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