Loading...
Cmd060220EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES June 2, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDEII/Ij.ikG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Pamela Randolph, Treatment Plant Manager Leif Bjorback, Building Official Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Fraley-Monillas 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, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Fraley-Monillas advised the original agenda had been updated to remove Item 7.1, Waterfront Center PUD Easement, and add Item 8.3, Snohomish County Public Defender Association Contract Renewal. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 1 Councilmember Olson requested Item 5.1, Approval of Council meeting Minutes of May 26, 2020, be removed -from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPTS OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CARL STOUT, GABRIEL MARCU AND CAROLE JOY 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1, APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 (Previously Consent Agenda Item 5.1) Councilmember Olson requested the following corrections: • Packet page 9, third paragraph, first line, remove "Council" after "Council President Fraley- Monillas" • Same page and paragraph, second line, change "the Council" to "that Council" COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2020 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO PUBLICCOMMENTa)EDMONDSWA.COV See Attached. 7. ACTION ITEMS FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE Development Services Director Shane Hope advised the proposed interim ordinance provides flood damage protection in the building code. It does not change the critical area ordinance or shoreline regulations, but ensures the community can continue to be part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The interim ordinance needs to be adopted by June 19, 2020, with further public involvement in the future. Staff has reviewed the interim ordinance with state and federal agencies. Environmental Programs Manager Kernen Lien advised that Building Officer Leif Bjorback is the Floodplain Manager for the City. Mr. Lien reviewed: • Floodplains/Frequently Flooded Areas o New Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) become effective June 19th o FIRMs establish the floodplain • 100-year ■ 1 % chance in any given year o City of Edmonds Flood Related Regulations ■ Chapter 23.70 ECDC — Frequently Flooded Areas • ECDC Title 19 — Building Code ■ SMP ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction o City must update its flood regulations by June 19th to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 2 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) o NFIP is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. o Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the Federal Government. • Local community adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations to reduce flood risks • Floodplain management regulations must be approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ■ Federal Government makes flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) o Current FIRM maps adopted 1999 o Snohomish County Risk Mapping and Assessment Project ■ Coastal Risk Map project began in 2011 • Draft FIRM maps presented to Council December 2016 • Delays due to being combined with levee analysis and mapping project ■ City using draft FIRM maps for regulatory purposes since July 2017 • Maps issued in February 2018 with appeal period ending in May 2018 ■ Letter of Final Determination December 19, 2019 o New FIRM maps effective June 19, 2020 FIRMS of flood area downtown o 1999 FIRM ■ No Base Flood Elevation • Mostly limited to Edmonds Marsh o 2020 FIRM • 12 feet Base Flood Elevation • Encompasses all of waterfront, Harbor Square and some of Salish Crossing • FIRMs near the mouth of Shell Creek o 1999 FIRM • No Base Flood Elevation ■ Extends south to Caspers o 2020 FIRM ■ 12 feet Base Flood Elevation ■ Floodplain reduced to the mouth of Shell Creek FIRMs of Lake Ballinger 0 1999 FIRM • No Base Flood Elevation 0 2020 FIRM • Still no established Base Flood Elevation by FEMA • City established Base Flood Elevation at 286.14 feet based on historical data Existing Flood Related Regulations o Current flood management regulations • Chapter 23.70 ECDC — Frequently Flooded Areas ■ ECDC Title 19 Building Code - ECDC 19.00.025 International Building Code - ECDC 19.05.020 International Residential Code • SMP ECDC 24.40.030 — Flood Hazard Reduction Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 3 o Staff has been in contact with FEMA and Washington State NFIP Coordinator in drafting compliant -regulations • Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance o Primarily a Building Code Amendment ■ Establishes construction standards for development within floodplains ■ Standards intended to prevent damage to structures should a flood occur o Does Not Change Allowable Land Uses, Zoning, Critical Areas or Other Development Regulations ■ Any development within floodplains must still comply with existing zoning and development regulations • No policy changes related to floodplain development o New Chapter 19.07 ECDC ■ Consolidates existing building code regulations in a single chapter ■ Incorporates elements of the Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance that are applicable to the City of Edmonds o Chapter 23.70 ECDC ■ Update ECDC 23.70.010 to reference the updated FEMA FIRM maps No changes to the SMP • 23.70.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Frequently flooded areas A. Frequently Flood Areas. Frequently Flooded areas shall include: 1. The special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Stud FIS for Snohomish County, Washington, and Incorporated Areas" dated June 19, 2020, and any revisions thereto, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and any revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a 24ft of this ordinance. The FIS and the FIRM are on file at the Development Services Department at I21 5th Avenue North. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in Section G103.3 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under Section G 103.3. � i e A . . a 2. Those areas identified as frequently flooded areas on the city of Edmonds critical areas inventory. Identified frequently flooded areas are consistent with and based upon designation of areas of special flood hazard on FEMA flood insurance maps as indicated above. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 4 • Proposed Interim Ordinance o Interim Ordinance • Proposed interim ordinance to meet the June 19th deadline ■ FEMA has indicated they cannot delay the effective date of the new FIRM maps ■ The effective dates are set by legislation and federal regulations that require a community to adopt the new Flood Insurance Study and accompanying FIRM within six months of the issuance of the Letter of Final Determination ■ Per the latest letter from FEMA, if the City does not act by June 19th FEMA will act to suspend the City from the NFIP o Planning Board reviewed on May 27th and recommended approval • Next Steps o Once OPMA restrictions are lifted, run permanent ordinance through full public process including public hearings Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 19.07.010 and asked where the flood damage prevention model ordinance came from. Mr. Lien answered it was provided to the City and FEMA by David Radabaugh, Washington State National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator. Mr. Lien advised he had provided the model ordinance to the full Council. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 19.07.030 and the comment "from 19.00.025" and if this information would remain in the Internal Building Code as well. Mr. Lien explained it is being removing from 19.00.025 and will be included in 19.07.030. The purpose was to include everything in 19.07 instead of spread through the building code. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 6 of the ordinance, Emergency Declaration that requires passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that was true of any emergency ordinance; emergency ordinances always require adoption by a super majority. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was an emergency ordinance or an interim ordinance or both. Mr. Taraday answered the proposal was to consider it both as an emergency ordinance and an interim ordinance. With regard to returning this to Council after the OPMA restrictions are lifted, Councilmember Olson asked the methodology to ensure that occurs. Ms. Hope answered among other things, it will be scheduled on the Council's extended agenda for later this year. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADOPT THE INTERIM FLOOD PREVENTION ORDINANCE NO. 4188 AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT 6. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concern about development and trees, noting the City has yet to adopt a tree ordinance. She did not want developers to get vested and clear cut trees, not to say there were any trees in these areas. Councilmember Paine asked why the variance language in the model ordinance was not included. When a public hearing is held on this ordinance, she would like to have the variance language included in the ordinance. Mr. Lien answered that is a policy discussion for the Council, whether to allow variances to the flood damage protection regulations and what those would look like. Currently within floodplains, structures are required to be built 2 feet above base flood elevation which is stricter that required by FEMA. He clarified it was not a variance to a land use, but a variance to construction standards that help prevent flood damage. Councilmember Paine recommended the Council consider the variance language in the model ordinance that was not included in the proposed interim ordinance. Mr. Lien said not everything in the model ordinance was included in the interim ordinance because not all of it applied to Edmonds. For Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 5 example, the model ordinance includes regulations regarding floodways; there are no floodways within Edmonds. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the governor's modification to the Open Public Meetings Act restrictions provided an opportunity for Council to discuss this. This is a study item; staff is seeking guidance from Council regarding next steps. He introduced Pamela Randolph, Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager; Lonn Inman, Manager of Business Development Engineering, Ameresco, and Project Manager on this project; and Dave Parry, PhD, Senior Technology Fellow, Jacobs Engineering Group, hired by the City as an independent third party reviewer of all the documentation and analysis that has been produced to date in reviewing possible options to replace the incinerator. He noted Dr. Parry's resume is very impressive; this area of wastewater treatment energy consumption usage, particularly the solids portion, managing biosolids, energy advantages, etc. is within his area of expertise and he has been doing this for 40 years. Mr. Williams reviewed: • Presentation Goals o Conduct a brief overview of the various energy programs the WWTP has participated in since 2012. o Provide a brief overview of the ESCO process o Discuss Phase 6 — including the Carbon Recovery process, Resolution 1389 impacts, O&M expenses, and the ESPC contracting methods o Discuss various available approaches to biosolids management and why pyrolysis and gasification seems to be the most promising o Share an evaluation of two different pyrolysis and gasification - projects A and B o Share staff recommendation and independent engineering review o Answer questions Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) o An ESPC is a contract between an energy services company (ESCO) and the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES), under which the ESCO guarantees a not -to exceed cost, system performance, and energy savings to the client (Edmonds). o Under this program: Major project risks are shifted from client to the ESCO ESCO provides single -source of accountability and enhances customer control of equipment & sub -contractor selection • DES manages contract and provides oversight ■ Reduces future energy costs and uses the savings to pay for infrastructure improvements implemented today • Energy Incentives, Grants and Performance 0 2010 Plant staff began working with SNO PUD and entered into an Energy Challenge — since then we have received approximately $304,000 in PUD revenue to complete energy efficiency projects. We anticipate the Carbon Recovery project incentive is estimated to be $20,000 o The project will receive a $250,000 grant from the Department of Commerce o We anticipate another round of Department of Commerce funding this year. The project should rank very high • Graphic of Pathway to Sustainability at WWTP o Phase 3 — High Efficiency Blower ■ Project saves $33,909/year and 345 tons CO2 equivalent to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 6 — 36.5 homes' energy use for one year — 799 barrels of oil consumed o Phase 4 — Aeration & Blower ■ Project saves: $34,062/year and 264 tons CO2 equivalent to: — 27.9 home's energy use for one year — 611 barrels of oil consumed o Phase 5: Dewatering ■ Project saves: 133,211/year and 537 tons CO2 equivalent to: — 56.7 home's energy use for one year — 1,243 barrels of oil consumed Phase 6: Carbon Recovery (Proposed) o This phase will focus on the sewage sludge incinerator costs and the environmental footprint. Opportunities include clean gasification and drying the biosolids to create a high -nutrient soil amendment product Plant Energy and Cost Trends o Energy usage and demand trending downward, while costs are trending upward due to RDC charges and rate increases ■ 23.5% reduction in energy consumption ■ 47% reduction in total energy cost City Council Oversight — Path to Sustainability o August 2014: Staff laid out a long-term plan in a presentation titled "Putting it all Together". The long-term plan included a staged approach outlining a pathway for this next project. o After successful completion of Phase 3 & 4 energy projects, we approached City Council with the Phase 5 project which outlined the necessity of upgrading solids handling equipment in preparation for the future Carbon Recovery. o April 10, 2018: Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed the project and recommended it be placed on the April 17th City Council agenda for presentation, discussion, and action. o April 17, 2018: City Council approved the predesign effort. The work was completed on time and within budget during 2018. o City Council authorized funding for the design of the WWTP Phase 6 Energy Conservation Project - Carbon Recovery in the 2019 budget. o In early 2019, the project team began development of Project B. Project B can reduce construction cost significantly, does not require a new building, increases carbon recovery and reduces the environmental impact of odor control . Diagram of Edmonds WWTP process flow • Project drivers o Equipment has high O&M cost in terms of electrical usage, disposal costs, operations staffing, repair & maintenance and emission controls — approximately $800,000/year o The equipment is currently operating significantly beyond its useful life expectancy — in operation 30 years. o The equipment was installed at a time when the need to reduce energy and reuse of bi-products was not a focus. o Regulatory burden has significantly increased with the new sludge incinerator regulations under 40CFR Part 60 Subpart 0. o § 60.150 states compliance with new emissions standards must be met... "When the cumulative cost of the changes over the life of the unit exceeds 50 percent of the original cost of building and installing the unit (not including the cost of land) updated to current costs." • Regulatory Trigger for Replacement o Must meet New Source Performance Standards for air emissions (USEPA) at the point where total investments in an existing, grandfathered incinerator (Edmonds) exceed 50% of its original cost after factoring in inflation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 7 o Analysis of Edmonds WWTP Incinerator repair & maintenance history shows we are nearing 43% at -this -time • Spreadsheet calculations for this requirement are included in agenda packet • Basic options available for replacement o Build conventional digester flowed by production of EQ Biosolids for land application ■ Most common current approach ■ Edmonds does not have space for digesters on site • Any expansion of our footprint in downtown would be very difficult ■ Likely the most expensive option • Wintertime management of land application systems ■ Long-term costs of hauling and possible storage are very high and energy intensive ■ Does not address HAS residues o Replace with a new incinerator ■ Appeared to be the second most expensive option after initial screening ■ Does not measurably improve environmental performance including carbon footprint • Regulations on incineration may well continue to get more stringent • Basic options available o Pyrolysis/Gasification options • Can produce a range of useable end products • More energy efficient • Reduce carbon emissions ■ These approaches have been commercially available for many years • Most installations in this Country have been for organic wastes like agricultural manures, wood chips, and other feedstocks. Examples using Municipal biosolids are limited (2) but growing Comparison of these two approaches environmentally and financially is the focus of this presentation o Option A — Pyrolysis • Bioforcetech/Centrisys ■ Produces dry, pelletized biochar •. One existing WWTP biosolids installation in the US but several more in Europe o Option B — Pyrolysis/Gasification ■ Ecoremedy • Can potentially produce either Exceptional Quality (EQ) biosolids for direct land application, Biochar, or mineral intensive dry residue with little to no remaining carbon • One existing WWTP biosolids installation in the US (Morrisville, Pennsylvania) and two more being evaluated ■ Project A — Pyrolysis Bioforcetech/Centrisys diagram and P-Five Pyrolysis System photo o Belt dryer uses natural gas ■ Project B — City Staff Recommendation o Video of David Mooney, President and Chief Technology Officer, Ecoremedy, explaining how the Ecoremedy process works • Ecoremedy is a highly controlled carbon conversion process combining drying, pyrolysis and gasification into a single vessel ■ Ecoremedy differentiators include: — Extreme scalability — Broad fuel tolerance — Operational simplicity — Low maintenance ■ Photographs of system installation in Morrisville, Pennsylvania ■ Cost comparison Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 8 Utilities Existing Incinerator (Baseline) Project A Pyrolysis Centrisys Project B Gasification Ecoremedy Unit Utilities $163,566 $193,479 126,666 Total $/ r Odor Control Chemicals $47,768 $74,826 $3,009 Total $/ r Polymer $160,000 $160,000 $56,000 Total $/ r Screenings $0 $24,000 $0 Total $/ r Labor 4321,725 $333,271 $333,271 Total $/ r Annual Maintenance $89,951 $52,000 $35,000 Total $/ r Regulatory 1 $172,183 $120,000 $60,000 Total $/ r Hauling $36,000 1 $0 $36,000 1 Total/ r Sub Total All Costs $/ r $991,193 1 $957,575 $649,946 Total $/ r o Savings of $341,247 can provide the revenue steam to cover $5,250,000 in debt service (2.7% @ 20 years levelized) approximately 20% of project costs Carbon Recovery ro'ect comparison Project A Project B Price — Construction Est Higher construction costs Lower construction and installation costs Utility Cost to Operate, $190,630 $123,468 annually (higher than baseline lower than baseline One time incentive from $0 $20,000 estimated from utility PUD Carbon footprint Increased natural gas to dry Increases carbon recovery biosolids Utilities screening and biosolids as fuel O&M Cost Higher trucking and chemical Lower trucking and chemical costs costs. Ease of Construction Requires new building Uses existing building footprint Simplicity of System Integrates 12 vendor packages Meets City standards for controls, Double pieces of equipment less equipment needed Turn -key supplier Warranty/Risk Single -source technology supplier Lower startup period Longer start-up and commission period Ongoing optimization included • Benefits of Project B — Pyrolysis/Gasification o Most flexible, efficient and affordable approach to implement and the lowest operational costs o Produces an environmentally -friendly end product (biochar) while generating its own thermal conversion from the biosolids. This will move the City closer to achieving the goals established in Resolution 1389 o No acidic side stream or hazardous waste is produced o Biochar will likely be land applied in Eastern WA. We will also look for sites in Western Washington • Future Energy Projects o Influent pump replacement o High efficiency motors for fans and pumps o Energy management page and development of KPI's for daily monitoring o Continued lighting upgrades o Replace effluent gravity valve • Action — Next Steps Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 9 o Request that the City Council instruct staff: • To -return -(next week?) -with -a specific -set of performance -guarantees -and -a G-max price -to replace Edmonds' aging SSI with a pyrolysis/gasification system supplied by Ecoremedy (Project B) • The eventual action needed is to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement with the Department of Enterprise Services for delivery of this project ■ Further Council action in 2020 will likely include selling revenue bonds to support the project Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the City proceeded with Project B and for some reason during the process was unable to use the current building and a new building was required, would that be covered by the guarantee. Mr. Williams answered yes, he thought so, Ecoremedy knows the geometry of their mechanical equipment and have made guarantees to Ameresco and Ameresco in turn has provided guarantees so there would be no reason for the City to support a change order of that size to support a mistake at that point. Mr. Inman said the biggest risk is there is roughly a 5'/2 to 6 month construction window; the plan is to do the outage during the dry months when flows are low. The risk would be if construction could not be done within the May 1 to October 1 window, there is the potential for impact to the City in the cost to haul away dewatered sludge for a longer period of time. He anticipated they would consider insurance to cover that potential claim. The risks is not that the building couldn't be used, but that the process would be interrupted throughout the winter. Ms. Randolph commented the construction window is a key driver. With regard to what happens if the mechanical equipment does not fit, there has been quite a bit of engineering to ensure it will fit in the space. Much of the challenge and the project cost is due to the limited space, access and construction. Mr. Williams added that is a feature of the ESCO process; if this was a design/bid/build project and all the engineering and documentation said it would fit in the building, and then it did not, that would be on City, but not in an ESCO project. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the anaerobic digestion that King County does which needs to be trucked out was not required for gasification. He assumed there was a trucking process to transport the biochar to Eastern WA. Mr. Williams said biochar is much lower volume that hauling Class A biosolids for land application. The intent of producing that product is to recycle it and industry groups are working on markets for it. The Project A team that produced pelletized biochar, had their project been affordable, would have taken the biochar so there was no cost to dispose of it. Another benefit of producing and selling the biochar is it saves up to $2M in tax on the project. Councilmember Paine asked how both systems would be offered at the same time, whether the treatment plan was capable of doing that and how that transition would occur. Mr. Williams answered with difficulty; when the incinerator is removed and a replacement system is installed, there will be a period of time when biosolids will not be incinerated and will need to be taken somewhere. They are a mix of raw sludge and secondary sludge which is not a product that can be applied to agricultural land. Those biosolids would need go somewhere where someone would do lime stabilization or other treatment to the biosolids in order to dispose of it. That is an inherent cost of this project; as Mr. Inman stated, the project would not want to exceed the October 1 deadline and required continued hauling biosolids all winter until the project could be finished in the spring. Ms. Randolph commented staff has been working with Dr. Parry to look at how to manage solids. The team will also be talking to King County to reduce flows during that time so solids during construction are more limited. Dr. Parry is also looking at options for treating solids during that time period as there will be a lot of solids during that time that cannot be land applied. Dr. Parry said the main way on projects like this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 10 where there is a need to treat raw solids is lime stabilization which can produce a Class A biosolid that can be land applied. For Northwest soils that tend to be acidic, the alkaline is a complementary application. Councilmember Paine asked when the Pennsylvania example would be online and whether the team was watching that project closely. Mr. Williams answered it is operating now. Councilmember Olson referred to Dr. Parry's resume where there were comments about future operating conditions and asked how much time and thought was given to the location of the City's current WWTP, its proximity to the border of a floodplain and whether that was issue for consideration. Mr. Williams answered the thought of moving the WWTP had never occurred to him. He agreed it was located in an important part of downtown and its location was a tradeoff, something he mentions to the partners in the treatment plant but do not have the facility in their city. Customers in Edmonds pay the same amount as a customer in Mountlake Terrace, yet Edmonds hosts the treatment facility. He acknowledged it occupies an important property in downtown, occasionally creates trucking and odor problems and it would be nice to have it on property that was more isolated from downtown. He estimated it would cost in excess of $100 million to build new treatment plan somewhere. Dr. Parry estimated over $100 million, likely pushing $200 million. He agreed this often comes up when plants are located on prime real estate. For example, there is a wastewater treatment plant in Vale, Colorado on property valued at several million dollars per acre. The cost of moving a wastewater treatment plan is very cost prohibitive. He has done analyses for moving the San Diego treatment plan located on the California coast, but it is cost prohibitive. Edmonds' current location limits the processes that can fit on the site. If there were more space, it would not be a matter of digestion or gasification or incineration; some can do both but more space is required. Councilmember Olson said she was not being an opportunist with regard to what that property could be used for. Her question was what happened if it flooded and whether that was something to be concerned about. Mr. Williams said that was not something to be concerned about. Operation is different when the sea level is high and there is a lot of wind and rain and flooding downtown as wastewater needs to be pumped which requires higher energy costs, whereas much of the year during drier times, treated wastewater flows via gravity to Puget Sound. During those same conditions, the plant is getting a lot of affluent. With climate change and serious precipitation events becoming more common, that is something to think about. He summarized there was no serious danger of the plant being flooded from seawater. If that happens, there are even bigger issues than the treatment plant. Dr. Parry commented that would be an issue for the entire WWTP not just the solids at the facility. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the total cost of the project for gasification. Mr. Williams answered the agenda bill includes an estimate of $25-$27 million. A more exact number will be provided in the next presentation, the G-Max price. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how much the City currently owes in bonds and the monthly expenditure and whether there would be an increase or decrease in FTE with gasification. Mr. Williams answered the projection is that staffing would remain about the same. The $340,000/year in O&M are other expenses and does not have a direct labor component. The labor costs for Option A and B are slightly higher than the current incinerator operation but not noticeably higher, approximately $320,000-$330,000. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the video helped her understand the process. She asked if this project has been discussed with the treatment plant's partners. Mr. Williams answered there are quarterly meetings between Edmonds and the designated representatives from Mountlake Terrace, Ronald Sewer/Shoreline and Olympic View Water & Sewer District where this project has been discussed for quite some time. There is a new operational partnership agreement pending to renew the partnership which he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 11 anticipated would occur shortly. The partner agencies are aware of this project and are familiar with the technology and -the -rough costs. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the partners had been part of the design team. Mr. Williams answered no, they receive presentations and are informed of the decision points. Edmonds operates the treatment plant and those agencies pay for service. The partners have a fee simple interest in the capital investment in the treatment plant capacity, but as far as operations and decision like this, Edmonds is the majority partner and makes those decisions. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a suggestion that Edmonds bond for the pyrolysis project and the partner agencies pay the City. She was concerned those agencies may not be able to afford it and wanted to ensure they could pay their share. Mr. Williams said the current agreement and new replacement agreement is very clear that everyone pays their own costs. The new agreement provides the opportunity for Edmonds to borrow the entire amount and the partners pay their proportional share of the debt service. It would not make any cash flow difference for the City and bond counsel did not think it would affect the City's bond rating in the future. The partners have not asked to do that but that financing option is available in the new agreement. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled some bonds would be paid off in the next couple years. Mr. Williams offered to provide a schedule of outstanding bonds for the entire utility system, commenting it is in good financial condition. Councilmember Buckshnis said pyrolysis would have been more expensive and more compartmentalized, but this is less expensive, appears to be more ecofriendly and is with one group. Mr. Williams agreed, both options are capable of pyrolysis. Ecoremedy could carry that process to a more distant end point and turn it into a full gasification system that has far less residues to dispose of and also does not recapture as much carbon. Option B (Ecoremedy) would produce biochar just like option A but at a lower cost and more efficiently. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Option B goes further and produces something that perhaps is good for the environment. Mr. Williams answered if all the biosolids were completely gasified, the end result is a small amount of a very dry, finely divided material that looks like ash and has a very low carbon content, full of minerals and there could be recycling options developed such as concrete. The biochar market is more attractive and readily available to access and there is a sales tax break, good reasons to start out producing maximum biochar with the Ecoremedy project. If circumstances, finances or costs changed and there was a desire to reduce hauling costs, it could be fully gasified and a smaller volume to dispose of. Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the timeline. Mr. Williams answered if the Mayor were authorized to sign the energy services proposal by July I", the necessary work could be done in 2020 before the wet weather. This will be a 2-year project, completed in 2021. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the work done on the pyrolysis project design, height restrictions, etc. just goes away. Mr. Williams said the Ecoremedy projects fits in the existing building. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that is another benefit, there were height requirements with pyrolysis. Councilmember Paine asked if the resulting effluent from this project meets all the current and anticipated regulatory requirements for Puget Sound. Mr. Williams answered there would be no change impact on the discharge to Puget Sound, this is strictly the solids side stream; once the solids are removed from the water, this process is related to how those are treated, managed and disposed of. The aqueous side of the treatment plant and those process are not changed. Councilmember Paine recalled from a previous discussion that there is some anticipation that the regulatory requirements for Puget Sound will become more stringent. She asked if other things would need to be done in the future to address effluent that goes into Puget Sound. Mr. Williams explained the state is interested Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 12 in reducing nitrogen discharges to Puget Sound and have been working on a Puget Sound water quality model for 10+ years. The state is close to issuing permits that will require reduction in nitrogen discharges. That is why the City is planning to conduct a trial this summer of a promising technology, under the authorization of the Department of Ecology, that would reduce the nitrogen discharges. Whether that will be successful and when that will be a requirement is unknown, but it probably will be required in 3-5 years. Ms. Randolph said the Edmonds WWTP permit in negotiations now. Ecology wanted to give the plant a permit limit now, but because of the trial they were able to develop concentration limits and not issue the limit right now. There are advantages of the trial including determining the capability of the treatment plant which may drive the permit limit in the future. Mr. Williams said Ecology has not determined the limit yet, whether it is a concentration limit, poundage limit, loading limit, etc. They are asking dischargers for comment. At some point Ecology will finalize the requirement and that will be part of permits as they are renewed. If the technology in the trial is successful and the City is required to pursue it on an ongoing basis, he guessed that could be a $5-10 million project plus additional O&M costs. Dr. Parry said the incinerator replacement project affects solids which do not make the nitrogen any better or worse, but it puts Edmonds in good position versus other technologies like a digester which is not as sustainable as gasification/pyrolysis because digestion releases nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus back into the waste stream and would require treatment. Councilmember Paine asked when a report on the nitrogen trial will be available. Mr. Williams answered toward the end of the year. Ms. Randolph answered it was broken into two phases; the first phase will be on summer operation and the report should be available 3-4 months after the trial is completed. The second phase would be winter months; it would be advantageous to study impacts of winter flows. Edmonds has only committed to DOE for a trial during the summer. Mr. Williams answered studying nitrification/denitrification process during winter months is more difficult when water temperatures are lower and performance usually degrades in the winter. It is unknown whether the limits Ecology establishes will be seasonal. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that the regulatory trigger for replacement was 50% of the original cost without land and factoring in inflation. The materials provided last week estimated that percentage at 25-36% for the wastewater incinerator repair and maintenance history. However, this week's materials state 43%. She asked for an explanation of the disparity. Mr. Williams answered an older number may have been included in one of the documents. The more recent analysis done in 2017 determine 42.7%. EPA provided that guidance but there are no more words available to explain how it is calculated and treatment plants are left to their own resources to determine what that means. Ms. Randolph did a thorough job of parsing out their words to determine the cost, both the initial cost adjusted for inflation 30 years later and adding all costs adjusted for inflation and the date of investment to determine the percentage. Councilmember K. Johnson observed staff had no explanation for the 25-36% percentage that was included in last week's materials. Ms. Randolph explained when she first did the spreadsheet, she reviewed the documents to determine the original cost of the plant and the cost of incinerator. She reviewed what had been done through the years, part of the valuation was looking at things that needed to be replaced in the next 1-2 years which may be the discrepancy that Councilmember K. Johnson referenced. The percentage in 2017 did not include the items that would be necessary in the future which is the 43%. The spreadsheet has not been updated since 2017. To develop the spreadsheet, she attended a seminar with other incinerator operators. She based the calculation on the best information available. Mr. Williams answered the calculation is interesting and EPA did it to press existing, older style incinerators that do not meet new source performance standards to be upgraded. Even if that was not required, the incinerator, highly intensive mechanical -electrical equipment with software and control systems, probably Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 13 would still need to be upgraded because it is 33 years old, tired, cranky, difficult to maintain and parts often need -be -fabricated. He -summarized -the -real -reason -for replacing it -is -its age. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the timing, noting staff is pressing to have the Mayor sign a document by July I 'and there is a 2-year window. With all the financial uncertainty, she questioned rushing to do this in a short period of time. She noted staff s recommendation is to make a decision by next week. Mr. Williams apologized if that seemed rushed; in staffs view, they have been working on it for four years and updates have been provided to Council a couple times in last two years. He recognized the focus on COVID-19 and civil unrest are dominating everyone's thought processes so it may seem strange to talk about spending a lot of money to take this step. It is a timing issue due to the construction window. He was uncertain what additional information could be generated for Council to review. If Council identified what was missing, staff could try to provide it. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this a very important project for the City and there are several new Councilmembers who have not be part of the previous discussions regarding pyrolysis. She wanted to have a better understanding of how the shift from A to B was made and how much time and money has been spent analyzing the pyrolysis project. Mr. Williams said the focus initially was on Project A; it had a working installation at time which Ecoremedy did not have when the analysis began. They were one of the only readily available options with a responsible contractor, well -funded and had an operational installation. However, what they were saying at the time did not stand up to scrutiny after time was spent analyzing how it would fit into Edmonds' facility and the costs kept climbing. At one point the cost was $30 million for Project A and it seemed prudent to see if there was anything else newly available or proven that could be tested against Project A. The more the team looked at Project B, the better they felt about recommending it. Everything that was done on Project A is useful in Project B. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how much was spent on Project A. Mr. Williams answered about $2.3 million. Councilmember K. Johnson observed as a result of that analysis, they no longer recommended it. Mr. Williams answered they did not recommend Project A, but are recommending pyrolysis and gasification using a different vendor. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the annual maintenance cost of the incinerator is $89,951 so in theory the plant could go several more years before reaching 50%. Mr. Williams answered operation and regular maintenance of the incinerator totals $990,000 and could be higher and does not include major repairs that need to be done, repairs that could be required soon. There have been large repairs since 2017 that could be added to the calculation. Even using 2017 numbers, most of the 50% has been consumed. Councilmember K. Johnson said that information was not in the packet but it was on one of slides; annual maintenance comparing the incinerator in Project A to Project B. Mr. Williams said the PowerPoint is attached to the packet; $990,000 for the incinerator, $957,000 for Project A and $649,000 for Project B. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the treatment plant is 32 years old, is at 43% now and costs are accelerating. She asked when the 50% would be reached and what were the consequences. Mr. Williams said he cannot predict what failures will occur or what it will cost to fix them. A big one is the operation of the schwing pump; a replacement pump was purchased for $300,000 but if the existing pump failed, a new hopper and re -piping would be required, estimated to cost $600,000. Adding $600,000 to the numerator in the calculation would easily put the percentage over 50%. Councilmember K. Johnson asked what the numerator was. Mr. Williams answered it was in the attachment; the original cost of the incinerator was $2.5 million, escalated to today's costs was $5.5 million and documented expenditures to date were $2.354 million which equates to 42.7%. Councilmember K. Johnson asked why there are not more examples of gasification or pyrolysis for wastewater treatment plants in the United States. There is one example in the United States and several in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 14 Europe. Mr. Williams said Europe has been doing a lot related to improved carbon management and there are several wastewater biosolid plants in Europe as well as a lot of installations with other feedstocks. The principles for agricultural manure are the same and the equipment likely is similar if not identical. There is a plant in northern Washington State that processes agricultural manure. He agreed it would be ideal if there were 50 facilities that could be pointed to as proven technology. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was difficult to understand why there were not more facilities because this was not new technology. Dr. Parry said he has been tracking it for several decades. One of the reason is until recently, most treatment plants have focused on disposal rather than recovering a resource. Pyrolysis will recovery a resource and produce a biochar that is gaining in popularity and marketability. Until pyrolysis and gasification, the PFAS does not get destroyed. There are a lot of drying projects, but without the additional thermal process of pyrolysis and gasification, the PFAS still exists. It is gaining in popularity not just in the U.S.; he is working on a couple projects in Australia that are looking at it and have installed pilot facilities. He and others have been researching this for a couple decades; it has been applied successfully on biomass, wood and animal manure, but the focus has been how get rid of biosolids. He noted half the biosolids in California go to a landfill and only half are land applied. The interest now is more resource recovery and it is a very effective way to get a good product like biochar. Councilmember K. Johnson commented that information coupled with the small footprint of the Edmonds treatment plan that does not have space for aeriation and disposal was helpful. Dr. Parry commented both Projects A and B produce biochar. Project A was a good project but the price kept increasing. Project A only did biochar, to get to pyrolysis, the biosolids have to be dried first and their only option was to buy natural gas. Project B can use their own carbon and go further to gasification and still produce a biochar, but instead of buying natural gas, recover the carbon as energy to do the drying which saves on natural gas. That flexibility is a very beneficial feature of Project B. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed appreciation for Dr. Parry's knowledge and expertise. Councilmember Olson said the presentation stated there were no metals or other hazardous material outcomes. She recalled there was a citizen who had concerns related to Seattle where there are still metals in the biproduct. She asked if this system would have any metals. Mr. Williams answered if there are metallic elements in the waste stream, they will be in the biosolids and mineral residue would still exist after gasification. He noted mercury is volatilized into the atmosphere which is the reason for efforts to keep mercury out of the waste stream. The key is pre-treatment, knowing the dischargers and getting them to take out metallics out before waste reaches the WWTP. There is little industry in Edmonds and no metal processing plants. There are dental offices that work with mercury amalgam and there has been a lot of movement in the last couple decades to get them to capture old fillings before they reach the sewer system. There is nothing new about metallic elements ending up in the biosolids. Councilmember Olson asked if the product could then not be used in a fertilizer application. Mr. Williams answered when biosolids are applied to land, the soil is tested to determine the current concentration of metals and the concentration in the material being applied to determine the rate at which the application may increase the metals and the application rate is adjusted accordingly. That has been occurring for years. Biosolids will have some metals and are usually low concentrations unless it is in a large city like Seattle or Spokane that have discharges that contain higher levels of metallic elements. Treatment plant works with industries to install pretreatment at their sites to keep it out of the treatment plant. Dr. Parry said it is rare in the U.S. to have plants with metals beyond a threshold that cannot be applied. If that unusual event happened, the solution would be to go to the source. Areas in the world that are still dealing with that and are not doing land applications include eastern Europe which is known to have high metals in their biosolids. Ms. Randolph said a lot of preliminary testing of solids has been done and they were all below the thresholds. Mr. Williams said the reason concentrations are lower than they were in the past was due to successful pretreatment programs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 15 Councilmember Olson -commented -the City's-bond-rating-is-higher than -most -surrounding -communities -so it would make sense for Edmonds to bond for the project, as long as it did not negatively affect the City's bond rating, and pass the cost onto partners instead of them bonding separately. With regard to the partners paying the same utility rates, she questioned whether that was equitable and the correct arrangement, considering that Edmonds taxpayers pay for the treatment plant asset and perhaps the partners should pay a small additional rate that represents the value of what Edmonds taxpayer contributed. Mr. Williams agreed, noting the existing agreement is 35-40 years old and there are efforts underway to update it. Both he and Ms. Randolph have been making that point; Edmonds hosts the facility in its downtown and it is a lost opportunity for a use that could provide a greater return. In the last negotiation, to recognize that Edmonds hosts the treatment plant, the overhead the partners pay was increased from 10% to 17.5% in addition to their costs. Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo on that increase. She complimented Ms. Randolph on her numbers. If staff brings this back next week, she suggested Dr. Parry provide a whitepaper on his research of Ecoremedy. She said it seems rushed but it really it is not because there have been discussion regarding the pyrolysis project in the past. The video helped her understand the process after pyrolysis. Mr. Williams said Ecoremedy is not a huge company, but they have a financial backer, Rockwell, that is underwriting their guarantees to Ameresco. He offered to provide history regarding the technology, the future of the technology, etc. Mr. Inman said they negotiated with Ecoremedy withholding some of their project payment to have them return after the project has been installed and accepted to prove the performance. The contract is structured so approximately $500,000 would be withheld pending their return 6 months and a year after acceptance to prove performance and do owner training. Mr. Williams said monitoring and verification is part of the ESCO process. 2. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT PSA REGARDING FACIAL COVERINGS Councilmember L. Johnson said Councilmember Olson and she are proposing a PSA regarding wearing face masks, an idea that came out of an experience she had with her family, the first time all five of them put on their masks and walked downtown. It was a such a new feeling and they felt pretty self-conscious and returned home early. They talked about where that discomfort came from and decided they needed to focus on why they were wearing masks; to protect themselves, but wearing a mask says to others that I care about you. Wearing a face mask is an act of kindness and a message that needs to be celebrated and normalized. That has made it easier for her family to wear masks in comfort and pride. The idea of a PSA came from a discussion that she and Councilmember Olson had about not only celebrating and normalizing wearing masks but promoting them as way to ensure reopening soon, remaining reopen and making it possible for the most vulnerable citizens to join us sooner rather than later. Their idea was 20-second video clips of each Councilmember engaging in an activity while wearing a facemask such as walking a dog, walking downtown, or talking with a neighbor or a business downtown or on Highway 99. The clip would include the why and how of wearing face masks and could end with a message like "my mask protects you and your mask protects me" or some other agreed upon message. The clips would be compiled into one PSA that could be posted on social media. They anticipated it would be fairly simple to make the video clips without an associated cost, but were uncertain that they could produce a finished video or if professional assistance would be required. Councilmember Olson was proud of the number of people in the community wearing masks. To Councilmember L. Johnson's point, there is still some discomfort and awkwardness. The intent is positive messaging, education and outreach about the difference wearing a mask makes. There has been more conversation about hand washing and social distancing, but face coverings are an important element. She referred to a comment included in the agenda packet from the Snohomish Health District about the value Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 16 of facial coverings. Councilmembers talking about value of wearing face masks will help with buy -in; the more people wear masks, the more the community is protected. Reopening and remaining open is a concern; the second and third waves of past pandemics have been worse than the first. Planning ahead and getting the community to be responsible is a valuable add that the PSA may be able to help achieve. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is a great collaboration that can be done with the administration. She referred to a piece on "60 Minutes" and other PSAs. She asked if Councilmembers L. Johnson and Olson wanted to create a resolution to inform the administration that the Council was interested in a PSA. If the Council does a PSA and there is unrest, the administration and Mayor Nelson will have to deal with any issues. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding that the Mayor's Office was not participating, that this would be a Council -driven project. Councilmember L. Johnson answered that was her intent. She supported collaboration, but this was an opportunity for Council to come together and to reach out to the community. Councilmember Buckshnis did not disagree, but said if there is any pushback like the pushback about the dog park, it will go to the administration. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Nelson to respond. Mayor Nelson said the first he heard about the administration participating was 6 p.m. today. His understanding was this was a Council - generated idea and a well-intentioned PSA staring Councilmembers should rest with the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas concurred that this was Councilmembers Olson and L. Johnson's project. She opined it was a great project and she was happy to participate. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was open to running the idea past the administration to ensure there was nothing controversial. This was not intended to be difficult, but to show a unified message from the Council. She was happy to include the administration in reviewing the PSA. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was happy to participate in a PSA. She relayed the newest victims of COVID-19 are under 40 and those numbers rising. It is not just people over 65 that are at risk but the whole community. Councilmember Paine agreed it was a great idea and she was happy to participate. Normalizing wearing a mask makes it easier. She recalled being at the post office where there was some shaming of people wearing masks. Although that doesn't sound like Edmonds, it does happen. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed it was a great idea. If the Council creates a resolution in support of a PSA, the administration could point to the resolution if any issues arose. It would be great to have the Mayor and Council in the PSA because they are in this together. If something happens, a resolution would be a mechanism to help the administration. Councilmember Distelhorst said as part of Governor Inslee's Safe Start in Washington program as of June 8", all workers that are around any other employees need to wear a face covering and any business can deny entry to any customer or member of the public who is not wearing a face covering of some kind. He anticipated there would be little pushback. He was fully supportive of this project and he looked forward to participating. Council President Fraley-Monillas said a resolution was not necessary unless Councilmembers L. Johnson and Olson wanted one. A PSA is a good advertisement for wearing masks. With regard to people under 40 getting COVID-19, in a discussion with the Snohomish Health District Physician Dr. Spitters, he explained in the past those people were told to stay home and weren't tested because there were not enough tests. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 17 Councilmember Olson said the inclusion of the administration was not part of the original idea but they were -interested -in -unified -leadership. She was -supportive -of Mayor Nelson -participating- in-the-PSA. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked -about the next step. Councilmember L. Johnson said it appears there were no objections from Council so they will work on a script and how to create a polished product. She suggested Councilmembers find their favorite mask and think about what want to do in the PSA. Councilmember Buckshnis asked where the PSA will be broadcast and if it would only be on Channel 21. Councilmember L. Johnson said if it stayed in Edmonds that would be fine or others could pick it up. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized getting the Mayor and the administration involved would be helpful. 3. DISCUSSION OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION CONTRACT RENEWAL HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained Council may recall the contract with the Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA) was to expire at the end of 2019. SCPDA graciously agreed to extend the contract for six months and not request a cost increase to allow time for the Council to review their request. Kathleen Kyle, SCPDA, reviewed: • What makes SCPDA special? 0 46 year institutional history supported by a strong board of directors o SCPDA hires previously court -involved people o Provide services across multipole practice areas o Innovative advocacy • History o 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright 0 1963 SCPDA formed 0 2010 State v. A.N.J. 0 2011 Wilbur v. Cities of Burlington and Mt Vernon 0 2016 three-year contract with SCPDA 0 2019 one year extension 0 2020 6 month contract extension to negotiate What has increased SCPDA costs? o Two additional staff investigators o Two additional staff social workers o Acquire new database and increased data analytics o Regular increases to salary scales o Renewed office lease (20% increase in 2019 and an additional 10% increase in 2020) • On average pay $15 per square foot plus operating expenses which remains a competitive rate • Impact of not adding resources o Takes longer to resolve cases ■ Cases are continued to complete investigation or fulfill social work needs Clients in jail longer ■ Workloads grow: divided attention across 100 to 150+ open cases per attorney creates a whirlwind of day to day tasks and there is insufficient time to spend on the concentrated work needed to move the case forward o Burnout a Frustration from work needs to be accomplished versus time to accomplish it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 18 ■ Leads to underperformance and/or resignations for other employment opportunities Current caseloads — June 1, 2020 o Patrick, Colin 126 o Snyder, Daniel 122 • Adding Capacity o Better efficiency ■ Fewer continuances ■ Cases will resolve sooner ■ Information provided to prosecutor, court and probation sooner o More confidence in outcomes ■ Fewer cases reversed on appeal ■ Less pretrial confinement o Retain dedicated public defenders a Reduce attrition t Attract new talent Rates comparison o In negotiating the 2019 contract extension, SCPDA requested a 15% increase and settled on a 7.5% increase with the understanding that full consideration would be offered in 2020. With the changes within the city, the full discussion was moved back another 6 months until now, 2019 & Jan to June 2020 Monthly Compensation Compensation Attorney compensation $ l 5,270.74 Investigator services $1,594.11* Administrative costs $9,400.42 Total $26,265.27 In 2019, the contract paid $19,129.32 for investigation services. SCPDA conducted 142 investigations in 2019. This resulted in $134.71 per case for investigations services. Proposed July to December 2020 Compensation Compensation Attorney compensation $16,666.67 Investigator services $3,250.00* Administrative costs $9,631.75 Total $29,548.42 Proposed 2021 Compensation Compensation Attorney compensation $17,916.67 Investigator services $3,493.75* Administrative costs $10,354.14 Total $31,764.56 Assuming similar numbers of investigation referrals, the 2020 rate is estimated at $205 per cases and 2021 rate is $295 per case Councilmember Olson said her background is in contracts, in engineering contracts, piecework was paid at a higher rate because people are not full-time and there are no benefits so there is an offset to the value. The agenda memo includes a comparison to conflict attorneys with whom the City contracts, and unless law is very different, she would not have expected those rates to be so similar. She would have expected conflict attorneys to be paid a lot more per case. Ms. Kyle said she did not know, she was a career public defender and has never worked as a private attorney or done conflict work. She assumed those numbers do not reflect investigative or social work, they are solely for the lawyer and the lawyer petitions the court for additional funds for investigation or social work. They are able to do concentrated work for Edmonds; SCPDA lawyers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 19 are present for the duration of calendar. Their fee includes the cost of trial, investigation and social workers; the total cost is under $500/case including all that expertise. Their investigators and social workers are among best in the state and SCPDA has a statewide representation for providing quality public defense. Councilmember Olson asked if the $295/case reflected all those services. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered $295/case is investigator services. The contract with conflict counsel for $300/case is just the attorney for a minimum of 6 hours per case and then $50/hour based on hours worked over the minimum. Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office, agreed it was a flat fee of $300 for the first 6 hours and $50/hour thereafter for conflict counsel. Councilmember Paine said she was glad to hear the City has a strong public defender representing the courtroom and the people of Edmonds. She was very satisfied with the contract. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Paine's comments. She was satisfied with SCPDA's work since 2016 and said she has not heard any complaints. Ms. Kyle complimented the Edmonds Municipal Court; SCPDA appears in 16 different courtrooms throughout the county and Edmonds Municipal Court reopened the soonest in a safe manner via Zoom. She often points to the Edmonds court as an example of how to reopen. Mayor Nelson said he would pass that on to Judge Coburn. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the next step is to present the contract to Council for action at the next meeting. The proposed contract is through the end of 2021. Councilmember Olson asked what was budgeted for this service and whether there were sufficient funds in the budget for this increase, knowing that identifying additional funds may not be easy to do. Ms. Neill Hoyson said when the Council discussed this at the end of 2019, she asked the Finance Director to include additional funds in the budget for this contract. She will confirm with Finance whether that occurred and the amount. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed the governor's latest proclamation on waiving the OPMA no longer has the restriction that agenda items be necessary and routine. Beginning tonight and at future Council meetings, there will be more items on the agenda due to the significant backlog. He will work with Council President Fraley-Monillas to schedule a variety of topics/subjects on future agendas. Mayor Nelson commented a lot of people are interested and excited about the next phase of reopening for Snohomish County. After the governor issued changes to the process on Friday that allowed more flexibility to qualify for reopening, Snohomish County submitted an application on Monday. In his conversation with the governor's office today, he was fairly confident there would be a determination by the end of the week. Whatever is decided, he was confident there would be more reopening than currently exists. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember K. Johnson shared a message from Interim Chief James Lawless. "We value the concerns that our community has in response to the events that have taken place regionally and nationally over the last several days. Those who wish to peacefully and passionately voice their grief and frustration shall be heard — your police department stands with you in this endeavor. Detracting from this important message with organized violence and terror do not help any community or nation heal and will not be tolerated. Your Edmonds Police Department is resolute in protecting our community by working with our local and regional partners. We embrace our entire community, we hear your concerns and we respect your purpose. The women and men of this agency will continue to serve our community with integrity and respect for all. We will do so with an unbiased commitment to public safety, now more than ever." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 20 Councilmember Buckshnis commented recent events have been very troubling, noting she was around for Rodney King. She relayed Chief Lawless' comments that the video that was released was very disturbing. The actions displayed by the involved officers and their interactions with Mr. Floyd are not reflective of our core mission, vision and values. Our officers are extremely skilled and trained professionals and each and every one of them has a sworn duty to uphold the law and always do the right thing when no one else is looking. Councilmember Buckshnis said a lot of citizens have contacted her; she assures them the City has a wonderful police force. She asked Mayor Nelson to look at policies related to restraint and if any neck restraint is permitted, it should be discussed. She said we're all in this together, it's sad, Black Lives Matter, all lives matter. She urged the public to be calm and civil and to demonstrate peacefully. She reiterated the Edmonds Police Department has done and are doing a great job. Council President Fraley-Monillas said comments made at last week's Council meeting and to the local press by a Councilmember have led to some very painful consequences for City staff. Statements made were words like, "I'm trying to determine if paying people for not work, we rushed into this, I believe other Councilmembers acted to protect the 250 employees of the City but my job is to protect the entire City, we can survive but we cannot survive forever." Some City staff members have been subjected to harassment on the phone and in person by citizens while doing their jobs due to inaccurate information stated by one Councilmember. City staff are working to protect citizens from COVID-19 and have been working from home, in isolated offices, split shifts and on an on -call basis to prevent the spread of the virus amongst themselves. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained the City cannot shut down if a full department is affected by the virus because who would do their jobs? Not presenting the whole story hurt the City and the staff; moreover, the short-term expense of keeping staff healthy can be funded with the CARES Act funds which allows for reimbursement by the federal government to address the financial impacts of the pandemic. The Council's decision in March to protect employees and citizens was the right one and was passed by six Councilmembers. She formally apologized to City staff for the circumstances they've now had to endure on top of a pandemic. City staff are dedicated and they do a very good job for the citizens of the City and deserve to be treated respectfully. She concluded with Black Lives Matter. Councilmember Distelhorst said on top of COVID-19 which is hurting so many, we have seen and felt especially painful times for our nation with another tragic murder of an African American by a police officer among other racist incidents. We have seen a response in our community with statements from the Edmonds Diversity Commission, Edmonds School District as well individual schools, Acting Police Chief Jim Lawless and others. He was very supportive of Mayor Nelson moving forward with a comprehensive advisory group on equity and justice. Racism, police brutality or murder or other systemic biases cannot be part of our City. We need to not only say Black Lives Matter, but those of us in positions to make structural changes must act on the same principles. Earlier this year the Edmonds School District passed a resolution and hosted multiple events on fostering discussion, learning and the celebration of Black lives. Currently at the Council level there is ongoing research evaluating possible inclusion targets which would include minority owned businesses. Another option is joining the Government Alliance on Race and Equity, something he hoped the advisory group would evaluate. He looked forward to working with elected officials and Edmonds residents to better institutionalize and formalize our commitment to our communities of color. The need for change and improvement is not optional. He noted it was also Pride Month and wished a Happy Pride Month to the LGBTQIA+ community. Councilmember Olson assured the Council is thinking of the community and wishing them health and strength getting through the challenges caused by COVID-19. If there is a silver lining, it may that the slower world created by the pandemic allowed the collective attention of the country to turn to this other serious issue when people were not distracted by their busy lives. She pledged to all citizens, especially Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 21 citizens of color, that the Council was interested in their ideas about what the City can do better; ideas make for better policy. Councilmember Paine said she was worrying about people in the community and the nation particularly African Americans and other people of color who suffer disproportionately from police violence. It is something that needs to be addressed systemically in looking at structural racism. The Government Alliance on Race and Equity has the expertise to undo systemic racism and look at policies and procures inside local governments and she encouraged the City to participate in that group. People are doing all they can by wearing masks and having physical distancing and then this tragedy galvanized the nation. This is a point where change can be made and make things better for everyone. Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Council President Fraley-Monillas' concern about the uncomfortable tone of the questioning and the misinformation that went out to the press at last week's Council meeting, commenting citizens deserve better. The United States is currently undergoing a time of great civil unrest. Each person gets to decide if they are going to stay on sidelines or truly take a stand on the side of equality. It is not enough just to say we stand against racism, we must also act. In Edmonds there have been a number of outward acts of racism and we must continue to speak out when this ugliness occurs. While these incidents have received our attention, the deeper work is needed in dismantling systems of inequity that are everywhere, from education to housing to healthcare, to elected representation, to employment, access to city resources, policing and more. Even in the midst of a pandemic, communities of color are disproportionately impacted; in Snohomish County, the per 100,000 rate for infection is 2-2.5 times higher than it is for the Caucasian population. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the orange ribbon she was wearing in honor of gun violence prevention week and to honor Hadiya Pendleton, an African American teenager who was shot and killed at the age of 15, another example of systemic inequities as gun violence disproportionately impacts communities of color. In Edmonds, this inequity shows when more focus and resources are put into the downtown business core than are put into the more diverse Highway 99 business district, when safety concerns along the waterfront were prioritized before addressing the documented safety concerns on Highway 99. We all need to proceed as if lives matter and depend on what we do. Black Lives Matter; it's not enough to simply say it, we must act. As leaders, we can start by listening and taking our direction from those who are most impacted. A dear and patient friend of her taught her, "nothing about us without us," which means we must not proceed without the full participation of those who are fighting for the right to breathe and to live. Obviously as a white woman she cannot not understand the true depth of the issues faced by communities of color, but she can listen and can proceed, not by speaking over voices but by amplifying those voices. She does not have the answers, but if we ever want to find them, we have to get out of our comfort level and do the work to show that black lives really do matter. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. MICH`AEL NELSON, MAYOR AV:li-: IN ■ Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 22 Public Comment for 6/2/20 Council Meeting: 6/2/20 Liz Brown, Subject: WWTP Project I am writing to comment on the agenda item concerning the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and management staffs recommendation to replace the sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) with a gasification process. The Council packet states, "A new incinerator would be as expensive as systems using gasification and pyrolysis but these newer technologies will cost less to operate and maintain, have superior energy balances, and can significantly reduce the City's carbon footprint." This bold statement deserves greater scrutiny, especially because it taps into our hopes of transforming into something useful some very nasty stuff —poop, and everything else people flush down toilets. But in a decision of this magnitude, Council members know to rely not on hope but a hard consideration of the facts. "A new incinerator would be as expensive as systems using gasification and pyrolysis...." Since the packet contains no information on the costs of incineration, there is no way for the Council to evaluate this statement. The Council has not been shown any estimate of the cost of rehabilitating the incinerator, a course of action that other WWTPs in the state are choosing. To date, neither the City nor its contractors have estimated the costs of operating either a pyrolysis or gasification project. It will be challenging, as there are few places to study as reliable indicators for operating costs. Unlike incineration, gasification is a newer, emerging technology, with far too many unknowns to claim it will be less costly. Gasification would "have superior energy balances...." Cost is not the only consideration. Just as the pyrolysis project was described as energy -saving (and is now being abandoned because it's not), gasification is not guaranteed to use less energy. There are 18 gasification installations worldwide, and none of them rely solely on the waste they treat to fuel the treatment process. Edmonds will still have to burn traditional fuels to maintain the process and dry the sludge. We all have had the experience of trying to start a fire with wet wood. Sewage sludge, even dewatered, is wet when treated. It takes a significant amount of energy to burn it. The project "can significantly reduce the City's carbon footprint." The accuracy of this statement is based on many assumptions that may or may not prove accurate. For example, now the WWTP trucks its ash to a landfill. If the WWTP produces bulkier biochar, the volume of trucking may increase. The City may wind up trading less carbon in one stage of the process for a significant increase of carbon in another. Land application of biochar is environmentally friendly. It would be wonderful if our solid waste could be put to use. However, human sewage waste streams include "screenings," or the first ugly cut of stuff filtered from the raw sewage. These screenings include everything people flush down the toilet —tampons, wipes of all kinds, rags, syringes, underpants, Legos, Hot Wheels cars, surgical gloves, surgical masks ... the list goes on and on. Furthermore, the sewage waste stream includes every chemical and industrial waste (some treated first, some not) that goes into our sewers. Many WWTPs struggle to find places to accept their sludge byproducts for land application because of contaminants like heavy metals still present after treatment. The packet notes that "in other regions" the Environmental Protection Agency has permitted gasification to operate as a non -incineration process for the purpose of air - quality regulations. There is no guarantee that this will happen here. Gasification is still a combustion process. A gasification facility still discharges particulates into the airshed. Finally, Edmonds likely faces millions of dollars of required investment in the future to remove more nutrients from the treated effluent discharged from the plant into Puget Sound. Has the Council looked at a longer -term plan for the WWTP based on other Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 23 expected regulatory changes? The incinerator, properly maintained, can continue to meet the City's needs _for _a number of years while -the Council -takes a more - comprehensive look at the budget, the needs of the WWTP and costs associated with other regulatory trends. Incineration -is a mature technology that -has -few unknowns. The problem with land application of sludge byproducts alone may make incineration the most reliable method for WWTPs to deal with the growing volume of waste in the future. 6/2/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comments for June 2, 2020 City Council meeting The November 19, 2019 City Council meeting involved a change to the agenda with no supporting documents in the agenda packet. Citizens found out suddenly that somehow Councilmember Tom Mesaros believed he had the authority, along with Councilmember Dave Teitzel, to suggest City Attorney Jeff Taraday propose a 3-year contract. This development was quite surprising. Three years is much longer than the one-year contract extension discussed during the October 22, 2019 City Council Meeting. Making it worse, Citizens who had not been allowed to participate in the evaluation process were left with less than a week to prepare public comments or ask questions before this surprise 3-year contract was scheduled to be voted on, on November 26, 2019. Or at least — it was implied that the offer of any questions by members of the public would be considered. The November 26, 2019 vote would end up being scheduled before the modified 2nd step in this process was even complete. Mr. Teitzel said during the November 19, 2019 Council Meeting night that it will be 3-4 weeks before step 2 is complete. As such, why did the 2019 City Council vote on a 3-year contract before step 2 was done? Please also know that originally, step 2 was supposed to be: "evaluate whether to have an inhouse attorney or an external firm". From the July 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes: "Councilmember Mesaros distributed a memo describing the evaluation of City Attorney services. when the Council renewed Lighthouse Law Group's contract last year, it was renewed for one year and then -Council President Nelson asked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and him to take the lead on preparing an evaluation process. Since then Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was elected Council President and she asked him to approach another Councilmember. He and Councilmember Teitzel will be working on a process to evaluate the services of Lighthouse Law Group and evaluate whether to have an inhouse attorney or an external firm. They will work on the process first and bring it to Council for approval. Once the process is approved, they will implement it, complete it by the end of September and the Council can make a decision in October regarding how to move forward." Despite this, somehow step 2 became: "Are we getting proper value for what we are paying Lighthouse?"Again, Councilmember Teitzel stated on November 19, 2019 that step 2 likely won't be done for another 3-4 weeks. On November 21, 2019, 1 emailed City Council that I hoped Council would not vote on a 3-year contract prior to the new step 2 being completed in 3-4 weeks. Also, before voting on a 3-year contract, I stated that I hoped Council would also discuss in an open and transparent fashion the original step 2 - evaluate whether to have an inhouse attorney or an external firm. Finally, My November 21, 2019 email said the following: "Please provide the Meeting Minutes that indicate a majority of the City Council voted to have Mr. Mesaros and Mr. Teitzel suggest the City Attorney propose a three-year contract." "If such a vote on scope of contract did not take place, please consider removing Mr. Mesaros and Mr. Teitzel from this process. I believe voting on a contract with a 3- year term grants an advantage to such a term as opposed to other contract terms - such as a 1- year extension. Especially a 3-year contract that includes complicated back charge terms for each of the three years." "As a citizen, I strongly prefer the 2020 City Council decide who should provide City Attorney services during the time those elected officials will be in office." Please appreciate - The November 19, 2019 Council Minutes included the following: Councilmember Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 24 Teitzel reinforced that tonight was only discussion but he wanted to ensurewas 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. Despite this, by the next day it was over — a Councilmember texting on November 20, 2019 that "the vote will be 5 to 2. 1 do not think there is much she can do." I believe "she" referred to Council President Fraley-Monillas. If the Council President couldn't do anything about it as of November 20th — what would a citizen be able to do between 11/20 and Council's vote on 11/26? 1 did not know the vote was already going to be 5 to 2 when I emailed the following to City Council on November 21, 2019: "Making it worse, Citizens who have not been allowed to participate in this evaluation process are left with less than a week to prepare public comments before this surprise 3-year contract is scheduled to be voted on, on November 26, 2019." How naive I was to think that preparing and making public comments on 11/26/19 would have mattered. What a window into Edmonds City government! Excerpts from My Edmonds News, November 5, 2019 - highlighting added. Please read this and ask yourself how we ended up with a 3-year contract rather than extending the Lighthouse contract for another year — through 2020: When the Edmonds City Council nearly nine years ago hired Seattle -based Lighthouse Law Group to provide city attorney services, a major attraction was the cost. The firm offered a "flat rate" monthly billing — with no additional charge for litigation — that would save the city significant dollars compared to Edmonds' long-time city attorney at the time — Ogden Murphy Wallace. Nine years later, the council is considering whether to extend the Lighthouse contract for another year — through 2020. There has been talk — as there has been during past Lighthouse contract renewals — about hiring an in-house attorney who would be a staff employee, or perhaps looking for another attorney altogether. Buckshnis and Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas agreed it was important for the council to be able to do its "due diligence" by comparing costs among attorneys. Fraley-Monillas also shared a quick analysis of how much additional cost the city could incur if Lighthouse chose to exercise its option for retroactive billing — she figured a range of $23,000 to $47,000 a month depending on the hourly rate used. "I appreciate the Lighthouse Group trying to exercise leverage against the City of Edmonds," countered Councilmember Mike Nelson, a mayoral candidate who has been advocating a closer look at hiring an in-house city attorney. This contract, I don't agree with it. It does box us in. It does limit what we can do or explore." Fraley-Monillas noted that there would be a new mayor and new city councilmembers next year and as such it might be best to leave the city attorney decision to them. But Buckshnis disagreed, stating that having new elected officials would be a good reason to keep the existing city attorney through next year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 2, 2020 Page 25