Loading...
20191015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNC I L APPROVED MINUTES October 15, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Ken Ploeger, Police Sergeant Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Mgr. Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. 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 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. Mayor Earling advised opponents and proponents of I-976 would have an opportunity to speak for three minutes under Agenda Item 9.3. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 1 Peter Moon, Edmonds, a resident on Olympic View Drive, reported the speed monitor at Olympic View Drive & Cherry has not been functioning for some time. He reported less than half of the drivers observe the 25 mph speed limit on Olympic View Drive and often greatly exceed it. He requested the Council work with whoever is responsible for speed control to monitor speeds and, if necessary, issue citations to speeders. Speeds of 40 mph are the norm. Mayor Earling suggested he speak to Public Works Director Phil Williams about the sign. Tim Eyman, Bellevue, co-sponsor of I-976, said it is illegal under state law for the government to use taxpayer money for or against a ballot measure. A government resolution telling voters how to vote on I- 976 is exactly that, using taxpayer resources to weigh in on a ballot measure. I-976 is a citizen initiative, not a politician initiative. Citizens will vote on 1-976 and have as much power to vote as elected officials. Elected officials make 99.9% of all public policy decisions, but this is a citizen initiative where citizens will decide. With regard to the merits of the initiative, voters have voted numerous times to say they do not want license tabs to exceed $30. When it was done 20 years ago, voters did not want state government to put a dishonest tax on vehicles. A few years later, voters said they did not want local government having higher car tabs either. Car tabs were quite low for a long time before they increased in recent years. Many citizens are concerned with the dishonesty of the tax due to the inflated valuation of vehicles. Before the Sound Transit ballot measure, voters were told they would pay about $80 if they supported the measure. Post-election reality was tabs of $300-800. Not only was the cost triple what voters were told, it was calculated dishonestly. Mr. Eyman commented the initiative was proposed after the legislature had 2'/2 years to fix the problem, but they did not. When the initiative qualified in January, the legislature had the entire session to fix the problem but they did not. An alternative could have been placed on the ballot to allow voters to choose between I-976 and an alternative but the legislature did not do that either. Voters who dislike the dishonest vehicle valuation system and the dishonest tax are left with no choice but to support I-976. As far as the death, destruction and the end of western civilization that is predicted as a result of the passage of I-976, it comes at a time when the state has a $3.75 billion tax surplus and record revenues, enough to move money around. The annual amount is approximately $400M/year; the $3.75B can be used to backfill that in the short term and in the long term, the initiative states if the state wants to bring back a car tab tax in the future, voter approval is required and values must be calculated honestly such as Kelly Blue Book. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, spoke regarding the code rewrite. He referred to the decision package for the 2015 budget Item 17, described as carryforward the unspent portion of the 2014 budget for updating the development code into 2015 when the project can be completed. This item was associated with Strategic Action Plan objection 3 and 3al2, which related to affordable housing. The implementation schedule was 2013-14 and later extended to 2015 and the narrative includes discussion of form based code. The decision package narrative states about $70,000 of the 2014 budgeted amount totally $110,000 for a major development code update is unlikely to be spent before the end of 2014 and is proposed as a carryforward for 2015. An update of the development code has been a high priority for the City Council and Administration. Updating the code will provide more certainty for staff and customers and ensure clear permitting and compliance processes. It will balance community needs for environmental protection and appropriate growth. Because a learning curve was necessary before the new development services director could move forward with the code update and because of the immediate need to meet other state deadlines, the project has been slightly delayed. However, progress is being made, for example, legal advice from Carol Morris and a consultant team is expected to be on board in fall 2014 to help with the code update. Mr. Reidy said the City is now going into 2020 and the code update has never been completed. He referred to decision package 40 in the 2020 budget for $25,000. He requested the Council look closely at who should be doing the code rewrite; the City Council are the policy makers and should be very involved in the process. He questioned whether $25,000 was enough money and was uncertain what happened to the $85,000 in 2015 budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 2 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2019 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 4. AUGUST 2019 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 5. PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET FOLLOW UP MEMO 6. ILA VERDANT HEALTH COMMISSION -OUTDOOR FITNESS ZONES AMENDMENT 7. MARSH BOARDWALK EASEMENT 8. HYUNDAI PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT 9. LYNNWOOD MAZDA PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT 10. CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT -EASEMENTS 7. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET VACATION CODE UPDATE Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell reviewed ECDC 20.70 - Street Vacations: • Code Update Goals o Move to Title 18 — Public Works o Clarify, reorganize, add definitions section o Revise appraisal process and timing o Revise applicability of monetary compensation o Revise timeframe to satisfy conditions o Consistency with RCW 35.79.030 • Substantive code changes o Move from Title 20 to Title 18 o Change in review lead from planning division to public works division 0 18.55.005 Definitions — new section 0 18.55.015.13 Application — revised to reflect what's actually needed 0 18.55.030 — Added right to reserve easements for pedestrian walkways or trails 0 18.55.XXX — Added appraisal section to address timing of appraisal and collection of fees for 3rd party appraisal 0 18.55.140 — Section added to clarify processing of street vacations, allowing ordinance to address timing of compliance with conditions, establishing compensation of area to be vacated based on appraisal, and giving Council the ability to not adopt a vacation ordinance based on review of the appraisal. ■ What is a street dedication? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 3 o A dedication is a transfer of most of the rights in a privately owned property to the public for some public use, such as for streets. o A street dedication (or dedication of right-of-way) occurs commonly as a condition of subdivision approval. o Definition of dedication: "The donation of land or creation of an easement for public use." DEDICATION, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) o A street "vacation" means that the public is letting go of, or "vacating", the public interest in a property. o After a street, alley or easement (pedestrian and/or vehicular) is vacated, the public no longer has a right to use the property for access. o Initiated by petition of property owners or City Council o RCW 35.79.040 — Title to vacated street or alley. If any street or alley in any city or town is vacated by the city or town council, the property within the limits so vacated shall belong to the abutting property owners, one-half to each. • Appraisal RCW 35.79.030: o States the ordinance may provide that the vacation shall not become effective until the owners of property abutting upon the street or alley compensate the city or town an amount equal to one-half or the full amount of the appraised value of the area vacated. Existing code: o Appraisal is a minimum application requirement o Appraiser selected by applicant Proposed code: o Appraisal required after staff review and Council approval of resolution of intent to vacate 0 3rd party appraiser selected by City o Waiver if Council initiated vacation includes a finding that public benefit accruing from the vacation alone is sufficient to justify vacation without monetary compensation. Planning Board Recommendation: o 3rd party appraiser selected by the applicant from a City approved list • Monetary Compensation RCW 35.79.030: o Provides two options by which owners of property abutting the area to be vacated shall compensate the city of town: ■ An amount equal to one-half the appraised value of the area so vacated; or ■ An amount not to exceed the full appraised value. (This applies if the street or alley has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for twenty-five years or more, or if the subject property or portions thereof were acquired at public expense) Existing code: o Monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City Proposed code; o Monetary compensation and allowance for reservation of easements o The amount of compensation to match the language in the RCW Planning Board recommendation o Keep with existing code — monetary compensation OR reservation of easement to the City o The amount of compensation to match RCW except for the that portion related to a ROW dedicated for twenty five years or more. • Compliance with Conditions and Challenging a Condition Existing code: o Conditions must be met within 90 -days of approval of resolution of intent to vacate Proposed code: o Compliance within 90 -days unless otherwise stated in the resolution Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 4 o Language clarifying the appeal process. 0 30 day appeal period following the adoption of the resolution of intent (longer than the appeal period for land use decisions is 21 -days (RCW 36.70C.040) Planning Board recommendation 0 60 day appeal period o Includes clarifying language as to what happens if the appeal comes before or after a Council decision on the street vacation + Code Update Schedule o July 9, 2019 — Introduction at City Council Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee o July 10, 2019 — Introduction to Planning Board o August 14, 2019 — Public Hearing at Planning Board o September 25, 2019 — Planning Board (Review Options) o October 1 st — Introduction at City Council o October 15th — Public Hearing at City Council o Future Council Meeting — Approval of Ordinance Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why staff did not agree with the Planning Board with regard to having a list of appraisers. She anticipated it would be difficult for an applicant if the City made the decision regarding an appraiser, however, having a list would allow an applicant to make the choice. Ms. McConnell answered it was not necessarily that staff did not agree with the Planning Board, but staff's initial recommendation included the change to have a City -chosen appraiser for consistency purposes. After listening to the Planning Board, staff does not object to a list although it is questionable whether an exact number of appraisers on the list should be included in the code. She summarized having a list to choose from would be an option. As this was a policy decision, staff's recommendation as well as the Planning Board's recommendation was included to highlight the options for Council. Councilmember Teitzel thanked staff for providing the Planning Board's comments. He referred to 18.55.030 Right to reserve easements which states, in vacating any subject property, the city council may reserve for the city any easements or the right to exercise and grant easements for the following purposes, and paragraph C states, Construction, repair and maintenance of utilities by a third -party utility company, municipal corporation, or special purpose district that has a vested interest in the subject property. He said it appeared the third -party entities that can receive that easement are limited to those three examples. He asked if under that definition would a school district or private party qualify as a third party. Mr. Taraday said special purpose district is a very broad term; the combination of municipal corporation and special purpose district together would include nearly every form of government in Washington. He summarized it would generally be a governmental entity. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the sudden urgency of this amendment when there has been only one street vacation per year for the past four years. She pointed out there is no definition for vacation. She was confused by that and felt the definitions should include easement, street vacation, dedication and the differences. She recalled Susan Paine sent the Council her concerns about street vacation and easement. Mr. Taraday explained a vacation is essentially the undoing of a dedication. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Chapter 18.55 Vacations of Streets and Public Access Easements, pointing out 18.55.005 Definitions includes easement but not vacations. Ms. McConnell said the general definitions section of the ECDC defines vacation as well as dedication. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember Buckshnis was asking to include it in the final draft. Councilmember Buckshnis answered yes. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said sometime prior to May 3, 2018, the City Attorney, City Council and Staff began working on yet another piecemeal code amendment. In April 2019 he emailed Mayor Earling asking Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 5 several questions; he did not receive a response. On June 24, 2019 he noticed this topic on the City Council extended agenda and submitted a public records request for the latest draft of the street vacation code update which was due in five days. Eleven days later on July 5t", he was provided documents that provided him the first glimpse of the amendments. He emailed questions to City Council on July 9" and did not receive a response. On July 10" he attended the Planning Board meeting where this topic was introduced and stressed that citizens be afforded a chance to be very involved in the process. He spoke again at the July 24t', August 10, September 11th and September 25th Planning Board meetings. He provided much input, pointed out errors and experienced frustration as City staff refused to respond to two Planning Board requests to show an aerial photo of a specific section of an unopened alley. At the conclusion, he was encouraged in general by the recommendations made by the Planning Board, but dismayed to see staff make their own recommendations to City Council rather than respecting the Planning Board's recommendation. Mr. Reidy recalled on October 1St, he told Council that because the city attorney has made it clear he does not represent Edmonds property owners, Council needs to ensure property owners know what is happening. He also provided Council information sheet for possible distribution to citizens; no Councilmember has indicated whether that or a different version was distributed. The proposed code uses the term, "sufficient to justify," a subjective term, opening the door to arbitrary decisions and different rules for different people. He suggested Council adopt different policies for the vacation of unused easements versus easements that have been used for a public purpose, or would it be more ethical to not charge compensation for the vacation of an easement the City never needed and never used. The proposed code establishes a definition of easement that is much different than the definition of easement in the definition section of Title 21. The proposed code requires the site survey specify open and unopened right-of-way but never discusses unopened right-of-way again in 18.55. The proposed code will result in more code errors and links that do not work. ECDC 20.80 is a major point that has not been addressed during this process. He encouraged the Council to listen to and engage with citizens and property owners. Damian King, Edmonds, expressed concern about the proposal regarding easements and street vacations from staff and the city attorney. The ordinance needs a comprehensive, holistic review instead of a piecemeal edit like this change. Easements represent usages and interests in land between the City and citizens. These are not strictly economic issues, context is important. Many easement in the City have remained unopened, unused and unimproved for decades. He pointed out the City has an easement, not the title to the land. The City occasionally grants vacations of easements and retains or reserves easements, aspects that work together in the public interest. When the City retains an easement, compensation is not always required; either compensation for vacations or retention of easement provides the City the necessary options. This approach has been previously affirmed by the City Council. The City should step back and do a more holist, thorough review of the larger development code before seeking a narrow aspect of change. Michelle Dotch, Edmonds, commented this was a public hearing on very important code that had been extensively rewritten, affecting thousands of property owners whose property borders an easement, right- of-way or alley. The entire downtown core of Edmonds has easements, alleys, rights-of-way between nearly every major street. These easements are how businesses, homes, condos and multifamily housing in Edmonds get to their garbage, garages and access their property. These easements, alleys and rights-of-way are part of the original design of Edmonds and were dedicated at no cost to the City to obtain the rights of access and to give the streets their curbside appeal so that things people do not want to look at are located behind. It is obvious that property owners and homeowners living on easements have no idea that this code will be changed to their detriment. She questioned the rush to change the code when it has been used only once a year and why the public was not present at a public hearing on the first major code rewrite. The Council has been clamoring to begin a major code rewrite, yet no Councilmember or Planning Board Members were aware this section of code was being rewritten, basically behind closed doors using numerous staff and city attorney hours to change a code that no one had asked to have changed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 6 Ms. Doth said although the Council has stated they want the public to be engaged sooner in the process, the public has not been properly included or notified. She was concerned with staffs position to stick with their own and the city attorney's recommendations instead of honoring the Planning Board's recommendation that recognizes their concern with staff and the city attorney's approach to the code rewrite and what it means to property owners with easement rights. She questioned the role of the city attorney in rewriting the code, a person who is not a city employee but the owner of a Seattle law firm that specializes in eminent domain and complex condemnation matters. She recalled Mr. Taraday's warning to the Planning Board on August 14th that he does not represent Edmonds homeowners, leading her to question who he represents. She urged the Council to take the time for proper public engagement and to table this item for further public review. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented it was easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled. Not all members of the Planning Board were fooled by staff and the city attorney's misleading interpretations and opinions regarding the law. From reviewing the City Council study session on the proposed amendment to the current street vacation code, he said the City Council is being fooled. He referred to Ordinance 4143 approved in February 2019 in which the City Council vacated Excelsior Place and retained easements for public utilities and right-of-way and required no compensation. He referred to the gift of public funds and governmental ethics. At the August 14, 2019 Planning Board hearing, the city attorney cited Washington State Constitution Article 8, Section 7, No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall here -after give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation. Mr. Tupper opined that the City Council's approval of the street vacation on Excelsior Place violated the State Constitution and therefore implied that the City Council including himself, because he signed the ordinance, violated their oaths of office which puts each Councilmember subject to the recall petition. RCW 34.79 was last updated in 2011. The City code amendments adding full appraised value if the dedication is 25 years old was passed in 2001. ECDC 20.70 was updated twice, Ordinance 3901 in 2012 and Ordinance 3902 in 2013, both amendments were citizen requested. He asked why the city attorney waited so long, relaying his belief it was due to a property in Perrinville. The City Council passed a resolution to vacate 184" and then passed a resolution to postpone that vacation; that property has an unopened easement with City utilities. This proposal is to get the full value for that dedication which he felt was not honest government or fair play, changing the rules in the middle of the process. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Mesaros asked if there were more than three instances where the Planning Board's recommendation differed from staff s recommendations. Ms. McConnell referred to the PowerPoint slides that identify five instances where the Planning Board had a different recommendation. The table on page 243 of the packet also identifies the five items and the clean version of the code includes both staff and Planning Board recommendations (packet page 238). Councilmember Mesaros observed staff has chosen to include both and let the City Council decide. Ms. McConnell agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has not often seen in her ten years on the Council where a proposal includes different recommendations from staff and the Planning Board, typically the recommendation incorporates the Planning Board's input. Ms. McConnell answered the reality is there is not an incorrect way; staff does not feel strongly about any of the specific items. Staff presented their recommendation to the Planning Board, there was a lot of good discussion at the Planning Board and ultimately the Planning Board members did not a solid vote for their recommendations or staffs recommendation so staff felt it more appropriate to bring both recommendations to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 7 Council President Fraley-Monillas appreciated staff giving Council that opportunity, however, the redline version only includes staff's recommendation which makes it challenging to review. Ms. McConnell said the clean version of the code highlights the staff recommendation and the Planning Board recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendations were not incorporated into the track change version because it was already difficult to read. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was concerned after speaking with Susan Paine who has worked in this area. She did not understand why easements and vacations were combined in the same chapter and was concerned with broken links when information is moved. She would like to take more time for review and at Ms. Paine's request, she suggested staff provide a visual diagram of the difference between an easement and a vacation. She questioned why compensation was not required for a vacation when there was an easement. Since there has been only one vacation a year for the past four years, she questioned the urgency of this change especially during budget time. She preferred to have more time to look at the global aspect of the code and an overall code update rather than doing it piecemeal . Councilmember Teitzel asked Mr. Taraday to respond to Mr. Tupper's challenge about his interpretation of the State Constitution which could result in recall of Councilmembers and the Mayor. Mr. Taraday said he would like to see the minutes where he is quoted saying that as that was not his recollection of the statements he made to the Planning Board. He did say in response to a question that one could certainly make the argument that if a City street were vacated with no compensation to the City whatsoever, that that would be a gift of public funds. Excelsior Place was not exactly that because an easement was retained and one can differ whether that retained easement was sufficient to offset what was given away. He thinks the public can do better than that; anyone interested in protecting the public's finances would not want the City to give away valuable property rights without obtaining fair compensation in return. That was ultimately one of the things being considered, protecting the public's finances and maximizing the type of services the City can provide and whether the City was unnecessarily giving away valuable rights without maximizing the public's ability to recoup value from that transfer of property. Mr. Taraday said it was ultimately up to the City Council to decide whether to adopt the recommendations that allow for maximized return to the public. When he realized there were instances like Excelsior Place where the City did not get resources it could have, he felt it was his obligation to let the City Council understand the choices and let the City Council make a policy choice regarding those situations. That was one of the reasons that both the staff recommendation and the Planning Board recommendation is included because he felt it was his obligation to ensure the City Council was making the most informed decisions it can. Presenting only the Planning Board recommendation without the alternate staff recommendation did not seem like he was fully informing the Council in preparation for a decision. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the definition of alley and the difference between an alley and a dedicated street. Ms. McConnell said an alley is dedicated right-of-way just like a street. The definition of alley in ECDC Title 21 states, an alley is publicly dedicated right-of-way which provides a secondary means of access. The definition of a street shall include an alley, provided however that an alley shall not be considered a street for purposes of calculating the setback and front yard requirements. No lot fronting on a street and alley shall be considered either a corner lot or a lot having two frontages. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed an alley was different than a street because it provided a secondary means of access. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding the function of an alley was a secondary way of accessing property. He asked how often the City considers vacating an alley right-of-way, noting that did not seem like a common occurrence. Ms. McConnell said property owners discuss alley vacations with staff more commonly than one would think, mostly in areas where an alley is undeveloped and not currently Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 8 used for access. When staff receives those requests or talks with a property owner at the counter, they consider whether there are any utilities in the right-of-way, often underground utilities that the property owner may be unaware of She summarized alley vacations were discussed more frequently than any other type of vacation at the front counter although they may not move forward. Councilmember Tibbott recalled when he was on Planning Board a property owner wanted to vacate the dead-end alley behind his house that was not used for access so he could use it for other purposes. He asked if that was a fairly typical reason a citizen might inquire about vacating an alley. Ms. McConnell answered property owners often want to make improvements on the land or it could be used to expand their setbacks and allow expansion of their home's footprint. Councilmember Tibbott observed the vacation would be a transfer of real property and real value to the homeowner where it could be used for purposes other than an unopened alley. Ms. McConnell said once it was vacated the public would no longer have interest in the land. Councilmember Tibbott commented as long as there was no public interest, it could make sense to make that transfer. Councilmember Tibbott asked what method was used to determine the value of property with an easement. Ms. McConnell answered that is done via an appraisal process. Mr. Taraday explained one of the benefits of moving the appraisal later in the process is the appraiser can take into account things like a retained easement in determining the amount to be paid to the City. Obviously, a vacation that is subject to a retained easement is not as valuable as a similar vacation that is not subject to a retained easement because frequently a property owner is not allowed to build on top of a utility. The appraiser starts by determining the highest and best use of the property, looks for comparable sales, etc. If the property is encumbered by a water pipe for example and it is located in such a way that it is not possible to build in the vacated strip of land, it would significantly reduce the value of the vacated right-of-way. Conversely, if the waterpipe was at the far end of the vacated property such that one could still build on a portion of the vacated right-of-way, the appraiser would consider that vacated property more valuable than the previous example. Councilmember Tibbott observed there was something of a scientific method to evaluating the appraised value even if there is an easement. Mr. Taraday said he is not an appraiser and did not know exactly the methodology that appraisers use, but nearly all appraisers look at highest and best use and the presence of a utility pipe would certain affect highest and best use and therefore fair market value. Based on that, Councilmember Tibbott said he was comfortable with the "and" approach to an appraisal for vacations. Councilmember Tibbott asked for an explanation of 30 versus 60 days waiting period and when it begins. Mr. Taraday said it begins upon passage of the resolution of intent. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was any reason to prolong the waiting period, for example does the review process typically take longer than 30 days. Mr. Taraday said 30 days was initially included in the draft based on caselaw from a case in Federal Way years ago where someone tried to appeal a street vacation and the city did not have a clear process for how and when that happens, leaving the court to decide after the fact whether the appellant's appeal was timely or not. It seemed that some appeal period should be included in the code. There is nothing magical about the 30 day time period; the Planning Board thought that seemed short and they did not want property owners to rush to bring an appeal so they suggested a longer appeal period. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the longer appeal period makes it more likely that the court would take longer to review materials. Mr. Taraday answered it would certainly increase the likelihood that the commencement of the appeal would take longer, but he did not think it would change anything in superior court. Councilmember Tibbott favored the longer appeal time. Councilmember Johnson observed the Council had a lot of questions and comments and it has been the Council's rule of thumb not to make a decision the same night a public hearing is held to allow Councilmembers to consider the public's comments. She recalled several street vacations and understood Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 9 it was a decision for the City Council, but was often frustrated by the lack of context. The Council needs to understand a proposed street vacation in light of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Transportation Element and to update the City's official street map to determine if there are any future intended uses for the right-of-way as well as the pedestrian plan. She summarized she was interested in context when considering a street vacation and has often found that lacking. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO INITIATE A TWO-STEP PROCESS TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, 1) ASK STAFF TO COME BACK AT A LATER DATE WITH A CLEAR PRESENTATION ON THE TWO DIFFERENCES IN THE CODE AND THE COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS EACH OF THE FIVE ITEMS AND REACH RESOLUTION ON EACH, AND 2) ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO DEVELOP THE FINAL ORDINANCE BASED ON THE RESOLUTION OF THOSE FIVE ITEMS AND RETURN TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments about rushing, commenting he did not feel rushed and there had been several opportunities for review. The reason for the motion was to afford more opportunity for citizens to comment during Audience Comments. To those who have commented about a piecemeal approach to updating the code, he questioned how the code could be reviewed as a whole. It is a large code and it has to be done piecemeal, being -mindful of the need for consistency as the code is revised. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS ABSTAINING. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Earling assumed this would be done by the end of the year or the process would need to start over. 8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES Parks & Public Works Committee Councilmember Johnson reported on items the committee reviewed: • ILA Verdant Health Commission: Outdoor Fitness Zones Amendment — approved on Consent Agenda • Marsh Boardwalk Easement — approved on Consent Agenda • Hyundai Pedestrian Easement — approved on Consent Agenda • Lynnwood Mazda Pedestrian Easement — approved on Consent Agenda • Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Ballinger Regional Facility — on tonight's agenda • Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements Project -Easements — approved on Consent Agenda • Investment Grade Audit for Citywide ESCO Project — on tonight's agenda • PUD Aerial and Ground Easement at SE Corner of Frances Anderson Field (NW Corner of Dayton & 8th) — on a future Council agenda Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported on items the committee reviewed: • Approval of Expenditure for Historic Informational Panel — on a future Council agenda Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 10 • August 2019 Monthly Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda • 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment — on a future Council agenda • Update on Civic Park Bonds 9. ACTION ITEMS INVESTMENT GRADE AUDIT FOR CITYWIDE ESCO PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams commented the City has been doing ESCO projects even before he joined the City 9'/z years ago. The projects begin with an investment grade audit by an energy savings contractor that is certified by the State Department of Enterprise Services to provide that partnership with local governments. The contractor looks at improvements, analyzes the options and guarantees the project can be delivered at a guaranteed maximum price and guaranteed energy savings. The energy savings are monitored for a period of years to ensure the energy savings. In this project, McKinstry, who recently completed a facility assessment and identified deferred maintenance, would conduct the audit. Mr. Williams explained this proposal would authorize the Mayor to enter into contract with McKinstry to produce an investment grade audit and package it into a project for 2020. Staff is bringing this to Council late in 2019 so the audit can be completed and projects begin in 2020. The preliminary 2020 budget includes $1.5M as an investment in City buildings, the most the City has spent in recent years, an investment that is overdue. An ESCO project would be a more convenient, easier way to deliver that much work in 2020. The cost of the audit is $40,000; the agreement with McKinstry, similar to other investment grade audit agreements, is included in the Council packet. Councilmember Johnson relayed this was discussed at the Parks & Public Works Committee and the members recommended it be reviewed by the full Council due to the Council's interest in energy conservation. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $40,000 THIS YEAR IN ORDER TO INITIATE THIS CONTRACT. Councilmember Nelson observed there was a lighting audit proposed for all 18 City buildings and asked if that was due primarily to the potential availability of utility grants. Mr. Williams answered there are energy incentives available from SnoPUD and as well as State grants which have been obtained for most other ESCO projects as well as a lot of local money. Lighting is the low hanging fruit; the City has been through three generations of generations of lighting, T-12 florescent tubes, T-8 and now LED technology trumps all other lighting technology. The audit will look for opportunities to use LED fixtures which will save a lot of energy and the small investment allows it to be paid off in a short amount of time. Councilmember Tibbott asked what an investment grade audit is. Mr. Williams said McKinstry has already audited the City's buildings and developed a project list. McKinstry will confirm that, particularly related to energy savings projects. The deficiency list includes numerous projects but not all are related to energy savings; an ESCO project must include energy saving items. An ESCO project can replace old, tired equipment that has been band -aided together that needs to be replaced anyway even if the replacement doesn't save energy and if the replacement saves energy, which almost all new equipment does, it can be included in an ESCO project and have guaranteed future savings. Mr. Williams reiterated ESCO projects typically replace equipment that needed to be replaced anyway. Councilmember Tibbott assumed this helped prioritize projects to undertake. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott said based on that, he was in favor of the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 11 2. 3R1) Qt) ARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT Mr. James reviewed: • 11 decision packages totaling $190,877 in new expenditures • Of these 11 decision packages, 5 are fully or partially self-funded • $114,435 in revenues • Overall Fund Balance reduced by $76,442 • Decrease fund balance: $72,000 ■ Decision packages 1. $3,500 — Martin Luther King Tribute 2. $5,000 — Grant from the Washington State Arts Commission for the Creative Arts District 3. $35,000 — Plan review consultant (funded via permit revenues) 4. $4,000 — Public Records Request System expansion to include Edmonds Municipal Court 5. $81,278 Narcotics Task Force Sergeant 6. $1,935 —K-9 training bite suit and recruiting materials (funding provided by Edmonds Police Foundation) 7. $9,350 — Police Reimbursable Overtime (funded via grant from Seattle FD and WA Traffic Safety Commission) 8. $7,552 — Additional security at Taste of Edmonds (half funded by Chamber of Commerce) 9. $23,487 — Interfund Transfer to Close LID Fund 211, move funds from 211 to Contingency Reserve Fund 10. $18,260 — Software price and maintenance increase 11. $1,515 — Open House on Marsh Study (Windward) • Summary: o Revenues are increased by $114,435 o Expenditures are increased by $190,877 o Ending fund balance decreased by $76,442 Councilmember Tibbott asked if the shared cost of the narcotics officer was proposed to be funded from the General Fund next year. Mr. James answered it is a decision package in the 2020 proposed budget as an ongoing expense. Councilmember Teitzel observed the Martin Luther King Tribute event is a decision package in this item as well as on tonight's agenda as Item 10.1. He asked if approving the expenditure in the budget amendment obviated the need for the agenda item. Mr. James said it was initially thought this would be handled via the budget amendment process but it was subsequently added as an agenda item. It was up to the Council; one option would be to pull this item from the budget amendment and include it in the fourth quarter budget amendment. Councilmember Teitzel said he was in favor of funding the MLK Tribute event but was confused regarding the process. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the intent was to have it approved under Agenda Item 10.1 and not approved in advance. She suggested approving the other budget amendments and she will make a motion to approve the MLK Tribute after the presentation in Agenda Item 10.1. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE SECOND QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE NO. 4161 WITH EXCEPTION OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING TRIBUTE WHICH WILL BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE STUDY ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO I-976 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 12 Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty pointed out RCW 42.17A.555 states the prohibition against using public facilities to support a campaign does not apply to the following activities: Action taken at a public meeting by members of an elected legislative body so long as the agenda item has had the required public notice and reference to the election item is referenced in the notice and that the members of the public are afforded an opportunity to comment either way on the issue being considered. That is how the Council is allowed to take action on an election item. Mr. Doherty read the resolution A RESOLUTION DECLARING MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 976 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2019 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. WHEREAS, Initiative 976 has been certified for placement on the November 5, 2019 general election ballot; and WHEREAS, the intent of Initiative 976 is repeal vehicle licensing fees that fund municipal road resurfacing and street maintenance programs, state freight mobility projects, Amtrak Cascades funding, voter -approved Sound Transit 3 light rail and express bus funding; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds strives to maintain and continuously improve its transportation infrastructure for the benefit of its residents, visitors and employers; and WHEREAS, the City has long been committed to keeping its streets in top condition through a robust street overlay program; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Mayor recognize that Initiative 976 would have extremely negative impacts on City, County and State transportation infrastructure, including the loss of up to $700,000 for Edmonds' street overlay budget on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, passage of I-976 would result in a nearly $2 billion loss of six years in State transportation funding for highways, the Washington State Patrol and other critical investments, impacting Snohomish County and every corner of the state; and WHEREAS, I-976 would strip more than $1.4 billion over six years from the State's Multimodal Account, from which the City of Edmonds has received approximately $58,000 a year for several years; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit would lose approximately $7 billion for Sound Transit 3 projects, putting in jeopardy the completion of light rail service to and within Snohomish County, and most likely reversing the recent $1,850,000 grant to Edmonds for bicycle and access improvements; and WHEREAS, I-976 would jeopardize $100 million in biennial funding for State Regional Mobility Grants, which help fund sidewalks, bike infrastructure, Safe Routes to School projects and projects that benefit seniors and people with disabilities throughout the State, Snohomish County and Edmonds; and WHEREAS, Initiative 976 threatens good -paying jobs in construction and the building trades that allow thousands of workers to share in Washington's economic prosperity, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS: The Mayor and City Council declare their opposition to Initiative 976, which will be on the statewide general election ballot on November 5, 2019, as it would cause extreme harm to the development and maintenance of transportation infrastructure in the City and surrounding area, thereby jeopardizing economic growth and quality of life in Edmonds and throughout the region. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the exact language that is applicable is the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view. As the resolution seeks to oppose the ballot measure, to do justice to the statute, the Council would want to invite member of public to speak in support of the ballot measure. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. , DECLARING THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 976 ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2019 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 13 Mayor Earling offered the opportunity for anyone in audience to provide comment on intent on passage of resolution. Tim Eyman asked if he would be allowed another opportunity to speak. Mayor Earling advised he had already spoken under Audience Comments. Councilmember Teitzel shared Mr. Eyman's discomfort that the valuation of car tabs was based on an odd valuation of vehicles and he expressed his wish that the legislature would take up that issue. However, I- 976 was too broad and would have too much negative impact on the City. Although Mr. Eyman had been afforded an opportunity to speak during Audience Comments, out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Taraday said it was not worth the headache that could ensue if someone complained about not properly complying with the statute. Because no one else was present to speak on behalf of the ballot measure, he recommended allowing Mr. Eyman to speak. Tim Eyman, Bellevue, said this resolution is politics; it is infused with politics, death, destruction of western civilization and the Council as a government body is taking a vote on it. The law says the Council is not allowed to use government resources, but what the Council is about to do is not a government resource. With regard to the merits of I-976, beyond Sound Transit, when it comes to the vehicle fee that is being imposed, the voters were not asked for their permission to impose the fee, the money was simply taken which most voters do not like. With I-976 every voter in Edmonds as well as in other jurisdictions has the opportunity to vote on the initiative. The beauty of the initiative process is everyone is equal; his vote counts as much as Councilmembers or the Mayor's votes do. He expressed concern with government resolutions telling voters how to vote. The initiative reduces car tabs to $30, but if additional fees are desired in the future, it requires a public vote and an honest valuation system. Washington State has a $3.513 tax surplus and record revenues; after the initiative passes, jurisdictions that receive funds from vehicle tabs will lobby the legislature for a portion for the surplus. The Transportation Benefit District gives the City the authority to raise the sales tax but only with voter approval. The reason the Council enacted the TBD license fee was because they could do it without voter approval. In jurisdictions where voters are asked for permission for a sales tax increase, there is a very high rate of support. However, when a vehicle fee is placed on the ballot, it is always rejected. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not necessarily disagree with Mr. Eyman, she is paying hundreds a year for tabs for her 8 -year old car with 140,000 miles on it. However, she disagreed with eliminating the ability to maintain City streets. She also did not think the initiative is well written and it does not allow the City to do what it needs to. She commented in addition to Sound Transit getting funding from car tabs, there were property taxes, gas taxes, etc. She found it too difficult to support I-976 which would roll back the work the City has been trying to do. She thanked Mr. Eyman for speaking very bluntly and frankly. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. SECURITIZATION REQUIREMENT FOR EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER GRANTS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this is a second touch on this item; it was first introduced on October 1, 2019. He still has not received any substantial comments on the draft leasehold deed of trust and leasehold promissory note that was sent to the Department of Commerce for review. He received an email from his contact at the Department of Commerce who said they are very understaffed and trying to hire and she will hopefully provide comments on the draft soon but was unable to commit to a specific date. He was hopeful he will receive feedback from the State soon so that a final draft of the documents could be prepared. Mr. Taraday reiterated the City is not a party to the documents, it is strictly between the Senior Center and the State. The only reason the City is involved is because the ground lease with the Senior Center states the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 14 City has a consent role before any lien can be placed on the property. The City is not a party to the deed of trust; the City has the ability to consent to the Senior Center entering into this deed of trust. He acknowledged a deed of trust sounds like a scary thing, but the deed of trust is only secured by the Senior Center's leasehold interest in the property, not by the City of Edmonds' ownership interest in the property so there is no real risk to the City's ownership interest in the event of a foreclosure. Assuming the Council was inclined to give consent to the Senior Center, Mr. Taraday said the question tonight was whether the Council authorizes the mayor and city attorney to work toward a final draft and provide it to the Senior Center. Conversely, does the City Council want to see this again when a final draft has been prepared. The reason he was asking was the possibility of slowing down the funding stream by presenting the documents to Council again. Council President Fraley-Monillas said this was moving in the right direction but she would be most comfortable with Mr. Taraday continuing to move forward and bring it back to the Council. As the Council is the keeper of City's interest, it would be appropriate for the Council to be aware when it is finalized. Councilmember Buckshnis said she no problem with this and suggested working toward a final draft and scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Teitzel said he was comfortable but wanted to ask in plain language, is there absolutely no financial risk to the City? Mr. Taraday said he was more comfortable phrasing it this way, it was hard for him to conceive of a financial risk to the City. The reality is if the Senior Center were to default on this promissory note and leasehold deed of trust, the State would become the tenant on the property. The question is would there be a financial risk to the City of having the Department of Commerce as tenant which is why he is hedging about saying there is absolutely no financial risk. He summarized it was extremely hard for him to conceive of any significant risk. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding it would be extremely remote. Councilmember Nelson said as much as he wants to proceed expeditiously, he cannot in good faith approve a final draft without seeing it either on Consent or full Council. Mayor Earling suggested scheduling it on the Consent Agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she would pull it off the Consent Agenda. Ferrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, agreed the State was understaffed. The risk is if this goes on a long time. The Senior Center is more than content to send the State the existing draft as part of the package. If the State has any difficulty with it, they will contact the Senior Center. He reiterated this is not a loan, it is a grant and is an essential part of the construction funding cashflow. State grants are reimbursement grants but they turn them around very rapidly. The project will need the $4M relatively soon. If this continues and the State does not come through, the project begins to be in financial trouble. There is zero risk to the City. The State is not asking for payment; the Center's commitment is to do what they said they would do, run a senior and community center under the name of Edmonds Waterfront Center for the benefit of the community for ten years. The Senior Center would rather use the existing draft that Mr. Taraday developed rather than wait for the State. If it takes a long time, there are real financial risks that are more likely to come back and bite the City. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH FOR THE BALLINGER REGIONAL FACILITY City Engineer Rob English explained this is a professional services agreement with Tetra Teach for a predesign study of an infiltration facility at Mathay Ballinger Park. He described benefits of an infiltration facility that would be constructed within the Lake Ballinger watershed, first, reducing the amount of runoff into Lake Ballinger by reducing the potential for flooding. Second, improving the water quality within the lake. The Lake Ballinger watershed is about 40-50% impervious surfaces that create contamination that is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 15 introduced into the runoff. If that runoff can be diverted into this infiltration facility that will have a water quality treatment component, it will reduce the amount of contaminants entering the lake. Third, depending on the size of the facility, provide stormwater mitigation for future improvements for the Hwy 99 revitalization project as well as benefits for redevelopment on Hwy 99. The City issued a request for qualifications in August; two firms responded, Tetra Tech and KPFF. The consultant selection panel selected Tetra Tech based on their qualifications and experience. The scope of work includes eight tasks and will complete a feasible study and create two alternatives through 30% design with a goal of selecting a preferred alternative. It will also include seeking opportunities for grants to fund the project. The proposed fee is approximately $325,000; the 2019 approved budget is $375,000 from the Stormwater Utility fund. Staffs recommendation is to approve the contract. Mr. Williams said a project like this could qualify for state grant funding programs and it could provide service to commercial development on Hwy 99; the City would sell capacity in the regional facility which would presumably be less than a commercial property owner would pay to install their own. There are no guarantees at this point but those are potential funding sources. Councilmember Johnson said this was discussed at the Park & Public Works Committee and forwarded to full Council due to the importance of the project to the Council as well as the cost. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH IN THE AMOUNT OF $324,869, FUNDED FULLY BY THE STORMWATER UTILITY FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this project would be over $1M. Mr. Williams said part of the analysis of the drainage area would be to find out how much stormwater could be rerouted. Two options along with the cost will be developed for discussion with City Council. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess and left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m. 10. STUDY ITEMS 1. COUNCIL FUNDING FOR SPONSORSHIP OF THE MARTIN LUTHER KING TRIBUTE Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas referred to the tribute to Martin Luther King on January 21 at 7:30 p.m. at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Last year the Mayor's office contributed a small amount. This is an opportunity for the City Council to contribute to the 2020 event along with other cities. Donnie Griffin, Edmonds, Founder of Lift Every Voice Legacy (LEVL), explained LEVL is a community group of leaders that began meeting in his home to discuss elements of a beloved community, talked most famously about by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. The issue that concerned him most was the number of hate -inspired incidents that have occurred and how to get in front of that. He gets very upset every time there is an incident as well as with the statements that is not Edmonds, that is not what Edmonds stands for. It is important to create an environment that we believe and want to live in a place that is free of hatred, injustice and poverty and where we love and respect our neighbors. The January 2018 event was LEVL's first MLK tribute. Rather than having a lecture or speaker, they wanted to do it differently by using song, spoken word and dance to engage people in the notion of a beloved community. In 2019, LEVL underestimated the number of people who would attend and the reaction to the event. The letters, email and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 16 comments about the event continued even several months later so LEVL decided to do hold the event again in 2020. Mr. Griffin explained in the interim, LEVL did other programs such as One Book One Community Reading Program where the community reads one book relative to beloved community and then discusses it which was very successful. Sno-Isle libraries in Edmond, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Shoreline have expressed interest in bringing that group together. He asked for the Council's for support for the second annual event on January 21St. A $3,500 sponsorship commitment from the City of Edmonds would help with outreach to low income and communities/citizens of color who do not normally look to downtown Edmonds as a place for social engagement. After receiving a grant from the Hazel Miller Foundation, he was asked to provide an evaluation. That evaluation was very detailed in the goals that were met; however, one goal was not met was the number of community of color people attending that event although they did outreach through the Edmonds Diversity Commission, Snohomish County NWACP, the Community of Color Coalition, the Lynnwood and Shoreline Diversity and Inclusion groups as well as the ECA. When he made contact with people after the event, they said they did not think of Edmonds as place where they wanted to hang around at night. One of LEVL's goals is to change that and he was asking the City to create a partnership with LEVL to bring people to Edmonds so Edmonds can experience the more diverse population that lives on Hwy 99, in Seattle, Everett, etc. Mr. Griffin said they are also requesting support from Shoreline who make a commitment last year and will make a similar financial commitment this year and Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace have invited him to share ways they can participate. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas observed this would be funded from ending fund balance. Mr. James agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a wonderful event; she will be unable to attend but will be there in spirit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, FOR APPROVAL. Councilmember Teitzel expressed his appreciation to Mr. Griffin and his team for bringing this forward. He attended last year's event and found it very moving and powerful. More of this type of thing is needed so Edmonds becomes more inclusive and more supportive of diversity and it is the right thing to do. Councilmember Mesaros observed the entry fee is $10 general admission, $5 students and asked if there would be an opportunity for discount tickets, scholarships, etc. Mr. Griffin said the ticket price in 2020 will be $12. The sponsorship from the City would allow LEVL's outreach efforts to make tickets available to those who might otherwise be unable to attend. Councilmember Mesaros commented a single ticket was $12, but for a family of five, the cost could be $60. He envisioned this as an opportunity for a family to enjoy an evening together. Mr. Griffin said the program in the morning is free to fit that audience. They will also use resources to make tickets available to the evening program. Councilmember Nelson said he had the pleasure of attending last year in the morning with his children who enjoyed the event. He expressed his appreciation for doing something proactively as opposed to reactively. He agreed it was frustrating to react and this was a wonderful opportunity to do something proactively, to bring people together to show that Edmonds is a very inclusive community. Mr. James recommended the motion include adding this to the budget amendment. The motion was restated as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 17 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO APPROVE AND TO AMEND THE THIRD QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE $3,500 FOR THE MARTIN LUTHER KING TRIBUTE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION Councilmember Mesaros explained tonight the Council would look at the score sheet and the questions and Councilmember Teitzel will present a new document with next steps for comparative data. Councilmember Mesaros explained the packet includes a summary score sheet with 14 respondents including two directors who left the city, Mary Ann Hardie and Carrie Hite. The blank on the score sheet represent a non -applicable answer. The mean score is the average score. Councilmember Johnson and he discussed that his calculations on the median score were probably not correct and they will work together to revise it. For the median score, he took out one of the high scores and one of the low scores and averaged which is statistically an incorrect approach to the median score. He corrected the median score for Question 2.d from 5to6.10. Councilmember Mesaros encouraged Councilmembers to review the scores with the list of questions. He referred to the average score on page 3, pointing out respondent 10 had the lowest score of 1.86, yet respondent 12 had all 7s. He summarized it was interesting to see the breadth of the average scores, pointing out the average of the average scores was 5.6, a pretty good response on a scale of 1-7. Councilmember Teitzel explained this is a two part process, Part A that Councilmember Mesaros reviewed, the quality of representation the City receives from the city attorney and his team. Part B is the value the City receives relative to other cities in the area. The city attorney contract is up for renewal at the end of the year and it is important to have a good grasp of the quality of representation as well as the value. Options include retaining the current city attorney, contracting with a different city attorney, or hiring an in-house attorney. Councilmember Mesaros and he developed a questionnaire and survey to obtain information from other cities. They requested input from Mr. James, Mr. Turley, Mr. Taraday and Ms. Neill Hoyson on the questions. The intent was to limit the questions to information that is absolutely essential in making a determination. Although the questionnaire looks daunting, there are questions for cities that have in-house legal services and cities with contracted legal services. Councilmember Teitzel explained ten cities in Snohomish and King Counties have been identified that are subject to the same economic forces as Edmonds which drives the cost of legal representation. Once the City approves the list of questions, they will contact the mayors of the cities to advise of their intent to contact city employees to ask the questions. They will likely start with HR directors as that individual will be able to answer many of the questions. Others will be directed to the finance director. The intent is to gather all the data from the cities by November 8", consolidate the information and bring it to Council by the end of November, leaving the month of December to collectively consider the data and make a decision regarding the city attorney. He advised Councilmember Mesaros and he will develop a template for input. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas commented there are two different issues, the evaluation process and how to obtain legal services in the future. She asked the next step for the evaluation. Councilmember Mesaros encouraged Councilmembers to take time to study the evaluation and he did not anticipate any action tonight. He suggested acknowledging the results of the evaluation and taking advantage of additional statistical analysis that Councilmember Johnson will provide. On its face, the scores on the evaluation are reasonable. He recommended an evaluation occur more often than when the contract is renewed. There is somewhat of a rush because Lighthouse's contract expires at the end of the year but he was certain Lighthouse would like to get feedback more often than every four years such as every other year so they have an opportunity to make corrections in how they approach their work with the City if necessary. Employees are evaluated on a regular basis; Lighthouse is a vendor with a quasi -employee relationship. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 18 Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked if the summary score was the evaluation. Councilmember Mesaros answered yes with the exception that Councilmember Johnson will look at the median score. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas recalled Councilmember Teitzel requesting input on the questions by tomorrow morning. Councilmember Teitzel said he was hopeful any concern about the questions could be resolved tonight so they could begin making calls tomorrow. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked if he wanted to take a break to allow Council an opportunity to read the questions. Councilmember Teitzel assumed Council would have read the questions as they were included in the packet. Councilmember Mesaros said Councilmember Teitzel and he were meeting tomorrow to start the process and he anticipated it would be Friday before they began making calls to ask questions. He suggested any Council questions/comments about the questions be provided by Friday. Councilmember Teitzel expressed concern that if questions/comments were provided by Friday, the full Council will not have an opportunity to see and approve them which would delay the process until the following week. He was concerned the year was quickly getting away and if there were more delays, it would not get finished this year. Councilmember Johnson expressed her reservations about Councilmembers doing essentially HR tasks. The City hired a new HR director and she suggested she should be doing the research on behalf of the City Council rather than Councilmembers doing it on behalf of the Council. She appreciated the evaluation that had been done and although it was announced that it was being done, she was unsure the full Council embraced what they were doing or provided authorization. Although the train was moving on a straight track she was not quite on board. Councilmember Nelson expressed concern there were more questions for cities with in-house legal services than for cities with contract legal services and suggested for equity purposes having the same number of questions. He understood there may be different questions but there should be a similar number of questions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did all this work herself in 2014 because the Council did not have a legislative assistant. The Council is responsible for the contract city attorney. She said the questions are great and there did not need to be the same number of questions for cities with in-house legal services and those with contract legal services because there are many different aspects to hiring an in-house attorney. She agreed it was tremendous amount of work and time was running out. If the Council doesn't reach a resolution this year, Lighthouse's contract can be extended. In response to Councilmember Nelson's question about the number of questions for cities with in-house legal services, Councilmember Mesaros said part of the reason was to ensure all the fees associated with in-house legal services are identified. As Councilmember Teitzel and he reviewed the information, it is easier for determine the cost of legal services for a contract city attorney and more difficult when some legal services are contract and some are in-house. The reason for the additional questions was to capture all those charges. Councilmember Teitzel agreed, explaining the in-house arrangements are more complicated than contract legal services because in some cities the in-house staff does prosecution so there is a partial contracted element as well as the in-house element. The questions ask about the hiring process as there is a limited population of attorneys that serve municipal law. He agreed the list of questions could be reviewed again and any that were not essential could be pared out. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 19 Councilmember Teitzel said it is important for this City Council to make a decision by the end of year if at all possible because Councilmembers have had extensive involvement and interaction with Mr. Taraday and the Lighthouse Law Group and have a very good sense for the attorney arrangement and it will be important to compare both the quality and the value. If this rolls into next year, there will be a new mayor and a number of new councilmembers who have no experience with Mr. Taraday and Lighthouse and he was very uneasy with the future of the City if a very novice group made that important decision. He summarized with a one week delay, it could probably still be done this year but he did not want to delay more than a week. With regard to completing the evaluation this year, Councilmember Johnson said if the City Council is satisfied with the arrangement with Lighthouse, it would be relatively easy to extend the contract. If the Council is not satisfied with Lighthouse or the Council wants to have an in-house attorney, she asked the projected timeline to accomplish that before a new mayor and new councilmembers are seated. Councilmember Mesaros reiterated they anticipate having the surveys done by November 8, extrapolating the data and bringing back the findings to Council by the end of November. That would leave the month of December for the Council to take action. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas summarized the Council would review the performance evaluation and submit any questions/comments regarding the comparative study by Friday to Councilmember Mesaros or Councilmember Teitzel. Councilmember Teitzel said if changes/suggestions to the survey questions can be submitted by Friday, it can be on the agenda for approval next Tuesday so that Councilmember Mesaros and he have the authority to begin contacting other cities. Otherwise this process will not get done this year. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas referred to a letter Councilmembers received from the Washington Coalition for Open Government and distributed a hardcopy. After speaking with Mayor Earling and Councilmember Teitzel, she plans to set up small group of Councilmembers to determine whether to do anything further. Councilmember Teitzel will chair the committee and she will recruit two other Councilmembers to participate. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel reported he attended the Washington Conservation Voters annual breakfast conference last week in Seattle. It was very well attended and Governor Inslee was the keynote speaker. He is enthusiastic about the future of the city, county and state, orca recovery, air quality, etc. Councilmember Mesaros reported on the public reception last Saturday at the Edmonds Center for the Arts prior to the performance by Violinist Kelly Hall -Tompkins that Council President Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Tibbott and he attended along with a few hundred others. Ms. Hall -Tompkins was the background violinist for the new production of Fiddler on the Roof and received a standing ovation at her performance at the ECA. He summarized how great it was to have a facility like the ECA to bring that kind of talent to Edmonds. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110 1 i This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 20 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL. ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN This item was not needed. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjoumed at 9:50 p.m. TO.,& --Q-- "'< BVID 0. EAR 1NG, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 21