20190625 City CouncilE DMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 25, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Mayor Pro Tem
Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr.
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
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 7:17 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas
in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. She announced the meeting was being audio
recorded and may not be video -recorded due to technical difficulties. 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 and Councilmember Johnson.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM
FRALEY-MONILLAS TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Councilmember Teitzel asked to pull Item 4.5, ECC 5.32 and 5.05.060; Park Rules and Dog Rules.
Councilmember Teitzel asked for clarification before approving Item 4.5. Parks & Recreation Director
Carrie Hite relayed she received a call from the Edmonds School District requesting a slight change in the
ordinance related to dogs on public grounds. The district would like to allow dogs on school grounds but
they have a policy that regulates it. She displayed a recommended change to the ordinance: (change is
italicized):
5.05.060 Dogs on public grounds.
A. It shall be unlawful for an owner to allow any dog to stray and/or enter with or without a leash
or other means of restraint upon , playfield, playground, spray_ground, or any
public beach. .,.,..,.,1..eael., . ,....,..r ent o.- eilie ..,ublic p pe..,=
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 1
BE. All dogs permiaed iii areas designated in subsee4ien (B) of this seefie" she!! be Oil a leash
Docs are permitted in city parks, on the
waterfront walkway and on other public property not listed in subsection (A) of this section, and
shall
be on a leash and in the owner's control at all times. Dogs are permitted off leash, and under the
owner's control, in the off leash area south of Marina Beach Park. Dogs are permitted aro school
grounds sub eel to Edmonds School Districl policy.
Ms. Hite explained the district's policy states dogs are not allowed on school grounds 1/2 hour before school,
during school hours and 1/2 hour after school. Outside those hours, the district wants to welcome the public
to use their grounds with their dogs.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE ECC 5.32 AND 5.05.060; PARK RULES AND DOG RULES AS AMENDED. MOTION
CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL 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 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2019
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
4. EDMONDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 3517 (AFSCME COUNCIL 2) 2018-2020
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
5. ECC 5.32 AND 5.05.060; PARK RULES AND DOG RULES
6. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Cam Tripp, Edmonds, said he was here on behalf of the 11,000 who have signed the petition to save the
beach and on behalf of some not able to sign the petition, Mike Oreo, Rainshadow, Alki, Midnight,
Wavewalker, Windsong, and Joy and Princess Angelina, some of the remaining 76 resident endangered
orcas that live on this coast. The seashore along Edmonds is a key part of the Salish Sea system and a
designated marine wildlife reserve. When visiting the beach last week, he encountered two scientists doing
water quality sampling who said they go to 11 places from Seattle to Everett and the Edmonds marine
sanctuary is the only place that never has water quality issues. The beach is pristine and amazing; building
on that beach would do irreparable harm to the Salish Sea system so it is important to keep it clean. The
vision for the Edmonds waterfront does not include a massive development but keeping it beautiful, natural
and pure. He has heard there needs to be a process for capturing the Edmonds community values; one of
the values is citizens love the beach and the Salish Sea and he requested the Council honor that community
value. He thanked the Council for their commitment to public service, a selfless, high calling and expressed
appreciation for the Council's efforts.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 2
Ross Demmick, Edmonds, thanked Shane Hope for organizing the group to provide input on the draft
Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and Kernen Lien taking their input and refocusing the document.
He also thanked Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis and Councilmember Tibbott for their interest in
what he had to say. His comments to the Council on prior iterations of the plan have focused on two
problems, first, its shaky scientific foundation, particularly statements and calculations that were
unsupported by the cited reference documents and inconsistent with the contractors online tools. This aspect
was particularly offensive to him having spent his career presenting good environmental science for
informed government decision-making. Second, was the lack of consideration of the inherent conflict
between trees and the human or built environment. Without that conflict, there would be no need for a plan
to save trees or shave the marsh, the beach. The plan is also much closer to describing the nature versus
human conflicts that have resulted in the decline of the urban forest. They are about views, structural
integrity, and cost of maintenance. He still questioned the utility of the document as a plan. It now has a
section that provides guidance on what it means to have the right tree in the right place, but a plan needs to
go a step further. Plans require a strategic direction, a mission statement, and coherent goals and actions.
Imagine a comprehensive plan for trees; what are we trying to achieve with the urban forest in each part of
the community? What is the objective of tree planting or preservation on the Hwy 99 corridor and how does
that differ from other areas of Edmonds? How do these objectives influence the selection of tree species?
Those questions remain largely unanswered in the revised plan. The pieces for a great plan exist in the
revised UFMP but without a responsive contractor, he was unsure City staff or citizens have the time to
transform the plan into what it could and should be. He could neither recommend that the Council approve
or reject the UFMP; it is vastly improved but he believed it was still flawed.
Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, said it was important to recognize that saving the beach and the needs of the
waterfront are somewhat related but two different things. It was critical that citizens and the City Council
recognize what happened last week set a mandate for what citizens do not want to happen at the waterfront.
It was also important to recognize that there are realities related to increased ferry and train traffic and
increased tourism that put a burden on Edmonds. It is unrealistic to expect Edmonds will remain the same
into the future. He called on the City Council and the community to be proactive in recognizing that changes
are coming and to work to identify changes that work for all. He acknowledged some changes will be
difficult and require economic, environmental and comfort compromises and finding a workable solution
will require everyone to work together. He did not want the Save the Beach effort to be become a single
issue item that prevents the community from moving forward.
Laurie Rasmussen, Edmonds, relayed My Edmonds Neighbors reported there are nearly 10,000
signatures for Save the Beach. The effort continues with people putting up posters and signs and wearing
buttons to rally to Save the Beach and not have Waterfront Connector constructed. She referred to an
opinion article where the person reviewed the study that was done regarding the connector and recognized
three different areas that were in conflict. The author of that article requested the contractor review the
study results and return to the Council with the information he found. With regard to utility rates, she
preferred the Council consider bonds instead of utilizing the pay-as-you-go method.
Jim Carraway, Edmonds, commented on the potential for a motion to consider last week's vote. He was
initially in favor of the Waterfront Connector, but that support was ill-founded because he did not have all
the information. First, he was under the impression that the state and federal funding had been secured
which it has not been. He was also surprised to learn the $18.8M federal BUILD grant the City would be
requesting was out the norm for this year's potential grants. As a result, he questioned the effort to spend
more taxpayer dollars on a project that could not be funded. He was also under the impression there would
be little to no impact to the beach because it would connect at Bell Street, not Edmonds Street. He learned
the beach is a protected marine sanctuary; that alone should have killed the project. As an Edmonds resident,
he expected elected officials to do their job by being fiscally responsible with taxpayer dollars and to take
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 3
into consideration the desires of the people who elect them and to protect the environment and the city. One
of the topics that keeps coming up is safety; one of the options is $20M cheaper and would address public
safety.
Maura Doe, Edmonds, expressed her support for the Save the Beach campaign. She was perplexed last
week as it seemed like common sense once she saw the visual and learned of the marine sanctuary. She was
appalled the Mayor had continued the conversation and said that hearings had been held, etc. She has two
children and works full-time; she expects her elected officials to use common sense, intelligence and job
skills to make good decisions. The beach is a beautiful visual for visitors and the face of the community.
She urged the Mayor and Council to be careful about what they do and use common sense. It doesn't matter
how much money has been spent to explore an option if at the end of the day it did not make sense.
Ruth Lakey, Edmonds, encouraged the decision -makers to use creative thinking and think outside the box.
The solution is a simple idea and does not take a lot of imagination. She was certain the City has the ability
to think of a creative solution that would acceptable to everyone and secure the beauty of the City and the
beach.
6. REPORTS ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Finance Committee
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis reported on topics the committee discussed:
• Edmonds Public Facilities District Financial Report
o Finances are improving
o Have adopted a Strategic Plan
• Civic Field Debt Service Options Discussion
o Considering various bond scenarios
• April 2019 Monthly Financial Report
• Fund Balance / Reserve Policy Discussion
• Washington State Auditor's Office Financial Intelligence Tool
o Auditor will make a presentation to full Council
• Utility Rate Increase & Future Adoption of a Utility Rate Ordinance
• Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix for the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Parks and Public Works
Councilmember Teitzel highlighted items the committee discussed:
• Supplemental Agreement with Parametrix for the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
• Utility Rate Analysis and Future Adoption of a Utility Rate Increase
• Park Rules and Dog Rules
o On -leash dogs under the owners control will be allowed in parks and owners must pick up after
dogs
o Additional dog waste bag stations will be installed
o Will be done on a trial basis
Public Safety, Planning & Personnel
Councilmember Nelson reported on items the committee discussed:
• Indigenous People Land Acknowledgement
■ Draft UFMP
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. UTILITY RATE ANALYSIS & FUTURE ADOPTION OF A UTILITY RATE ORDINANCE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 4
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Senior Utilities Engineer Mike DeLilla. Mr. Williams
explained the intent is to design rates for the next three years as was done for the previous three years and
the three years prior to that. He advised no decision was sought tonight other than possibly authorizing the
City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and set a public hearing date. He reviewed:
• Diagram of Utility Rate Study Process which includes
o Establish Fiscal Policies
o Revenue Requirement
o Forecast Costs and Revenues
o Cost of Service Analysis
o Costs by Function
o Costs by Customer Class
o Fixed Charges
o Design Rates
o Volume Charges
• Overview of Revenue Requirement Analysis
o Defines "cost -based rates" as rates based on aggregate obligations
■ Operating costs
■ Capital project expenditures
■ Debt service payments
■ Other financial needs
o Establishes a multi-year financial plan beyond the current budget cycle (5 years)
o Key Elements of Revenue Requirement Analysis:
■ Defining revenues and expenses
Developing capital funding strategy
■ Establishing fiscal policy "framework"
Key assumptions
o Annual Cost inflation
■ General (CPI): 2.5%
■ Benefits: 10.0%
■ Water Purchase Costs:
— 19% in 2020; 8% in 2021; 5%+/ -per year thereafter
■ Construction Costs: 4.0%
o Operating Forecast
■ Generally based on 2019 —2020 Budget
— Adjusted for inflation in future years
— Taxes computed on projected revenues
o Annual Growth
■ Water/Sewer: z 85 ERUs per year
R Stormwater: z 55 ESUS per year
Utility Policies (Goals)
o Rate Analysis Policy on a 3 -year cycle to:
■ Improve ability to weather financial cycles, risks and disruptions
■ Stabilize rates over time
■ Account for changes that are outside or control (Alderwood rates)
■ Account for large future projects
o Capital Fund Policy
■ Meet all utility financial obligations
■ `Pay as you go' Rate funding for replacement/maintenance give significant savings to the
program.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 5
- Repayment of interest on a $10M bond at 4.5% over lifetime of 20 year bond is approx.
$5.2M*
• Avoid deferral of fiscal maintenance responsibilities
• Keep intergenerational equity
• Target includes reserves for repair and replacement, cost overruns, and emergencies
• Accounts for seasonal fluctuations in spending
*Approx. $4.3M in 2019 $ using 2.5%CPI (43% total project cost savings)
• Settina uiD Policies (examvles
POUY
Purpose
Policy Target
Operating Reserve ✓
Minimum cash reserve to
Water = 90; Sewer = 45-90
Seattle
accommodate varied revenue and
Storm; Solid Waste=30 Days
$72.16
expenditure timing
O&M
Capital Reserve ❑x
To meet emergency repairs,
1-25 of capital assets (original
$52.73
unanticipated capital and project cost
cost
Everett
overruns
Olympic View WSD
Replacement Reserve
Rate funded capital - annual basis
Original Cost Depreciation;
Funding (RRF) ✓
$41.88
Replacement Cost
$38.73
Depreciation
Equipment Reserve ✓
To fund ongoing vehicle and
Estimated replacement value
equipment re lacement
Debt Service Coverage
Compliance with existing debt
Target 2.0 or higher
covenants ad maintain credit
Minimum 1.25
worthiness for future debt needs
Revenue Sufficiency
Set rates to meet the total annual
Rates shall be set to cover
financial obligations of the utility and
O&M, debt service, reserves
be self-supporting
and fiscal policy achievement
• 2019 Water Rates (1 Occf usage)
Lake Forest Park via SPU
$94.15
Shoreline via SPU
$94.15
Woodinville WD
$78.87
Seattle
$77.65
Mountlake Terrace
$72.16
City of Kirkland
$66.55
Edmonds
$65.47
Arlington
$52.73
Mukilteo WSDW
$4.47
Everett
$44.82
Olympic View WSD
444.69
Redmond
$44.44
Lynnwood
$41.88
Alderwood Water & Wastewater
$38.73
Capital Needs Forecast - Water
o Graph of capital costs by year 2019-2024
o $21,867,000 in capital projects from 2019-2024
* Water Mains: $20,072,000
■ Reservoirs: $1,795,000
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
Water Revenue Requirement Forecast
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 6
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existing Rates, and Revenue R Proposed Rate
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
Water Financial Plan Scenarios
2019 Study
Proposed
2020
Proposed
12022
Projected
Annual Water Rate Increase
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
8.1%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
Monthly sinEle-family bill &
7ccf $45.66
$47.92
$50.30
$52.79
$55.41
$57.64
Tax
1 6.41
6.08
5.03 1
5.28
1 5.54
5.76
Total
1 $52.07
1 $54.00
1 $55.33.1
$58.07 1
$60.95 1
$63.04
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
Water Financial Plan Scenarios
2019 Study
Proposed
2020
2021
12022
Projected
2023 12024
Annual Water Rate Increase
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
Projected AWWD Rate Increase
19%
8.1%
5.3%
5.6%
5.0%
Pro�ected Water Purchase Costs $ M
$2.3
$2.5
$2.6
$2.8
$2.9
2016 Study
Projected
2020 2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
Projected AWWD Rate Increase
9.9%
3.1
5.3%
5.3%
5.3%
Projected Water Purchase Costs ($ M)
$2.0
$2.1
1 $2.2
$2.3
$2.4
o Alderwood WWD rate increases are higher than previously projected
o Cumulative projected 2019-2014 increase is 63% (was 38% in 2016 Study - $500,000)
• 2019 Storm Rates (1 ERU)
Seattle
$43.06
Everett
$24.14
Shoreline
$21.78
Mukilteo
$21.57
Kirkland
$19.34
Edmonds
$18.90
Lake Forest Park
$16.96
Redmond
$16.56
Lynnwood
$13.91
Mountlake Terrace
$11.45
Woodinville
$7.26
Arlington
$6.89
Capital Needs Forecast - Stormwater
o Graph of capital costs by year 2019-2024
o $26,807,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to cover - 99% of projected capital costs
• Reflects "pay-as-you-go" (cash -only) funding philosophy
■ City received $545,000 loan from Snohomish County Public Works Assistance Fund
- Part of loan already drawn ($408,750 of proceeds remaining)
- Increases stormwater utility's annual debt service by z $33,000
Stormwater Revenue Requirement Forecast
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existing Rates, and Revenue (cr7, Proposed Rate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 7
Pro osed I Projected
Existing
2020 1 2021 1 2022 1 2023 1 2024
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 7
2019
Proposed
2020 2021
2022
Projected
2023 2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
4%
4%
Monthly single-family bill $17.18
$18.81
$20.60
$22.56
$23.46
$24.40
Tax 1.72
1.88
2.06
2.26
2.35
2.44
Total 1 $18.09
$20.69.
$22.66 1
$24.82
1 $25.81 1
$26.84
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
Stormwater Financial Plan Scenarios
2019 Study
Proposed
2020 2021
2022
Projected
2023 2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
4.0%
4%
System Reinvestment Funding $ Thousands)
$1,750
$2,10
$2,500
$2,600
$2,750
Debt Service $ Thousands)
4757
$755
$754
1 $759
$756
2016 Study
Projected
2020 2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
7.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
3.0%
System Reinvestment Funding ($ Thousands)
$1,800
$1,950
$2,050
$2,100
$2,100
Debt Service $ Thousands
$671
$670 1
$669
1 $675
$673
o Compared to 2016 Study,
■ Cumulative net cash requirement for 2020 -2024 CIP increased by $3.1 million
- $1.7 million in additional system reinvestment funded from 2020 -2024
* Debt service is z $85,000 per year higher, due to:
- $33,000 per year for new Snohomish County Public Works Assistance Fund loan
- $52,000 per year for 2013 Bond payment (previously included in sewer debt service)
■ 2019 Sewer Rates (1 Occf usage)
Seattle
$144.80
Kirkland
$107.33
Alderwood Water & Wastewater
$76.06
Woodinville WD
$72.48
Arlington
$70.15
Mukilteo WSDW
$65.21
Lake Forest Park
$63.27
Shoreline
$59.50
Redmond
$59.48
Everett
$49.44
Lynnwood
$48.93
Edmonds
$48.02
Mountlake Terrace
$48.00
Olympic View WSD
$39.10
Capital Needs Forecast - Sewer
o Capital costs by year 2019-2024
o $41,291,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
■ WWTP Projects: $18,134,000
■ Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer: $6,665,000
■ Sewer Mains: $16,417,000
■ Lift Station No. 1 Study: $75,000*
*excludes $15M replacement cost expected to occur within 10 years
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects "pay-as-you-go" (cash -only) funding philosophy
■ Olympic View WSD, Mountlake Terrace, Ronald WWD pay for -49% of net WWTP costs
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 8
+ Sewer Revenue Requirement Forecast
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existine Rates. and Revenue rnr Pronosed Rate
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
■ Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios
2019 Study (Status Quo: Full Cash Funding for
CIP)
Propos d
2020 2021
Proposed
Projected
2023 2024
Projected
7.0%
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
$3,805
17.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
Monthly single-family bill
$43.65
$46.71
$49.98
$53.48
$57.22
$61.23
Tax
4.37
4.67
5.00
5.35
5.72
J
Total
$48.02
$51.38
$54.98
$58.83
$62.94
_LI
$67.35
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
■ Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios
2019 Study (Status Quo: Full Cash Funding for
CIP)
Propos d
2020 2021
12022
Projected
2023 2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
System Reinvestment Funding ($ Thousands)
$2,900
$3,350
$3,805
$4,000
$5,337
Debt Service $ Thousands
$1,551
$1,553
$1,520
$1,428
$1,431
2019 Study ($9 M WWTP Bond) @ 4.5%
Proposed
2020 2021
2022
Projected
2023 2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
5.0%
System Reinvestment Funding $ Thousands)
$2,800
$3,000
$3,250
$3,70
$4,150
Debt Service ($ Thousands)
$1,551
$1,899
$2,212
$2,120
$2,123
2019 Study ($9 M WWTP Bond) @ 3.5%
Proposed
2020 2021
2022
Projected
2023 2024
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
5.0%
5.0%
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
System Reinvestment Funding $ Thousands
$2,700
$2,650
$2,700
$3,000
$3,250
Debt Service ($ Thousands)
$1,586
$1,875
$2,127
$2,048
$2,064
2016 Study
Projected
2020 2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
4.0% 4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
System Reinvestment Funding ($ Thousands)
$1,250 $1,500
$1,900
$2,100
$2,500
Debt Service ($ Thousands)
1 $1,604 $1,605
$1,572
41,479
$1,481
0 2019 -2024 CIP is $24.5 million higher in current study than projected in 2016 study
o WWTP improvements ($18 m), Lake Ballinger TS ($6 m), Dayton Main Replacement from
3rd-9th($3.4 m)
o Rate increases reflect planned replacement of Lift Station 1 within 10 years ($15m); not
included in 2016 study
• Sewer Rate Model Forecast 2020-2029
*Long term rate assumption per FCS Group (model is a long term view on market trends)
**Current Rate assumption per discussions with NW Municipal (Consultant City uses for Bonding)
***Does not factor in future large projects after LS#1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 9
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
***2029
Pay as yougo
7.00%
7.00%
7.00%
7.00%
7.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
3.00%
-4.97%
Bond $9M
,4.5%*
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
4.50%
4.50%
4.00%
4.00%
2.87%
Bond $9M
3.5%**
5.00%
5.00%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.50%
4.14%
*Long term rate assumption per FCS Group (model is a long term view on market trends)
**Current Rate assumption per discussions with NW Municipal (Consultant City uses for Bonding)
***Does not factor in future large projects after LS#1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 9
• 2019 Total Bill - 3/4" single family Pu, IOccf*
city
2019
2020
2021
2022
Seattle
$265.51
$273.48
$281.68
$290.13
Kirkland
$193.22
$199.01
$204.09
$211.13
Shoreline****
$175.43
$180.69
$186.11
$191.70
Lake Forest Park
$174.38
$179.61
$185.00
$190.55
Woodinville
$158.61
$163.37
$168.27
$173.32
Mukilteo
136.25
$140.33
$144.54
$148.88
Edmonds
$132.38
$140.02
$147.18
$156.63
Mountlake Terrace***
$131.61
$135.56
$139.63
$143.81
Arlin on**
$129.77
$133.66
$137.67
$141.80
Redmond
$120.48
$124.09
$127.82
$131.65
Everett***
$118.40
$121.95
$125.61
$129.38
Lynnwood
$104.72 $107.86
$111.10
$114.43
** Has not had a rate adjustment in at least the past 6 years.
*** 55% sewer rate increase expected per sewer comp plan and rate analysis
**** 10% total increase expected in 2020
***** 10% increases in storm rates for 2020 and 2021
o Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
o Rates assume 3% rate increases for each year after 2019 for all other jurisdictions
o Edmonds' rates increased per recommendation
Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the current debt service was only on stormwater. Mr. Williams
answered there is debt service in all three utilities; he recalled it was approximately $18M for Water.
Councilmember Mesaros asked when that debt expires. Mr. Williams answered the dates vary as funds
were borrowed three times in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Councilmember Mesaros asked why Lynnwood's rates
were so low and whether they were also buying water from Alderwood Water. Mr. Williams answered
Lynwood does buy water from Alderwood. About 6-7 years ago, the Edmonds City Council understood the
issue of aging infrastructure. Edmonds is the second oldest city in Snohomish County. Few other cities
were making a system reinvestment as early as Edmonds. Although that requires raising rates, it will pay
off in the end with fewer main breaks and fewer liability claims.
Councilmember Mesaros asked about Lift Station 1. Mr. Williams explained its location on Sunset is
precarious, any power outage where the generator does not come on immediately will result in untreated
wastewater overflowing into Puget Sound because the holding tank is very small. The goal is to design a
project to prevent that from happening. As system flows increase and as climate change makes storms more
episodic, peak flows occur very rapidly. The project would eliminate Pump Station 1; the most cost effective
approach appears to be boring a gravity sewer line through the hump in Sunset Avenue at Edmonds Street
to Main and connect by gravity. The cost of that project is at least $50M. Councilmember Mesaros referred
to early comments about how pristine the waterfront is; an overflow would be one of worst things that could
happen to the waterfront.
Councilmember Mesaros asked about the rate for retired seniors that have a financial burden. Mr. Williams
answered there is a senior/low income discount, similar to other cities' discount. The discount uses the state
definition so the City does not have to quality people; if someone qualifies for a property tax discount or
any other state discounts, they qualify for a 25% discount in their entire Edmonds utility bill.
Councilmember Mesaros said he was predisposed to the idea of pay-as-you-go. The additional $4.3M in
costs, even though it is spread over 20 years is an additional $4.3M that ratepayers would have to pay that
they would not pay under a pay-as-you-go scenario. He acknowledged the concept of pushing that out to
the next generation, but for many people, they will still be living in Edmonds in 20 years. Any way to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 10
mitigate spending additional money is a good plan but he acknowledged that needed serious thought. Mr.
Williams agreed it was a question with two sides. The upside of pay-as-you-go is instead of paying for the
cost of financing, those funds can be used for projects.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested if the Council wanted to consider bonds, having Scott
Bauer make a presentation to the Finance Committee. She recalled the committee recently discussed 20
year bonds for Civic which are 2.12%. Her husband said the 10 year treasury at 2%. She felt the costs in
the example were very high. She preferred bond instead of pay-as-you-go, pointing out this financial
environment will not last forever and rates continue to decrease. She was hopeful the federal situation will
eventually calm down and there will be stabilization but that will mean a spike in inflation and higher
interest rates. She recalled the Council approved a pay-as-you-go philosophy in the past but was unable to
find the minutes regarding that decision. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked about the need to
finance $9M. Mr. Williams said the current cost estimate is $18M although efforts are underway to reduce
it; half the cost would be the City's expense.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if Alderwood did a bond issue and whether that affected their
rates. Mr. Williams said Alderwood is making significant capital project investments in their system.
Ratepayers that purchase water are invited to look at financials several times a year and allowed to
comment, but in the end it is Alderwood Water's decision.
With regard to the 2.12%, Mr. Williams assumed that was a GGLO bond issue; generally utilities do not
get those rates. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis reiterated it would be good to have bond counsel
present to discuss bonds.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked why only $7M in grants was projected. She has seen $36M
projects more complicated than the Edmonds Marsh get fully funded through RCO, Conservation Futures,
etc. She observed the daylighting of willow Creek was shown as a stormwater project. Mr. Williams assured
if grants can be identified, staff will apply for them. That amount was determined to be what would be
realistic to expect for that project. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said WRIA recently supported
River Bend for $38M to relocate a mobile home park and the $14 M for Wayne Golf Course was paid with
grant funds.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to the chart on page 180 of the packet, Stormwater Rate &
GFC Model - Revenue Requirement Analysis and asked what "system reinvestment" meant. Mr. Williams
said it was another word for capital projects, investing in the stormwater system. Council President Pro
Tem Buckshnis suggested footnoting the debt service. She referred to page 182, Sewer Rate & GFC Model
— Summary and asked about capital sinking fund of $700,000 and bond reserve. Mr. Williams explained
that was set up by the consultant who tried to smooth rates as much as possible. Rates can be set to cover
the capital project that needs to be done first, the pyrolysis project, and generate additional funds to help
seed the next two projects. Senior Utilities Engineer Mike DeLilla said the bond reserve is funds for the
bond payment.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented when this was first considered 7-9 years ago, there was
the recession, home values were down, etc.; that situation has changed drastically which is why she supports
considering bonds. Mr. Williams said he was impressed by the Council's fiscal prudence, the common
sense to begin addressing the aging infrastructure was brilliant, putting the City yards ahead of many similar
jurisdictions.
Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation that the City is still on a 1% replacement schedule/year. Mr.
Williams answered yes and no, long term 1% is the expectation; for example 7,000 feet per year for water.
If that is done, it will take 100 years to replace all the pipes but begins to look like a maintenance program
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 11
when the life of the asset is 100 years as replacing 1 %/year requires starting over at the end of 100 years.
He compared it to painting the Golden Gate Bridge. He commented borrowing money was a good way to
get started, but rate funding maintenance is the right way to go.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed rate funding makes sense for maintenance because bonding every year
increases the debt load. He favored bonding for large, one-time capital projects like Civic, potentially Lift
Station 1, Edmonds Marsh, etc. especially when bond rates are low. He has received a lot of calls and emails
recently about this; although these are utility rates, citizen view it as a tax. He was interested in ways to
mitigate it for the next few years such as using funds already in the budget such as via fund transfer to
mitigate the revenue requirement and give ratepayers a break.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether other funds such as a General Fund interfund transfer could be used
to defray the Utilities' revenue requirements. Mr. Taraday answered there is potential for an interfund load
potential, he would need to research the term and interest rate. He pointed out it was usually the Utility
Funds that are making those loans to the General Fund because the General Fund often is leaner than the
Utility Funds. With regard to whether the General Fund can simply transfer money, not as loan, to the
Utility Fund, he was not able to find any clear prohibition against it. At the time he and Councilmember
Teitzel exchanged emails, he was not thinking about the fact that some City residents are Edmonds utility
customers and some are Olympic View Sewer District customers. That dynamic influences his thinking; if
they were all customers of the same City utility it would be easier to justify a transfer under the theory that
everyone is paying taxes and benefits from lower rates. In this example, everyone is paying the tax but only
City utility customers benefit from the lower rates. Councilmember Teitzel asked if it would be illegal. Mr.
Taraday said he was not aware of any prohibition.
Mr. Williams said if the goal was to take general governmental resources and place it in an enterprise fund
to avoid the need to implement all or part of the rate increase, one way he has seen it done, that is clearly
legal would be to reduce the tax. About 10% of the funds collected by stormwater and sewer (currently
14% of water but that being reduced to 10% in 2 years) come to the General Fund.
Councilmember Teitzel was in favor of using bonding capacity for large, one-time capital projects such as
Lift Station 1 and the pyrolysis project. He asked whether a hybrid approach whereby those large, one-time
projects were funded with a bond could mitigate the rate increase. Mr. Williams said it would spread it out
over 20 years. He did not anticipate rate -funding those large capital projects. The suggestion was to rate
fund the first project, estimated at $9M and when the other two projects are further in design, they could be
funded together via bonds. Councilmember Teitzel suggested looking for opportunities to use bonding
where it makes sense to bring down the rate increase.
Councilmember Tibbott said a 100 -year replacement schedule sounds like a very long bond program so the
pay-as-you-go approach seems like the wise way to fund that. He observed it appeared reserves needed to
be increased and asked about the plan to boost reserves. Mr. Williams said the plan would be to work with
the Council through the committee structure to start that conversation, study what other jurisdictions are
doing, what industry experts recommend, etc. Whatever is selected, he recommended a gradual plan over
a period of years, especially if the City is not planning to borrow right now. If the plan is to borrow in 4-5
years, there would be time to adjust balances to avoid borrowing money to put into reserves to get a lower
rate.
Councilmember Tibbott commented if water rates increase, there is a tendency for consumption to go down.
He asked if water usage has gone down. Mr. Williams said he did not know that it was related to rates
increase; he suspected it was related to technology improvements such as toilets, showerheads, etc. that use
less water. A sharp increase in one year, such as Mountlake Terrace raising their rate by 95%, would
probably evoke behavior changes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 12
Councilmember Nelson said it sounds like most of Council agrees to fund these, but the question is how.
One option is pay-as-you-go, another option is pay -as -you -use or bonding and paying off the debt over the
project's lifetime. He provided the definition of intergenerational equity, a concept that users of a capital
project will change over its useful life and fairness requires these costs be spread to those who will use the
infrastructure over time. From this perspective, long term financing is often more equitable than using
currently available funds. He was interested in what is more equitable. There are a lot of big ticket capital
projects $20M, $26M and $40M for sewer, water and stormwater. He recommended exploring the pay -as -
you -use method of funding.
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas referred to annual cost inflation under key assumptions, and specifically
10% for benefits and asked if the proposal was for ratepayers to pay for that. Mr. Williams said that is labor
and benefit costs for the employees funded from the Utilities. Salaries have a reasonable relationship with
CPI but for the past few years, but benefits have inflated at a rate above inflation. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-
Monillas asked how many staff were paid by the Utility Funds. Mr. Williams estimated approximately 45,
about half of the Public Works employees are related to one of the three utilities.
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas referred to the lower rates for seniors/low income, pointing out the
increase would still affect those ratepayers. Mr. Williams agreed but the percentage increase is on a lower
amount. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked the total annual debt service on stormwater, sewer, and
water. Mr. Williams said it is currently about $670,000, projected to increase to $700,000. He offered to
email Councilmembers the amount owed on bonds that have already been issued. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-
Monillas expressed interest in the monthly cost.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis did not wat to wait five years to do a bond and recommended thinking
progressively about using the City bonding capacity because rates will never be this low again. The market
and economy is changing daily; rates went down today. She favored looking into bonding sooner rather
than later and having Scott Bauer make a presentation to the Finance Committee. She supported pay -as -
you -use; future generations should pay for replacement of pipes. She also agreed policies needed to be
developed.
Mr. Williams said debt is a tool. It appeared there was consensus for picking the first project, the pyrolysis
project, and bonding for the $9M cost. The other two projects are not ready for bond funding. Council
President Pro Tem Buckshnis suggested determining an amount for the current pay-as-you-go program, the
100 year replacement of pipes and add that to the pyrolysis project. Mr. Williams said he did not hear a
consensus for that; he thought Councilmember Nelson was interested in bonding for large capital projects.
He did not hear any other Councilmembers expressing support for bonding for pipe replacement. Council
President Pro Tem Buckshnis said that is what she meant, pick a project and add funds for the 100 year
replacement.
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said a public hearing will be scheduled and there would be more
discussion. Mr. Williams summarized the next time this is presented to Council, staff will show an option
that borrows now for the pyrolysis project. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmembers
email Mr. Williams regarding their interests.
Councilmember Mesaros supported looking at bonding but that was not his first choice. He referred to the
graphs of capital project costs by year, anticipating there would be more projects in five years. If the City
bonded for those, debt service would continue for those projects as funds are borrowed for new projects,
creating a compounding effect. Even though there is some sense of equity to spread the cost over a period
of years, over the long term, the total cost to the taxpayer is greater. For the person who lives in the City
for 20 years, there is no intergenerational equity. He supported Councilmember Teitzel's suggestion to bond
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 13
for large, onetime projects but not the for the replacement program. The goal is to keep rates as low as
possible over the long term. Mr. Williams said if the desire is to bond for a large project, the pyrolysis
project is ready to be funded; the bond could be for the entire $18M project because the draft new agreement
with sewer partners allows apportioning the debt service to the partners. The other two projects are not
close enough to being ready to go and the proceeds of a bond must be spent within three years.
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas brief recess.
2. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS
Development Services Director Shane Hope not an expert but has been learning and appreciates the subject.
She reviewed:
■ Land Acknowledgement
o What is it?
■ Formal statement that recognizes unique and enduring relationship that exists between
indigenous people and their traditional territories
o Why do it?
■ Way to show respect &
■ To correct perception that Native peoples are gone from the land or have little to offer
today's communities
■ What are Native peoples of Edmonds area?
o Tulalip Tribes (represents other tribes)
o Snohomish Tribes
o Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
o Suquamish Tribe
o Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Note: all considered to be Coast Salish people (shared language)
a How has City Council been involved so far?
o Heard suggestion for land acknowledgement at public meeting
o Discussed making land acknowledgement & agreed to wait for more research
o Reviewed at PPSP Committee meeting on 6/11 — with concurrence to move issue forward to
full Council
o Received tonight's info packet
• Why acknowledge Native peoples and not other groups?
o True: other groups of people have sadly lost lands and experienced oppression
o Only Native Americans have been here for many hundreds of years
• Who else makes Acknowledgement?
o Other cities in WA
a No others, as far as we know
o Other organizations?
■ Edmonds Center for the Arts
Western WA University
■ North Cascades Institute
■ Various cultural, religious and arts organizations
Should City contact tribal representatives first?
o Outreach so far
■ To Tulalip Tribes
■ To Snohomish Tribe
■ One person said anything we do would be good
■ Tribal Council will be taking up issue
o Options
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 14
1. Further seek and wait for response
2. Decide now to use statement (at least in interim)
3. Do nothing more about statement
Method for making Land Acknowledgement?
o Options include
■ Read statement at beginning of regularly scheduled Council meetings (excluding
committee meetings0
■ Read statement only at certain meetings (for example, the first meeting of each month)
■ Display statement by printing prominently on each meeting agenda
■ Something else?
Potential Acknowledgement Statements
o "We would like to open this meeting with an acknowledgment that we are on the traditional
lands of the Coast Salish people."
o "We are committed to working with local tribes to acknowledge their ancestral lands and are
honored to do so this evening."
o We are on the traditional homelands to the Coast Salish Tribes. We pay our respects to elders
past and present."
o Other...
• Is Acknowledgment only step or "end of story?"
o Acknowledgment can be useful for raising awareness of local community members &
strengthening relationships with tribes
o Not substitute for other substantive actions
• Beyond Land Acknowledgement: what else?
o Current practices
■ Examples
— Notification of City projects & programs under SEPA
— Outreach to tribal representatives on major studies (e.g., Marsh)
— Participation with tribal representatives on various regional boards & commissions
o Other possibilities?
■ Find out what tribes want
■ May include:
— Meeting place
— Joint ceremony or special event
— Invitation to speak
— Other....
What are options to discuss now?
1. Whether to move forward with some kind of land acknowledgment
a. Either now or
b. After more input from tribal representatives
2. If yes to # La — what method to use:
a. Read at beginning of some or all regular Council meetings
b. Display statement prominently on agenda
c. Something else
3. If yes to # La — what language to use
4. If yes to # Lb — how?
Next steps
o Possible follow-up with Tulalips or other tribal representative
o City Council discussion of options
o Council vote on Land Acknowledgement:
■ Statement
■ Method
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 15
o Other Council actions
■ In consultation with tribes
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked about the outreach to the Tulalip Tribe and whether they had been
asked this question previously. Ms. Hope answered it had been asked of individual Tribal Council members
but not the Tribe itself. It is her understanding the Tribe will discuss it at one of their meetings. She was
unsure of the expected outcome of that discussion or how long it may take; they meet once a month.
Councilmember Mesaros said of the three examples, he preferred the first but could live with any of them.
He asked if the Edmonds School District does an Indigenous Peoples Land Acknowledgment. Ms. Hope
said they do for certain meetings. Councilmember Mesaros preferred to have the statement read aloud and
to have it in English so everyone understands the words the City is trying to convey. If the Tulalip Tribe
feels it would be respectful to read it in their native language, he would support doing both. He suggested
waiting to hear from the Tulalip Tribe regarding what they would prefer. With regard to other things that
could be done, he liked the idea of an annual special event to honor the Coastal people such a joint ceremony
or special event to help understand the history of Edmonds before the Europeans showed up.
Councilmember Teitzel supported moving ahead, finding it proper and respectful to recognize the people
who were here before us and that these are their lands. He supported reading a statement before every
Council meeting and having it printed on the Council agenda. He agreed with Councilmember Mesaros
about the sample statements; he was satisfied with the first one but it does not go far enough in that it does
not mention respect. He suggested a hybrid: "We are meeting today on the traditional lands of the Coast
Salish people. We offer our deepest respects to the tribal members past and present." He agreed with talking
to the Tulalip Trip before moving ahead and providing sample language to ensure they would not be
offended.
Councilmember Nelson said his first choice would be to hear from the Tribal community — what they think
of an acknowledgement and whether there is a specific statement they would find most beneficial and pay
proper respect. He was interested in the acknowledgement as a first step into future actions such as an
informal meeting with the Tribal Council to discuss ways the City and the Tribe could partner on projects
versus the existing way the City communicates with them by telling them what is being done and asking
for their input.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Nelson's suggestions. She works with many
Tribal representatives on the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council and met several in Washington D.C.
for Puget Sound on the Hill. She agreed with asking the Tribes and the elders what they want. In Washington
D.C. several elders spoke to federal legislators. It is very important to engage the Tribes first and to be
respectful of their traditions.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with everything other Councilmembers have said. If multiple acceptable
statements were developed, one option would be to have the Council chose one for each month so the
statement would change, providing a broader understanding of the acknowledgment and to keep it fresh.
He acknowledged that would require more engagement with the Tribes which could be a good thing. He
supported moving forward with an acknowledgement as soon as possible.
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas agreed with what other Councilmembers have said. Working for the
Department of Social and Health Services, she had an opportunity to work with Tribes on a number of
issues; different Tribes have different cultural interests. The respectful thing to do is to reach out to the
Salish people prior to making a decision about a statement. In researching this topic, they concluded none
of statements being read had formal authorization from the leadership of Tribes. Finding out what the Tribal
leadership wants instead of having a group of Caucasian Councilmembers make the decision is an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 16
appropriate step. With regard to a celebration, she agreed with doing more than a statement and suggested
the Council direct the Diversity Commission to think about an annual event or activities that the Diversity
Commission could oversee.
Ms. Hope concluded staff will try to get some input from the Tribes.
8. ACTION ITEM
1. DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
• History
o Edmonds area was once largely forested
o Trees removed by settlers & loggers in late 1800s and early 1900s
o As town grew up, new trees sprouted or were planted
o City government has maintained trees in ROWS and on City property
o City has code for tree cutting & management on private property (esp. critical areas) but code
could use some updates
o In 2016, Tree Board recommended adopting new code to require minimum # of trees on each
private property, along with arborist reviews & permits for cutting trees on private property
o Council chose instead to have an Urban Forest Management Plan developed, which could guide
long-term tree management, especially on public property, and provide policy guidance,
including education & incentives, for managing trees on private property
o UFMP began in 2017, including
■ Consultation with Tree Board
■ Consultation with Planning Board
■ Consultation with staff
■ Community outreach such as:
— Press releases
— Open houses
— Survey
— City website with UFMP info
— Newsletters update
o Numerous meetings agendas
■ Tree Board
■ Planning Board
• City Council
o Public hearing (with notices)
■ Planning Board
■ City Council
o UFMP Revisions made along the way, including 3 draft versions:
■ July 2018
■ Nov 2018
■ May/June 2019
Comments on prior drafts
0 4 categories of complaints
1. Wanting UFMP to set framework for adopting more restrictions on private property
2. Wanting UFMP to point up more issues with trees (including problems, not just benefits)
3. Wanting UFMP to have more local information
4. Requesting various "clean-up" & technical corrections
o Categories of agreement or support
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 17
■ Appreciation of improvements
■ General support for Goals
■ General support for recommended actions
What was done between November 2018 draft and May 2019 draft:
o Informal committee formed in early 2019 to work on improvements
o Changes made, including:
■ More attention to native trees
■ Rewrite of diseases and pests section
■ Removal of map and references to specific tree planting "opportunity areas" (but still
encouraging planting)
• Modification of statements not backed by scientific findings for our region
■ More background discussion of tree issues
■ Additional information about City regulations for development
■ Additional information on selecting trees ("right tree, right place")
■ Additional information on trimming trees
Caveat about applicability of survey that has been done early in UFMP process
■ Removal of reverences to specific dollar amounts represented by tree functions (but still
recognizing value of trees in many ways)
Contents of Current Draft Plan
o Background, Edmonds Context & Purpose
o Public process
o Benefits & Challenges of Urban Forest
o Tree Selection Factors
o State Regulatory Framework
o City Planning Framework
o Tree Canopy Cover Information
o Planting opportunities
o Edmonds' Urban Forest Practices
o Major & Emerging Diseases & Pests
o City Regulatory Framework
o Regional Resources
o Case Studies
o Summary of Needs
o Goals & Actions
■ Overarching UFMP Goals
1. Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on urban forest
& to consider changes to tree replacement requirements & penalties for code violations
B. Adopt policy of no net loss to overall
C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas
D. Develop voluntary heritage tree program
E. Enforce City regulations on tree -cutting
F. Establish tree bank or fund to which donations can be made
G. Support sustainable ways to combat pests & diseases
H. Consider need for dedicated City arborist
I. Report every 10 years on canopy coverage
J. Periodically update UFMP
2. Manage public trees proactively
A. Use best available science in caring urban forest on City properties & ROW
B. Have adequate resources (staff, contractual help, training, etc.) to monitor health of public trees
& make decisions on their care
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 18
C. Develop & maintain inventory of trees in key public places to document tree condition & risks
D. Update Street Tree Plan periodically
E. Support removal of invasive plants that threaten trees
F. Coordinate among departments on tree issues & identify lead City staff person
G. Develop & implement tree planting plan on City property & ROW to ensure diversity &
suitability
H. Implement program of regular maintenance for City trees
I. Lead or facilitate volunteer activities for tree planting/care on City property & ROW
J. As part of City -sponsored capital projects, provide funding for appropriate trees in ROW & on
City properties
K. Provide annual report City Council on tree management for City properties & ROW
3. Incentivize protecting and planting trees on private property
A. Have program of giving away trees &/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of
incentives (with examples named)
C. .Develop certification/awards program to public recognize property owners that maintain
certain amount or type of healthy trees
4. Provide resources to community to educate/inform on tree planting and care
A. Provide signage or other information about significant public trees
B. Provide for Tree Board, esp. to: develop community education materials; participate in or
initiate tree planting & tree care activities; report annually on Tree Board activities
C. Develop & disseminate info for public on value of trees & to provide guidance on tree selection
& management
5. Promote "right tree, right place"
A. Make readily available list of compatible trees in various kinds of settings
B. Identify key areas to increase canopy & for private properties, encourage appropriate tree
planting or other techniques; for public property, act appropriately plant trees or otherwise
increase canopy
C. Identify & plan for care of unsuitable trees &, as necessary, for pruning or removal when they
are potential damaging to people, buildings, or infrastructure
D. Ensure that development regulations require native trees & vegetation to be planted in critical
areas, esp. near streams & other wildlife habitat areas
E. In updating Street Tree Plan, identify specific species of trees that should be planted to be
compatible with street environment
• What will happen when UFMP is adopted?
o Implementation can get underway, including actions identified for each goal, starting with most
critical activities
o Monitoring of UFMP goals & actions can begin
o UFMP can be re-evaluated in 5-10 years & adjusted as needed
• Recommendation
o Adopt UFMP either tonight or on Consent Calendar
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis requested the UFMP be presented to the Tree Board at their meeting
this Thursday and have them provide guidance on a mission statement. She commented the Tree Board has
Goal 4 covered. She thanked Mr. Demmick who spent over 300 hours on the UFMP, Bill Phipps who
looked at many other UFMPs, Frank Russo who rewrote the pest section, Kernen Lien, Shane Hope, Carrie
Hite, Rich Lindsay, Jesse Curran, Debra Dill, and many others. She concluded this draft was not perfect
but it was better than the previous.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
TEITZEL TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 19
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis recommended a 30% tree canopy. She suggested providing more
background information for Council such as a comparison of tree canopy in other cities.
Councilmember Nelson referred to Goal 1, Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage, and
recommended picking one; saying both is not clear enough. He preferred enhance although he recognized
that may not be tangible. With regard to Item F, Establish tree bank or fund to which donations can be
made, he recommended starting that within a year.
Councilmember Teitzel commented this document is far superior to where it started; the consultant has
incorporated the input into this draft. He agreed with Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis' suggestion to
have the Tree Board provide additional input. He viewed the UFMP not as a specific action plan, but as a
directionally plan to point the City in the right way. He has heard complaints that it does not go far enough,
it is not stern enough about protecting trees on private property. However, that was not the direction to the
consultant. In 2015, citizens expressed concerns about property rights to the Planning Board when the Tree
Code was proposed. With that in mind, the consultant was directed to focus primarily on public trees. There
is more that needs to be done with regard to private trees.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis' suggestion to allow the Tree
Board to review the UFMP. Ms. Hope said the Tree Board did look at the UFMP at their last meeting
(Councilmember Buckshnis was absent). Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said the UFMP
was provided to the Tree Board the afternoon of their meeting so there was not a lot of discussion.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested waiting a week to allow the Tree Board to provide comment.
Councilmember Mesaros appreciated Councilmember Nelson's comment about maintain or enhance,
agreeing those two words send difference messages. He liked "enhance" because the City should strive to
enhance not just maintain its urban forest. Even small, incremental increases are enhancement.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled complaints about development on undeveloped properties where all the
mature trees are cut down. He asked about requirements for replacing those trees. Mr. Lien answered if
there are no critical areas and it is a flat, developable property, there are no tree density requirements on
private property. Councilmember Mesaros said this is a beginning; he was hopeful over the next several
years consideration be given to whether it was feasible to require for every tree that cut down, two be
planted. He acknowledged those trees would be smaller and hopefully would be the right tree in the right
place; trees provide shelter, shade, protection against wind and absorb CO2. Ms. Hope said that is addressed
in Goal LA, Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on urban forest
and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Councilmember
Mesaros summarized on the whole, this is a much better document that the previous version.
Ms. Hope summarized the UFMP will be presented to the Tree Board for input and then returned to the
City Council.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reported the applications for the Housing Commission have been
distributed to Councilmembers by their assigned zone. She asked about a date by which Councilmembers
needed to select two commissioners and one alternate. Ms. Hope commented it was difficult to predict how
long that would take; Councilmembers will determine their own process. She encouraged the Council to
move forward at a reasonable speed and suggested decisions be made by the end of July. The Council
agreed. Ms. Hope said she will communicate that date to the applicants.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 20
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reported the state auditors are on site; Councilmembers will be invited to
the audit entrance conference and she encouraged them to attend. She announced she had appointed John
Hoag to the Economic Development Commission.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Tibbott explained he voted last week to stop the connector project. He took that action
after listening to people and studying new facts. He wanted to be clear a lot of reflection went into that
decision. One of the factors he studied was the marine sanctuary ordinance. He also reread the At -grade
Crossing Report and did a word search for "marine sanctuary ordinance" and found it only one time in that
document, a comment made by a citizen about dogs going into marine sanctuary. There was no other
reference in the document to the marine sanctuary ordinance. As a result many were caught off guard when
they discovered the connector would touch down in the marine sanctuary. The intent of that ordinance was
to preserve a pristine area for perpetuity. There are different interpretations about how that could be
maintained. He received the marine sanctuary ordinance late Monday afternoon. He wanted to assure
residents he was not going back on his decision. He suspected there will be efforts to look for other and
better solutions as soon as possible.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his conversation with Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas tonight about the
possibility of discussing a pathway forward for a solution and there are plans to bring that back to the
Council, possibly as soon as the next meeting so there is something concrete to work on with staff,
stakeholders and the regulatory agencies that are decision makers. He was very confident that the safety
record on the waterfront could be maintained and was optimistic that other solutions could be identified
that will make a difference.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.1100i(i)
At 10:14 p.m., Mayo Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas announced that the City Council would meet in executive
session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). She stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas and
Councilmembers Buckshnis, Teitzel, Tibbott, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff
Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and Public Works Director Phil Williams. At 10:30 p.m.,
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas announced the executive session would be extended for 5 minutes. The
executive session concluded at 10:35 p.m.
13. RECONVENE 1N OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
r
DAVID EARL G. MAYOR S PASSEY, CITY CLE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 25, 2019
Page 21