continued
degradation of this unique resource and risk people saying in 100 years that there used to be a marsh
there.
David Richman, Edmonds, a former faculty member at New Mexico State University, said people in
New Mexico highly value their water; the Rio Grande River is often completely dry. New Mexico has
freshwater and saline marshes. During visits to the Edmonds Marsh he has seen Great Blue Herons and
was certain there were Soras due to the habitat. He recently encountered a person photographing B elted
Kingfishers. Based on his experience as a biologist, he cautioned the Council to deal with wetlands very
carefully. Wetlands are important, it is too easy to degrade them and unless they have the proper buffer,
they will certain degrade. In the desert despite laws against taking cacti, a developer will level a cactus
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 3
forest. The Edmonds Marsh is a wonderful resource; it should be improved and nothing done to degrade
it.
April Richardson, Edmonds, displayed a pencil sketch she did in the Edmonds Marsh; the marsh is a
beautiful place to see animal life. While she was visiting the marsh, she was asked if she had seen the
resident coyote. She also heard someone remarking they had seen a herd of five deer which she found
amazing right on edge of the town. She summarized the Edmonds Marsh is a spectacular, wonderful
place.
Marty Jones, Edmonds, referred to the Great Washington State Birding Trail, a map of premier and
unique birding locations throughout the State, prepared in collaboration with Audubon of Washington,
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Transportation and the Washington State Community
Trade and Economic Development Department. The first stop on the Cascade Loop of the birding trail is
the Edmonds Marsh and waterfront and lists several interesting birds that are not seen many other places.
She has been a docent at the marsh during the Puget Sound Birdfest and was amazed how many people
visit the Edmonds Marsh from out of state. Birding is a huge industry; people travel to see birds and
spend money. The Edmonds Marsh is a unique situation, a saltwater marsh where people can walk on the
boardwalks and see birds and wildlife and then walk a block downtown to fine dining and shopping. She
urged the Council to do everything possible to protect this treasure to ensure it exists for future
generations. The best thing for the wildlife, city and state is to protect the marsh as much as possible.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, commented on the future daylighting of Willow Creek. She urged the
Council not to reduce the Edmonds Marsh buffer for the reasons previously stated. Her interest is in the
science; the ratings for the buffer were done in 2004 and when it was updated in 2014 it was her
understanding there was no mention of changing the ratings. Since 2004, more is known about global
warming/climate change and it is accepted by more people as well as more is known about projected sea
level rise, all of which tie into streams and fish which need to be protected. In preparing a paper she did
about the Edmonds Marsh for the program she is in, she learned from Keely O’Connell, Valerie Stewart
and others that blue carbon is one of the best ways to store carbon and marsh grasses store 4-6 times more
carbon than forests. She cited the importance of grassy marshes; Puget Sound is in grave danger from
pollution, PCPs, runoff, etc. and needs to be protected. Edmonds Marsh is a rare wetland and marsh in
Puget Sound. In October 2015 President Obama issued an order to all agencies stating any new project
must include ecosystem science values.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, submitted written materials regarding the demo garden, noting
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Nelson have visited the demo garden. She invited Councilmembers to
visit the demo garden, advising a work party is scheduled on August 6. She has learned a lot from the
demo garden including cooperation with groups in the city and that people will do things when you ask
them. They built the garden for almost nothing and have even gotten money from Chevron to buy plants.
She has been watching the marsh for years; she moved to Edmonds in 1980 and saw the buildings and
tennis courts constructed in the marsh and the pervious paths replaced with cement paths. After watching
the marsh be beleaguered for years, she urged that to stop and for the City to take care of this valuable
resource.
Lynette Petrie, Edmonds, said her interest is in natural places. Edmonds is so fortunate to have this
marsh; it is a resource beyond compare and needs to be valued. As Ms. Jones stated, the marsh attracts
visitors, it is an economic as well as a natural resource and it can help educate children. She pleaded for
the Council to value this resource and build the value of it into the City’s plans.
Bea Wilson, Edmonds, cited her volunteer efforts that include the planning committee for Edmonds
Birdfest, a WSU beach watcher and beach naturalist, SnoKing Watershed Council, steward with Global
Water Watch, removing invasives and planting natives in backyard wildlife habitats and in watersheds,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 4
and coordinating beach cleanups. People enjoy the serenity and peace of nature which is essential for
spiritual wellbeing of all humans. She agreed with Ms. Schaefer that people will help when asked. She
testified to the natural wonder of youth and families who visit the beach on a low tide. The Edmonds
Marsh is valuable and unique. She has participated in cleanups at Kayak Point and seen how the
community is working to preserve their marsh. She referred to Snohomish County’s purchase of Hooven
Bog, noting Edmonds already owns Edmonds Marsh, it only needs to be maintained. People from
throughout the world visit the marsh during the Edmonds Birdfest. She thanked the City for what they
have done and said more could be done such as the Category I designation.
Carlo Voli, Edmonds, said 30 years from now he wants to be able to tell his grandchildren that thanks to
an enlighten Mayor and City Council in July 2016 who decided to protect the unique marsh and retain the
Category I with a 100-foot buffer, wildlife flourishes in this unique salt marsh. He has volunteered at the
marsh and the demo garden and finds it a very special area. He implored the Council to protect the marsh
and retain the Category I and let the passionate community help to restore it and bring it back to its glory.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE CITIZENS' COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SIGN
CODE AMENDMENTS
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained these are focused amendments; there will be future amendments
related to Supreme Court decision regarding content neutrality. The City Council asked the Planning
Board to specifically look at temporary signs, especially A-frame signs. He displayed photographs and
described sign types:
Pedestrian signs (new term)
o A-frame, easel, stanchion and similar signs
Projecting / blade signs
o Usually found under awnings but may project off a wall or hanger
o Encouraged by City
o Does not count against overall sign area
o Helps identify and promote businesses in an unobtrusive, attractive way
Monument signs
o Free standing
Mr. Chave reviewed Planning Board public hearing options related to pedestrian signs:
Option 1:
No Portables (A-
frames)
Option 2:
Pedestrian Signs as
Temporary Signs
(Existing Code)
Option 3:
Pedestrian Signs as
Permanent Signs with
restrictions
Pedestrian Sign
Permitted?
No Yes Yes
Size Allowed No 6 sq. ft. 6 sq. ft.
Location Allowed No w/in 2 ft. of building or
street edge; 4 ft. clear
zone
w/in 2 ft. of building or
street edge; 4 ft. clear
zone
How Many No 1 per business 1 per storefront
Duration No 60 days per year When business is open
Benefits of approach? ? ? ?
He reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendation:
Option 3 for pedestrian signs:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 5
o A form of permanent signage with restrictions, and counts against overall sign area (no longer
classified as “temporary”)
o Only one per ground floor entrance
o Only allowed while business is open
o Businesses may rotate their signs
o Locate within 10 feet of entry
o Minimum 5 feet of pedestrian clearance; prefer within 2 feet of building or curb
o Maximum 6 sq. ft. in size
Mr. Chave reviewed other proposed code modifications:
“Directional Symbols” allowed for directions
Symbols can be illuminated (not just letters)
Halo signs specifically allowed
Sign height tied to actual finished grade
Monument signs better defined, minimum setback
1-story buildings with mansard recognized
Sign area practice codified (calculate outlines)
ADB can grant modifications due to unique architectural elements of a building
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, emphasized a pedestrian sign is a temporary sign. The Council has been told
the focus of the sign code update has been on temporary, portable signs which have proliferated in the
Bowl. Temporary signs are the least desirable, creating obstacles and social blight on City streets which is
why many municipalities limit them, hence the term “temporary” because no one wants them
permanently as proposed in Option 3. The current Edmonds Code contains a list of temporary signs,
Option 3 changes 4 of the temporary signs to permanent. She referred to the list of additional
recommendations that accompany Option 3: limit the number, location/placement, square footage, and
height and require a permit, suggesting these tight regulations indicate what a nuisance temporary signs
can become. She referred to the statement that none of the recommended changes would substantially
change the number of signs currently allowed by the sign code, pointing out the current Edmonds sign
code has an important restriction on temporary signs, limiting the frequency of display to 60 days per
calendar year. The proposal has no limit on display time which will allow temporary signs to be displayed
on downtown streets 365 days/year. Option 3 is a giveaway of municipal streets to promote cheap
advertising, streets that have taken many years and thousands of dollars to make attractive. She
questioned how such a major change could be made without a valid reason, going from 60 days for a
temporary sign to 365 days, and what warranted such a major change.
Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, owner of HouseWares, and President of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance,
was pleased with the work done by staff and the Planning Board to develop Option 3 and he encouraged
the Council to implement Option 3 as recommended. He noted temporary signs are a valuable form of
advertising for a lot of small businesses. Temporary signs catch pedestrians while they walk by a
storefront in the split second where the decision is made to go in or walk by. The proposed changes to the
sign code are very favorable.
Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, owner of Rogue and representing the Downtown Edmonds Merchants
Association, said it is important for businesses to thrive and contribute to downtown and pedestrian signs
are an important part. She reported pedestrian signs can represent up to 30% of business for a small
business. She urged the Council to consider Option 3 as recommended by the Planning Board.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 6
Councilmember Teitzel referred to language in the proposed sign code (page 299 of the packet), “The
preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of the curb if that location
does not block access to parked vehicles.” Although not a particular fan of A-frame signs and believes
they contribute to blight downtown, he recognized businesses rely on them to generate business so there
is a reason to keep them for the time being. However, he did not want some signs next to the building and
others out by the street as it created a zigzag appearance that looked messy and cluttered. He preferred to
strike “within two feet of the curb.” For a business that had a valid need for a sign by the curb, he asked
whether a variance process could be provided. Mr. Chave did not recommend a variance. One of the
things staff will consider when issuing a permit for a pedestrian sign is the location. Although he
understood the desire for uniformity, the difficulty with limiting the location to within two feet of the
building is there may already be things at the street such as trees, street furniture, etc. and it may make
sense to have sign at the curb and keep the area in front of the building clear. He noted every situation is
unique; if it was the Council consensus, staff could work with the City Attorney to strengthen the
preference for locating signs within two feet of the building but have an exception process for a staff
decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she does not rely on signs, she looks at the interior and goes in every
store. She believed businesses place excess reliance on A-board signs and would have liked a 60-day
period without A-board signs. She referred to Ms. Shippen’s comment about signs no longer having a 60-
day limit and now being permanent signs. Mr. Chave anticipated there ultimately will be fewer signs due
to the limitation of one per entrance and the permit will make enforcement easier. One of the Planning
Board’s recommendations which the BID supports is exploring other ways of advertising businesses.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled a comment from Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, whose business is
difficult to see from 5th Avenue, that it was valuable to have sign on 5th Avenue to direct customers to her
store, especially when her business first opened. He suggested allowing new businesses located off a main
street to have an off-premises sign for 60-day period and after the 60-day period, comply with the terms
of sign code. Mr. Chave responded that could be difficult to write in a content-neutral manner. The
argument would be it’s specific to particular business and the only way to determine whether it was
allowed would be to read the sign. That may be possible but would require further research. He was
hopeful there were other ways to accomplish that such as mobile apps. He was concerned with off-site
signage, even temporarily, because once it is allowed, it can go in a direction the Council may not like.
Councilmember Teitzel saw a purpose for an A-frame sign for a new business which benefits downtown
vibrancy. He asked staff to consider his suggestion.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmember Teitzel’s remarks about requiring the sign within
two feet of building, pointing out every business and property is unique and applying one rule throughout
the downtown area may not be appropriate. He encouraged flexibility when the permit is submitted with
regard to the best location on the property and as it relates to other permitted signs on the block to avoid a
zigzag appearance.
Councilmember Nelson thanked the Planning Board for their work and for gathering input from
businesses and citizens. The proposed sign code is a good compromise, a first step at regulate signs that
have not been regulated before. If necessary, the sign code can be tweaked in six months. He referred to
the proposed sign code (page 299) “The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it
is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access.” and asked if that
meant the sign could be beyond 10 feet if it improved pedestrian or vehicular access. Mr. Chave said that
would be considered in the permitting process. The preference is within 10 feet but there needs to be
flexibility due to existing trees, bistro dining, etc.
Councilmember Tibbott spoke in favor of the Planning Board’s recommendation with regard to limiting
the number of pedestrian signs. The proposal will allow businesses to be creative regarding signs in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 7
window, blade signs, etc. He pointed out an A-frame signs that is 6 square feet on one side also has 6
square feet on the other side for a total of 12 square feet. He suggested that could make an A-frame sign
advantageous to a business compared to other signage. Mr. Chave said the reason both sides of the sign
are not counted is only one side of the sign is visible at a time. That is the general rule for all signs types
except wall signs. He was hesitant to single out A-frame signs and double the sign area and suggested if
the Council wanted to limit signs to 3 feet, the code should state 3 feet. Councilmember Tibbott reiterated
it provides some advantage to a business using an A-frame versus another sign type. He concurred with
Councilmember Teitzel’s suggestion to give preference to new businesses, allowing them to display a
temporary banner, a pedestrian sign, etc. for the first 60 days, allowing them to advertise in a unique and
special way. Mr. Chave said staff will consider that; the only concern is allowing them off site.
Mr. Chave said this is topic scheduled for a follow-up meeting. The original intent was an ordinance; staff
could return with the requested research along with a draft ordinance and specific amendments. Mayor
Earling suggested a draft ordinance with amendments based on comments made tonight. The Council
could then vote on the amendments and ordinance. Council President Johnson suggested having all three
options on the agenda for consideration as the Council has not decided which option to pursue. Mr. Chave
suggested Council provide direction on the option.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON TO
USE OPTION 3 AS A BASIS FOR THE ORDINANCE.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council has never voted immediately following a public
hearing. Some Councilmembers may need more time to consider audience comments, etc.
Councilmember Teitzel supported proceeding with Option 3 and directing staff to prepare the ordinance
as the basis with amendments for Council consideration. He was comfortable Option 3 was the most
reasonable approach.
Council President Johnson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment, explaining it has long been the
Council’s tradition not to take a vote directly after a public hearing to allow Councilmembers to consider
the information provided at the public hearing. She was convinced the reason these options were being
considered was due to Ms. Shippen’s work and her concerns about visual clutter. As stated by Ms.
Shippen, Option 3 makes 60-day temporary signs permanent for 365 days and she wanted an opportunity
to consider that further. The business community believes pedestrian signs are very valuable to their
businesses, a 30% increase in advertising, but others are not as interested in A-board signs. The Council
has only heard from a few people at the public hearing and she preferred to hear more from the
community before making a decision.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the concern with the Council taking a vote after a public hearing,
explaining the Council was not voting on the ordinance; Council was giving staff direction regarding the
ordinance to prepare. Although this vote follows a public hearing, it is not a final vote. For example, if a
majority of the Council wanted to pursue Option 1 or 2, that could be done at the next Council meeting.
He supported the motion to give staff direction regarding preparation of an ordinance.
MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER AND BEACH REHAB SCHEMATIC DESIGN
REVIEW
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 8
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite Council recalled the Council approved a lease agreement with
the Senior Center that allowed the Center to proceed with a capital campaign and develop a proposal to
rebuild the Center on the waterfront site. The Council was provided a very thorough presentation last
week and forwarded the matter to this week’s Council meeting for action. She requested the Council
authorize the Mayor to sign The letter in the packet approving the schematic design of the new Waterfront
Center. The Senior Center is also required to come to the Council for approval of design development and
the construction phase. Senior Center Executive Director Farrell Fleming was present to answer
questions.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER APPROVING THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN
OF THE NEW WATERFRONT CENTER.
Council President Johnson said she visited the Senior Center this weekend and saw many people on the
waterfront playing Pokémon Go. She suggested there be a way for people on the beach to access the
coffee shop from outside. Ms. Hite advised the design has a window that opens onto the park. Under the
proposed sign code, they could put an A-board sign directing people to it.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Fleming, Mr. Johnson and she went to the Woodway Town
Council meeting last night and it was very well received.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ON SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP
Planning Manager Rob Chave said this is a follow up to discussions the Council had in April when a
resolution was passed authorizing staff to apply for the program. The City was accepted into program; the
packet contains a proposed Interlocal Agreement and an impressive list of projects that will benefit the
City. Staff is eager and supportive of moving forward.
Councilmember Buckshnis was impressed with the list of projects and the dollar amount for each. She
relayed the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee and the Tree Board have offered their resources to
assist the students. Mr. Chave said one of reasons the list looks like this is staff looked to the Strategic
Action Plan and other programs such as Zero Waste.
Councilmember Nelson was particularly interested in exploring zero waste and food waste, sea level rise,
and green business. He noted the large cost of the wastewater treatment plant project was due to hiring an
intern. He commended staff on a job well done.
Councilmember Tibbott was impressed with the list of 10 projects, commenting the list was far more
impressive than he originally envisioned. He echoed Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion to utilize the
strength of City commissions; many citizens would be happy to share their extensive experience base
with the students. For example, the Economic Development Commission would be interested in assisting
with the Tourism Mobile App. Mr. Chave said the BID has also expressed a strong interest in that project.
Council President Johnson recalled the wastewater treatment plant was originally a video as well as a
brochure; she asked what happened to the video. Mr. Chave answered it was determined developing signs
and content for WWTP tours would be a better use of students’ time.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FINALIZING
EDMONDS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP FOR 2016 -2017.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 9
Mayor Earling thanked staff for their great work on this.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO
REVERSE THE ORDER OF ITEMS 8.1 AND 8.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STUDY ITEMS
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the initial response to Ecology:
Draft letter in Exhibit 10
o Agree with critical area regulations integration
o Need more time for UMU IV evaluation and response
o Anticipate 30 – 60 days for a more detailed response
o Revisions recommended by Council President Council President Johnson
Reword paragraph regarding the need for additional time to evaluate the proposed
changes
Reword request regarding how much additional time is acceptable for fuller response
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO APPROVE THE INITIAL RESPONSE TO ECOLOGY WITH THE CHANGES PROPOSED
BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the sentence, “Please advise the City how much additional time is
acceptable for a fuller response,” commenting some Councilmembers are interested in having a special
study conducted which may take longer than 60-90 days. He asked what would happen if Ecology agreed
to 90 days and it took much longer to assess the issue. David Pater, Regional Shoreline Planner,
Washington State Department of Ecology, said the City could send another letter requesting more time
and explaining why more time was needed. Ecology is interested in keeping the momentum going.
MOTION CARRIED UNAIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien reviewed Ecology required changes:
Five critical area integration changes
Three UMU IV Required Change
o Setback/buffer
o Interim Designation
o When buffer establishment triggered
Recommended change to consider residential in UMU IV
Mr. Lien reviewed policy considerations:
Marsh setback/buffer
o What is the goal for the Edmonds Marsh?
o What is goal for the UMU IV shoreline environment?
o How can the SMP setback/buffer for the marsh help achieve these goals within the legal
framework of the SMA?
Interim Designation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 10
o Establishing the Urban Mixed-Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the
City, in cooperation with property owners, Ecology, scientists, interested
agencies/organizations, and members of the public to carefully review effects of establishing
a new shoreline jurisdiction for the area around the marsh on existing and planned
development as well as the ecological role the Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds.
(SMP pg. 31)
o Ecology notes no longer necessary
o Consider the purpose of interim designation and whether maintaining interim designation
provides any benefits
Other
o Whether the SMP needs to prohibit residential in the UMU IV shoreline designation
Ecology’s recommendation is to streamline future consideration. If Harbor Square were
rezoned to allow residential development, that would also require a change to the SMP
and the Ecology process.
Mr. Lien reviewed process options:
Pursuant to RCW 90.58.090(2)(e), the City of Edmonds has two options for responding to
Ecology’s conditional approval:
1. Agree to the proposed changes, or
2. Submit an alternative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for
consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology with
the Shoreline Management Act.
Commission independent wetland determination
o An independent wetland report has found the marsh to be a Category II wetland applying
Ecology’s standards
o Estimated cost:
Categorization: $3,000
Categorization and delineation: $8,000
Categorization, delineation and delineation of salt tolerant vegetation: $13,000
Mr. Lien commented there is some confusion with regard to the tide gate, salt tolerant vegetation and the
marsh categorization. He displayed an aerial of map of the Edmonds Marsh that illustrates how it was
identified as a shoreline of the state and required the new shoreline designation. He identified the
boundaries of the marsh at different points in time, 1878 when the marsh extended to Main Street, 1944,
1964, 2002 and 2006, noting the salt portion of the marsh has shrunk over the years. During the SMP
update, Ecology determined the marsh to be a shoreline of the state rather than an associated wetland
which means the shoreline jurisdiction extends beyond the marsh. That is verified by, 1) determining
whether the marsh is tidally influenced; the December 2010 study found there is tidal influence even with
gate closed, and 2) establishing where the salt tolerant vegetation is located. He referred to the aerial
photos which illustrates where the vegetation changes; the western portion has one plant community and
the eastern portion where the cattails begin has another plant community that is not salt tolerant.
Mr. Lien displayed another aerial view from a survey done by WSDOT as part of the Edmonds Crossing
project and identified the salt marsh. boundary. To the question of how the marsh would change if Willow
Creek is daylighted, he said the overall boundaries of the marsh would not change due to the dike and
development but the plant community would change. He identified the 10-foot elevation mark which is
approximately the mean high or high tide of Puget Sound. If Willow Creek is daylighted and tidal
influence is allowed to flow freely, the blue hatched area on the map would convert to salt marsh. He
clarified the tidal gate and the salt tolerant plant community are used to determine whether this is an
estuarine marsh and shoreline of the state. It has been determined the marsh is an estuarine wetland and a
shoreline of state. The agreed upon boundary of the shoreline jurisdiction is the 2006 line. He emphasized
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 11
this is a planning level document; when a project is proposed, the exact boundary of the marsh and the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be determined by a qualified professional.
Paul Anderson, Wetland Specialist, Washington State Department of Ecology, referred to Table 4.1
Wetlands code comparison in the City’s CAO. Last week he was uncertain of the initial basis for
classifying the Edmonds Marsh as a Category I wetland. A document was provided to Development
Services Director Shane Hope by Ken Reidy, 2004 BAS Review by EDAW, Inc., prepared for the
Council during the review of the CAO update in 2004. Table 4.1 in that document summarized the current
classification system the City was using. Ecology’s update to the 1993 rating system came out in spring
2004. In 2004 prior to the update, the City was using a three-tier classification system for wetlands, Class
1, 2 and 3. Ecology has been accused of downgrading the wetland but that is not the case; going from a
three-tier to a four-tier system allows for a more refined classification. EDAW’s BAS document
addresses better protection of this Class 1 wetland, referencing the classification system in place at that
time.
Mr. Anderson explained when the City adopted Ordinance 3527 in November 2004, it adopted the 2004
Wetland Rating System as well as the 1993 Washington State Wetland Rating System, both of which
were 4-tiered systems. The criteria carried forward into the 2004 Rating System was from the 1993 State
Rating System and have been carried forward into the 2014. Criteria include:
SC 1.2 Wetland unit ≥1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES
= Category I; NO = Category II
⎯ The wetland is relatively undisturbed
⎯ 100 ft buffer on at least ¾ of the landward edge
⎯ ≥ 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous
freshwater wetlands.
Hruby, T. (2004). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2004 Revised.
(Publication #04-06-025). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology
Mr. Anderson explained in its current condition, Edmonds Marsh only meets the last provision; it does
have tidal channels, depressions with open water and it is contiguous with a freshwater wetland but it
does not have an intact 100-foot buffer on ¾ of the perimeter and it is disturbed (filled, ditched, piped and
there is not free tidal exchange). That is why Ecology determined it to be a Category II wetland. Category
II wetlands are still high quality wetlands, they still require a relatively wide buffer (150 feet) and
Ecology is not saying only a 50-foot buffer on the entire wetland, it would be whatever the buffer is in the
CAO. Where there is intact buffer in the southeast corner, all the existing buffer on the wetland needs to
be protected. A 50-foot buffer would be where there will be redevelopment and that area would be
restored to buffer. He assured it was not that Ecology does not favor restoration; Edmonds Marsh is a
great asset to the City but Ecology is cautious due to legal mechanisms regarding how Ecology and City
get there via the SMP.
He displayed oblique aerial photographs of estuarine wetlands:
North Fork Skagit River Delta
o Intact tidal channels, free tidal exchange
o No development around it
o Contiguous on the backside with freshwater wetlands
o Category I
Elger Bay, Camano Island
o Free tidal exchange, no pipes or dikes
o Wood occurs naturally and not considered a disturbance
o May not have 100-foot buffer on at least ¾ of perimeter (only need to meet 2 of 3 criteria)
o Category I
Swan Lake, Island County
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 12
o Some adjacent development
o Inlet and outlet piped and diked
o Agricultural on back side
o May be Category II
Edmonds Marsh
o Fully developed around wetland
o Does not have free tidal exchange, piped
o Does not have intact buffer
o Category II
Mr. Lien displayed aerial photographs and described the differences:
Council Approved
o 50-foot vegetation buffer
o 100-foot setback from the edge of marsh
o 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction
o Edmonds Marsh
Ecology Required
o 50-foot vegetation buffer (with redevelopment of 50% of the shoreline area)
o 65-foot setback from the edge of the marsh
o 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction
o Edmonds Marsh
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the definition of restoration (page 779 of the packet), for example,
ecological restoration means the establishment or reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological
shoreline and describes an elaborate process. However, in conclusion it states, “In this SMP, restoration is
used broadly to used broadly to include conservation and enhancement actions. Conservation is different
from restoration as described above in that it protects areas relatively free of degradation.”
Councilmember Tibbott said he was trying to understand what level of restoration is expected in the SMP
and, from Ecology’s point of view, what does it take to improve a buffer. Mr. Pater reiterated the State
cannot require restoration, it is a voluntary element of the SMP. If the buffer is restored, whether as part
of redevelopment of Harbor Square, the Unocal site or the Port, it will improve the marsh. Under the
changes where the marsh enhancement is triggered by 50% redevelopment, that is mitigation because
redevelopment will likely intensify the land use along the shoreline, possibly building heights, residential
or mixed use, etc. Therefore, enhancement is necessary to maintain the overall no net loss of ecological
function of the marsh. He summarized there is a difference between restoration and mitigation.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how enhancements could be done on a dike. Mr. Anderson answered his
understanding was the dike would not be touched; planting would occur landward of the dike. If that
occurred in the 50-foot zone, the pavement would be removed and trees and shrubs planted but the dike
would remain in its current state. He said trees and dikes generally do not get along, eventually trees fall
over which threaten the integrity of the dike. He has not seen any specific proposals but discussion has
been that the dike will remain in its current configuration.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to public comments about preserving the marsh as well as improving it.
He recalled hearing last week that the real threat to the marsh is runoff, not whether the buffer is 65 or
100 feet. Even with a100-foot buffer, there is too much runoff into the marsh. He expressed interested in
establishing a buffer that encouraged the property owners surrounding the marsh to do restoration that
keeps runoff out of marsh. For example, the Council may approve a 100-foot setback with a 50-foot
buffer but that won’t improve the marsh. Unless something is done to stop runoff, the marsh will go away
in 60-70 years due to runoff. Mr. Anderson agreed the greatest benefit to the marsh would be improving
stormwater treatment. It was his understanding that should Harbor Square be redeveloped, that would be
part of the proposal and they would be required to meet the City’s current stormwater manual guidelines
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 13
and standards. Improving water quality is one of the greatest benefits to the marsh, fish and salmon within
a sort range of the discharge of Willow Creek. Councilmember Mesaros said his goal is to improve the
marsh in 10-20 years and taking steps to accomplish that by setting a policy and approving an SMP that
encourages adjoining property owners to make those improvements.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the Ecology Required photograph, explaining he looked at the survey
work being done by the Port and it is not clear that the OHWM butts up against the levy; in some areas it
appears it is a fair distance out. He asked what the white line on the Ecology Required photograph
represented. Mr. Lien answered that is an estimate of the edge of marsh for planning purposes, it is not a
delineation. The survey the Port had done surveyed their property line, not the edge of the marsh. With
any development, a wetland report would be required that delineated the edge of the marsh, OHWM,
location of setbacks and buffers, etc.
Council President Johnson referred to “Urban Mixed Use IV Required and Recommended Changes”
(page 500 of packet), which states, “The City Council adopted the UMU IV environment as an interim
designation (to be reviewed and finalized within two years after the SMP becomes effective )…” The City
received a letter from Ecology dated June 27, 2016; which she assumed gave the City two years from that
date to resolve that issue. She questioned why Ecology wanted the City to remove the UMU IV interim
designation. Mr. Pater answered the interim designation was based on complete approval of the SMP by
the State; the two years would begin on the date the SMP was effective, two weeks after final action by
the State which has not happened yet. One of the reasons for the interim designation was to let the grant
process play out for restoration and Ecology’s research found 100 feet was not needed to qualify for
grants, only a minimum of 35 feet was needed to qualify for a grant (a grant standard not an ecological
standard). Second, it was to allow time to get the parties together to work this out and consider how to
improve the marsh in the long term, a process that has been going on for a while. Given the level of
information and the local record of the SMP, and the 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback from the CAO
for that classification of wetland, Ecology does not feel the interim designation is needed anymore.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens who emailed and called her, she received 148 comments
this week, and urged citizen to continue contacting her. She inquired about the code citation in the end
summary regarding the setbacks and classification of the wetland, which states Ecology considers the
Edmonds Marsh to be classified as a Class 2 wetland under City’s CAO ECDC 24.40.020. Mr. Lien
referred to Mr. Anderson’s comment that one of the CAO updates adopted the 1993 and the 2004
Wetland Rating System. The updated COA references wetland ratings in ECDC 23.50.010.B which is the
adopted Washington State Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System found in 2014 Washington
State Wetland Ranking System for Western Washington, Ecology Publication 14-06-029, and those are
the standards that Mr. Anderson used to identify the classification. The critical area regulations do not not
classify the marsh or any other wetland, they adopted Ecology’s publication for classification of wetlands.
The CAO adopt a 75-foot buffer for a Class 2 estuarine wetland.
Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for comment from citizen comments and the Audubon
Society about not a degraded marsh but a thriving marsh with wildlife. He was confident everyone
wanted to preserve the marsh and wildlife. He relayed hearing essentially that some development will
benefit the marsh. He read from Ecology’s “At Home with Wetlands, A Landowner’s Guide,”
“Throughout our history, wetlands have suffered at the hands of humans, whether through indifference,
exploitation or misguided use, we have damaged or destroyed most of Washington’s wetlands. Even now
– in spite of our new understanding of the ecological importance of wetland – degradation continues and
we are still losing hundreds of acres of wetlands a year. With regards to fish and wildlilfe, many species
of birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians rely on wetland habitat for breeding, foraging, and
cover. The special wetland conditions provide unique habitat for species that cannot survive elsewhere.
Many endangered and threatened species such as salmon require wetlands during a part of their lifecycle.
The incredibly high rate of wetlands loss has contributed to their demise. People versus wetlands: urban
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 14
growth and development also count for significant historical losses in wetlands. Washington’s coastal
urban areas have already lost 90-98% of the estuarine wetlands and the Puget Sound basin has lost 70% of
its wetlands due to development and other activities. When we degrade a wetland, we diminish or lose
some or all of its functions.” He asked whether development will help or hurt the marsh. Mr. Anderson
answered it is hoped development will help the marsh by providing an incentive for additional buffer on
the north and south sides, areas that are already developed and do not provide a functional buffer.
Redevelopment will actually benefit the marsh once the SMP is adopted with these standards. Without
redevelopment, the currently developed degraded areas will remain in their existing state until a willing
landowner voluntarily decides to do ecological restoration.
Councilmember Nelson asked if redevelopment has equaled no net loss. Mr. Anderson answered no net
low is based on the current conditions, when the SMP is adopted or when the inventory characterization
takes place; it does not look backward, it looks at current conditions.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment that after studying the 65-foot buffer and setback,
Ecology was satisfied with 65 feet versus 75 or 100 feet and asked what level of science that represents
and if Ecology was prepared to defend that evaluation and the 65-foot buffer in the event of legal action.
Mr. Pater answered Ecology was comfortable a very supportive record has been provided to back up the
proposed change to 65 feet. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Council has seen that record. Mr. Pater
answered yes, it was part of the conditional approval and Mr. Anderson’s analysis of the marsh’s
jurisdictional issues and the buffer issues and the unique situation is part of these findings and
conclusions. Ecology was confident about the record from an ecological standpoint. With regard to
defending the SMP, Mr. Pater answered absolutely, the SMA is a state/local partnership, if the City
approves the SMP, Ecology will be there with the City to defend an appeal. Councilmember Tibbott
asked if Ecology would defend it based on BAS. Mr. Pater answered it would be defended based on the
record at the time of approval; BAS and no net loss are part of the record.
Councilmember Mesaros followed up on Councilmember Nelson’s reading, agreeing that development
has injured wetlands throughout western Washington; something has to be done to turn the tide. He
believed the 50-foot buffer and another 50-foot setback would not encourage change. Unless change is
encouraged, this marvelous asset will continue to be destroyed. Of the Councilmembers, he lives the
closest to the marsh and has seen the resident coyote several times, noting a coyote pair had puppies last
year. The marsh is a wonderful asset for the City and he hoped Councilmembers would join him in doing
something to encourage change and create incentives or what Councilmember Nelson read will continue.
Councilmember Teitzel echoed Councilmembers Nelson and Mesaros’ comments, noting all the
Councilmembers and citizens want the marsh preserved and restored so that salmon, fish, birds, and
wildlife thrive; the question is how to get there. He has studied the SMP and looked at the Comprehensive
Plan and other documents in an effort to look at this from the 10,000-foot level; it is easy to get into
minutia. He read from the draft SMP, “The purposes of this Master Program are…B. To promote uses
and development of the City of Edmonds shoreline consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan while protecting and restoring environmental resources.” He read from page 43, Activity Centers,
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, “Balanced (re)development - strategically plan for
development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic
development and housing along with cultural and environmental goals.” As Councilmember Mesaros
said, sensible development can help the environment; stormwater runoff is significant problem for the
marsh. He recommended looking at the big picture, and as the Comprehensive Plan instructs, look to the
environment as a top priority. Another high priority is to ensure development occurs sensibly in concert
and in harmony with the environment. He summarized the goal for the marsh is to preserve, protect and
enhance it and also allow for sensible development near the marsh.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 15
Council President Johnson asked why Ecology did not not recommend a 75-foot setback as per their own
regulations. Mr. Pater answered due to the unique conditions of marsh. Unfortunately, the marsh is
surrounded by asphalt, the railroad, and the dike and has a lot of challenges. The presence of the dike does
not allow the reestablished buffer to function normally especially from a water quality perspective.
Buffers usually provide some filtration for water quality; the presence of the dike makes that function
problematic. Redevelopment is key because significant redevelopment of the site will require compliance
with more modern stormwater regulations, low impact development techniques, etc. to filter and clean the
stormwater. Mr. Anderson agreed the presence of the dike diminishes the effect of the buffer. It was his
understanding there were also legal concerns that mitigation needs to be proportional and there needs to
be a nexus with the impact. In this case it would be a more intensive land use with residential
development that could impact marsh, thereby providing a nexus. With regard to proportionality, Ecology
felt 50 feet was defensible and 75 feet may not be.
Council President Johnson said if the standard is 75 feet, why didn’t Ecology rely on their standard. Mr.
Anderson answered this is restoration of a lawfully established use which is different than what the buffer
should be where there is intact natural vegetation. Mr. Pater said this is a redevelopment-triggered
mitigation as compensation from a more intensive land use. That is different than a wetland with an
established buffer that needs enhancement. There is minimal buffer and it is not high quality along Harbor
Square and the Unocal site.
Council President Johnson pointed out this is a new shoreline jurisdiction and some areas are developed
and some are not which should require looking at both the northern and southern sides. Mr. Lien
explained the UMU IV applies to both sides of the marsh. He displayed an aerial map, explaining there
are different buffers that apply around the marsh. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the 50-foot buffer and 65-
foot setback apply. Outside shoreline jurisdiction, the critical area regulations would apply. He identified
an area in the southeast corner of the marsh that has an established buffer, advising the City’s CAO would
apply there and the 75-foot intact buffer would be protected. The BAS reports were done in areas where
there are intact buffers and determined the appropriate size for an intact buffer. The difficulty is applying
that BAS to developed urban areas where buffers have been developed. Just saying there is a 75 or 100-
foot buffer does not make it a buffer, if it is a developed area. Ecology is saying that allowing some
redevelopment within an already developed area provides incentive to establish a buffer where the buffer
is degraded or non-existent. One function buffers provide is water quality infiltration; due to the dike, the
buffer cannot perform that function. Another function buffers provide is habitat; while the marsh has
some good habitat as indicated by the number of birds, establishing a wider buffer does not provide a
connection to other habitat which is another reason a 50-foot buffer makes sense versus a wider buffer.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien, commenting she has learned a lot from him and from
WRIA 8. She asked Ecology if they have seen the Edmonds Marsh water monitoring report prepared by
the Edmonds-Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon Stream Team. Mr. Lien advised Ms. Hope
had forwarded that to them. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if they saw that the stormwater runoff is on
other side of Shellabarger and the majority of petroleum is not actually in the marsh. Mr. Anderson said it
was not detected at the points where the water was sampled. The current stormwater system in Harbor
Square is not up to today’s standards and there would be benefits of upgrading. Councilmember
Buckshnis referred to studies done by the UW in areas where redevelopment cannot occur where sand and
other materials are used to filter the water such as near 520. Redevelopment may be an alternative but
redevelopment also comes with other issues such as additional people, cars, etc. The Students Saving
Salmon are giving a presentation to WRIA 8 tomorrow.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the question Mr. Lien posed, what is the goal of marsh and Mr. Pater’s
statement at the last meeting that the marsh is not functioning properly, commenting the goal should be to
have the marsh function properly. He asked whether Ecology or another state agency currently monitor or
assess wetlands. Mr. Anderson said there is an ongoing national effort this summer directed by the US
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 16
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Wetland Condition Assessment, that Ecology is
participating in. Ecology does compliance follow-up following a permit for a wetland fill. Ecology has an
environmental assessment program that primarily does water quality monitoring but he was not aware of
any current monitoring efforts.
Councilmember Nelson observed for all the wetlands that are within 200 feet of the shoreline, no one is
tracking that there is in fact no net loss. Mr. Pater said that is expected once the SMPs are approved and
implemented to see how effective they are over time. Councilmember Nelson commented the no net loss
policy has been in place for 20 years, yet no monitoring has been done. Mr. Pater said it has not been in
place 20 years, only since the SMP state guidelines were approved in late 2003. A lot of SMPs have been
approved and in effect for a number of years; the expectation has been as funds are earmarked there
would be some follow-up regarding how effective the SMPs are with regard to no net loss on a
programmatic basis which is related to project specific impacts. Mr. Anderson said George W. Bush made
a statement that there would be a federal policy of no net loss; that has not been achieved on a national
basis. Washington has done a better job because of follow-up on mitigation but there is still a loss of
acreage in the State as time goes on.
Mayor Earling advised this topic will return to Council for further discussion/review on August 2. He
thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Pater for attending to respond to Council questions.
1. LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN INTRODUCTION
Finance Director Scott James said staff’s goal is to provide the Council, Mayor and citizens and others
financial documents that are easy to understand and provide a sense of transparency, for example the
budget process. During the budget process, decision packages are used to describe additions to the budget.
Staff also provides monthly financial reports to the Council that contain detailed information regarding
revenues, expenses and fund balances. Another example is the annual audited financial report. Although
important, these reports have a limited sight, looking at annual numbers versus a long range financial plan
that looks into the future. He reviewed:
What is a “Long-range” Financial Plan?
o Combines financial forecasting with financial strategizing
o Does not simply project the status quo “x” numbers of years into the future
o A technical tool to identify problems and opportunities
o Provide an avenue for Council, citizens & staff to discuss policy
o Provides a road map for where the City wants to go
o Can help build consensus for making financial decisions
o Fundamental Elements of Long-range financial plans include:
Multi-year planning horizon
List range of funds to be included in plan
Schedule frequency for updates
Identify important policies
Why do Councilmembers and Council as a whole need a Financial Plan?
o Enable City’s financial management to identify emerging problems & communicate them to
elected officials and the public
o Help the City to plan for a consistent level of essential services over a multi-year period
o Stimulate long-term thinking
o Stimulate “big-picture” thinking
o Raise specific issues
o Clarify the City’s strategic intent
o Integrate discipline
o Communicate to citizens
o Demonstrate good management to bond rating agencies and subsequent lower interest costs
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 17
How is a plan put together?
o Long-term financial planning is a multi-step process with four major phases
1) Mobilization
Mobilization is the first step of getting ready to plan
Identify the leader of the planning process
Identify Planning Committee participants
Current committee: Councilmembers Teitzel and Johnson, Scott James, three
citizens, Public Works Director, Parks Director
Define the purpose of the long-range financial planning process itself
Design the process that the plan will follow
Conduct a preliminary fiscal analysis
Look at service level preferences and related policies
Look at financial policies
The committee and Council need to reach a consensus on these points
2) Analysis
Dedicated to producing information that supports the planning and strategizing of the
decision phase. This phase covers:
Information gathering
Trend projections
Fund balance analysis
3) Decision
After the analysis phase is completed, the Committee presents the results to Council
so you can use the information to decide how you will respond to the information
These decisions will result in a set of financial strategies for bettering the financial
position of the City
The strategies can be used to address an actual weakness or potential weakness in the
City’s financial structure
During this phase, the Team helps identify methods for developing financial
strategies that encourages participation from all levels
The plan ultimately is brought before Council for adoption
4) Execution
After the plan has been developed and adopted by Council, it is time to put the plan
into action
The budget is the primary tool for executing the plan
Other tools are:
Policy statements
Council resolutions & ordinances
Performance measures
Action plans
After the plan is put into place, progress must be monitored. This involves
determining how status reporting and timing of reporting will take place
Who benefits from having a plan?
o Citizens
o Council
o Businesses looking to locate in the City
o Department heads & staff
What are the timelines for building a plan?
When July August September October November 2017
Who Council &
Staff
Council &
Staff
Council &
Staff
Council &
Staff
Council &
Staff
Council &
Staff
What Staff
Introduction of
Long-range
Update on
LRFP purpose
& progress to
Review of
Preliminary
Fiscal
This item is
not directly
related to plan
This item is
not directly
related to plan
Look at City’s
Financial
Policies,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 18
Financial
Planning to
Council
date
Solicit Council
input on LRFP
process &
General
Discussion of
Plan
Analysis &
Purpose of the
Long-range
Financial
Planning
Process, and
begin
discussion
with Council
on Service
Level
Preferences
development
but requires
Council &
staff:
Mayor’s 2017
Preliminary
Budget
Delivered to
Council
development
but requires
Council &
staff:
Council
review of the
proposed 2017
Budget &
adoption of
2017 Budget
Long-range
Financial
Planning
Committee
share their
consensus on
topics
discussed to
this point.
Next steps are
completing
Analysis,
Decision &
Execution
Phases of Plan
Product Introduce
concepts and
process for
creating a
long-range
financial plan
for Edmonds
List of
Council’s
elements to
include Long-
range
Financial Plan
Preliminary
Fiscal
Analysis &
Purpose of the
Long-range
Financial
Planning
Process
2017
Preliminary
Budget
2017 Budget Complete all
four phases of
Long-range
Financial Plan.
Council
adoption of
Plan
Venue Council Study
Session July
13, 2016
Council Study
Session
August 2016
Council Study
Session
September
2016
Council
Meeting
October 11,
2016
October -
November
Council
Meetings
Council Study
Sessions &
Council
Meetings
Councilmember Buckshnis requested the City provide Councilmembers the book, “Elected Official’s
Guide to Long-Term Financial Planning for Local Governments.” She commented on improvements in
financial reporting since she was a citizen in 2009 and efforts to put out fires in recent years instead of
planning. Mr. James also recommended the book as an introduction to long range financial planning; it
offers insights for those interested in learning about long range planning.
Councilmember Tibbott said he found the presentation very helpful; long range planning helps give a
sense of security regarding where the City is going and what to expect. He also supported the opportunity
that long range financial planning provides for discussions with citizens. He looked forward to hearing the
results of the committee and participating in a dialogue that will result in a robust plan.
Councilmember Teitzel said the message is not that the process is broken; the City is functioning, budgets
are being prepared, etc. Long range planning is a way to improve the process and bring more discipline
and transparency to the process and move away from silo budgeting. He was pleased to be a part of the
team and has enjoyed working with Mr. James. Mr. James said the City has been on strong financial
footing; the intent of a long range financial plan is to lessen impacts of a downturn.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers and the public to watch tomorrow’s sandcastle building
contest at the waterfront, a fun, creative event where typically, 50-150 people participate. He reminded of
the Snohomish County Cities meeting on Thursday and encouraged Councilmembers to attend the AWC
district meeting at Scott’s on October 20.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson reported he was invited to attend the 100 anniversary of Boeing by a family
member who works for Boeing. He enjoyed seeing the wonderful work Boeing has achieved in 100 years
as well as meeting current and retired workers and learning about the buildings they worked in and the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 19, 2016
Page 19
planes they worked on. As a plane buff, it was very impressive. He commended the Edmonds citizens
who currently work for Boeing workers or have in the past and he found the work they have done
inspired.
Referencing events of the past few weeks, Councilmember Buckshnis paraphrased a quote from
Muhammad Ali, “If we practice an eye for an eye, soon we will all be blind.”
Council President Johnson reminded of the Walk Back in Time featuring Civil War Veterans at the
Edmonds Cemetery at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday.
Councilmember Teitzel said he has talked to several citizens and read comments in My Edmonds about
the elimination of the drive-up mailbox at the 2nd & Main post office. Due to concern with the difficulty
for the elderly and others with physical challenges getting out of their car to drop off mail, he contacted
the postmaster and learned post office views eliminating the mail box as cost-saving measure as first-class
mail volumes have been declining and that the drive-up mail box is no longer needed. Councilmember
Teitzel said he assured the postmaster a drive-up mailbox close to downtown is needed. The postmaster
indicated if 2-3 locations were identified, he would consider them. Councilmember Teitzel said he is
working with Public Works Director Phil Williams to identify 2-3 sites and meeting with the postmaster.
Councilmember Mesaros encouraged everyone to attend the ECA’s 10th Anniversary bash on July 30th.
The all-day event is free and further information is available in My Edmonds News and on the ECA
website.
Councilmember Tibbott reported on improvements occurring in the City including Veteran’s Plaza,
replacement of the bandshell at Frances Anderson Center, a downtown restroom, street repairs and
overlays, reconstruction of the fishing pier and construction of a new post office. Observing one notable
projects not on the list, Sunset Avenue, he encouraged the Council and staff to have a plan in place for
Sunset Avenue by fall.
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.