20191119 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 19, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
(by phone)
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 7:50 p.m.)
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
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir.
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Nickolas Falk, Deputy City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 51" 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
Deputy City Clerk Nickolas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Johnson (arrived at 7:50 p.m.).
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT AS A STUDY ITEM, ITEM 9 AND
RENUMBER THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 1
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Michael Reagan, Edmonds, said every day for the past several years he has walked from Meadowdale to
the rock outside to commune with the friends he served with in the military. He recognized the hard work
of the Council, Mayor and community to open the Veterans Plaza where he spends every evening with his
friends; their pavers are just outside the door. As he said when he first christened the plaza, he finally felt
at home in Edmonds. Edmonds is about to go through a major change and because some Councilmembers
will not be here next year, he wanted to say thank you for what they did and how much it meant to him. As
a sign of his appreciation, he gave Mayor Earling a portrait he drew of him. He reiterated his appreciation
for the Veterans Plaza, commenting it was the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people. A lot of
incredible moments happen in the plaza; often when he walks down, there is a gentleman who looks like
he is at peace sitting on his bench reading. The plaza is a place of peace for him as well.
Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Reagan for the portrait, commenting it touched his heart in many ways
especially coming from him and he will be sure to find a place for it in his home.
Tom Nicholson, Edmonds, spoke regarding the utility rate package proposal. The report prepared by FCS
Group proposes a rate increase of 5% on sewer and 4.5-5% on water. In reviewing his bimonthly water and
sewer bills, he found they have increased significantly over the last 5 years, sewer increasing from $60 to
$90 every 2 months which is becoming challenging for many to pay. The water and sewer bill has become
more expensive than PSE, PUD and garbage combined for his family. He will provide further comment
about the increases at next week's public hearing. He requested the issue be fully vetted and wait until the
new Council is in place to allow them to have input before the increase is adopted. There needs to be
creativity and different alternatives offered before the Council votes to further increase rates. These rates,
combined with the 14% PSE natural gas increase, and property tax increases due to the Edmonds School
District levy make it more challenging to continue to live in Edmonds.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Johnson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ORDINANCE REQUIRING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT TRAINING FOR BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS
4. AMENDMENT #3 TO HERRERA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
5. WALKER MACY AMENDMENT #1 FOR CIVIC FIELD DESIGN CONTRACT
6. POLICY ON ACCOUNTING FOR LEASES
7. A/R WRITE-OFF
8. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER (CHC) PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 2
9. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
KPG FOR THE CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
10. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
WHPACIFIC, INC. FOR THE 84TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT
7, PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Liz Brown, Edmonds, referred to DP #94, Construction of a Carbon Recovery Project at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) which will replace the incinerator at the plant with a new thermal chemical
process, pyrolysis. The $11M in the decision packet is called a placeholder with the total cost described as
more than $24M, although she believed the true cost of the project may be much higher. This project
represents a considerable risk for Edmonds and others entities who fund the WWTP including Ronald
Wastewater District, Olympic View Water & Sewer District and Mountlake Terrace. A 2018 review in
Energies - Open Access, a peer reviewed journal of scientific research, called the use of pyrolysis for
sewage treatment "still at infancy stage with downsides including high capital and operation costs, a
complex reaction process to manage and an uncertain economic viability of biochar, the charcoal -like end
product of the process." When City staff toured a plant in California that includes pyrolysis to treat sewage
sludge, the process not working. During the two-year construction process, Edmonds must truck smelly
sewage for disposal elsewhere, increasing truck traffic and decreasing air quality. This will also be required
if the pyrolysis process does not work. While the project in in the design phase, reportedly the new structure
to house the equipment will project five feet above the City's current height limit. While the City can seek
a variance from this rule, she doubted any residents who live around the plant have been alerted to the
potential impact on their properties and views. She was not opposed to technology or innovation, but feared
Edmonds will be a guinea pig. This project may put Edmonds in the headlines with the project billed either
as a shining success or a costly boondoggle. She urged the outgoing and incoming Councilmembers to
scrutinize this project. She provided a copy of the research paper she referenced.
Greg Irvine, Edmonds, President/CEO, Edmond Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the budget
item supporting the Edmonds Chamber. The Edmonds Chamber has been in existence for 112 years and
produces several community events including the Clam Chowder Cook -Off, 4t' of July, car show,
Halloween, Tree Lighting and Taste Edmonds. With the upcoming construction of Civic Park, two of those
events will need to be relocated including Taste Edmonds which is the Chamber's biggest fundraising event
and helps to support production of 4" of July events. With the change in venue, the event size will also
change which has the potential to reduce fundraising. He thanked the Council for the budget proposal and
looked forward to producing these beloved events in 2020 and beyond.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, thanked the City Council for continuing to include funding for Students Saving
Salmon in the budget which covers the cost of equipment, supplies, etc. He referred to a letter from a Shell
Creek resident who had not seen any Coho salmon in the creek on his property for the past two years. The
resident expressed his appreciation for the students identifying the problem and clearing a culvert on his
property. With regard to funding proposed for the final design for the Willow Creek Daylighting project,
he supported moving quickly to get the restoration project underway, he did not support going to final
design at this point with the uncertainties with the Unocal property including whether the City will get some
or all of the property or if compensation will be required. He referred to a report from Unocal regarding
additional hot spots they found on the site, two of which are in the path of the proposed daylighted channel
as proposed in Shannon & Wilson's report. He urged the City to take a step back and rethink the project as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 3
information becomes available. Another missing piece is outdoor recreation which needs to be part of the
restoration package.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
2020 BUDGET REVIEW
Finance Director Scott James referred to the process for taking Council questions outlined in the agenda
bill (round robin). Under the proposed schedule, tonight and the November 26`h Council meeting are
intended to be the final opportunities for questions and amendments and for the Council to vote on
amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for responding to the questions she and other Councilmembers
have asked. Mr. Scott advised the questions will be on website after tonight's meeting. Councilmember
Buckshnis referred to DP #2 Human Services Coordinator and asked why it is the Mayor's office and how
it will work with Police Department's social worker. She questioned asked why not have one full-time
position instead of two part-time, one in the Mayor's office and one in the Police Department. Economic
Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the response to Council questions in the
packet explains the position: This part-time Human Services Coordinator position is envisioned as a
"community resource guide" by providing direct information and referral to inquiring citizens of Edmonds
in need. Many services, resources and programs are not readily visible or accessible and may require a
guide or navigator for optimal access.
Mr. Doherty explained this differs from the social worker in the Police Department (which is shared with
Lynnwood Police Department), which is a point of contact individual when the Police Department finds an
individual in the field as a result of a crime, homelessness, immediate distress, etc. and the social worker is
able to provide in -the -moment services to redirect that person. The people the social worker encounters
may not have the resources or wherewithal to come to the City to speak with a human services coordinator.
He assured there would be a relationship between the human services coordinator and the social worker;
the human services coordinator would have access to services that are a next step beyond the immediate
needs discovered in the field. He concluded there is a relationship between the positions but they are not
the same.
Mayor Earling said he decided to put the position under the Mayor's office until the new Mayor is seated
and he can make that determination. Councilmember Buckshnis observed a job description will be
developed. Mr. Doherty agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the job description likely can be figured out based on what
other cities are doing as many cities have a human services position. One of the differences between the
human services coordinator and the social worker is the only way to get into treatment in Everett is to go
through the imbedded social worker. The social worker deals with different issues, primarily criminal
mental health issues, drug addictions, etc. Conversely, the human services coordinator could assist with
making connections and identifying resources, such as a recent example where an older citizen's roof was
caving in. The human services coordinator would also write grants for various programs, hopefully enough
to cover their position as happens in other cities.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the City receives inquiries and how are they customarily handled. Mr.
Doherty answered the City very occasionally get inquiries like Council President Fraley-Monillas
mentioned such as a problem with a citizen's home, assistance with tax preparation, etc. The City may not
have an immediate response other than try to determine a resource. In his experience in Federal Way which
had a human services coordinator, once the position is created, advertising and a presence on the website
will beget inquiries. When that is not an identified resource in City government, the City will not get as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 4
many inquiries. The number of inquiries has been low but that does not mean the need is low, simply that
there is nothing on the website about it.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how this position would assist someone looking for housing. Mr. Doherty
answered this position would be part of a network of resources, countywide and beyond if necessary, for
citizens and businesses. He pointed out the Chamber's program to assist businesses who have experienced
a break-in or vandalism. The human services coordinator is tapped into a network that helps people identify
resources. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the position would also coordinate with the county and
surrounding cities. The problem is Edmonds does not have a social services department but most of the
surrounding cities have some type of community services. The human services coordinator is proposed to
be part-time and is less costly than a social worker.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to DP #40, a consultant for the development code update, expressing
concern that $30,000 was not a good use of funds and illustrates a low priority for a high priority project.
He was concerned the City would be spending $30,000 to throw a consultant at a problem that needs a
much bigger remedy. He suggested eliminating the $30,000 budget item and wait until the code rewrite
could be taken seriously and resources put behind that effort. If the intent was to that this year, he suggested
establishing a budget for that effort.
Development Services Director Shane Hope answered staff has tried to be careful about resources and
believes the process would move forward more'efficiently by having staff work on the code update, instead
of a consultant, due to the amount of staff input that is required. An option would be to hire another staff
person to work on the code or relieve existing staff to work on the code or continuing to make amendments
like has been done over the last couple years. Staff has been working on amendments related to the adoption
of the Urban Forest Management Plan which will be presented to Council in 2020. The $35,000 for a
consultant, combined with carry -forward from 2019, would be used to work on specific parts of the code
related to Council priorities. She summarized the $35,000 combined with staff resources could go a long
way.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his concern that in the past outside consultants have provide answers that
were not that helpful. He feared going down that same path with $35,000 when the code update was a
project that needed to be prioritized. Ms. Hope did not view it as putting out bad money; she envisioned
carefully prioritizing the things that were the most important such as trees, the subdivision code, electric
vehicle infrastructure, etc. She acknowledged $35,000 would not cover all the potential issues but it could
address the priorities. Councilmember Tibbott said he may submit an amendment related to that. Finance
Director Scott James clarified DP #40 is $25,000.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to DP #80, $750,000 to further design the Willow Creek Daylighting
project through the Edmonds Marsh. A press release today announced the City received a $450,000 grant
from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) that is designated for design of the Willow Creek
Daylighting project. He asked whether the grant reduced the need for City funding, whether it affected the
timing of the funding, etc. Mr. Williams said staff applied for that grant from the Coastal Resiliency Fund
which is managed by NFWF. The grant requires a $450,000 match so the proposal would be to build up the
resources to execute that large project particularly while waiting for the property issue to be resolved which
hopefully will occur in the coming year. DP #80 could be viewed as setting aside $450,000 to match the
grant, a total of $900,000. There is already $1.3M set aside which increases the total to $2.2M. The
remaining $300,000 could be used to continue design. How and when the property issue will be revolved
is unknown, but discussions are underway with the consultant about what can be done without access to the
site. The key on-site needs are additional survey and sampling of hot spots to design a channel that avoids
those areas.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 5
Councilmember Teitzel asked if there was a deadline for spending the grant funds. Mr. Williams assumed
there would be; the City was just informed of the grant award and a Q&A period will follow. The funds
can be used for design or construction. He did not know definitively about the timing, but it seems like a
flexible funding source. Mayor Earling pointed out NFWF awarded $28M in grants; Edmonds was one of
three projects in Washington. NFWF's national reputation should help leverage other potential grants. Mr.
Williams agreed, recalling funding for the Waterfront Center was compiled by building momentum one
step at a time. Staff plans to apply for three sizable grants in 2020. The property will continue to be an issue
until it is resolved, but he was hopeful the City would have additional success with funding in 2020.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested rewriting DP #80 because she did not believe any design should be
done at this time. She asked if the grant could be used for Marina Beach. Mr. Williams answered it was for
marsh restoration. Councilmember Buckshnis said there was $250,000 in stormwater last year for the
Edmonds Marsh. With regard to the timing of design, Mr. Williams agreed a detailed design may not be
possible in 2020. As staff's written answer to Councilmember Buckshnis' question stated, none of the
money will be spent without additional comment/approval from Council and opportunity for input from the
public. The goal is to build up the available resources. The current estimate is $16.65M and it was assumed
75% could be funded with grants. That is an aggressive goal but still leaves over $4M to be generated
locally. The closer the City can be to having match funds secured, the easier'the path forward related to
funding will be.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has seen much larger projects get far more than 75% funding
from grants. The land issue needs to be resolved as well as whether the City purchases or leases some of
the land and negotiating more than the narrow parcel next to the railroad tracks. Mr. Williams answered the
goal for several years has been to get an agreement with the State, who own the property once the cleanup
is finished, to sign an ILA or MOU to allow certain things to occur once they get ownership. The State
Attorney has said the State cannot enter into an agreement until the it owns the property.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to DP 442, Construction Review Consultant, services from experts such
as structural engineer which the City does not have on staff. He observed these construction services
theoretically would be used on a regular basis and paid for via application fees. He questioned whether a
dollar amount needed to be included and did it need to be for a consultant. He preferred it be contracting
for services with a provider. Ms. Hope agreed it could say contracting for services as this is different than
a typical consultant but it is professional services. Ms. Hope recommended including a dollar amount; in
the last couple years, a basic amount has been budgeted and every quarter additional funds are requested.
For 2020, the proposal is for the full amount. Councilmember Tibbott recalled every time additional funds
are requested, the source of revenue is highlighted. Ms. Hope assured if the funds were allocated, it would
only be spent on professional services for expert reviews.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the more complex reviews could be handled with a construction service
and free up staff time to be more expedient on other applications. Ms. Hope answered that could be done
but there are pros and cons. On smaller residential reviews, staff can do those and more money remains in
the City's pocket instead of paid to a consultant. The City has the resources available to handle basic reviews
but not for more specialized aspects such as structural engineering, advanced commercial, complicated new
school projects, etc. Because it is on an as -needed basis, the amount spent varies. The City has used
professional services in the past rather than hire a staff person.
(Councilmember Johnson arrived at 7:50 p.m.)
Councilmember Teitzel referred to DP #10, doubling the City's contribution to Snohomish Health District.
He observed all cities receive great benefit from the Health District and all should share a comparable
burden. He asked what other cities are paying. Mr. James assumed other cities were currently discussing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 6
that as part of their budgets. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there is a list of cities that contribute.
Most cities provide $1/capital, one provides $2/capita. Without funding for opioid related programs the
Health District provides, the Police Department will have to provide those services. Mayor Earling said
some cities pay none. Mr. James said a Health District resolution states they will pass on costs to cities that
do not pay $1 /capita.
Councilmember Nelson referred to budget book page 9 Ext A, 2020 Budget Summary by Fund that states
revenue for 2020 of $109,200,000; expenditures of $131,427,000, a difference of approximately
$22,226,000. He asked if that was a large number in Mr. James' experience in Edmonds. Mr. James agreed
it was a very large number; items that comprise that number include carryforwards of over $7M, large
projects that the City has been saving for over a number of years such as Civic ($12M), and the pyrolysis
project which is budgeted at $11M with a transfer of $5M. The expenditures are large in 2020 and will
significantly utilize fund balance. Another large project in the 2020 budget is the Waterfront
Redevelopment project. He referred to the Budget in Brief that lists expenditures in capital funds (Streets,
Construction Fund, Parks Construction Fund, and REET Funds) which account for $20M in 2020.
Councilmember Johnson observed a trolley could be purchased for $50,000; she asked about the cost of
insurance, maintenance and the driver. Mr. Doherty answered $50,000 is a placeholder; if approved, it is
hoped a trolley can be purchased for less. With regard to M&O, information from inhouse engineering as
well as the former operator estimate it at about $25,000 including a fare contingency. That amount includes
staff, fuel, maintenance and insurance costs to operate the trolley Saturdays and Sundays during 26
weekends (Farmers Market season (Mother's Day to October) and the holiday weekends). The Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee has offered $20,000 toward the project; the Council could decide whether to use
those funds to purchase the trolley or for O&M. The Downtown Alliance has pledged up to $11,000 to
assist with M&O. There are also other opportunities for partnerships; if approved, staff will seek other funds
such as from the Port. The decision package is approving the budget authority, the purchase would require
subsequent City Council approval. Councilmember Johnson observed it appeared there will be enough
partners to cover the costs. Mr. Doherty said that was the hope.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the pyrolysis project, recalling Mr. Williams said the current
equipment has a 5-7 year remaining life. She asked if the project could be pushed out 1-2 years until more
scientific information is available. Mr. Williams said he did not necessarily agree with the comments made
about the lack of scientific validity. With regard to the life of the current incinerator, it is well past its
expected useful life and the cost of repairs is huge. For example, the cost to replace a Schwing pump
recently was $340,000. The other issues is regulatory pressure; the incinerator will never fully meet the
current regulations
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mountlake Terrace's plans to expand; Mountlake Terrace currently
has 23% capacity but is adding a large complex. Mr. Williams explained for the last 30 years, each partner
in the WWTP, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline/Ronald and Olympic View Water & Sewer District, has
essentially purchased capacity in the plant and own the right to consume that capacity; the City owns about
half the capacity. For any capital project that the City, the managing partner, decides is necessary, the
partners provide their share. For example, a partner that owns 30% of the capacity pays 30% of the cost of
the project. The same will be true for this project; Edmonds ratepayers will pay approximately half and the
other three partners will pay the other half.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Mountlake Terrace is expanding by 13,000-15,000 people. Mr.
Williams acknowledged growth was a possibility in any of the partner communities. If Mountlake Terrace
gets to the point where they do not have enough purchased capacity to serve their population, they will have
to contact the other partners and either buy another partner's capacity or find another answer.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 7
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the current incinerator could operate for 1-2 more years. Mr. Williams
said the City should not count on that. The timing is right, the pyrolysis project is at 60% design and
construction could begin late 2020 or early 2021. He did not see putting it on hold, commenting it had been
pretty well thought through.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the pyrolysis project and relayed his understanding that there were
significant energy savings associated with the process which indicates it would be better to do the project
sooner rather than later Mr. Williams answered there are a number of savings associated with it. This an
ESCO project; once a higher level design is completed in February, AMERESCO will give a GMAX price
(price not to exceed) and guarantee the project will do what they say it will do. AMERESCO takes the risk
for those two aspects, cost and guaranteed function. The pyrolysis project will save energy and dramatically
reduce the carbon footprint of the WWTP, the City's single biggest carbon footprint source as well as
produce a usable final product. The ability to market that product is not well known but it potentially has
great value.
Councilmember Teitzel observed the employee count is increasing by 3.5 in 2020; salary and benefits is
approximately $100k per employee, a total of $300,000. He observed an economic downturn is coming and
expressed concern with adding employees when hard decisions about expenses will need to be made that
may involve headcount. He asked if the City was taking a risk by prioritizing the 3.5 headcount in the 2020
budget. Mr. James agreed there should be dialogue about how to pay for ongoing expenses when adding
new expenses; if the City had a budget policy, that likely would be required. Later on the agenda, the
Council will discuss a property tax increase that would help alleviate ongoing expenses. One of the positions
will be paid from the Utility Funds; a rate increase is proposed to cover increasing costs. The other positions
would be offset by development related revenue and property taxes.
Councilmember Johnson referred to DP #30 federal lobbyist, recalling the City had hired him the past 3-4
years, a total of $280,000. As funding for state and local governments seems to be at a standstill due to the
political climate in Washington DC, she questioned the need to hire the federal lobbyist in 2020 and
suggested waiting until things loosen up. Mr. Doherty pointed out the NFWF grant the City just received
was a federal grant. He clarified this is not approval to rehire the current lobbyist, that is the new Mayor's
prerogative; it is placeholder for the Mayor to reengage the current federal lobbyist or hire a new lobbyist.
The federal lobbyist is an important resource in DC to assist with seeking federal funds on any and all
capital projects the City may be pursuing, including the Edmonds Marsh restoration, Highway 99, etc., as
well as monitoring and responding to legislation of importance to the City. Most of the cities in Snohomish
County have federal lobbyists under contract.
Councilmember Johnson asked how much the lobbyist has produced for the City in the past. Mr. Doherty
said the City had been pursuing a project for which federal funds were anticipated and that project was
canceled. If that project had continued, the City potentially could have received a fair amount in federal
funds. The focus now is Hwy 99 and the Edmonds Marsh.
Councilmember Johnson said those two projects were added to the legislative agenda last year. She
questioned the value of the federal lobbyist to the City, noting she understood the potential but had not seen
any results. Mr. Doherty said state and federal funding requests often take years and the City's continued
presence in Washington DC is important. Visits to Washington DC have been greatly facilitated by the
lobbyist who knows the congressional delegation's staff and agency staff and help with strategic meetings.
Councilmember Johnson suggested funding a trip rather than a lobbyist. Mr. Dougherty was unsure anyone
would respond to that small opportunity.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2019 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE
Mr. James reviewed:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 8
• Where do your taxes go?
0 7.7% County
0 40.6% Edmonds Schools
0 4.3% EMS
0 8.8% Library and Other
0 11.0% City
0 27.7% State Schools
• Where the Money Comes From
o Fines & Penalties 1.3%
o Transfers 3.2%
o Miscellaneous 1.9%
o Service Fees 13.4%
o Other Gov. & Grants 2.0%
o License & Permits 4.7%
o Excise & Other Taxes 0.6%
o Amusement & Utility Tax 14.2%
o Sales Tax 19.1%
o Property Tax 30.8%
o Use of Fund Balance 9.0%
Where the Money Goes
o General Governmental Services 22.8%
o Quality of Life 17.0%
o Public Safety 52.0%
o Other 8.1 %
• 2020 Regular Property Tax Levy
0 2020 Budget Includes 1% Property Tax Increase
o Assessor Shows City of Edmonds Assessed Values Increasing 6.9% (Increase in AV before
adding in new construction)
o New Construction adds $80,104,200 Assessed Value
• Assessed Value History
• Tax Rate History
o Rate er $1,000 of AV
2011 $1.48
2013 $1.76
2019 $1.02
2020 $0.95
• Graph comparing assessed value to tax rate
• 2020 Rep-ular Pronertv Tax Calculation
o Ste
2011 $6,433,258,853
$10,446,823
2013 $5,545,239,847
2019 $10,223,133,972
2020 $11,038,455,287
• Tax Rate History
o Rate er $1,000 of AV
2011 $1.48
2013 $1.76
2019 $1.02
2020 $0.95
• Graph comparing assessed value to tax rate
• 2020 Rep-ular Pronertv Tax Calculation
o Ste
1: Be in with Prior Year Le
$10,446,823
o Ste
2: Add Property Tax from New Construction:
81,857
o Ste
3: Add allowance for Assessor's Office Adjustment:
10,633
o Ste
4: Add 1% increase from Prior Year's Levy:
104,470
o And the Property Tax Levy for 2020 will be:
$10,643,784
• 2008-2020 EMS Tax Levy Overview
o In 2008, Citizens voted to make the EMS Levy a Permanent $0.50 Levy
o During 2010 —2013 we saw our Assessed Property Values decline 31%
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 9
o In a declining AV environment, the City's EMS Levy Revenue also declined
o EMS Levy cannot exceed $0.50
Le Rate istory
2011-2016 1 $.050
2017-2019 lReclining
2020 1 $0.37
EMS Tax Levy Calculation
o Ste
1: Begin with Prior Year Le
$4,039,975
o Ste
2: Add EMS Property Tax from New Construction:
31,656
o Ste
3: Add allowance for Assessor's Office Adjustment:
8,260
o Ste
4: Add 1% increase from Prior Year's Le :
40,400
o And the EMS Property Tax Levy for 2020 will be:
$4,138,092
Impacts of Tax increase
0 2019 Average Residence Value is $594,300
0 1% Regular Tax Levy Increase = $5.73
0 1% EMS Levy Tax Increase = $2.23
o Average Residence would pay $7.96 in 2020
o Or about $0.66 per month extra
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Mayor
Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
After Councilmember Mesaros attempted to make a motion, Councilmember Johnson raised a point of
order that this was a public hearing and presentation; it was not scheduled as an action item. Mr. James said
the Council held a public hearing; the next step is Council discussion. Mayor Earling said the narrative does
not identify this as decision tonight. Mr. James referred to the agenda memo that states staffs
recommendation for the Council to make two motions:
1. Motion to approve Ordinance XXXX providing for the annual tax levy by increasing the regular
property tax levy by the current 101 % levy limit, thereby levying an estimated regular property tax
levy of $10,643,784 .
2. Motion to approve Ordinance XXXX providing for the annual tax levy by increasing the
Emergency Medical Service property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit, thereby levying an
estimated Emergency Medical Service levy of $4,120,255.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said this was purposely not scheduled for action; the intent was to hold
the public hearing and vote in 1-2 weeks. Mr. James said that was not how it has been done in years past.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY AS
PRESENTED BY MR. JAMES, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING
THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY
LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,643,784. MOTION DIED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Tibbott asked the total amount raised with the 1% increase in the EMS levy. Mr. James
answered approximately $100,000. Councilmember Tibbott asked how much the City's emergency medical
services will increase in 2020. Mr. James referred to the decision package for the Regional Fire Authority
$407,000. Typically the EMS portion is 70% of the cost of the RTA so approximately $280,000 for EMS.
Councilmember Tibbott said if the Council passed a I% increase in the EMS levy, it would still be less than
half the cost of emergency medical services. Mr. James agreed. He clarified the EMS property tax from
new construction, allow for assessor's Office Adjustment and 1% increase total approximately $100,000;
the 1% increase generates approximately $40,400.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 10
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4163, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY REDUCING THE
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO 100% OF THE CURRENT LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY
LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,539,209, PRESERVING
FUTURE LEVY CAPACITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Councilmember Nelson clarified his motion would mean no increase in the regular property tax.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the early discussion that decided this was public hearing and the Council
would not take action. He was concerned it was premature to take a vote on this motion as it was scheduled
as a public hearing.
Councilmember Johnson asked if it was possible to approve the 1% increase in the EMS levy without
approving a 1% increase in regular property taxes. Mr. James said the Council packet includes three
ordinances, 1) the regular property tax, 2) the EMS levy and 3) no increase in the regular property tax levy.
The Council can adopt the EMS levy separately. Councilmember Johnson recalled in the past instead of
adopting a 1% increase, the Council has authorized banking that capacity for access in the future if
necessary. Mr. James said that is included in the third ordinance. Councilmember Johnson said she would
prefer to take action at future meeting.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the Council was on the threshold of passing an all-time record budget
in expenditures, approximately $130M that will require dipping into reserves. He asked the impact on
reserves if the Council did not pass a 1% increase in the regular property tax. Mr. James said the proposed
motion would allow banking the capacity. The General Fund reserves will have to make up the $104,000
in 2020 without the benefit of the extra revenue.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, NELSON, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND TEITZEL VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4164, ADOPTING AN EMS TAX LEVY INCREASE OF 1% FOR
2020. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PRESENTATION
1. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 2020 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty introduced President Downtown
Alliance Advisory Board Matt McCullough. He explained the Downtown Edmonds Alliance was created
by the City Council in 2013. ECC 3.75.120 requires the Alliance present a proposed work plan for the
following year and corresponding budget by October 31, 2019, which they did. The packet includes details
regarding the Alliance's budget as well as expenditures since 2013 as requested by Councilmember
Buckshnis at last year's presentation.
Mr. McCullough reviewed:
• Members Advisory Board
o President - Matt McCulloch, Peoples Bank
o Vice President - Apple Catha, Apple Catha Massage Therapy
o Secretary — Carol Sheldon, Carol Sheldon Hair Design
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page l l
o Treasurer — Jenny Shore, The Wooden Spoon
o Mark VonGunten, Ten Gun Design
o Pam Stuller — Walnut Street Coffee
o Cheryl Farrish — Certa Law Group
o Tracey Strom — Affinity Contemporary Dentistry
o Carrie Hulbert, Program Manager (Contract)
• 2019 Work Plan Implementation
o Marketing Campaign
o Holiday Campaign
o Member Engagement & Outreach
o Umbrella Program
* Marketing strategy
o Continue to build Ed! messaging to increase awareness of Edmonds as a day trip destination
o Create compelling content on EdmondsDowntown.org to highlight Ed! businesses, including
services
o Increase exposure with a robust digital campaign
o Build social media audience, keeping Edmonds top of mind
* Display Ad Campaign Jan -Oct
o Promoted features on website
o Delivered over 707,000 impressions
o The campaign delivered 470 clicks with a clickthrough rate of 0.07%; this is in line with
industry standard of .06%-.08%
o "Mother's Day", "Food Scene" & "Edmonds Creativity" had the highest number of
conversions
* Social Media Ad Campaign Jan -Oct
o Also promoted features on website
o Campaign delivered:
■ 1.8 million impressions
* 9,000 clicks
• .49% clickthrough rate
o "Summer Events", "Family Owned Business", and "Food Scene" ads had highest conversion
rates
• EdmondsDowntown.org Traffic
o Year over year increases during digital campaign (Jan -Oct):
■ Users up 31 %
* Sessions up 24%
■ New users up 31%
• Social Media
o Facebook
12/1/18
1 11/18/19
1,904 followers
12,256 followers
18% increase in page followers
o Instap-ram
• Edmonds Holiday Campaign
o Images of advertising
o Thanked Council for considering trolley in 2020 budget
• Love, Edmonds Digital Campaign
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 12
12/1/18 11/18/19
257 posts 455 posts
1,205 followers 1,884 followers
56% increase in followers
• Edmonds Holiday Campaign
o Images of advertising
o Thanked Council for considering trolley in 2020 budget
• Love, Edmonds Digital Campaign
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 12
0 88,000 impressions Jan -Oct
0 2.05% Click through Rate
• Grant program
o Mural project
o Find Waldo in Edmonds
• Member Outreach
o Regular communication with members via Annual Meeting, Year in Review brochure, email
newsletter, new member information
• Umbrella program
o New design on umbrellas with Love, Edmonds logo
o Continued annual commitment to fund this program
• Parking — After Hours Parking Program
o 100 After Hours spots available
o 4locations:
■ Bank of America (NEW)
■ Sound Credit Union
• WA Federal
■ US Bank
• 2020 Proposed Work Plan
Administration
$24,925
Marketing
$37,505
Communication and Outreach
$3,930
Small Grant Program
$1,500
Appearance & Environment
$12,650
Total Budgeted Expenditures
$80,510
Projected Assessments
$79,209
• 2013-2020 budget summary
• Advisory board meetings 2°d Thursday of the month at ECA
Councilmember Buckshnis commended the Alliance for doing a good job and she thanked Mr. McCullough
for the summary. She observed there was a tremendous drop in assessments in 2019 between budget and
actual, $30,000 less. Mr. McCullough responded the projections were not accurate. It is difficult for a
volunteer organization to have time to get an accurate count of businesses, their square footages, the
assessments they should be paying and whether they are paying their assessments. He said some businesses
are not paying their assessments. Mr. Doherty said there has been turnover with new businesses in the last
year; new businesses are given grace period from assessments for one year. There are some delinquent
businesses, the same small fraction of businesses.
Councilmember Johnson recalled thinking this was a great idea in 2013 but it was a 4-3 vote to establish
the Business Improvement District (BID). The BID has done a good job. She pointed out the 2020 budget
did not include $11,000 for the trolley. Mr. Doherty said the PowerPoint does not include the details; in the
spreadsheet in the packet for the 2020 includes $2,000 for trolley support. The Alliance's contribution to
the trolley is a pledge of up to $11,000 (which includes $2,000 from the Alliance) based on sponsors for
the holiday trolley.
Councilmember Johnson asked how much the holiday trolley cost. Mr. McCullough answered the cost was
fully covered by sponsors which is why the Alliance is confidence pledging $11,000 for the year-round
trolley. Councilmember Johnson asked the weekly cost. Mr. Doherty answered $1400 in weekly hard costs.
Councilmember Johnson asked how long the holiday trolley season was. Mr. Doherty answered it was four
Saturdays this year.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 13
Councilmember Teitzel relayed the City is looking at downtown parking including ways to better utilize
the existing parking inventory. The Alliance's after-hours parking program plays into that. He asked if the
number of additional parking spaces have been maximized or are other businesses considering after hours
parking. Mr. McCullough answered there are multiple business that have not yet joined the after-hours
program. No funds are budgeted in 2020 for after-hours signage but the Alliance is still working on that.
Councilmember Tibbott commended Ed! for enhancing the visitor experience downtown via the umbrellas,
the trolley, marketing etc. He requested the Council's appreciation be relayed to the Alliance members.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Ed! for their support of the trolley in the past and for the after-hours
parking program, noting his wife and he utilized one of the parking lots while downtown for dinner.
Mr. Doherty advised the Council can approve the work plan; the Alliance's budget is incorporated in the
budget as DP #113.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 2020 WORK PLAN. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling expressed his thanks to Ed!, the Chamber, DEMA, and the creative work done by staff and
the contract person Carolyn Douglas who has created visibility through media, noting those efforts create
a feeling of a special place in Edmond and contribute greatly to Edmonds being a destination which is
reflected in increased in sales tax, new businesses, etc. All those things create a chemistry and result in
great benefits.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
9. STUDY ITEM
1. RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT
Councilmember Mesaros distributed information to Council related to renewal of the City Attorney
Contract. He recalled at the November 41" meeting the Council reviewed a contract proposed by the City
Attorney. At that meeting, Councilmembers raised issues with some of the provisions in the contract and
requested Councilmember Teitzel and he meet with Mr. Taraday. Lighthouse has returned with a second
proposal. Councilmember Teitzel and he suggested Mr. Taraday propose a three-year contract to provide a
sense of stability; past Lighthouse contracts have a 60 days cancellation clause, making it a 60 day contract,
renewable every day. A three-year contract provides certainty for the City as well as continuity of price.
Councilmember Teitzel and he are still pursuing comparisons with other cities regarding contract city
attorney and in-house services.
Councilmember Mesaros reviewed the information provided to Council:
1. Agenda cover memo
• Historical City Attorney fees
0 2009: $530,079
0 2010:: $605,363
• Proposed Contract (Lighthouse)
0 2020: $598,596
0 2010: $622,536
0 2011: $647,436
2. 2020, 2021 and 2022 scenarios due to lookback provision in the contract
3. Performance Evaluation Process
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 14
4. Summary Scores from City Attorney Services Evaluation
At Councilmember Mesaros' request, Mr. Taraday reviewed Paragraph 3b related to Lighthouse having the
option to convert the flat fee compensation arrangement to an hourly compensation if any of the triggering
options occur. He explained in response to concern the Council expressed regarding their last contract
proposal, he met with his partners to discuss how to protect themselves and provide the City clarity
regarding a possible hourly scenario if the City made one of the changes that triggered the hourly billing
scenario. He reminded Lighthouse does not provide the flat fee to any other client; only the City of
Edmonds. There is a lot of associated risk that Lighthouse takes on, for example, the City pays same amount
when a case is taken to trial and Lighthouse bears all the risks with regard to the cost of litigation.
Lighthouse is happy to do that for a long term client; it is basically a loyalty discount. In light of discussions
about going inhouse, a legitimate policy discussion that Councilmembers should have, Lighthouse felt it
was important to propose an hourly fee scenario should the Council take an action that triggers that
arrangement.
Due to concern raised at the previous meeting about the amount of an entire year of hourly billing, Mr.
Taraday explained Lighthouse proposed a framework. If the City makes one of option -triggering events
(terminate the contract or approve an inhouse position) in 2020, Lighthouse would have the option to do 8
months of hourly billing, and the 8 months only go back to January 1. For example if it happened May 1,
2020, there would only 4 months of hourly billing. If the option -triggering event occurred in 2021,
Lighthouse would have the option to do 4 months of hourly billing and if the option -triggering event occur
in 2022, Lighthouse would have the option to do 2 months of hourly billing.
Mr. Taraday explained the contract was structured that way because Lighthouse knows they are good
attorneys, the best municipal attorney around and offer their services at a reasonable rate. There will be a
lot of change next year and Lighthouse has not yet had an opportunity to build a relationship with the newly
elected officials. Lighthouse knows once that is done, it is likely Lighthouse will continue to serve the City
over the long term which is what contract intends to reflect. If Lighthouse is still the City Attorney in 2022,
he will not be worried about their job security because they will have developed relationships/trust with the
new Councilmembers which is the reason for decreasing the hourly lookback as the years progress because
he did not see as much risk in the out years versus in 2020.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the scenarios, pointing out the calculations are based on assumptions
not facts. If the contract were cancelled June 30, 2020, the lookback would be 6 months at an additional
cost of $282,000, which is still a pretty good rate considering what the City paid in 2010 for the Ogden
Murphy contract. Under the 2021 scenario, the lookback cost for 4 months would be $217,000 if the contract
was canceled in May. Under the 2022 scenario, the lookback cost for 2 months would be $104,000 if the
contract were canceled September 30". Mr. Taraday pointed out the scenarios were based on assumptions
and the estimates were on the high side because the assumed hourly rate is the higher hourly rate when in
reality about half the work is at the higher rate and half is at the lower rate. Councilmember Mesaros said
the intent of the scenarios was to consider worst case.
Councilmember Teitzel pointed out the evaluation of the City Attorney is a two-step process; Part A, the
internal satisfaction survey has been completed and in general the internal clients at the City are satisfied
with Lighthouse. There are a few outliers and issues that Mr. Taraday is aware of and will be addressing.
Part B is whether the City is getting proper value for what is paid to Lighthouse. The total expenditure for
2017, 2018 and 2019 divided by total hours results an average hourly rate of $165. That seems like a good
deal but the work Councilmember Mesaros and he are doing will verify that but that study will not be
completed for 3-4 weeks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 15
Finance Director Scott James agreed the scenarios are purely speculation based on assumptions because the
hours worked vary year to year. For example, there is a fairly significant case next year, the Ebbtide. The
scenarios could be recalculated using a blended hourly rate.
Councilmember Mesaros assumed using the information Councilmember Teitzel and he are developing,
the Council would make a choice whether to continue with contract city attorney services or an in-house
city attorney early in year, hopefully by March/April so the lookback would be much less than 8 months.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the element of stability and collaboration; with four new
Councilmember and a new Mayor, the City needs a City Attorney with a history. She did not favor an
inhouse attorney because they report directly to the Mayor. The directors provided primarily good reviews.
She preferred to retain Lighthouse to provide stability, fearing a new City Attorney with four new
Councilmembers could be a catastrophic risk.
Councilmember Teitzel reinforced that tonight was only discussion but he wanted to ensure it was on next
week's agenda. That will allow the public to see the contract and offer any questions. The contract with
Lighthouse expires at the end of year and the Council needs to take action well before then.
Councilmember Tibbott affirmed what Councilmember Buckshnis said regarding stability. He expressed
appreciation for the work Councilmembers Teitzel and Mesaros have done. The proposed contract provides
flexibility as well as security for ongoing attorney services that serve the City well. Flexibility and security
will give the future Council the confidence they need to make good decisions.
Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Teitzel's comment; they plan to submit this as an action
item on next week's agenda. He encouraged Councilmembers to contact Mr. Taraday with any specific
questions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmembers Mesaros and Teitzel requested this be on the
agenda this week but she did not think it was quite ready because not all the questions had been answered.
The Council needs to do their due diligence. Lighthouse has been fine but they have worked for the City
for 8'/2 years and it's important to occasionally look at what the City is getting. She said making assumptions
related to money makes her nervous.
For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Mr. James reviewed the 2020 scenario:
Assumptions:
1 Date Ci Terminates: Select from drop down menu
6/30/2020
2) Total Annual Hours Worked by Li hthousefill-in
3,930
Steps to Calculate "Look Back" Costs
Ste 1) Calculate hours worked durin "Look Back" period
i average monthly hours worked = Total Annual Hours Worked / 12 months
328
Ste 2) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
i Number of months in "Look Back"period'
6
if (ii) Number of hours worked during ""Look Back"" period
= average monthly hours worked X number of months in ""Look Back""period"
1,976
Ste 3a) Calculate "Look Back" costs
(i) Select hourly rate from drop down menu:
$295
(ii) Hours worked during "Look Back" period
1,976
(iii) Calculation of Hourly Cost = Hourly Rate X Number of hours worked in "Look
Back" period
$582,895
(iv) Number of months in "Look Back" period
6
(v) Deduct flat fee A $49,833/month X number of months in "Look Back" period
$300,661
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 16
Look Back cost 1 $282,234
'Note: 2020 "Look Back" period contractually limited to 8 months
Mr. Taraday clarified under the proposed contract, there could be an 8 -month lookback. If the contract were
terminated July 1 ", there would only be a 6 -month lookback; however, if it was terminated in October, there
would be an 8 -month lookback. The lookback the first year is no more than 8 months; it could be less than
8 months depending on when the contract was terminated as the lookback could not go into 2019. Mr.
James advised that was not clear in paragraph 3.e.i.
As Council President Fraley-Monillas, who was participating by phone, was unable to access the materials
provided by Councilmember Mesaros, Mayor Earling suggested she meet with Mr. Taraday and/or Mr.
James when was she back in town. Councilmember Mesaros said the information was emailed to Council
President Fraley-Monillas.
Councilmember Johnson suggested Mr. Taraday provide his annual report during the Council's discussion
about city attorney services. Mr. Taraday advised in the past, the annual report has been provided in the
first quarter so it can include the entire prior 12 month period. Councilmember Johnson suggested it may
be advantageous for Mr. Taraday to provide information sooner than that. Mr. Taraday offered to email
Councilmembers the number of hours worked year-to-date 2019.
Councilmember Johnson summarized the results of the scores from the city attorney evaluation.
0 Scores ranged from 7 to 1 and no responses below 4
• Most of the responses were 7
• 25 responses were at the highest level
• 14 responses at 6
• 5 responses at 6.5
• 9 response at 4-5
• Performance Evaluation Categories
o Trustworthiness/Integrity/Ethical Compliance
■ All scores 6 and 7
o Legal Consultation
• One question received a 5 rating: Are city staff and the City Council advised on key
changes in municipal law as it pertains to the City's activities?
o Document Review and Preparation
■ All responses 6-7 except for one 5 rating: Does the City Attorney make beneficial suggestions
about how the city code should be updated or revised? Does the City Attorney accurately
identify and address all legal issues within documents and items that it reviews?
o Cost/Fiscal Accountability Control
■ Six responses had 7 rating, one had a 6.5 rating
■ One question received a 4 rating: Are standard forms developed and used where possible to
minimize preparation of legal documentation
■ One question received a 5 rating: Does the City Attorney display the ability and knowledge to
research issues in a minimum amount of time?
o Responsiveness/Timeliness of Actions:
■ Questions that received a 5 rating
— Are requested legal work and assignments completed within a clearly established time
frame?
— Is the City attorney accessible in person when needed to respond to requests for legal
information and assistance?
— Are legal review and requests for information completed in time to avoid delays to City
projects, programs and other tasks?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 17
o Communications and Interpersonal Relations
= Seven responses had 7 rating, three had 6 rating and one had a 4.5 rating (Are timelines for
follow up to requests clearly communicated?)
Councilmember Johnson summarized overall it was a pretty good review.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed Councilmember Mesaros and he submitted this as action item for tonight's
agenda last week and Council President Fraley-Monillas opted not to include it on the agenda for the reasons
she stated. Councilmember Mesaros and he think the contract is reasonable, is good for the City, gives
stability and good quality and gives next year's Council the flexibility to take action if they choose. It is
important that the contract be on next week's agenda as an action item.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
ADD RENEWAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT TO NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA AS AN
ACTION ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. James said the reason he was questioning the 8 -month lookback was there were no 2019 rates in Section
3b. If Council wanted to consider a 2019 lookback, a 2019 hourly rate should be included in the contract.
Mr. Taraday clarified there was no 2019 lookback; the lookback in 2020 cannot exceed 8 months. An 8 -
month lookback could occur if the contract were terminated October 1st, November 1st or December 1St; if
the contract were terminated July 1st, there would only be a 6 -month lookback.
10. ACTION ITEMS
1. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE FOR HISTORIC INFORMATIONAL PANEL
Councilmember Teitzel introduced Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin. He explained the old
Edmonds High School was built in 1909 in the north parking lot of what is now the Edmonds Center for
the Arts (ECA). The school was demolished in 2005 and the old terracotta portico at the entrance to the
high school was removed. Some consideration was given to installing it near the ECA building but it was
determined that would not work and neither the City nor the Edmonds School District had any other use
for the portico. The portico was stored at the old Public Works location for several years and was destined
for the landfill until the Echelbarger family asked to take possession as they felt it was important to preserve
it as part of the City's history and decided to install it at the southeast corner of the Salish Crossing parking
lot.
Councilmember Teitzel explained there is nothing to describe to passersby what the structure is, it does not
match the design of the Salish Crossing building and people often inquire about it. There are a lot of
pedestrians in the area and putting an informational panel will explain the portico. It was presented to the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) who determined they were unable to take an official position
because the item was not in its original location and therefore was outside their charter. The HPC asked
him to take it to the Museum Board. The Museum Board felt it was within their scope and supported an
informational panel to explain the history. Ms. Chapin and he took the panel concept to the Finance
Committee who liked the idea and suggested funding it from the Council Contingency Fund. The cost to
design, fabricate, and install the sign using in-house labor would not exceed $4,000.
Councilmember Johnson said she has never supported this project for several reasons. It is not the old
Edmonds High School portico, there was no portico at the Edmonds High School. This is the Salish
Crossing portico that includes the terracotta feature that was on the old Edmonds High School building
which was also the junior high where she attended school and has a special significant to her. The HPC
indicated they could not approve or disapprove it because it is clearly out of place. The HPC follows the
Secretary of Interior's guidelines related to preservation. She said it was fake history to put up an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 18
informational sign that says this was the old Edmonds High School portico and it serves no purpose to have
inaccurate informational signs that are not approved by the HPC. She referred to the Walk Back in Time
that was developed without the blessing of the HPC; the HPC was presented with the materials but did not
have an opportunity to review the actual sites.
Councilmember Johnson summarized it was not about the money, it was about the issue itself. She felt very
strongly about this because it was her old junior high and she wanted it to be properly respected. If that
same material had been incorporated at the ECA, then it could be recognized. A fake portico located a half
mile away did not qualify in her mind.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to a photograph in the packet of the old Edmonds High School in 1909;
the portico on the building is what is installed in the Salish Crossing parking lot. He asked for clarification
of Councilmember Johnson's comment that the portico did not exist. Councilmember Johnson said this is
an architectural feature, a fagade on face of building of the building, it is not the portico at Salish Crossing.
The two pictures do not align and it gives a false impression. Ms. Chapin said an informational panel
provides information in cultural context. Taking a piece of a building and re -erecting somewhere else is not
in its original context and therefore is not something the HPC would support with a historic preservation
plaque. The community is interested in an explanation of what the structure is. When Councilmember
Teitzel brought this up, she acknowledged she is frequently asked what the structure is and how it relates
to the community. That is very different from a plaque that identifies a historic building or something that
still has the integrity of the entire building.
Councilmember Mesaros said the informational sign is a good idea because it answers the questions Ms.
Chapin referenced, what is this and what does it represent? It represents piece of history several blocks
away and allows people to reflect on the past. He expressed support for the informational sign.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was contacted by a couple members of the HPC who were
annoyed that this moved on after they said it wasn't a historic piece. She had no issue with the proposed
sign but was concerned with setting a precedence for signage on private property and questioned whether
that was allowed under City code. She summarized it seemed like an inappropriate amount of money to
spend for signage on private land and there was something that she was inherently uncomfortable with.
Councilmember Teitzel said he presented the concept to the HPC; they were not annoyed at that meeting,
they just said it was it was outside their charter and for that reason they could not take a position for or
against the sign. The HPC asked him to take it to the Museum Board which he did and they felt it was
within their charter and supported it.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated a couple members of the HPC approached her and said that
this was undermining the HPC because it was not going through them.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the confusion may be because it was called a historical information panel.
She also had HPC members call her. She wanted to ensure the signage accurately reflected that the portico
was not in its original location. This does not set a precedent; there are other informational panels on private
property. She suggested the informational panel could reference the old Safeway building which is historic.
She reiterated it was an informational panel regarding historic architecture.
Councilmember Tibbott commented on the walkability of the City; the portico is a very interesting feature
on an otherwise uninteresting corner. The sign will add to the ambiance of the City for tourists and citizens.
He supported the informational sign, commenting on the importance of ensuring the information on the
sign was accurate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 19
Councilmember Johnson reiterated this is fake history and it does not serve the City well. She recalled a
suggestion at the HPC to locate an old cedar stump from Woodway somewhere downtown. It was decided
that would be inappropriate because history cannot be moved to serve a purpose. An old cedar stump was
identified in Yost and there is an information panel there describing the history. An informational panel
could be erected at the old Edmonds High School with directions to the portico. Even if it was an
informational panel, it was inappropriate in her opinion. Councilmember Teitzel said he was also a
commissioner on the HPC and understood things need to be in their original location for the HPC to
designate them as historic. The portico is not so it is definitely not in the scope of the HPC which is reflected
in the minutes of their meeting which are attached to packet. As Councilmember Tibbott said, an
informational panel provides information about the structure and is helpful to passersby.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE UP TO $4,000 FOR AN INFORMATIONAL PANEL OF
THE OLD EDMONDS HIGH SCHOOL FEATURE THAT IS NOW INSTALLED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SALISH CROSSING PARKING LOT. MOTION CARRIED (5-
2), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Fraley-Monil las discontinued her participation by phone at 10:00 p.m.
2. FRONTIER CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER TO NW FIBER
City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed the PPW Committee considered this at their meeting. Frontier is in the
process of transferring its assets to NW Fiber. The City has an opportunity to review the qualifications of
NW Fiber but cannot unreasonably withhold consent of the transfer of the franchise. The packet includes a
resolution that conditionally approves transfer. Adoption of the resolution is better than taking no action
because there are conditions in the resolution that Frontier has already agreed to comply with. In the absence
of a vote to approve the resolution, the transfer would be deemed approved under federal law without
conditions. The packet contains information about concerns that were raised about the buildout of the cable
system and why Frontier does not carry KIRO 7. He clarified early iterations of this agenda items were
mislabeled as being a transfer to WAVE; the transfer is actually to NW Fiber.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed there have been complaints about Frontier Cable not living up to their
franchise agreement. With the transfer to NW Fiber, they are obligated to provide the service per the
contract agreements that Frontier allegedly did not do. Mr. Taraday answered all the City's right under the
franchise remain in effect. NW Fiber would have the same legal obligations that Frontier had before the
transfer. In that respect there is no downside to approving the resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1436. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President
Fraley-Monillas did not participate in the vote. )
3. UTILITY RATES PACKAGE PROPOSAL
Council President Fraley-Monillas joined meeting by phone at 10:06 p.m.
Mr. Williams introduced City Engineer Rob English, Senior Utilities Engineer Mike DeLilla and Chris
Gonzalez, Senior Project Manager, FCS Group. He explained 2019 is the third year of the third 3 -year rate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 20
package; the 9 -year history of rate adjustments has generated capital to begin replacing pipes and buried
infrastructure on an annual basis. The rate package addresses needs in the coming years. He reviewed:
• Key assumptions
o Annual Cost inflation
■ General (CPI): 2.5%
■ Benefits: 10.0%
■ Alderwood Water Purchase Costs:
—8% in 2020; (21.8%)
—8.5% in 2021; (4.4%)
—8%in 2022; (5%)
—5% Thereafter
■ Construction Costs: 4.0%
o Annual Growth
■ Water/Sewer: z 85 ERUs per year
■ Stormwater: z 55 ESUs per year
• Utility Policies (Goals)
o Rate analysis policy on a 3 -year cycle to:
• Improve ability to weather financial cycles, risks and disruptions
■ Stabilize rates over time
■ Account for changes that are outside our control (Alderwood Rates)
■ Account for large future projects
o Capital Fund Policy
K Meet all utility financial obligations
■ `Pay as you go' Rate funding for rep] acement/maintenance give significant savings to the
program.
— Repayment of Interest on a $10M bond for WWTP at 3.5% interest over lifetime is
approx. $3.9M (2019 dollars)
■ Avoid deferral of maintenance responsibilities
■ Accounts for seasonal fluctuations in spending
■ *Target in the future needs to include reserves for R&R, cost overruns and emergencies
• Setting up Policies (examples)
Policy
Purpose
Policy Target
Operating Reserve
Minimum cash reserve to accommodate
Water = 90; Sewer = 45-90
varied revenue and expenditure timing
Storm; Solid Waste=30 Days
O&M
Capital Reserve
To meet emergency repairs, unanticipated
1-2% of capital assets (original
capital and project cost overruns
cost
Replacement Reserve
Rate funded capital — annual basis
Original Cost Depreciation;
Funding (RRF)
Replacement Cost
Depreciation
Equipment Reserve
To fund ongoing vehicle and equipment
Estimated replacement value
replacement
Debt Service Coverage
Compliance with existing debt covenants
Target 2.0 or higher
ad maintain credit worthiness for future
Minimum 1.25
debt needs
Revenue Sufficiency
Set rates to meet the total annual financial
Rates shall be set to cover
obligations of the utility and be self-
O&M, debt service, reserves
supporting
and fiscal policy achievement
• Capital Needs Forecast - Water
o $21,867,000 in capital projects from 2019-2024
■ Water Mains: $20,072,000
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 21
■ Reservoirs: $1,795,000
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
0 Water Revenue Requirement Forecast
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existina Rates. and Revenue (&, Proposed Rate
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
• Comparison of 2019 sewer rates (1 Occf Usage)
Lake Forest Park via SPU)
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021 2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
4.5%
4.5% 4.5%
4.0%
4.0%
Monthly single-family bill @ 7ccf $45.66
$47.71
$49.85 $52.11
$54.19
$56.36
Tax 6.41
$6.05
$4.99 1 $5.21
$5.42
$5.64
Total $52.07
$53.76
$54.85 1 $57.32
$59.61
$61.99
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
• Comparison of 2019 sewer rates (1 Occf Usage)
Lake Forest Park via SPU)
$94.15
Shoreline (via SPU)
$94.15
Woodinville WD
$78.87
*2020 Mountlake Terrace
77.93
Seattle
77.65
*2019 Mountlake Terrace
72.16
Kirkland
66.55
Edmonds
65.32
Arlington
52.73
Mukilteo W&S Dist Westside
49.47
Everett
44.82
Olympic View W&S Dist
44.69
Redmond
44.44
Lynnwood
41.88
Alderwood Water &WW
38.73
*Mountlake Terrace 95% increase in 2019 and 8% increase in 2020 to $77.93
Capital Needs Forecast - Stormwater
o $26,807,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to cover - 99% of projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
01 City received $545,000 loan from Snohomish County Public Works Assistance Fund
- Part of loan already drawn ($408,750 of proceeds remaining)
- Increases stormwater utility's annual debt service by z $33,000
Stormwater Revenue Requirement Forecast
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existing Rates, and Revenue 0, Proposed Rate
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
2019 Storm Rates (1 EUR)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 22
Propos d
Projected
Existing
2019
2020 2021
2022
2023 2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5% 9.5%
9.5%
4% 4%
Monthly sin& -family bill
$17.18
$18.81 $20.60
$22.56
$23.46 $24.40
Tax
1.72
1.88 2.06
2.26
2.35 2.44
Total
$18.09
$20.69 $22.66
$24.82
$25.81 $26.84
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
2019 Storm Rates (1 EUR)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 22
Seattle
43.06
Everett
24.14
*2020 Mountlake Terrace
22.33
Shoreline
21.78
Mukilteo
21.57
Kirkland
19.34
Edmonds
18.90
Lake Forest Park
16.96
Redmond
16.56
Lynnwood
13.91
*2019 Mountlake Terrace
11.45
Woodinville
7.26
Arlington
6.89
*Mountlake Terrace 95% increase in 2020 to $22.33
• Capital Needs Forecast - Sewer
o $49,782,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
■ WWTP Projects: $28,895,000
■ Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer: $6,746,000
■ Sewer Mains: $14,019,785
• Lift Station No. 1 Study: $121,215
*excludes $15M replacement cost expected to occur within 10 years
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
■ Olympic View WSD, Mountlake Terrace, Ronald WWD pay for z49% of net WWTP costs
• Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios
'Assumes the following bond issues:
2020: $10.0 million bond for City share of WWTP improvements
2024: $6.5 million bond for Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer
Edmonds City Councif Apptoved Minutes
November 19, 2019
. Page 23
Existing Proposed
Pro osed
Projected
2020-25
2020-
25
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
2019 2020
2021
2022
2023
22024
2025
Total
StatusQuo: Full Cash funding for CIP
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
0%
+46.9%
$1 OM WWTP Bond
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
+34.0%
$10M WWTP Bond 3% increases 2020-22)
3%
3%
3%
7%
7%
7%
+33.9%
$1OM WWTP Bond (No increases 2020-22P
0%
0%
0%
11%
10%
9%
+33.1%
Debt for Large Projects' (3% increases
2020-22
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
+22.9%
Debt for Large Projects' (No increases 2020-
22)
0%
0%
0%
6%
6%
6%
+19.1%
'Assumes the following bond issues:
2020: $10.0 million bond for City share of WWTP improvements
2024: $6.5 million bond for Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer
Edmonds City Councif Apptoved Minutes
November 19, 2019
. Page 23
Existing
Pro osed
Projected
2020-25
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total
StatusQuo: Full Cash funding for CIP
43.65
47.14
50.91
54.98
59.38
6.13
64.13
+$20.48
$1OM WWTP Bond
43.65
45.83
48.12
50.53
53.06
55.71
58.50
+$14.85
$10M WWTP Bond (3% increases
2020-22)
43.65
44.96
46.31
47.7
51.04
54.61
58.43
+14.78
$1OM WWTP Bond (No increases 2020-
22P
43.65
43.65
43.65
43.65
48.45
53.30
58.10
+14.45
Debt for Large Projects' (3% increases
2020-22
43.65
44.96
46.31
47.7
49.61
51.59
53.65
+$10.000
Debt for Large Projects' (No increases
2020-22
41661
43.65
43.65
43.65
46.27
49.05
51.99
+8.34
'Assumes the following bond issues:
2020: $10.0 million bond for City share of WWTP improvements
2024: $6.5 million bond for Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer
Edmonds City Councif Apptoved Minutes
November 19, 2019
. Page 23
2030: $10.3 million bond for Lift Station No. 1 Replacement
Long -Term Sewer Rate Forecast
Cumulative Sewer Rate Increase Over Period
2020-
25
Total
2026-
30
Total
2031-
35
Total
2036-
40
Total
2041-
45
Total
2046-
50
Total
Status Quo: Full Cash funding for CIP
46.9%
0%
10.4%
15.9%
17.0%
21.7%
$1 OM WWTP Bond
34.0%
26.4%
0%
7.2%
21.7%
21.7%
$1 OM WWTP Bond 3% increases 2020-22
33.9%
32.6%
1 0%
3%
20.5%
21.7%
$10M WWTP Bond No increases 2020-22P
33.1%
40.2%
0%
0%
14.7%
25.2%
Debt for Large Projects' 3% increases 2020-22)
22.9%
21.7%
18.2%
13.7%
15.9%
15.9%
Debt for Large Projects' No increases 2020-22
19.1%
27.6%
21.7%
12.5%
8.2%
21.7%
Monthly Single -Family Bill at End of Period
2020-
25
Total
2026-
30
Total
2031-
35
Total
2036-
40
Total
1 2041-
45
Total
2046-
50
Total
Status Quo: Full Cash fundinr, for CIP
64.13
64.13
70.80
82.07
96.06
116.88
$10M WWTP Bond
58.5
73.96
73.96
79.26
96.44
117.33
$10M WWTP Bond 3% increases 2020-22)
58.43
77.47
77.47
79.79
96.15
116.99
$10M WWTP Bond No increases 2020-22P
58.1
81.47
81.47
81.47
93.48
117.05
Debt for Large Projects' (3% increases 2020-22)
53.65
65.27
77.15
87.71
101.68
117.87
Debt for Large Projects' No increases 2020-22)
51.99
66.35
80.72
90.85
98.26
119.55
• 2019 Sewer Rates (1 Occf Usage)
Seattle
$144.8
Kirkland
$107.33
Alderwood W & WW
$76.06
Woodinville WD
$72.48
Arlington
$70.15
*2020 Mountlake Terrace
$68.40
Mukilteo W&S Dist Westside
$65.21
Lake Forest Park
$63.27
Shoreline
$59.50
Redmond
$59.48
Everett
$49.44
Lynnwood
$48.93
Edmonds
$48.02
*2019 Mountlake Terrace
$48.00
Olympic View W&S Dist
$39.10
*Mountlake Terrace 95% increase in 2020 to $22.33
v 2019 Total Bill - 3/4" single family A l Occf*
city
2019
Seattle
$265.51
Kirkland
$193.22
Shoreline****
$175.43
Lake Forest Park
$174.38
2020 Mountlake Terrace
$168.66
Woodinville
$158.61
Mukilteo
132.38
Edmonds
$132.23
2019 Mountlake Terrace* * *
$131.61
Arlin on* *
$129.77
Redmond
1 $120.48
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 24
Everett* * * * $118.40
Lynnwood $104.72
*Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
** Has not had a rate adjustment in at least the past 6 years.
*** 8% Water, 42.5% Sewer and 95% Storm increase 12020
* * * * 10% total increase expected in 2020
***** 10% increases in storm rates for 2020 and 2021
Graph of historical capital spending and forecast for 423 Sewer, 422 Storm, 421 Water,
Transportation and Parks 2011-2018, 2019 est, 2020 budget
List of City Capital Projects 2012-2019
o Total Award Amount: $46,240,294
o Total Construction Budget: $51,251,790
o Total Actual Cost: $47,370,387
o Percent Over Award: 2.4%
o Percent over total budget: -7.6%
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS
JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Williams reviewed the recommendation
• Issue debt to yield approx. $10,000,000 for support of the WWTP Pyrolysis/Incinerator
replacement project now
• Raise sewer rates 5% in 2020, 2021, 2022 to continue to meet the capital needs of the City's Sewer
Utility Fund (Fund 423)
■ Consider additional revenue bond issuances in approx. 2024 and 2030 for the Ballinger sewer and
PSI, respectively
• Water Rates at 4.5% in 2020, 2021, 2022 due to Alderwood increases over the next three years
• Storm rates as presented at 9.5% to meet capital and maintenance needs for the Stormwater Fund
and increased NPDES permit requirements
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Edmonds Marsh restoration is not a $16.6M stormwater project, but
the $16.6M is included in the stormwater capital projects. She hoped next year the City Council will scrub
the CIP/CFP because she did not believe utility ratepayers should pay the lion's share of that project. Mr.
Williams said it was not anticipated that stormwater will pay $16.65M; it is assumed to be 75% grant
funded. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested it if was in Parks it might be 100% grant funded. She
reiterated the numbers were distorted because it is not a stormwater project; it is a marsh restoration project
with a stormwater component. Mr. Williams was disappointed Councilmember Buckshnis felt that way. It
is a big capital project that has been an idea up until recently; there are no immediate plans to go into design
or construction but the project has to be housed in some fund and Public Works will be who delivers the
capital project, manages the project, manages the contract, provides administration, etc. It is a City project
not a Public Works, stormwater or a Parks project, it is all of those.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it affects the utility rates. Just like the pyrolysis project, the entire amount
is included when the City will only pay $15M. Last year there was only $5M in the CIP/CFP for the
Edmonds Marsh restoration and now it is up to $16M. Mr. Williams said the pyrolysis project is in the
Sewer fund. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed but suggested only the Edmonds portion be included and
not the $6M paid by Mountlake Terrace, $4M from Olympic and $2M from Ronald. Mr. Williams said the
project will cost $20M -25M and half will be paid by the WWTP partners and half by the City. The budget
includes the total expenditure, $11.067M for 2020 and revenue to offset their half. That is how capital
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 25
projects should be budgeted, showing all outside revenue, the total cost and Edmonds paying the difference.
Stormwater is the same; the project total is $16.65M and it is assumed it will be 75% grant funded so
another $4M will need to be identified. He did not assume that would come from the General Fund so it
was assumed to come iom the Stormwater Utifii-w. The marsh dues provide storm water services to a iar ge
part of Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the CIP/CFP should reflect the park construction and stormwater aspects
of the Edmonds Marsh. It is primarily a parks project that Public Works will manage. Mr. Williams said it
is a civil engineering project. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested he accompany her to WRIA 8 grant
funding discussions.
For Councilmember Mesaros, Mr. Williams said staff is seeking consensus on an ordinance creating a rate
package for the next three years that would be presented at public hearing. Councilmember Mesaros
observed staff was seeking direction on Recommendations #2, #4 and #5. He observed part of the issue is
the philosophy of how to fund projects over the long term. The problem with pay as you go is users pay
more now but with bonds, users pay a lot more later. There is also the discussion that people moving to
Edmonds in 10 years will pay higher rates than the current residents, essential backloading. He has never
been a fan of backloading and prefers pay as you go because there will be more projects in the future that
need to be funded. If it's backloaded, the price will be even higher because those future projects will need
to be funded and ratepayers are still paying the bonds for the previous projects. Mr. Williams agreed there
will be future projects that need to be funded.
Councilmember Mesaros was glad that Alderwood Water had lowered their rates. He summarized these are
the right rates and even though he didn't like to pay them, he has to have water and sewer service and storm
rates are important from an environmental standpoint.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about the life expectancy of the capital projects such as the pyrolysis project.
Mr. Williams expected a 30+ year life span, noting it was mechanical/electrical equipment so it would not
be 100 years like a pipe. He estimated 30+ years for the Ballinger sewer, and the pump station which is an
electrical/mechanical system has that shorter lifespan. Mr. Williams said it appears the best option would
be to eliminate the pump station which provides a much longer expected lifespan. Councilmember Tibbott
asked if the bonds are 30 years; Mr. Williams said they are 20 year bonds. Councilmember Tibbott observed
the bonds would be paid off and the projects would still have some life expectancy. He suggested that be
incorporated into the discussion.
Councilmember Johnson said the bottom line for her in reviewing the options is pay as you go for the
normal maintenance/rehabilitation of sewer, water and stormwater, and to consider bonding for large
projects. At first she didn't think that was a good idea because it increased the cost by one-third but she did
not like the other option which doubled the rate increases. A combination of bonding and gradual rate
increases would be beneficial to current residents. She referred to the choices related to financing and
favored debt for large 2022 with a 34% increase 2020-22 and 15.9% by 2046. She referred to Sewer
Financial Plan Scenarios, suggesting the debt for large project 3% increase in 2022 and 4% in 2023-24 was
a gentle approach. Mr. Williams said this is a six year outlook, the Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios illustrates
the long term rate increases. He pointed out in 2046-50, the monthly single family bill is about the same
under all the funding scenario. Councilmember Johnson summarized the question was who pays — pay now
or pay later.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the Capital Needs Forecast — Stormwater, observing $8.5M in
stormwater projects were ,vrecast to be construciCd in 2022 versus $3M in 2021. Mr. Williams anticipated
there would be marsh costs, the annual stormwater replacement and several other projects. Councilmember
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 26
Johnson observed that under Mayor Earling's guidance, the City has a 1% replacement program for all
three utilities.
Councilmember Nelson pointed out since 2010 utility taxes for Edmonds residents have increased 57% for
sewer, 75% for stormwater and 84% for water and that does not include any further rate increases. Adding
all the water, sewer and stormwater projects over the next five years, residents will be asked to pay for
$98.3M in projects. That is asking a lot of citizens and needs to be reevaluated. He did not support a pure
pay as you go funding policy.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not support an increase, commenting citizens have been
overtaxed in the last 4-5 years. She,has received a number of calls and emails about this. The bigger issue
is she sees this as a regressive tax because it hurts the most vulnerable in the community, the low income,
seniors, veterans and disabled who do not receive increases in their income to help pay for these increases.
Every time they pay more to the City, they have less for other expenses. It disproportionately effects people
of color on the Hwy 99 corridor. She did not support regressive taxation for that reason.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to have a public hearing and let the public weigh in rather than the
Council providing direction. Mr. Williams recalled in the past a specific proposal is provided for the public
to react to and adjustments can be made after public comment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the City go to the voters for a bond like other cities do. Mr.
Williams said he had never seen that done for utilities.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested bringing two proposals to the public hearing instead of six such as pay
as you go and bonding for some capital projects. He did not support keeping water rates artificially low
because that would hurt ratepayers more in the long run.
With regard to Councilmember Nelson's comment, Mr. Williams said the recommendation is not pay as
you go, it is to consider debt for the three big capital projects. It is a blend of pay as you go and bonding
for sewer. He asked if there was concern with the proposed rate increase for water and/or storm.
Councilmember Johnson said for the public hearing it is important to put things in perspective. For example
there is a proposed 9.5% increase in stormwater, but it is 9.5% on a very low amount. She suggested 2-3
options and identifying the cost per billing period.
Mayor Earling said the City is significantly better off with a pay as you go policy that keeps funding fairly
current. No one likes to pay additional fees that come with increased rates but Edmonds is a 129 year old
city that needs to care for its infrastructure. On a year by year basis, keeping costs under control and meeting
obligations has been very successful and he advocated that the Council consider that in the future.
Mr. Williams commented borrowing creates additional expenses that do not go toward pipes in the ground
or other improvements, it go toward interest, a total of $15M in interest to bond for those three projects.
Pay as you go is appropriate on the 1%/year pipe replacement which is not really a capital project but a
large maintenance bill. Retaining pay as you go for that and considering debt for larger projects seems to
make sense. He summarized it is a tough reality, the costs are there and will be paid; to some extent it is
pay now or pay more later. Edmonds' rates are fairly well positioned compared to other cities/districts. The
City does not want to get to a point where rates need to be raised 95% in a single year as has happened in
other places. The City Council has done a great job financially managing the utilities over the past 9 years;
there have been difficult decisions but the City is much better off than it was nine years ago and it would
be nice to continue that. He advised a public hearing is scheduled next week.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 27
Councilmember Johnson asked when need a decision on the rate increase is needed. Mr. Williams said by
the end of the year.
Due to the late hour, Items 1.0.4, 10,5 and 11.1 were postponed to a future Council meeting.
4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE WATER QUALITY STORMWATER
CAPACITY GRANT FROM THE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
5. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISPOSAL AND TRANSPORT CONTRACT
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported on a meeting held today with Mr. Williams, Mr. Doherty, the newly elected
Councilmembers and the City's State Lobbyist Debra Mongolia regarding legislative items.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
There were no Council comments.
14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.1 100)(i)
This item was not needed.
15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
YZ,2JL�
r
�-�
6�6j—
MZAD O. EARLING, MAYOR
;PA�SSEY,CITY CL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 28