Loading...
20190820 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES August 20, 2019 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Zach Bauder, Student Representative CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, 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 Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 51' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Brian Potter, Edmonds, a LGBTQ member of the Edmonds community, said he was angry, hurt and offended by events in the City's mayorial primaries. A sitting member of the City Council used the LGBTQ community as a political weapon against another candidate and dragged them into a controversy totally without their consent. They were weaponized to create a de facto test of religious faith in a political office, something the constitution prohibits government to impose and something no City elected official should attempt. The attack on another candidate resulted in hurt and anger in the local community. Self-proclaimed allies were on social media doxing candidates and their family members. Some so-called allies also outed members of the LGBTQ community as part of that effort. When the City Council interviewed him for the Diversity Commission, he told them he was not prepared to be a white savior. He assumed the Councilmember who drew the LGTBQ community into the primary context cynically and abusively used them so they could be a straight savior. In fact, it was entirely the opposite and his trust as a citizen and a Diversity Commission member was substantially diminished by that act. There is currently no aspect of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page I Edmonds mayor's job related to LGBTQ issues, marriage or otherwise and the mayor's job description does not include performing weddings. He hoped the remaining mayoral candidates, both of whom are sitting Councilmembers, all the current Councilmembers and candidates as well as School Board candidates will avoid using their constituents, other human beings, as weapons against each other and recognize that the term ally is earned not claimed. Susan Paine, Edmonds, referred to the Supplement Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the Willow Creek Daylighting project, and said Windward's environmental study needed to be completed before decisions are made about the design of the Willow Creek daylighting and making the marsh more of an estuary. The marsh needs a lot of help, but the environment needs to be considered first which the Windward study will do and not as an engineering project. The community also deserves an opportunity to provide input; this is a large project and it will be important to have public input and engagement. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, thanked the Council for choosing Windward to conduct the marsh study. What Shannon & Wilson has done makes it clear that Windward was a good choice. Shannon & Wilson have shown themselves to be inept in terms of marsh facts analyzation. The marsh is a unique and valuable ecology; Shannon & Wilson ignored many key biological factors. For example, their salmon run proposals are very short sighted. In light of these facts and more, he recommended the Council not sign a supplemental agreement with Shannon & Wilson for further study of the marsh and marsh restoration. He urged the Council to wait for Windward's report and then have a competitive bid process for further study. Marsh restoration and Willow Creek daylighting deserve better than what Shannon & Wilson offers and a competitive bid process would be appropriate. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, said she chose to move to Edmonds due to the wonder amenities and high quality of life the community offers its residents and visitors. All can agree there is something special and unique in the City that will be vital to save and enhance in the years to come. Due to the City's strong arts presence and the recent designation as the first Creative Arts District in the State, people are discovering Edmonds and coming to spend time and money. More people coming to Edmonds means more cars vying for parking spots. The three hour parking spaces give people time to dine in the wonderful restaurants as well as visit the shops. She highly recommended retaining the three-hour parking. People who are able can also walk from other free parking areas that are further away. As the Council determines the wisest course of action to address parking needs in the downtown core, she urged them to be mindful of creative ways for supporting people spending time in Edmonds such as a full-time trolley system to transport people from a larger parking area to downtown via an ongoing contract with Seattle Trolley that is providing service on Saturdays this summer, partnering with nearby churches to utilize their parking, or other options. She urged the Council to be creative and effective with parking solutions. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to the parking study process and the agenda item to hire a consultant and staff time to determine current parking capacity downtown, expressing concern the process was similar to previous attempts that failed to meaningfully involve the public at the outset. Councilmembers Teitzel and Mesaros and others have stated in previous meetings that there needs to be public engagement first. However, in other processes, the scope is largely determined by department directors and the consultant as happened with Berk and last year's housing strategy. Before any public outreach or surveys, before businesses or residents of the downtown core and beyond were involved, department directors already selected Framework to lead the process. As those who were involved in the housing strategy meetings with Berk Consulting experienced, public input was never truly intended to be collected, the consultant and directors only wanted what aligned with their direction to be presented or documented which logically led to much public frustration. The results from the first public meeting and nearly 800 responses to the survey done on short notice and during the height of summer vacation, were not included in the Council packet. She questioned why the parking study was being rushed during the summer and why the department director chose a consultant prior to any public engagement. She requested the Council and department directors Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 2 slow down by continuing the process of involving residents and businesses, being willing to ask for more comprehensive input from downtown merchants, Ed!, the Chamber, the creative groups, condo associations and homeowners living in the parking study area, reviewing the City's own parking permitting process as well engaging residents who drive downtown. She suggested using $20,000 in the already approved budget for in-house staff time to make the study a success. She urged the Council to follow a path that put the public first. Marjorie Fields, Edmonds, appreciated the Council taking the Shannon & Wilson contract off the Consent Agenda for discussion by the full Council. She was convinced it would be a waste to continue paying Shannon & Wilson for flawed proposals. The need is not to just create channels, but to ensure the restored estuary will provide maximum benefit for salmon. The plans to restore the marsh/estuary must be based on science not on engineering for stormwater control. Scientific data is available; the Windward report is due soon and Students Saving Salmon have provided detailed information about marsh conditions. Scientific information needs to be used as the primary basis for planning an effective estuarian restoration project. The restoration goal must be to design a healthy, functional ecosystem that will persist into the future. Alicia Crank, Edmonds, said the City has spent over $500,000 on the Willow Creek Daylighting project over the past five years; what is important to the Council is important to the community. Similar to what happened with the Waterfront Connector, new information arose with time and experience and that new information warrants pausing the next step. The City Council and the Mayor have often lauded Joe's input and his work on the Edmonds Marsh. When he urges the Council to pause, it draws her attention and she was hopeful it also drew the Council's attention. There is no need to rush and she was hopeful the Council would consider his and others' input, the new information, and new costs and take the time necessary to determine the next step. With regard to the parking study, she said parking will always be a problem. One person's solution is another person's nuisance; usually the solution is positive for the visitor and a nuisance for the resident. There are ways to mitigate the situation via public/private partnerships, something she does daily in her career. There are places outside the bowl with underutilized parking such as churches or schools where a trolley shuttle system could be utilized to mitigate parking issues. She lives near 236"' & Hwy 99; if there was a shuttle stop at Edmonds Lutheran, she would not need to drive downtown and lot of other people would do the same. Rick White, Edmonds, a professional fishery biologist and stream ecologist, referred to Agenda Item 8. 1, and urged the Council to hold off on authorizing the Mayor to sign a supplemental agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the Willow Creek Daylighting project because the Shannon & Wilson report is much too sketchy and unsubstantiated with regard to the habitat needs of salmon. Shannon & Wilson's report, although not complete, contains inadvisable recommendations. In particular, the channel design does not meet the criteria of the correct meander proportions geomorphologically. Geomorphologists recommend more space for the channel to meander so it has naturally developed proportions and allowances for interaction with the riparian area. The report does not go into the interaction between the channel and the riparian vegetation and soils that tend to generate proper habitat for salmon by having ongoing natural channel migration. Lee Kimmelman, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 8.1 and relayed his understanding that the proposal for the supplemental agreement with Shannon & Wilson was simply to allocate funds so they can provide a final recommendation because they were unable to complete their study. He was uncertain that the argument whether the study was good enough or complete enough was an appropriate rationale for not signing an extension. He relayed his concern that if the City signed an extension, Shannon & Wilson would need another and another because they were unable to complete their study or new issues arose. He encouraged the Council to include a cap on further extensions and the amount. He recalled discussion at the committee meeting regarding interaction between Shannon & Wilson's study and the Windward Study and agreed there needed to be communication between the two and any extension needed to incorporate the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 3 two consultants communicating and sharing information and that both adequately represent the needs of Edmonds as their projects proceed. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, a former Councilmember and board member of the Senior Center, recalled the Council's decision to fund the Waterfront Redevelopment project by borrowing from other funds. He expressed concern with Councilmember Mesaros' comment that the Council did not have all the answers but could vote anyways. As a former Councilmember, he did not recall ever making a decision for which he did not have the answers before voting. He was surprised that Councilmember Nelson went along with that vote and thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Johnson for their votes. The Senior Center has not identified all its funding and he feared when they run out of money, they will ask the City for a loan. The City will not have money for that, for streets, for buildings or anything else due to the decision to use several funding sources for the Waterfront Redevelopment project. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 2019 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2019 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 5. JUNE 2019 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT 6. DEPUTY CITY CLERK POSITION (RECLASSIFICATION) 7. WATER/SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS CHANGE 8. AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT RESERVE FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH ST. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 9. EDMONDS ROTARY OKTOBERFEST SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACT 6. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 560 BELL STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS' REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Environmental Program Manager Kemen Lien reviewed: • Nominated for consideration for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places • Property owners signed authorization • Effects of listing on register o Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds o Prior to commencing any work on a register property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner must request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission o May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 4 Aerial map identifying this property and other properties on Edmonds Register of Historic Places Designation criteria o Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering or cultural heritage of Edmonds ■ Significantly associated with cultural heritage as working person's type house o Has integrity Originally constructed in 1911 Brick -cladding -added -in- 1942 -and-minor changes -to the floorplan - - - - ■ HPC determined 1942 to present is the period of significance �► The only change since 1942 is the addition of the dormer on the back o At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less the 50 years old ■ Constructed in 1911 and brick siding added in 1942 o Falls into at least one of designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A -K ■ Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history — Working man's house — Culturally represents that period of the City's history — Former resident of house was merchant marine, the inspiration for the brick anchor on the chimney Significant Features o Rectangular with front gable roof o Brick cladding Recommendation o Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on July 11, 2019 o HPC found the nomination meets the criteria and is eligible for designation on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places o HPC recommends the property be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places o Ordinance provided in Exhibit 1 Mr. Lien recognized the HPC for their work and the owner of the property who is present. Councilmember Buckshnis was excited see this house added to the registry. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4158, AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 560 BELL STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Council recognized the property owner who was in the audience. Councilmember Johnson thanked the property owner for volunteering to have her home added to the registry. This is an important program and property owners who volunteer are appreciated. REPORTS ON COUNCIL COMMITTEES 1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 5 Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported on items considered by the committee: • HB 1406 Implementation (tax credit to support housing) - on tonight's agenda ■ Reclassification of Deputy City Clerk — approved on Consent Agenda • June 2019 Finance Report — approved on Consent Agenda • Annual Fund Balance Policy • Future agenda items include a presentation by the IT Supervisor regarding the organization of the website, utility billing and the Public Facilities District's quarterly report Parks & Public Works Comm Councilmember Johnson reported on items the committee discussed: • Oktoberfest Special Event Contract — approved on Consent Agenda • Report on bids for the 84" Ave Overlay — on tonight's agenda • Alternatives analysis for WC Daylighting project — on tonight's agenda • Supplemental Agreement with SW — on tonight's agenda • Presentation of Professional Services Agreement for Framework for 2019 Parking Study — on tonight's agenda • City Hall Elevator • Additional Management Reserve 76"'/212th — approved on Consent Agenda • Old Business — requested hardcopy of McKinstry building maintenance report and the Pavement Condition Study and learned of the Port's request to reduce the speed limit on Admiral Way Public Safely, Planning, and Personnel Committee Councilmember Tibbott reported on items the committee considered: • Water/Sewer Maintenance Worker Minimum Qualifications Change — approved on Consent Agenda • Reclassification of Deputy Clerk — approved on Consent Agenda 8. REPORTS 1. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SHANNON & WILSON FOR THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams advised staff is seeking an additional $20,000 to cover tasks to begin to close out Shannon & Wilson's feasibility study; the funds are in the 2019 budget. A lot of discussion will still occur and a lot of ideas will be explored in the design. He received a copy of Windward's report recently, dated May and marked final which it may not be. The report was very well done and added a lot to the story. Windward previously published a baseline monitoring study which also contained a lot of great data. Windward has had available to them the work done by Shannon & Wilson since 2014 which helped Windward make their study better. Windward was specifically tasked with commenting on Shannon & Wilson's report in their baseline study. One of the tasks that the additional $20,000 would cover would be Shannon & Wilson and ESA Associates reviewing and commenting on Windward's study with the eventual goal of bringing all the material together for a full picture. Second, the additional funds would cover Shannon & Wilson presenting a comprehensive report on everything they have done to date, possibly next week. Third, the funds will cover 16 hours for Shannon & Wilson to research Council questions. He clarified the topic of this agenda item is whether to authorize funds that are already budgeted for the tasks described, not the Shannon & Wilson or Windward reports, where they differ, where they coincide, etc. Following Shannon & Wilson's presentation, the Council can determine next steps. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 6 Councilmember Johnson recalled when this discussed occurred at committee, there was a request to incorporate the Windward report into the $20,000 for Shannon & Wilson. She noted the Windward report has not been finalized. Mr. Williams agreed the committee suggested that Shannon & Wilson review the Windward report so that was included in the funding request. Councilmember Johnson said her main concern is that the focus of Shannon & Wilson study seems to be a hydrology report and the emphasis on salmon and the requirements for salmon are a minor element. The options for daylighting Willow Creek close to the alignment of the original pipe and close to the railroad are not consistent with buffers the Department of Ecology has authorized for salmon. Councilmember Johnson recalled staff s presentation to the PPW Committee considered the desires of the property owner, Washington State Ferries, and they do not want the stream meandering through their property. That was a concern because the best type of stream is a braided channel that flows through the property in a natural environment toward the new opening. She was uncomfortable with Shannon & Wilson reviewing the Windward report from a basic hydrology standpoint and considering that in their four alternatives. Mr. Williams disagreed with the characterization that Shannon & Wilson's report was hydrology focused. He agreed the features have to be designed to get the water in and out of the marsh which is somewhat of a hydrologic problem. Their study has been informed by good biology and biologists; Keely O'Connell has been involved from a habitat and fish standpoint, tribal biologist have been involved, etc. The biology and salmon need have not been shortchanged. With regard to a braided channel, Mr. Williams said that is not part of daylighting Willow Creek but getting water across the marsh and is another part of the marsh rehab. Willow Creek is one part, handling the inputs from Shellabarger into the saltwater portion of the marsh is another part, all of which will be considered in the detailed design of the marsh rehab project. The Windward study broke all the habitat into pieces and assesses the biological opportunities and needs in each area. The daylighted stream channel, the upper half and the lower half, and they rated that very highly for salmon species, a perfect score of 1. (1.0 is ideal and anything less is less than ideal). The current situation is rated as .25 and he was certain the straight channel would not be rated 1. The concurrent configuration was seen as about as good a habitat as could be had for salmon by Windward. Moving the channel further east and further away from the railroad is doable in design, but Windward and Shannon & Wilson are not that far apart, the biologist and engineers who were involved did not disagree that much. Councilmember Mesaros asked how far apart Shannon & Wilson's original contract scope and the report they provided are. Mr. Williams said staff ensured they complied and produced the required scope in their report. Councilmember Mesaros asked if the additional items were additional scope. Mr. Williams said it was always expected that Shannon & Wilson would make a report to Council, but the most recent work related to sea level study required more work and conversations with WSDOT and DOE than anticipated and the contract ran out of authorized spending authority. The $20,000 is not new money, it is included in the 2019 budget. Councilmember Mesaros clarified this was not additional scope but the time necessary to accomplish the scope has gone beyond what they initially thought. Mr. Williams said the presentation would have been part of the original scope; the review of the Windward study is new and the 16 hours added in case something arises that requires their assistance. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented there are two different reports, the Shannon & Wilson and the Windward report, both to be completed soon. Although the intent was to have Shannon & Wilson review Windward's report, she suggested it may be better to have a third party try to meld the documents together whether that was staff or whatever. If Shannon & Wilson looks at the Windward report or vice versa, it may not be clear. She was interested in what was similar between the two, where there were contradictions and she did not think that would happen with them reviewing each other's reports. Mr. Williams said he and staff have read both reports and did not think they were in conflict in any meaningful way. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 7 consultants were asked to do different things. Windward has done high quality work that expands the conversation and can be considered in the design phase. The request is funding to complete Shannon & Wilson's feasibility study. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she reviewed the two contracts, there are some similar tasks in each. It may be more valuable to have a third party look at both reports. Mr. Williams said both took soil and water samples but in different places. Shannon & Wilson's soil samples were focused in areas where they thought excavation for the daylighting of Willow Creek would occur or excavation for channels across the freshwater habitat portion of the marsh. Shannon & Wilson's soil samples were also looking for residual contamination. The plan is to line the channels to isolate any remaining contaminates from the habitat. Windward was looking all around the marsh at stormwater influences, nearshore habitat and possibilities for enhancement, not just along the alignment of Willow Creek. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified her understanding was the $20,000 would allow Shannon & Wilson to finish their study and review Windward's report. She asked why Windward wouldn't review Shannon & Wilson's report. Mr. Williams explained one of the tasks in Windward's contract was to review Shannon & Wilson's work which they have done. Windward's review of Shannon & Wilson's work states daylight of Willow Creek is a meritorious project that should be pursued and should be helpful in recovering the environmental functions of the marsh. Shannon & Wilson can benefit from Windward's report and the committee requested Shannon & Wilson review Windward's report. That would be funded by the additional $20,000 as well as the presentation to Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the cost of presenting to Council. Mr. Williams estimated $3500 for travel and time to prepare remarks and a PowerPoint. Councilmember Teitzel said it appeared conclusions were being drawn about Shannon & Wilson but the Council and public have not heard from Shannon & Wilson. It's important to have a presentation from Shannon & Wilson and he suggested also having Windward present to answer questions. He has read both reports and agreed they were not that far apart. He has received a number of comments recently that the Shannon & Wilson report is not worth receiving and the Council should move away from them and hire another consultant. He was not ready to do that because he wanted to ensure he had all the facts. It is important for Shannon & Wilson to review Windward's report, incorporate the data and possibly modify their recommendation. He concluded it makes sense to authorize the additional funds, noting this Council and previous Councils have approved additional funding for Shannon & Wilson on three occasions, indicating the Council was satisfied with their work. He supported having Shannon & Wilson incorporate Windward's information and make a presentation to Council with Windward present so the Council's questions can be answered. Mr. Williams agreed with the suggestion to them both present to answer questions. Councilmember Buckshnis was perplexed that the presentation from Shannon & Wilson was not part of the packet. She has read both reports; as a technical writer by trade, not a scientist, she felt both were very well written although they provide different options and endings. She did not read in Windward's report any approval of Shannon & Wilson's designs, they each have different scopes. Tasks 5 and 6 in Windward's scope were not done because they address the long term impact of Willow Creek Daylighting. She recently distributed the most recent Windward report, the final draft, dated August 2od. Each report is very valid, they address similar things but are still trying to figure out how to move forward particularly since the WSDOT MOU has not been secured. She supported having presentations by both and questioned why a final report to Council was not part of Shannon & Wilson's scope or did they just run out of money. Mr. Williams explained some of the tasks got more complicated and took more time than anticipated so no spending authority remained. Additional funds are necessary so they can make a presentation which was part of the original scope; reviewing and commenting on the Windward study is new scope. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 8 Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Teitzel about having a presentation, but she was unsure that she agreed with the phrase that staff would inform Shannon & Wilson that the design phase will begin pending availability. She supported meshing the reports together and perhaps doing a new RFP for a third party review, perhaps waiting until the WSDOT MOU is completed. Mr. Williams said that will ultimately be the Council's decision. He personally stood behind Shannon & Wilson's integrity and the quality of their work and their biologist's work. Several disparaging remarks have been made about Shannon & Wilson and he hoped that did not impact the Council's thinking because it was not true. Councilmember Buckshnis said Shannon & Wilson's report was not -part of packet so some people may not have had an opportunity to read it. She noted Shannon & Wilson's report was titled Expanded Marsh Concept and Hydrologic Modeling. She agreed both reports were very well written. Councilmember Teitzel said there is frustration among Councilmembers and citizens with the uncertainty of what WSDOT and Ferries may/may not do with the property. He hoped there would eventually be full access to the property to increase buffers and re-channelize the stream but whether that would happen was unknown. It is important to lock down the science about the marsh and daylighting and incorporate that into the Shannon & Wilson report and then make further decisions moving forward. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SHANNON & WILSON FOR THE WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PROJECT. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO TABLE THE MOTION UNTIL WE'RE FURTHER ALONG WITH THE WINDWARD REPORT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, NELSON, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND MESAROS VOTING NO. 2. 2018 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed the Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the Transportation Benefit District, January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018: Revenues $20 Vehicle Registration Fee $708,107 Total Revenues $708,107 Expenditures Road Maintenance (includes repairs, patching, crack sealing Labor and benefits 148,303 Supplies 35,872 Traffic Control Labor and benefits 212,413 Supplies 148,082 Vehicle Charges 163,437 Total Expenditures $708,107 An additional $43,181.10 in expenditures were eligible for reimbursement from this funding source, however, due to funding constraints, these expenditures were absorbed by Fund 111 — Street Fund. Mr. Williams highlighted: • The City does have the opportunity to consider the 2nd half of the local license fee of $20/year per licensed vehicle $1.67/month. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 9 • That would generate an additional $700,000 that could be committed to street paving. Should be able to eliminate the General Fund contributions to paving. • REET could cover the remainder of paving cost Councilmember Buckshnis commented the revenue is approximately the same every year. She referred to traffic control and asked if that included traffic control on Dayton Street, noting the Dayton Street project has been very well managed. Mr. Williams said that is done by the contractor in compliance with traffic control specifications written by staff. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE 2018 ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REPORT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. ACTION ITEMS 1. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPLEMENT HB 1406 Development Services Director Shane Hope explained HB 1406 was passed by the legislature during the last session. It was supported by AWC and counties because it provides for the transfer of a small portion of existing state sales tax to a city or county for certain housing purposes. The amount is .0073% or about $71,000-72,000/year for Edmonds. She emphasized it was not a new tax. To receive the funds, the City must, 1) adopt a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance, and 2) adopt an ordinance implementing the use of state sales tax. HB 1406 states the sales tax can be used for housing purposes for people earning 60% or less of the area median income (AMI). She acknowledged $71,000 would not buy housing units, but over time if the City chooses to combine with other cities e.g. through the Alliance of Housing Affordability (AHA) or other south Snohomish County cities, the funds could be combined for a project. Adopting a resolution does not limit the City on how to use the money. Combining funds with other jurisdictions is the most likely and is authorized by HB 1406. The Snohomish County Executive has encouraged cities to adopt a resolution and Snohomish County intends to qualify for their .0073%. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that the Council can approve the resolution but at this time does not need to designate how the funds will be used. Ms. Hope agreed. As the Council representative on the AHA Board, Councilmember Tibbott said he has some insight into that organization. He recommended the new Housing Commission discuss implementation of HB 1406. He supported adopting the resolution of intent, with the idea that how to use the funds could be explored later. Ms. Hope agreed, noting the primary reason for bringing this forward is it needs to be adopted by January to go into effect. Councilmember Teitzel asked how this relates to funding sources for the state and county housing trust fund. Ms. Hope said it does not change anything for the state housing trust fund which was authorized to receive more money in this year's state budget than they have for many years. Councilmember Teitzel referred to an article about Pierce County being upset with Tacoma who approved this funding source, reducing the amount Pierce County would receive. Ms. Hope said Pierce County and Tacoma have different ideas regarding how to spend the money. A city can qualify to receive both the county and city portion if they do certain things. Tacoma took steps and qualified for both portions. She is only proposing that Edmonds authorize the City' portion and Snohomish County will get its portion. Councilmember Johnson commented the real winners in this proposal are the large cities who have a lot of sales tax; they will receive millions. It is a small amount of money for smaller cities but it can be leveraged by working with partners in Snohomish County. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION STATING THE INTENT TO IMPLEMENT HB 1406. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. REPORT ON CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE 84TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT City Engineer Rob English reviewed • 84" Overlay Project (220t' St to 212th St) 0 2300 ft — 2 inch grind and overlay 0 15 new pedestrian curb ramps 0 740 ft storm pipe replacement o Bike lanes and sharrows o New RRFBs at crosswalk adjacent to chase Lake Elementary School • Bid Results Contractor Bid Results Amount A&M Contractors $810,227 Rodarte Construction $883,052 Road Construction Northwest $909,005 Kamins Construction $1,003,618 A-1 Landscaping and Const. $1,066,111 Westwater Construction $1,108,665 Engineer's Estimate $1,090,270 • Staff recommends awarding contract to A&M Contractors • Construction budget Item Amount Contract Award $810,227 Construction Mgmt, Inspection & Testing $150,000 Management Reserve 15% $121,500 Total 1 $1081,727 • Construction funding Item Fundin Federal grant —Fund 112 $572,566 REET 1 — Fund 125 $91,545 Stormwater Utility — Fund 422 $417,616 Total 1 $1081727 • Staff's recommendation: o Award a contract to A&M Contractors for $810,227 o Authorize a 15% management reserve of $121,500 COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO A&M CONTRACTORS FOR $810,227 AND AUTHORIZE A 15% MANAGEMENT RESERVE OF $121,500. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FRAMEWORK FOR THE 2019 DOWNTOWN PARKING STUDY Mr. Williams reviewed: • Project description o Last downtown parking study completed in 2003 (more than 15 years ago) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 11 o Scope of work • Public input prior to project initiation (scoping meeting/Online survey) ■ Data collection (assisted by City-owned drone) ■ Continued public engagement during project • Analysis of both City ROW and private property ■ Recommendation along with Implementation Plan • Council approval • Project Limits o Caspers on the north, Pine the south, 9"' on the east and the waterfront on the west • Sample aerial photograph of data collection with drone and ability to zoom in drone photograph • Consultant selection 0 4 Statements of Qualification (SOQ) submitted (Transpo Group, Walker, Framework and Dixon) o Interviews held with Walker, Framework and Dixon o All three consultants with very extensive experience. Based on greater experience on studies for cities of similar size to Edmonds (compared to other consultants) Framework selected to complete the study o Image of Framework's experience in scope items in other studies ■ August 8"' Scoping meeting overview o Well attended meeting with 43 attendees o Social media MEN and Beason o Staff provided brief project description o Divided into groups (discussion based on following questions) • Question #1: What is your main reason for coming to Downtown Edmonds / what weekly frequency? Do you always drive or use other modes of transportation to get there? • Question 42: What personal goals do you think the Parking Study should achieve (based on parking problems observed in Downtown / specify time of day & day of week problems most commonly encountered)? ■ Question #3: As you think about your ability to access Downtown amenities, what is your current experience and how could that experience be improved? ■ Question #4: For business owners, what issues / concerns do you have regarding your patrons being able to access your business? For residents, what concerns do you have getting to a business in Downtown? o Short summary provided by each group o All major items will be available to Framework for consideration in the study o Additional public engagement will take place once Data Collection completed and preliminary analysis done after reaching out with Facebook, Twitter, City web page, articles in Beacon and MEN, etc. • Survey Results o Open July 24-August 12 0 705 responses 0 667 unique IP addresses • The difference (48) does not show a pattern of similar responses so data quality is likely very good 0 10 questions (average response time 6 minutes) 0 98.6% identified as Edmonds residents o A wide range of opinions were offered o More analysis will be provided in a summary within the next week. • Project budget Project cost subtotal $75,340 Expenses (6% of project costs $4,520 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 12 Estimated total cost $79,860 Mgmt. reserve (5%, if needed) $3,767 Total with mgmt. reserve $83,627 Contract Amount City project management $20,000 103,627 Total Cost 2019 budget amount $40,000 Additional funding needed $63,267 Schedule Council Committee meeting for Framework contract August 13th Full Council approval of Framework contract August 20th Start project Drone Shots Open House(s) Project completion August August / September October / November December Councilmember Mesaros commented there is opportunity for public engagement with existing groups such as service clubs, houses of worship, Ed!, Chamber, etc. He wanted to ensure existing community entities were engaged and the dates, times, and places where their input was received is documented. He recommended including that in the scope. Mr. Williams said City staff could do that, interview those entities and get their input on parking. Councilmember Mesaros said there may also be opportunity to gather input from people who regularly attend classes at Frances Anderson Center, at the library, etc. It is important to show the City is going above and beyond to seek input, not doing the ordinary, but doing the extraordinary. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there were any obvious actions suggested at the scoping meeting or in the online survey. Mr. Williams said staff hoped to get more comments about the scope such as what to include in a study. Most of what was said at the scoping meeting was how to solve the problem; there were a lot of ideas and perspectives, some people wanted longer than three hours, some wanted shorter times. The intent of the meeting was not solutions, but identifying the problem, what is needed, whether there is any low hanging fruit, places where capacity could be added at a low cost, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked if it would be possible to implement 2-5 actions downtown to improve parking in the short term and incorporate that new parking scheme into a parking study. Mr. Williams said he did not hear 2-5 things that most everyone agreed on. He heard a lot of different things; there was a tremendous amount of discussion about a new parking garage including a lot of support until it came to the question of how to do that, where it would be located and how it should be funded. Most people did not care how it was funded as long as they didn't have to pay for parking. It would be nice to have structure parking but where to locate it and how to pay for it are big ticket items. The logical focus would be to start with things that do not cost as much per space created and go as far as possible with that before making a decision to invest in a parking garage. There were a lot of comments about time limits; some people want long time limits, some do not want any time limits, some want shorter time limits so there is better churn on parking, some people wanted better parking enforcement, some want less enforcement. He did not sense any commonality in most of the comments. Councilmember Nelson said he has been contacted by multiple citizens regarding whether Framework is qualified. After reviewing their qualifications and their proposal, he learned they are subcontracting with Rick Williams Consulting who has an extensive background in parking, having performed studies for Bellevue, Chehalis, Everett, Kent, Kirkland, King County, Redmond, Olympia Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma and Mt. Vernon as well in Oregon and other places. He had confidence with the consulting firm, but was not confident about the cost. The cost proposal includes a project kickoff, he noted the amount the City has paid for project kickoffs would pay for multiple trolleys circling Edmonds. He suggested that was $2,000 that could be eliminated from the contract. With regard to public engagement, he attended the scoping Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 13 meeting and thought it was done well. The cost proposal includes two public engagements and an online survey which he suggested could be done by staff instead of the consultant, a savings of $17,720. He recommended reviewing the contract for ways to reduce the cost, expressing concern that the City seems to be relying on consultants. He was aware staff was working on projects but said prioritization was important and citizens were interested in prioritizing parking. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. English and Mr. Williams for participating at the August 8"' meeting. The input from the scoping meeting has been incorporated into the consultant's scope. He referred to the list of parking strategies that will be considered in the parking study proposal, Task 4, Parking Strategies + Recommendations, and asked for assurance that that was not meant to be inclusive. Mr. Williams said staff brainstormed things they have heard from the public and things they were interested in having the consultant evaluate and assured the list was not meant to be inclusive. Councilmember Teitzel recalled at the August 8"' meeting, people mentioned a parking garage, valet parking, trolley, etc. as potential solutions and asked if those would be considered. Mr. Williams assured they would. Councilmember Teitzel agreed the survey results contained conflicting responses, comments about the need for more parking enforcement, less enforcement, extending the 3 -hours parking limitations north and east from the downtown core up to 6t' and 7"' Avenues and not doing that, comments for and against a parking structure, increasing fines and reducing fines. He supported hiring a consultant because the conflicting data makes it difficult to sort, staff does not have the bandwidth to do it and experts are needed to engage citizens to ensure the solutions are what the majority of citizens want. Possibly the contract can be trimmed but he did not want to reduce it to the extent that it limited the quality of the work product and it was not actionable. He supported proceeding with the parking study and partnering with citizens and businesses to ensure the study is workable and doable. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed discomfort with the expanded cost. She preferred to see the survey results before make a decision. She recalled the Roger Brooks series that described a boutique parking structure in downtown Rapid City, South Dakota that "blew the town out of control because people could park." There are many places where a boutique parking structure could be located. She relayed a citizen's research that Westgate's underground parking cost $4.2M, $35,000/stall for 120 spaces. She suggested the cost for a downtown parking structure could be $4.2-$6M. A possible funding source is traffic impact fees; the balance in 2018 was $2M. She recalled discussing an electric jitney eight years ago to move people around. She preferred to get more information before spending money on a consultant. Mr. Williams said those are all those potentially good ideas. The study intended to first get the data to describe problem, how many spaces are needed and by when, and an implementation plan and then look at all the ideas and how they contribute to the solution. He had no objection to structured parking other than it is very expensive and it would be preferable to do easier things first. A parking garage and other solution will be part of the study; he has heard $50,000+/space for structure parking. There are numerous tricks to better manage existing capacity that should be considered first before the more expensive options. Councilmember Mesaros said there were a lot of good ideas at the August 8"' meeting. To Councilmember Tibbott's suggestion about things that could be done without the study, he heard a suggestion for the City to look at its employee and residential permits, the number of permits, how many are active, whether parking could be identified for employees on the outskirts of the core with a shuttle every 15 minutes to bring them to/from downtown, etc. That analysis could be a prelude to the study. With regard to Councilmembers' comments about cost and elements of the study that City staff could do to reduce the scope, he suggested he and Councilmember Teitzel meet with Mr. Williams and staff and return to Council with a recommendation. Mr. Williams pointed out the cost was reduced by $10,000 with staffs use of the drone. He was unsure what else staff could do, noting anything staff does comes at the expense of other Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 14 projects that staff is working on. Councilmember Mesaros acknowledged the answer may be the cost/scope can't be reduced but it was important to take the time to reevaluate that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it is important to do the study right. He was concerned if the Council delayed a decision to long, it will be mid or late September and there will be no data about the summer months when parking demand is the highest and the results will not be what the City needs. Councilmember Johnson said she is a_ transportation planner and knows something about parking. She appreciated the map staff provided of the study area as it helped her understand the scope of the study. She referred to existing conditions section in the scope of work and the statement that there would be two full days of data collection but the City may elect to complete the first day of data collection and results before the second round of data collection. She asked if that was where the $10,000 was reduced by using the drone. Mr. Williams said the intent was to use the drone data as a general view of the area as well as boots - on -the -ground to supplement that in a more detailed and immediate way such as every hour on every block to see how spaces vacate and fill which a drone couldn't do. Councilmember Johnson suggested instead of starting there, they interview the parking enforcement officer. Mr. Williams said that has been done. Councilmember Johnson said there are many people who are knowledgeable and could be the boots -on -the -ground including Ed!, DEMA, etc. Mr. Williams said the people the consultant uses are trained versus volunteers. Councilmember Johnson said the use of the drone was very progressive and she encouraged discussions with the parking enforcement officer. She observed the public information and project management is 25% of the scope; she did not see a report to the public on the final analysis and recommendations and suggested doing that before the presentation to the City Council. Mr. Williams said the City Council is a public meeting; the intent was to keep the public involved and informed throughout project. Councilmember Johnson said a detailed parking analysis for the Waterfront Center and Civic Park is needed, including the parking generation and the number of parking stalls needed to accommodate public events. The City is spending $12M on Civic Park and it needs to include studying the parking needs. It is intended to be a major attraction and she questioned where parking would be provided, whether it would just be in the neighborhoods, angle parking, etc. Parking generation was not analyzed during the Civic Park master plan and it was said that that could be done later. Mr. Williams said neither of those analyses would lower the cost of the parking study. With regard to lowering the cost of the study, Councilmember Johnson said there are a lot of extraneous things in the scope such as bike sharing, shuttle services, emerging transportation options, impact of Hwy 99 and upcoming light rail station in Mountlake Terrace, future parking demand, an analysis of where vehicles are observed using WDL identity and identifying areas shaded by trees. She suggested those could be eliminated to reduce the budget. Councilmember Johnson asked if the consultants were informed of the amount in the budget. Mr. Williams said they were aware of it, but he never believed a scope of work that meet the Council's expectations could be delivered for $40,000; he originally asked for $75,000. Councilmember Johnson referred to the amount charged for staff project management, commenting this was not a federal project and she did not understand why that was added to the cost of this study. Mr. Williams answered this is a project and Engineering is funded via authorized capital projects, studies, etc. that are funded via Council budget decisions. Engineering does charge their time to time to those projects. There is a lot of interest in this project and it will take time to manage it. If that is not acknowledged, it is funded from the General Fund. Councilmember Johnson asked if Engineering charged for their time on projects in other departments, such as a housing study. Mr. Williams said he does not charge his time to any project, but he is the only one that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 15 does not. From an accounting principles standpoint, it is good to know the total cost. For example, the 84th overlay includes $150,000 for staff project management. Councilmember Johnson said she did not view a parking study as a capital project. Mr. Williams said it is a project the City wants to do, once it is funded and completed, a report will be provided on the cost including staff time. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if projects are being charged for staff time and that staff time is already included in the budget, wasn't that double dipping. For example, the cost of the parking study includes funds for Public Works staff time. Mr. Williams assured it was not double dipping; Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss will spend a significant amount of time on the parking study and those costs will accumulate. If it is not included in this project, it is general overhead for Engineering which is paid by the General Fund. He said it was more of an accounting issue, not an increased cost that would not otherwise exist; it is either overhead or it's charged to the project. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed this a new thing although it has always been done with grants or federal projects, but not for General Fund projects. She asked whether staff costs have been included in the past for General Fund projects. City Engineer Rob English could not recall the last General Fund study/project that Engineering managed. He agreed with Mr. Williams that most projects are charged for Engineering, that is how staff time is allotted and paid for. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not recall seeing it in a cost estimate for a project funded by the General Fund. Council President Fraley-Monillas said most of the concern she has heard is the cost of the parking study. There is little disagreement that a parking study is needed. She suggested staff provide a menu of scope items and the cost for Council consideration. Councilmember Tibbott suggested involving the parking subcommittee of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) who has been very engaged with parking analysis and developed the idea of hashmarks which has been very successful. He suggested providing them the input that has been received as well as additional input achieved through contact with business owners, and developing 2-3 actions items that could be implemented in the next 6-8 months. That would allow the City to do a study next year, add $40,000 to the budget in 2020 and look at parking needs based on suggestions that have already been implemented. The EDC could also provide opportunity for public input. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the Hekinan students who have been in Edmonds for that past week leave tomorrow. It has been a delight to have them in the community. He thanked the host families, noting it has been a great experience for everyone who has had an opportunity to participate. Last weekend's Taste Edmonds appeared to be very successful. He has not seen a financial report for the event but the crowd size was impressive and he commended the additions to the atmosphere of the Taste. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis announced the second annual potluck at the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Native Plant Demonstration Garden on Sunday, August 25 from 12:30 — 2:30 p.m. to provide information about certified backyard habitats and celebrate residents who have backyard habitats, recognize volunteer efforts, etc. Councilmember Tibbott reported he attended Taste Edmonds and worked with friends at the beer garden. The Taste is a huge tourist attraction; he meet people from around the area, many of who were staying over the weekend to participate in activities. The Taste speaks well of the City and he commended the organizers for the crowd it attracted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 16 Councilmember Johnson commended the 150 Edmonds High School Tigers class of 1950 who met in Edmonds Library Plaza Room last Friday. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported she encountered another Edmonds High School class at the Taste. She volunteered Friday in the cash area and at the wine bar. It was a great event and the wine bar ran out of wine Friday evening and had to get more. She attended the welcome dinner for the Hekinan students and had the opportunity to sit with three host families. She offered a special thank you to the host families for the work they do touring _students_around_and_connecting with -people. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised two Councilmembers have yet to submit their appointments for the Housing Commission; they were due last Friday. Mayor Earling is waiting to make his appointments until Councilmembers submit their appointments. Councilmember Teitzel reported he attended Taste Edmonds on Saturday evening; it was a great event, very well run and he compliment the Chamber and the volunteers. He lives near Civic Field and found the quality of music excellent this year. As the City's representative on the Snohomish County 911 Board, Councilmember Mesaros announced he received notice of a proposed change to the Snohomish County 911 ILA to which the City is a party. SERS and Snohomish County 911 have merged; SERS used a different formula than Snohomish County 911 to collect revenues from member entities. At their last meeting the Snohomish County 911 Board voted to use the Snohomish County 911 methodology. That is accomplished via changing the ILA and the change can be approved via a supermajority vote of existing board members or having the member agencies vote. The Snohomish County 911 Board agreed to pursue a supermajority vote and the board plans to vote on September 1. The good news for Edmonds is the fees will be reduced by approximately $19,000. There was an approximately $200,000 reduction last year due to the merger of SNOPAC and SNOCOM. Councilmember Mesaros reminded that City Attorney evaluation forms are due August 31 to Council/Legislative Assistant Maureen Judge. He requested they be submitted in writing in a sealed envelope; Councilmember Teitzel and he will review the evaluations. The evaluation process for an inhouse attorney versus a contract attorney has not been finalized. 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.1 100)(i) This item was not needed. 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 14. AD30URN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. r �G e VIVID O. EARLING, MAYOR CO PASSEY, CITY CL R Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 20, 2019 Page 17