Loading...
20180904 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES September 4, 2018 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Michael Nelson, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL Deputy Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MAYOR PRO TEM NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD "SPECIAL MEETINGS" AS ITEM 7.4. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 2018 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM AND PAYROLL CHECKS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 1 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY KATHERINE RICHARDSON ($5,421.91) 5. PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION ON THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM ANNUAL SCARECROW FESTIVAL Dave Buelow, Edmonds Historical Museum, explained 2018 is the 6" annual Scarecrow Festival, a free, fun, family friendly event. Over 400 scarecrows have been built over the past 5 years by nearly 140 people. The 2018 festival will have the same 6 voting categories: residential; retail; food and beverage; service providers; finance, insurance and real estate; and government, civic group, arts and school. Judged categories are: top vote getter, best first-time entry and best depiction of Edmonds history. A non- competitive category was added this year for those who want to be part of the fun but are not interested in collecting votes. A scarecrow hunt was also added this year; five scarecrows in the downtown area will sport special numbered medallions; people finding all five can enter to win a prize at the museum or the business where the scarecrow medallion is located. The hunt is a way to drive more people downtown to shop, eat, etc. Registration is October 1 — 15, public voting is October 16 —November 2 and winners will be announced at a reception at the museum on Monday, November 5. Further information is available on the museum's website, or HistoricEdmonds.org or by calling the Scarecrow Festival hotline at 425-774- 0900. The 2017 winners are on the website for inspiration. Mr. Buelow recalled Councilmember Mesaros posed a question last year, whether the Scarecrow Festival resulted in crows leaving Edmonds. His research found there isn't a specific bird count for Region 1. However, bird studies reflect murders of crows fly into Bothell every evening; 9,000 in 2015 and over 15,000 in 2017. With no basis in fact or study, his position until proven otherwise was that the scarecrows were driving crows out of Edmonds every evening and encouraged the public to build more scarecrows so that trend would continue. Councilmember Mesaros was complemented that his question was so memorable. He noted a committee he sits on has two Councilmembers from Bothell; he will remind them that Edmonds is doing them a favor sending the crows their direction every evening. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson commented Edmonds takes scarecrows so seriously that there is a hotline. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, commented the crows flying to UW Bothell campus every evening is pretty spectacular. She anticipated a program one day regarding how crows communicate. She invited the Council and the public to the Puget Sound Bird Fest in Edmonds on September 14, 15 and 16; further information is available on their website. This weekend is the Swift Festival in Monroe. The Bird Fest in Edmonds includes many interesting activities; programs start on Friday with a presentation on Bald Eagles by Kevin Ebi, a National Geographic photographer, in the Plaza Room. Events will take place at the Edmonds Marsh, Frances Anderson Center and parks throughout the weekend as well as an open house with a native plant sale, activities for kids and pizza at the Demo Garden on Sunday from 12 to 3 p.m. Craig Chelius, Edmonds, spoke regarding the August 27 Housing Strategy meeting where the six goals of the Housing Strategy were presented as a settled matter. The meeting was conducted as a one-way flow of information with no questions or discussion. As citizens asked questions or attempted to discuss the goals, all comments were deferred to later but there was no opportunity later. Attendees were first divided into small groups and then further divided into micro groups of three people. No citizen -wide discussion was possible. The sole purpose of the three-person groups was to finetune preselected scenarios to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 2 implement the goals with the assumption that the goals were already accepted. The presentation, in addition to presenting the goals as settle, predetermined the audience's objections. The Housing Director and the consultant told the audience that the strategy would not increase crime in Edmonds from low income persons, would not attract homeless people and would not raise taxes. The message the audience heard was that anyone opposing the housing strategy was a selfish bigot which the citizens found quite offensive. In his 30 -year career as a business executive, a board director and a non-profit director, he never saw a strategy presented that was devoid of the resources to successfully implement the strategy; for the City, that is the budget. He questioned how attendees could possibly choose among six goals and provide suggested improvements without knowing the cost of the goals and the impact they would have on other City priorities. To do so without understanding the tradeoffs was to live in la -la land. He questioned not having any idea of the cost, impacts and tradeoffs when the City has been working on the housing strategy since 2015. It was not selfishness or bigotry to ask the core question, what can realistically be accomplished with the resources available and what is given up to accomplish those goals. That is the responsibility of the Council, citizens or any steward of the strategy. If the City expected the citizens' support, he asked that they be respected. 7. STUDY ITEMS PERMIT DECISION MAKING AND QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Resolution No. 1367 o Council discussions in 2016 regarding the City Council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity ■ Frustrations with ex -parte contact prohibitions ■ Liability issues for council members o Resolution No. 1367 ■ Requests city staff and Planning Board to prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the ECDC modifying the City Council's role in quasi -decision making processes o Code amendments since adoption of Resolution No. 1367 • Decision processes o Administrative Decisions ■ Type I — Staff decision no notice ■ Type II — Staff decision with notice o Quasi-judicial Decisions • Type III — Hearing Examiner/ADB ■ Type IV — Plats/PRDs/Site Specific Rezone ■ Appeals of Type 11 and Type III -B — Type II appeals to Hearing Examiner at open record public hearing — Type III -B appeals to City Council at closed record hearing o Legislative ■ Type V ■ ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions Quasi-judicial Decisions o Legislative vs. Quasi-judicial w Legislative decisions establish policies for future application ■ Quasi-judicial are the application of those policies o Strict procedural requirements ■ Property notice of hearing ■ Providing everyone with an interest in the proceedings an opportunity to be heard and to hear what others have to say Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 3 ■ Full disclosure to everyone of the facts being considered by the decision-making body (i.e., no ex-parte contacts) • An impartial decision -maker free from bias and conflicts of interest ■ Decisions based on facts of the case, not on political pressure or vocal opposition • ECDC 20.01.003 o Table of land use decisions with revisions ■ Move III -B decisions moved to III -A column, Type becomes III ■ Type IV -A moved to Type I column ■ Development Agreements moved from legislative process to Type N quasi-judicial ■ Attachment in packet includes related ECDC text amendments • Type IV -A: Subdivisions and PRDs o City Council approves final formal subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments o All requirements of preliminary approval have been met o Often all of the subdivision improvements are installed prior to application for final approval o Senate Bill 5674 allows legislative authority to be delegated to administrative personnel o Amendments to ECDC 20.75 and ECDC 20.35 delegates final approval to staff • ECDC 17.00.030 -Public Agency Variance o C. Public Structures and Uses. All public structures and uses built or altered by the city or any other public agency shall comply with this zoning ordinance. Where it is a public necessity to build, or alter, a structure or use in a location or in a manner not complying with this zoning ordinance, a variance may be considered. In this case, the action of the hearing examiner shall be a recommendation to the city council • ECDC 20.100.040 Review of Approved Permits o Conflicts with state law ■ Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW - One open record public hearing - ECDC 20.100.040 could result in endless public hearings if three neighbors within 300 feet of a project keep requesting review of approved permits ■ Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW - "Finality" - Once a land use permit has been approved and no appeal has been timely filed, the land use permit can no longer by judicially appealed even if it did not comply with permitting criteria when approved (Chelan County v. Nykreim) - Habitat Watch v. Skagit County - Projects cannot be collaterally attacked through another administrative permit review process • New section ECDC 20.110.045 added to code enforcement chapter that all the City to suspend or revoke a permit that fails to comply with conditions of approval or which operates in a manner inconsistent with the representations made in the application ■ ECDC 20.06 Open Record Public Hearings and 20.07 Closed Record Public hearings o Confusing cross references regarding appeals o Combine into a single chapter o Added some language for prehearing conferences o Added some details regarding briefing order, rebuttals and questions during hearings • Development Agreements o Change Development Agreement from Type V legislative decision to a Type IV quasi-judicial decision with recommendation from the Planning Board to City Council o Council considers development agreement in closed record review o Consistent with state law (Chapter 36.70B RCW); development agreements are not legislative, but must be consistent with local development code • Next steps o On extended agenda for September 18 but that date does not allow adequate time for noticing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 4 o Suggesting public hearing on September 25 although there are already four public hearings on that agenda Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be provided to Council. She recalled this change was made immediately after Councilmembers Petso and Bloom left the Council and two new Councilmembers were elected. She urged the new Councilmembers to read and understand the change, explaining it takes citizens' voices away from City Council and all appeals will be to the hearing examiner and on to Superior Court which costs a great deal. She referred to an email from Gary Nelson that said the cost was $240 and attorney fees were $200-500/hour. She recalled the Council hearing approximately ten cases in the past. She suggested this change be reconsidered as the City Council makes serious decisions about housing, land use, the Shoreline Master Program, critical areas, etc. and she did not support having that done by the hearing examiner and Superior Court. Councilmember Johnson said she has experienced both sides of the process. When decisions were appealable to Superior Court in the past, her father protested a neighbor's short subdivision when the hearing examiner made what she and her father felt was a bad decision. Her father hired an attorney and with her help, went through the process. Given the choice to go to Superior Court, they chose not to continue as they did not want to spend the money. As a Councilmember she has experienced this process when the Council has had to hire separate attorneys for the Council and go through elaborate quasi-judicial procedures. That experience convinced her this role was not the best for the City Council. Councilmember Johnson read from a presentation to the City Council from City Attorney Jeff Taraday that explains why this an appropriate role, "In considering whether the Council wants to continue in a quasi- judicial capacity, Mr. Taraday suggested we ask ourselves why. If it's because the City Council can make better decisions than the hearing examiner, that they have more expertise than the hearing examiner, then that's a valid reason to continue this practice so that we can correct the hearing examiner's errors. There was another way to accomplish that, by appealing the hearing examiner's decision under LUPA. For example, when the hearing examiner makes an unpopular decision or the City Council has concerns with the decision, the Council can vote to appeal the decision and direct the City Attorney to file a land use petition action appeal to superior court. As a result, the City Attorney would argue on the Council's behalf to convince the court that the hearing examiner's decision was wrong. He explained that there are benefits to that process from a risk management perspective. If he goes to court and argues the hearing examiner's decision is wrong and the judge upholds the hearing examiner's decision, no damage claim will be filed against the City. Conversely, if an appeal goes before the City Council acting as a decision maker and constituents are clamoring to overturn the hearing examiner decision and the Council does so when it shouldn't, then the City could face a significant damage claim as a result of that action. He summarized that from a risk management standpoint, much of the same thing can be accomplished by directing him to appeal hearing examiner decisions versus having the Council in the position of the decision maker." Councilmember Johnson found this very useful information for the City Council to consider; it is a way for the City Council to respond to constituents, to be able to have open conversations with them without jeopardizing Council decisions. Councilmember Johnson said when ponding how to ensure good decision making, one of the essential issues is the hearing examiner himself. If the City has a good hearing examiner, and she believed Phil Olbrechts was one of the best she has seen, who does not make mistakes and there haven't been decisions overturned, the City rely on him and the Council can act as a check and balance. Upon very careful consideration, that is the direction she was leaning but she was willing to listen to testimony and think about the matter very thoroughly. Councilmember Johnson invited Mr. Taraday to add to what she read. Mr. Taraday said he still agreed with those comments, that was still his opinion in terms of weighing the pros and cons. If Councilmembers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 5 believe they have more expertise than the hearing examiner and can make better decisions, that is the one valid reason for keeping the Council in quasi-judicial decision making. The significant role the City Council can play on behalf of its citizens should not be discounted, to essentially be the citizens' advocate by taking appeals to Superior Court on behalf of the citizens when the Council feels an error has been made. In that situation, the citizens do not pay any of the costs; and it is essentially a cost-free appeal to the City on behalf of the citizens assuming the City Attorney's flat fee arrangement continues. He noted for the record, there is an assumption being made that Superior Courts are only accessible to those who hire attorneys. However, many LUPA cases brought against City were by pro se litigants on their own behalf; Superior Court does not necessarily require hiring counsel. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the June 10 comments submitted by Gary Nelson to the Planning Board, specifically Snohomish County Superior Court filing fees would be $240. Mr. Taraday said that was about right. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the fee to appeal a hearing examiner decision to the City Council. Mr. Lien reviewed the City's appeal fees: • Appeal of staff decision to the hearing examiner: $400 • Appeal of Type III-B decision to City Council: $500 ■ Appeal of a notice of civil violation: $880 Councilmember Teitzel summarized potentially an appeal to Superior Court would be less expensive than an appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel again referred to Mr. Nelson's comments that state the filed appeal will cause delays in resolving each case. As of August 28, 2017, the waiting time for a LUPA civil appeal is approximately 9 to 10 months. Mr. Taraday answered LUPA cases are heard on a separate schedule, the waiting time quoted was probably true for civil actions generally, but LUPA cases, because they are on the record, they are generally given an expedited schedule that is usually faster. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the $200-$500/hour cost to be represented by an attorney was accurate. Mr. Taraday agreed that was in the ballpark, noting people who have come to the City Council have also hired lawyers; lawyers can be hired for either venue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was more likely to see people represented in Superior Court, noting there have been a number of hearings where the appellant was not represented by an attorney. She recalled Councilmember Johnson saying her parent could not afford to take an issue to Superior Court, anticipating appealing to City Council would have been more affordable. She recalled in the past, the City Council upheld most of the hearing examiner's decisions but also overturned some, based on fact, not on personal feelings or emotions. When Councilmembers are sworn in on a quasi-judicial matter, they can recuse themselves if they have any bias, ex-parte communication or conflict of interest. The only time the Council was required to hire a separate attorney was when a Councilmember filed a quasi-judicial appeal on an issue in their neighborhood. With regard to endless public hearings, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the six years the Council heard quasi-judicial appeals, there were approximately ten. Mr. Lien clarified the point regarding endless public hearing was not related to quasi-judicial decisions; it was related to amendments to a different code section, reviews of approved permits (a permit that has been approved and construction has started and review of the permit can be opened and sent back to the hearing examiner). Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has faith in the City's Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts but people make mistakes and bringing an appeal to City Council provides the ability to double check his decisions. She recalled there were a couple times the Council reversed the hearing examiner's decisions, not based on emotion or politics, but based on the Council's interpretation versus the interpretation of one person. She urged the Council to think carefully about this, noting there were pitfalls in both processes. She agreed with Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis for the new Councilmembers in particular to read the information carefully because it takes away the rights that citizens used to have. She asked if a public hearing was held when this change was made. Mr. Lien answered the minutes of the three meetings where Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 6 it was discussed are in the packet; the resolution was passed at the third meeting. He was uncertain whether a public hearing was held. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see a public hearing in the minutes. On behalf of the newer Councilmembers, Mayor Pro Tem Nelson said they are no longer new. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the two key issues discussed in 2016, frustration with ex -parte contact prohibitions and liability issues for Councilmembers, recalling in the 3-4 quasi-judicial issues he has been involved in, avoiding ex -parte contact was difficult. When Councilmembers are approached and have to tell citizens they cannot talk about an issue, there is a sense of frustration on both the citizens' part as well as the Councilmember's. That was a key factor for him in considering this. Mr. Taraday said Councilmembers generally run for office to be responsive to constituents; it is frustration for elected officials in a quasi-judicial context because they cannot be responsive to their constituents when they are unable to talk to them. He suggested that was an issue that Councilmembers should think carefully about; whether they were comfortable with and wanted to be put in a situation whether they could not engage with constituents regarding a project or would they rather be able to engage, and be able to say, I'm concerned too and testify before the hearing examiner. Councilmembers could testify to the hearing examiner if they were liberated from the burden of remaining impartial because of the quasi-judicial aspect. Mr. Taraday said the Council may assume by hearing appeals, they will right a wrong and be on the side of their constituents and be the heroes of the day. However, sometimes the opposite happens, the Council is forced to vote against the will of their constituents such if the application meets the requirements, it must be approved. In that instance, not only can the Council not talk to their constituents, in addition they may end up doing the exact opposite of their constituents want the Council to do which could be uncomfortable and not necessarily the position the Council wants to be placed in. Councilmember Mesaros asked how many Type III -B appeals there have been in the five years. Mr. Lien answered there have been 4 since 2009, the Burnstead plat (upheld), Hillman critical area reasonable use variance (overturned), design review Building 10 (remanded to ADB and then overturned) and a fence height variance (upheld). Mr. Taraday referred to the Building 10 appeal, explaining a LUPA appeal was filed following the City Council's action that was essentially stayed pending a new application and approval of the new application allowed the earlier LUPA to be dismissed. He clarified he did not want the Council to presume the City would have prevailed on the first LUPA; it is entirely possible that had that situation not been worked out, that case may not have gone the City's way. Just because the City has not an adverse judgment recently, he did not want the City Council to be overly bullish on City's chances of always prevailing. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said the Hillman critical area was a code problem and the appellant wrote the code change. The Council found an issue with the code and it was good to have someone fact - check the code. She said she has never seen a summary list of appeals or been asked to go with citizens to an appeal since 2016. Mr. Taraday said the code has not been changed to take the Council out of process yet. Mr. Lien said there have been no appeals to the Council since 2016. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented this same quasi-judicial approach went before the Snohomish County voters in November 2016 as Proposition 4 and the majority of voters voted no, 57.7% in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Hillman example and asked what the process would look like if that had been reviewed by Superior Court instead of the City Council. Mr. Lien explained that was a critical area reasonable use variance. The appellant did not write the code change; the code change was related to the definition of minimal reasonable economic use. The code said a single-family residence was a minimal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 7 reasonable economic use. The City Council overturned the hearing examiner's decision because the Council determined what was proposed was not the minimal reasonable economic use. After the hearing, that section was removed from the definition of minimal reasonable economic use so that a single-family residence was no longer assumed to be minimal reasonable economic use. Mr. Taraday explained if the appellant had not had the option of coming to the City Council to challenge the hearing examiner's decision, it would have gone to Superior Court and the City Attorney would have argued on the City's behalf to convince the judge that that was the wrong decision and that the residence could have been smaller, etc. With regard to the code change, the need to make changes arises a variety of ways, via an application that does not reach a hearing where an ambiguity is pointed out and flagged for amendment, a hearing examiner decision that flags an issue for later amendment, etc. Ambiguity in the code will continue to arise whether it is the Council or Superior Court reviewing appeals. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the appeal could have happened either of two ways. Mr. Taraday agreed, it just would have been a different body making the decision. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the code amendment was made after the legal process was completed. Mr. Lien answered the code amendment does not necessarily have to wait until the decision is made but it would not apply to a project that is already vested. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the comment about overturning a decision/mistake made by the hearing examiner and asked what the appeal body was overturning. Mr. Taraday explained the hearing examiner makes Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a decision. The decision has to rest on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is difficult for a finding of fact to be overturned on a closed record appeal because, by definition, the appeal body is not receiving new evidence and is reviewing the same information the hearing examiner received. It is unlikely in looking at the same exact evidence, the appeal body will reach a different factual finding. There are situations where a finding of fact can be overturned but it is less common. Most of time, if the Council retained this function, the issue was trying to determine whether the hearing examiner made an error in its legal opinion. Those are legal arguments; frequently attorneys on both sides will make argument to the City Council explaining why the code should be interpreted one way or another. That was more likely to be in the realm of the City Council if the Council retained this quasi- judicial function. Councilmember Tibbott observed the Council would be serving as judges as if they had a specialty as lawyers and understanding the proceedings. Mr. Taraday answered essentially, by definition if the Council was ruling on a legal argument, they were playing a legal role. Councilmember Tibbott said he may be new to the Council, but he served four years on the Planning Board where there were also quasi-judicial reviews. He recalled some were handled well and some were handled poorly. Those that were handled poorly was due to the way they came to the Planning Board from staff. The Board was not adequately prepared, did not receive information in enough time to prevent ex -parte interaction and as a result some decisions were skewed by outside information that was beyond the closed record. He found that very distressing now that he understands what the process is supposed to look like. He did not want the Council to be in the position of ferreting that out and potentially at risk of liability due to mishaps. He assumed that could be fixed, but there were significant logistical steps that needed to be taken to protect the quasi-judicial process. His experience in a quasi-judicial role was not positive; it requires specialized training to interpret findings, especially real estate zoning laws which are within the realm of the hearing examiner to review. At this point he still supported Resolution 1367 and the role it outlined for the City Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers who had not been through the process to read the cases so they understand the Council's role, anticipating staff could provide links to the information. She recalled one of the cases was regarding a fence and the point at which the height of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 8 fence was measured. Mr. Lien clarified it was a fence on top of a retaining wall. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that decision was reversed. Mr. Lien advised it was upheld. With regard to ex -parte contact, in all the years she was on Council and heard appeals, she had only been contacted twice about cases and in both she very professionally said she could not discuss it and that stopped the conversation. She recalled during the process Councilmembers are asked to reveal ex -parte contact and on occasion a Councilmember recused themselves. Councilmember Mesaros recalled visiting City Hall and upon seeing Mr. Lien, asking him about a project and if there were any problems. Mr. Lien responded they should not talk about it because if there were problems and they were appealed, Councilmember Mesaros could be required to make a decision in a quasi- judicial hearing. That was insightful on Mr. Lien's part. As Councilmember Tibbott said, a Councilmember may be talking to citizens about a project in its infancy and unknowingly be tainted by that discussion later in the process. As Mr. Taraday said, Councilmembers pride themselves on their accessibility to citizens; however, citizens may offer input early in the process before an appeal, resulting in a Councilmember being involved in ex -parte contact before the appeal process even begins. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the three meetings in 2016 agendas, none of them were public hearings. This item is on the extended agenda for September 18; the Council could have further discussion prior to a public hearing or schedule a public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson offered to work with Mr. Lien to select a date for the public hearing. Councilmembers were agreeable to that approach. 2. INTRODUCTION TO UPDATING CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS FOR WETLANDS Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said this is the third time this topic has been presented to the Council. He reviewed: Background o Completed comprehensive CAO update in May 2016 o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06- 001 o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act ■ Shoreline Master Program applies in shoreline jurisdiction • CAO applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction o SMP Periodic Review ■ This updated focuses on SMP Excepted Sections o ECDC 23.50.010.13, Wetland Ratings. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths. o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands. o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands r History repeats itself (almost) o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018 ■ "If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update." ■ Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance o "We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores." n Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables 2016 Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Re uirements for Western Washington Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 9 If Table XX.2 is Im lemented and Corridor Provided Buffer Width in feet) based on habitat score Wetland Category 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: Based on total score 75 105 165 225 2018 Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington If Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided Buffer Width in feet) based on habitat score Wetland Category 3-5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: Based on total score 75 110 225 Councilmember Johnson asked the wetland category for the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Lien said the Edmonds Marsh is a Category II estuarian wetland. The buffers do not change from 2016 to the 2018 Guidance. The buffers for estuarian wetland is not based on the wetland habitat score. Mr. Lien continued his presentation: • Other minor amendments o ECDC 23.50.020.E — Wetland activities ■ Related to expansion of a structure that does not increase "footprint of development" ■ New section ECDC 23.50.040.J — Development Proposals with the Footprint of Existing Development o ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d —buffer averaging scrivener's error Public hearing scheduled for September 25 Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said although this is a minor update, there are a lot of code changes. She complimented Mr. Lien on very good packet. Councilmember Teitzel referred to ECDC 23.50.020.E related to expansion of a structure that does not increase the footprint of the development. He asked if footprint of the development applied to the structure or the structure and the paved area. Mr. Lien answered it does not apply to just the structure which is why he suggested deleting that section. When the CAO was updated in 2016, a definition of footprint of development was added which includes legally established impervious surface. The new section still allows development within the developed footprint but requires enhancement as well. That was discussed in 2016 and should have been deleted at that time. 3. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CIF - CAPITAL )FACILITIES PLAN CFP DISCUSSION City Engineer Rob English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6 -year maintenance projects with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20 -year) capital project needs, and both contain 6 -year capital projects with funding sources. He explained several sources are used to select projects for both the CIP and CFP, the first, the Comprehensive Plan which contains nine elements, four of which are used in developing the CIP and CFP (Utilities Plan, Transportation, Plan, Parks & Recreation Open Space Plan and Capital Facilities Plan). He reviewed: • Comprehensive Plan elements o Establish goals and policies o Assessment of future needs based on land use and modeling o Identifies infrastructure and services to support future needs o Public participation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 10 o Establish priorities o Develop project list for capital improvements o Develop programs for maintenance/preservation o Planning Board review/public hearing/recommendation o City Council review/public hearing/approval • Parks & Recreation and Open Space (approved 2014/updated 2016) ■ Transportation Plan (2015) o Walkway plan o Bicycle Plan o ADA Transition Plan (2017) o Pavement Preservation Rating Study (2017) o Priority list of projects o Financial plan (impact fees) ■ Utilities Plan o Water (2017) o Storm (2010) o Sewer (2013) ■ Project selection graphic o City Council o Available funding o Concurrency o Safety o Project delivery capacity o Maintenance issue o Grant sources and competitiveness o Comprehensive Plan priority 2018 Pavement Preservation o Overlay ■ By year end will overlay 8.2 lane miles o Slurry seal (oil/water/sand seal coat) ■ 3 streets, 1.3 lane miles. ■ Will observe how product performs over next several years, may pursue additional streets ■ 112 Street Fund o 2018 projects: ■ *238th St. Walkway; SR104-SR99 (Complete) - 1200 feet of new sidewalk, midblock pedestrian crossing and upgrade of 10 pedestrian ramps to ADA compliance - $700,000 total project cost funded by two TIB grants ■ 76th Ave/212th Improvements (Complete) ■ Bike 2 Health (Complete) ■ 220th St/76th Ave Intersection Study (Complete) • Hwy 99 Revitalization Project Pre -Design (Complete) ■ Waterfront Connector Pre -Design (Complete) • Dayton St. Walkway; w/o 8th Ave Design (Complete) ■ Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements (Design) it *84th Ave Overlay; 220th -212th (Design) *REET Contribution • Transportation - 126/125 REET Funds o 2018 projects ■ Pavement Preservation Program (Complete) • Traffic Calming Program (Complete) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 11 ■ 220th St. Signal Coordination (Complete) ■ 89th PI Retaining Wall Design (Complete) ■ Protective/Permissive Signal/Conversion (Complete) ■ Pedestrian Curb Ramp Program (Design) ■ Minor Sidewalk Replacement (Design) Utility Funds o 2018 projects ■ 3,500 ft of Watermain Replacement ■ Replaced 4 Water Pressure Reducing Stations ■ Overlay 0.65 lane miles of street affected by waterline replacements * Five Corners Reservoir Recoating ■ Seaview Infiltration Project ■ Willow Cr/Edmonds Marsh; Pre -Design ■ 950 ft of Storm pipe replacement ■ 600 ft new sewermain; 700 ft sewermain replacement ■ Pavement overlay on 0.35 lane miles of street affected by sewermain replacements Councilmember Johnson commended this presentation, commenting over years the Council has looked at the CIP and CFP incrementally but not the full picture. She requested staff provide the Council the PowerPoint. The Planning and Public Works Committee (she and Councilmember Tibbott) requested this discussion so that Council has an opportunity to be briefed and to influence the process. As the project selection graphic indicated, the Council is an important part of the selection process. This is an opportunity for the Council to relay their questions and identify important projects. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the list of 2018 Utility projects and asked what projects were anticipated in 2019. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered more of same, the 2019 waterline and sewer line replacements as well as storm projects. The 2018-2022 CIP included $80 million in Utility projects. Expenditures are based on rate revenues which can be projected; there are no grants for Utility projects, unlike transportation and parks projects. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understand that in addition to available funds and completed designs, staff capacity is another factor in prioritizing projects. Mr. Williams agreed, noting although the City hires a lot of consultants, a City staff member is assigned to coordinate projects and shepherd them through. There are capital project managers in the engineering division and some engineers also coordinate projects. That can be difficult with a small staff doing that much work. Councilmember Tibbott asked how far out projects are managed. Mr. Williams answered there is generally a very good idea of next year's projects and some consideration is given to the second year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about 238"' between Hwy 99 and 76' Avenue, commenting it continues to be a safety issue because there is no place to walk between 238' and 76th. There are traffic calming devices but no sidewalk or even a shoulder and there is a ditch on both sides of the road. In reviewing the projects on the CIP, there is not much on the east side of Hwy 99. She encouraged staff to get that on the list of projects somewhere. Mr. Williams recalled that was on the long walkway plan. Councilmember Teitzel asked how the large scissor lift got inside the Five Corners reservoir. Mr. Williams answered a hole is cut in the tank. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Parks & Recreation Open Space Plan was adopted in 2014 and updated 2016. The plan is in compliance with the State until 2022. In budget year 2020, she will seek funds to engage the community and update the plan. She reviewed: • CIP Criteria/PROS Plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 12 o Assess resources and capacity o Embrace opportunity o Connect and expand o Enhance identity o Advance big ideas o Activate o Maximize • Expansion 1. Recreation opportunities in existing parks — e.g. outdoor fitness zones 2. Bicycle and pedestrian connections 3. Enhancing existing connections; shoreline, interurban 4. Fourth Ave Cultural Corridor • Community identity 1. Corridors and gateways 2. Waterfront parks and entire shoreline 3. Downtown community parks: Civic • Big ideas 1. Complete waterfront path 2. Secure Civic Playfield, develop as a City Park 3. Restore Edmonds Marsh 4. Develop sports complex at former Woodway HS with school district 5. Acquire/enhance Esperance Park • Activation 1. Find new ways to encourage park use 2. Provide a variety of programming at more park locations 3. Integrate art projects into design and construction • Parks CIP/CFP 2018 - o Civic Design development o Meadowdale Playfields — completed o Fishing Pier Rehabilitation o Waterfront Development/Walkway Design and Permitting o Edmonds Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek o City Storage Building o Community Garden o Frances Anderson Center Playground o Fishing Pier Restrooms o Mathay Ballinger Trail o Seaview Park improvements o Yost Pool updates o Hickman Park hillside erosion o Marsh walkaway Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP Schedule • July o City Staff Begins Development of Capital Budgets ■ August/September o Submit Proposed Capital Budget to Finance o Prepare Draft CFP and CIP ■ October o Planning Board; Public Hearing (October 10th & 24th) ■ November/December Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 13 o Presentation o Public Hearing o Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan Councilmember Johnson commented it was impressive to see all the information and projects together. She referred to the schedule, noting the Council usually gets the Planning Board's recommendation about the same time as the budget and has very little time for review. She was glad the Council received this presentation ahead of time. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis agreed, recalling late meetings trying to approve the CIP/CFP in November/December. During her travels she sees a lot of parks but never sees anyone using the fitness zones. She recognized they are popular in Europe and asked if they are popular in the United States. Ms. Hite answered they are popular in some areas and more so if they are advertised and programmed. A grant submitted to Verdant passed the first round and is awaiting a second -round decision. The grant included funds to program the fitness zones, free drop-in fitness classes every Saturday morning to learn how to use the equipment so people don't have to pay for a gym membership. The grant also includes funds for a fitness instructor to orient people to the equipment. Surveys will be done regarding demand and timing. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said that was a good idea. Ms. Hite explained for example, 100 people attended a free community fitness class held in partnership with CrossFit Industrious at Hickman Park. She concluded there is a demand and she anticipated the fitness zones will be successful if they are visible and advertised. Councilmember Mesaros agreed it was nice to see the big picture and all the great work being done across the City and the leadership provided by staff. With regard to the Marsh walkway, he asked whether the intent was for people to eventually circumnavigate Marsh. Ms. Hite said that is in PROS Plan and the Western Washington University students did a feasible study and some preliminary design. She acknowledged the need to careful and not impact the Marsh too much. The feasibility study did not anticipate the walkway would go complete around, only from the north to the south fishing pier and one more viewpoint. It was primarily to see the birds but not have too much impact on the Marsh itself. Councilmember Mesaros suggested moving in from SR -104 on the eastern border to make that walk more pleasant. He asked if there were senior softball leagues. Ms. Hite answered there were 55+ leagues. Councilmember Tibbott noted the plans did not include the Waterfront Center parking lot and the streetscape. Ms. Hite answered the City budgeted for the waterfront redevelopment, half the parking lot and the Ebbtide walkway. The Ebbtide walkway will be included in the 2019 CIP with funding 1-2 years out. Funds have not been included in the CIP for the full parking lot and the frontage improvements pending Council discussion and decision. The 2019 CIP has not yet been completed; this presentation was highlighting 2018 projects and looking forward to 2019. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the parking lot and frontage improvements could be in the 2019 CIP. Ms. Hite agreed, pending the Council's decision. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was exciting to see all the things that are happening. He asked if the Mathay Park trail would be a connection from the Interurban Trail to the park. Ms. Hite answered yes. Councilmember Teitzel recalled contacting Ms. Hite after a citizen contacted him regarding unsavory activity in Mathay Park and a desire for more lighting and that was addressed. He anticipated there would be additional concern with a trail in the dark part of the trail next to the Interurban Trail unless additional lighting was installed and asked if there were plans for more lighting. Ms. Hite answered there are no plans for additional lighting, there is a light at the edge of the Interurban that shines down into that area. Staff will monitor it to see if bollard lighting is needed. She was hesitant to install a great deal of lighting due to a nearby residence. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 14 Councilmember Teitzel he referred to the 2018-2023 CIP and $20,000 for Traffic Calming Program/Non- Motorized Transportation Safety and asked if that was the amount Council set aside in a contingency fund for radar feedback signs. Mr. Williams answered it was not necessarily specific to radar feedback, it was the amount that has been allocated to that for the last several years and was in the 2018-2023 CIP. The Council took action in the 2018 budget adoption process, after the CIP was printed, to add $15,000 for a total of $35,000. Staff plans to make a proposal to change what that program looks like, its focus and the title in 2019 including possibly a change in the funding level. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is currently a trail in Mathay Ballinger Park and asked if this was a new trail. Ms. Hite answered the current trail is a courtesy trail, created by people walking in the area; the proposed trail will be paved so it is ADA and bicycle accessible. 4. SPECIAL MEETINGS Mayor Pro Tem Nelson recalled at the August 28 meeting, the Council agreed the Finance Committee should have a discussion regarding the Waterfront Center's finances. Since then, because one member of the Finance Committee will not be able to attend the meeting, there was a request to hold a special meeting on this subject because it is time sensitive. He requested input from Council on whether to have special meeting on subject or have it occur at a regularly scheduled Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Mesaros asked the process for scheduling a special meeting, whether it was the purview of the Council President or the Mayor. Mr. Taraday answered there are two bodies of law that apply; State and the City Code. There is a distinction between a Council meeting and a Council committee meeting, although the code does not address how to call a committee meeting. Options include the Council President, the committee chair, all committee members, etc. Councilmember Mesaros asked the proper procedure from a legal standpoint in the absence of specifics. Mr. Taraday answered under State law, any majority of a governing body can call a special meeting. Under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), a committee is considered a governing body. Under the OPMA, a committee of two members, two members constitute a majority and could call a special meeting. The City code does not address specifically how special committee meetings are called which is the question Mayor Pro Tem Nelson is raising. The code does addresses how special Council meetings are called. Councilmember Mesaros recalled earlier this year the Council established a process for managing Council committees. Last year there were two per month on the second and fourth Tuesday; this year that was changed to meetings on the second Tuesday and other business that would be handled by a committee would come to the full Council in a study session. He hoped the Council would refrain from calling special meetings to address issues due to timing because the Council meets weekly and those meetings are proper public notice. He opined it would have to be a very extraordinary opportunity to hold a special committee meeting and, without knowing what drove this discussion, it was difficult to determine whether this was an extraordinary opportunity. Councilmember Teitzel explained the issue was the Waterfront Center which was discussed by the full Council and changing the agenda item from an action item to a study item because several Councilmembers felt the packet was not complete, there were several detailed questions as well as issues that impact the City's finances and the 2019 budget. As the Finance Committee Chair, he felt the committee needed to review the issue in great detail as well as have the opportunity to review the complete packet. The Finance Committee is meeting next week, but he will be absent due to a long -planned vacation and as a great of detail needed to be prepared, it was unlikely that would be ready by next week. Councilmember Teitzel explained this is an extraordinary situation and time sensitive as the senior center would like to break ground on the Waterfront Center in early 2019. The committee will be able to obtain Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 15 and vet the additional information, ensure the packet is complete and forward it to the Council soon after the special Finance Committee meeting. The special meeting will be scheduled the third week of September and Farrell Fleming, Carrie Hite, Scott James and Jeff Taraday will be invited to the meeting to review the senior center's financials and get questions answered so that the Council can take action. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what other cities do with regard to meetings like this. Mr. Taraday said it was unlikely a lot of data would be found on that because special committee meetings were rare. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested another city might have code language or perhaps MSRC would have information. As Mountlake Terrace holds Council committee meetings, perhaps they hold special meetings. Mr. Taraday said the only question is policy preference, it is not a legal question. The question is how this City Council wants these matters to be handled, whether the committees decide for themselves when they want to meet, whether the Council President decides, whether the City Council decides, etc. Legally, the OPMA simply says any majority of a governing body can call a special meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday if he considered two Councilmembers on a committee a majority. Mr. Taraday explained the OPMA definition of a governing body is the Council or any committee thereof. If a committee is now a governing body for the purpose of OPMA compliance and any majority of a governing body can call a special meeting, the two committee members would need to agree to call a special meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she still wanted to know what other cities were doing as she feared calling special meetings would be a slippery slope if the public had to guess when committee meetings would be. She acknowledged this was a onetime thing, but there was the potential to hold multiple special committee meetings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not have an issue with moving the meeting but she wanted it taped for transparency. She wanted to know what happened in the meeting and two citizens who contacted her also want to know what happened in the meeting. She asked whether taping the meeting was a policy issue. Mr. Taraday answered there was no choice whether or not to tape a meeting. Special meetings and regular meetings are subject to the same requirements with regard to recording. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether special meeting should be on camera. Mr. Taraday answered having meetings on camera is a different issue; he believed all meetings were required to be audio recorded. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her interest in having the special Finance Committee meeting televised so people unable to attend could observe it. She noted this was an important issue involving millions of dollars and it needed to be as transparent as possible. In response to Councilmember Teitzel, Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was anything that prevented two Councilmembers, whether they were a committee or not, from meeting with City staff to discuss an issue more thoroughly. Mr. Taraday said if the question was whether any two Councilmembers could meet with staff to discuss an issue more thoroughly, the answer was yes. As committees do not make decisions, only recommendations, Councilmember Mesaros suggested there was nothing preventing the two Councilmembers from having that discussion and bringing the matter to the full Council. Mr. Taraday said the Council has been extremely conservative and has treated committees as if they are always subject to the OPMA although they may not be. The Council has established regular meeting times, the Council is now discussing the possibly of a special committee meeting. If the City were ever to have an OPMA lawsuit about a committee meeting, there are many nuances related to whether a committee meeting is in subject to the OPMA. Out of an abundance of caution, committee meetings are treated as if they are subject to the OPMA. If two Councilmembers who want more information from staff happen to sit on the same committee, it raises the question whether that is a committee meeting. Some may say no, it's just two Councilmembers getting information from staff. However, if they are discussing the same topic with staff that they would have otherwise discussed in a committee meeting, some may say that's a committee meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 16 Councilmember Mesaros commented it was important to say that aloud and present it to the Council. He recalled on occasion he and another Councilmember have met with staff to seek additional information. He enjoyed hearing what the other Councilmember had to say and vice versa and it creates a richness and discovery. The discovery that Councilmember Teitzel was seeking could be accomplished in a meeting with staff versus holding a special meeting. He appreciated the nuance Mr. Taraday was making and as Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said, if the Council is holding special committee meetings, are they really open to the public and the public being informed about them. If Councilmembers are discovering information with staff, it is not a committee meeting. Mr. Taraday clarified there was a spectrum of transparency with regular committee meetings on one end of the spectrum, special committee meetings in the middle and unnoticed committee meetings such as discovery with staff at the other end. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis recalled the Finance Committee holding many special meetings in the past although that may be different now that meeting procedures have been codified. She commented the packet regarding the Waterfront Center parking lot was incomplete, the lease wasn't complete, and four of the lease attachments were missing. The Finance Committee needs to hold'a special meeting to review the lease and the private -public partnership agreement before bringing it to Council. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson commented it is clear this is a gray area; it appears to be legal under the OPMA, but the question is whether it is good policy, to have a meeting without the public having access and the ability to review it in the future. Although it was technically legal, he preferred to be ahead of the law with regard to transparency. Councilmember Johnson said when Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis and she were on the on Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee, they had several meetings that were not at the regularly scheduled time; the meetings were noticed and it was not a big deal. With regard to this issue, she felt holding a special meeting would be great as she would be able to attend it. During regular committee meetings, she attends the PPW Committee concurrent with Finance Committee meetings. Another option would be to postpone the discussion until the October Finance Committee meeting because she did not think groundbreaking would occur in January. The most important things are that everyone be notified in advance and the public and possibly other Councilmembers can attend. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Councilmember Johnson, commenting there was some benefit in holding special meetings that allow other Councilmembers to attend. Another reason for holding a special meeting is that some topics may require more time for review. He recalled last year the PPW Committee had a lengthy item and the meeting lasted until 11:30 p.m. Had he known how much review would have been required, he would have scheduled a daytime special committee meeting on that topic. He concluded there are advantages to special committee meetings for detailed topics. As long as the meeting is noticed, that is good policy. He suggested a majority of two committee members and the Council President could call a special meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Finance Committee discussed the senior center at their last committee meeting. Councilmembers Buckshnis and Teitzel recalled it had come to the full Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was more concerned about this special meeting because there would also be representatives from the senior center at the meeting, not just Council and staff. Transparency is very, very important considering the size of this project and the millions of dollars it will cost. If the committee will be getting questions answered, it would be easier for the public to understand what was happening if it was "out there for the public to see and not behind closed doors." Transparency was the reason she was interested in having the meeting videotaped versus minutes that do not describe word-for-word what has occurred. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 17 Councilmember Teitzel took exception to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comments, pointing out had he been available at next Tuesday's Finance Committee meeting and if the additional work had been completed, the committee meeting would have been held as usual. It would be open to the public and minutes would be taken but it would not be on camera. The Finance Committee is simply asking to move that meeting so that he is able to attend and so that the information requested will be completed and available for review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has also had requests from citizens to watch the meeting although she explained it is not normally videotaped. She did not understand the pushback about having the Finance Committee meeting videotaped. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said all committee meetings should be treated the all the same. She recalled the PFD come to a Finance Committee that wasn't videotaped. The cost of audio recording a special meeting is $50; videotaping the meeting is much more expensive. Councilmember Mesaros said the Council is discussing two things, the process for calling special committee meeting and whether this topic is worthy of calling a special committee meeting. He agreed with Councilmember Tibbott's suggestion that a majority of two committee members and the Council President meeting could call a special meeting. If that process were adopted, then the second topic would be moot. He said all Councilmembers miss meetings on occasion; the process for committee meetings is for the Council President to attend in place of the absent Councilmember. If this matter is urgent, the Finance Committee could meet and Council President Nelson could sit in for Councilmember Teitzel and there would be no need for a special meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson said in an effort to be more transparent, there should be a process in place. It appears a majority of the Council agrees that two committee members can call a special committee meeting. The second issue is whether to videotape special meetings that are not held at the regularly scheduled time. Councilmember Tibbott commented the logistics of video -recording are quite different than audio recording. He envisioned a special committee meeting like this could take place in a City Hall conference room but there was unlikely to be video recording equipment. Arrangements could be made to videotape in Chambers but it would be difficult due to the court. The Council has established a pattern whereby committee meetings are noticed, audio recorded, there is a note taker and minutes are provided along with the audio. Councilmember Teitzel said he did not have a problem with video recording but the current process was not to video -record committee meetings. He anticipated there could be future requests to have committee meetings video -recorded and the cost element could become a factor. The existing process works, is open and transparent, the public can attend, and minutes are taken and the Council should stand by that process. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was representing citizens who have contacted her that want to see the special Finance Committee meeting recorded and available on television. For transparency purposes, she said there was no reason this one meeting could not be held in Council Chambers and videotaped. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED TO VIDEOTAPE THIS ONE MEETING BASED ON CITIZEN REQUEST. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked whether requiring one committee's meetings be videotaped, when other groups have participated in committee meetings in the past, would be considered discriminatory. For example, the Finance Committee had a meeting with the PFD recently regarding bond refinancing that was attended by Councilmember Mesaros, Mayor Earling, and the PFD'S Executive Director. Mr. Taraday did not think it would be considered discriminatory in the legally actionable sense; it was drawing a distinction. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis emphasized the issue would be brought to the full Council once the packet was complete and Councilmembers could make their comments on camera. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 18 Mr. Taraday said he did not have an opinion on the videotaping aspect. With regard to an earlier question about language in the City Code regarding special meetings, he said there is nothing that addresses special meetings other than a reference to the City Clerk's obligations. Under the OPMA, a special meeting may be called by the presiding officer or a majority of the members. In a committee, the presiding officer would be the chair so theoretically, under state law, the committee chair could call a special committee meeting. Whether that was something the Council wanted to allow was for the Council to decide. Under RCW 35A.12, the chapter related to strong mayor cities like Edmonds, the mayor or any three councilmembers may call a special meeting of the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Nelson summarized it sounded like a special Finance Committee meeting can proceed. He expressed interest in codifying a process related to special meetings. He supported videotaping all Council meetings whether they are committees, special or regular Council meetings. Many other cities are doing that and Edmonds is behind the curve. Anything that makes it easier for the public to see and hear what the Council is doing is a good thing. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Nelson commented there are many things related to the number 13, Friday the 13th, the 13 people at the Last Supper, 13 steps to the gallows (12 up and 1 down), Apollo 13 created the famous phrase, "Houston we have a problem," Franklin Delano Roosevelt would never travel on the 13th or host dinner guests of 13, and prohibition lasted 13 years. To others, the number 13 is a good thing; the Mayas believe 13 is synonyms with a spiritual connection with the great architect of the universe, the planet Neptune has 13 moons, a baker's dozen which dates back to the medieval days when there was severe punishment for bakers who cheated their customers and now the 131h donut is free, 13 is considered lucky in Italy, fare tredici (to do 13) means hit the jackpot, and the original 13 colonies. His personal favorite related to 13 is a passage in the bible, Corinthians 13, Love suffers long and is kind. Love does not envy. Love does not parade itself, is not puffed up, it does not behave goodly, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil, does not rejoice in inequity but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things. It believes all things. It hopes all things. It endures all things. Love never fails. He concluded his love for his wife has never failed for the last 13 years. He wished his wife a Happy 13th Anniversary. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said will contact the people that contacted her and suggest they contact the Finance Committee members. Councilmember Mesaros said he and his wife have been married more than 31 years. Councilmember Teitzel said he and his wife recently reached their 43rd anniversary. He will think about the Council while sailing in the San Juans next week. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1){i) This item was not needed. 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 19 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. S6"; 0- DAVI O. EA ING, MAYOR 5 PASSEY, ITY C K Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 4, 2018 Page 20