Cmd061620EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 16, 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
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Pamela Randolph, Treatment Plant Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
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.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine 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 MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD A NEW ITEM 4.1 TO THE AGENDA ENTITLED "MOTION TO ALLOW
LIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Note: Agenda was approved at the end of the following agenda item.)
MOTION TO ALLOW LIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HEAR LIVE, VIRTUAL PUBLIC
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 1
COMMENT STARTING TONIGHT WITH AGENDA ITEM 5 AND CONTINUE TO TAKE
WRITTEN COMMENTS VIA EMAIL THAT ARE UP TO 450 WORDS, ROUGHLY
EQUIVALENT TO 3 SPOKEN MINUTES.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she had a discussion; she did not think we should limit written comments
as that had never been done in the past.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was an amendment.
Councilmember Olson asked if the written comments will be read into the record or if they will strictly be
written. Councilmember Distelhorst answered his intent was to include the written comments in the minutes
as the Council has been doing. Personally, he did not feel it was appropriate for a Councilmember to read
a citizen's comments because if someone tuned in, there was the potential for a misunderstanding that those
were a Councilmember's words. Councilmember Olson said she would support that amendment if it were
made regarding not limiting them.
Councilmember K. Johnson said on occasion in the past, Councilmembers have read written comments at
a Council meeting so they are part of the record. She was okay with including written comments in the
minutes.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed support for Councilmember Distelhorst's amendment, specifically
to allow for written comment and also supported the 450 words which was equivalent to 3 minutes because
the amount a citizen was able to communicate and included in the minutes should be equal to what was
allowed during public comments. The public still has the ability to email Councilmembers any amount.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Councilmember Distelhorst's motion to allow the
Council to take written comments ongoing, assuming it was not just during the virus. Research of
surrounding cities and Snohomish County found they all do it slightly different. She also supported the 450
words because public comment was intended to discuss what was on the agenda now, what just happened
in the past or in the future. She did not believe allowing the public to submit 5-6 page letters to circumvent
process was the best thing.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Council has already been accepting written comments via the
public comment email address with no limit on the word count for several weeks. She asked if there would
be any OPMA issues with the Council limiting written public comment to 450 words or could the Council
continue to accept unlimited length written comments until the pandemic is over and address this issue in
the future. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there was no requirement in the OPMA that the Council
devote part of the meeting to public comment and there is also no requirement that emails sent to the Council
be included in the Council meeting minutes. That was done on a temporary basis to try to replicate the live
public comment process where citizens can hear other citizens' comments. Now that the Council is
resuming live public comment, the purpose of including written public comments in the minutes is no longer
necessary. He clarified it was certainly not legally necessary, the Council could choose to include them if
they wished but that raises another question of whether the Council should include every single email they
receive from any citizen in the Council minutes.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that emails to the public comment email address were
the only emails that were included in the Council minutes. Some of the public did not realize the Council
would be taking public comment today via the Zoorn meeting and contacted her inquiring where that was
on the agenda so she called the City Clerk. She wanted to be clear if the intent was to remove the written
public comment aspect because live public comment would now be allowed and if Councilmember
Distelhorst's motion was to continue that. Councilmember Distelhorst said a more equitable approach
would be to also give the public an option to continue to submit written public comment in addition to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 2
taking live comment given the current circumstances and potentially in the future because people work at
night and Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. was not always a great time for all residents to participate in the democratic
process.
Councilmember Buckshnis said because the Council did not vote on 4.1, it appeared 4.1 and 5 were being
combined. Agenda Item 4.1 is adding public comment via the Zoom meeting and Councilmember
Distelhorst's motion was to allow written comment to continue. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council is
currently considering Item 4.1 which is Councilmember Distelhorst's motion. If approved, the motion
would allow live public comment to occur this evening. If the motion is not approved, the Council will not
have live public comment this evening.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her experience over the past eight years during live meetings was citizens
speaking at the podium were limited to three minutes. Speakers' comments sometimes exceed three minutes
and they provide a written statement to the City Clerk and/or supporting documents that the City Clerk
distributes to the Council which she felt was a good process. She supported limiting written comments that
were included in the minutes to 450 words during COVID, but she would not support the motion if it limited
the ability for citizens to provide longer comments to the City Council in writing. The written comments
do not have to be included in the minutes and can be transmitted in whatever way the City Clerk feels is
appropriate.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified the motion to add agenda item 4.1 entitled Motion to Allow
Live Public Comment to the agenda was passed and Councilmember Distelhorst then made a second motion
to accept written comments up to 450 words.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating the addition of 4.1 was adding it to the agenda. Mayor
Nelson agreed action had not been taken on Item 4.1. Council President Fraley-Monillas apologized, stating
it was her understanding the vote was to allow it.
In response to Councilmember K. Johnson, Councilmember Distelhorst said there would be no limit on the
documentation or comment provided via the regular Council email address. His proposed motion would
only be in regard to the specific public comments that would be included in the minutes along with the live
public comments.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she withdrew her amendment as Councilmember Distelhorst had assured
written comments to the Council would not be limited. Councilmember Buckshnis said she withdrew her
second.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Nelson stated the Council would proceed to Agenda Item 4.1. Mr. Taraday pointed out there was
only one motion pending; Item 4.1 was passed and the Council is proceeding to Public Comment.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating the Council had not approved the agenda after it was
amended.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED TO
PUBLICCOMMENT C,EEDMONDSWA.GOV)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 3
Mayor Nelson invited commenters to join the meeting and described the procedures,
Julia Hughes, Edmonds, said she wanted to attend Council meeting, but had no comments.
Pam Stuller, Edmonds, Walnut Street Coffee, expressed support for the CARES Act funding. She
requested the Council consider an employee base from 1 to 30. These funds are an important bridge to
maintaining a vibrant downtown and she appreciated the Council's support.
Kevin Smith said making Edmonds' CARES Act funds available is fantastic and will help many
individuals and small businesses in the community. He is a CPA and business adviser; the last three months
have been the most trying times of his career as he looks through myriad laws trying to help small businesses
clobbered during the economic fallout of COVID-19. The funds will help a lot of businesses hurt during
the downturn. He advocated for consideration of new businesses, those that may not have been established
for a full year because in many cases they have not gained a strong hold in the City but have leases so they
feel the economic damage.
Brent Malgarin said Patrick Doherty has proposed that grant funds are not distributed to businesses with
less than 2 employees. If passed as proposed, this limit on business participation for grant money due to the
COVID pandemic can be generalized as overtly unfair. Setting a threshold of two employees will
disenfranchise hardworking business owners who would then be forced to shoulder the entire financial
hardship all while funds are granted to the City. Almost all business owners who would be exempted by
that proposal are the same businesses that were mandated to be closed for months with no curbside
cashflow. There are no valid reasons for not distributing grant money to all business owners across the
board equally. Business owners invested in Edmonds and it would reinforce to them that the Edmonds City
Council respects their investment. He proposed four guidelines:
1. Respect the investment of all business owners in Edmonds by giving every business owner the
same opportunity to survive without bias and discrimination.
2. The only requirement for a grant is they stay in business for the length of time as the harm imposed
by the shutdown. Any amount of funding is more community based than no funding at all. To state
otherwise would be outwardly discriminatory.
3. There should be no disproportionate grant distributions to selected business owners. No business
owner is more important than another. Edmonds does not discriminate.
4. Require the process be simple; a distribution not an application, passed within days not weeks and
equally equitable and fair to all business owners.
Mayor Nelson advised the public can still email the Council at publiccomment@edmondswa.gov.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said this is why the ability to submit written comment is continuing
because the process via Zoom is not perfect.
(Written comments are attached to the minutes)
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO REMOVE ITEM 6.5, EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOPERATIVE
LEASE TERMS AMENDMENT, FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR A SEPARATE VOTE
AND TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 2020
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 4
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
3. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION CONTRACT
4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR THE
DAYTON STREET PUMP STATION PROJECT
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
1. EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOPERATIVE LEASE TERMS AMENDMENT
(Previously Item 6.5)
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SOLAR
ENERGY FACILITY SITE LEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED (6-0),
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE VOTE.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. EDMONDS CARES FUND
Economic Development/Community Services Director Doherty explained the Federal CARES Act has
allocated $1,265,100 in reimbursable funds to Edmonds for expenditures associated with the response and
recovery to the COVID-19 health and economic crisis. These funds may be used to cover a local
jurisdiction's expenses related to measures, actions, purchases, etc. necessary to the function of government
in response to the crisis, as well as to cover expenses associated with the provision of economic support in
connection with the COVID-19 crisis. The federal guidelines expressly offer the example of grants to small
businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures as well as emergency
financial assistance to individuals and families directly impacted by a loss of income.
In light of those provisions, the Administration proposes to create an Edmonds Cares Fund, with three
intended programs, as outlined below. This is a revised proposal since the City Council's initial
consideration and discussion of the Administration's original proposal, presented at the Committee of the
Whole meeting on 6/9/20. The proposal has been revised to reflect Councilmembers' concerns, suggestions
and additional information:
A. Reimbursement of City Expenses - $265,100 in Edmonds Cares Fund monies will be used to help
defray the mounting, unbudgeted costs associated with the City's functions, services and support
in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, including such things as: extra custodial staff to be in place
when public buildings reopen and facilities must be sanitized multiple times each day and other
additional temporary staff requirements, additional maintenance and security measures for parks
facilities, PPE gear for all public -facing city staff (specialized eyewear, gloves, wipes, etc.), the
creation of extra signage, portable restroom rentals, hazard pay for employees, etc.
While current estimates from City departments project up to $450,000-480,000 in such
expenditures, it is also estimated that approximately $265,000 of these expenditures are eligible for
FEMA reimbursement. The proposed $265,100 is projected to be sufficient to reimburse City
expenditures not eligible for FEMA reimbursement.
B. Business Support Grant Program - $700,000 in grants (in the form of forgivable loans) of up to
$10,000 for eligible businesses via application process. Here are the eligibility criteria:
i. "Storefront" -type business, including restaurants, cafes, retail shops, galleries, personal -service
establishments, entertainment venues, etc.
ii. Two to 30 employees (part-time and full-time combined)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 5
■ Creates an application pool to which a great percentage can be responded to with grant
• Preference for bolstering businesses have the potential to save a highest number of jobs
iii. A demonstrated year -over -year business/revenue loss of at least 30% in April or May 2020;
iv. In business in Edmonds at least one year as of April 1, 2020;
v. Declared intent and expectation remain in business for at least 4 months after receipt of the
grant
In addition, given the likelihood of a competitive grant award process, the following, nonexclusive
selection criteria will be employed:
i. Particular consideration will be given to businesses owned by people of color, women,
veterans, and other minorities;
ii. Particular consideration will be given to those businesses that have received, or expect to
receive, no or relatively lower amounts of other government assistance;
iii. Greater consideration will be given to those businesses that have experienced relatively greater
business/revenue loss year -over -year in April or May 2020;
iv. Geographic distribution across Edmonds' various business districts will be given particular
consideration in the award of these grants;
iv. Particular consideration will be given to creative -sector businesses within the State -certified
Edmonds Creative District;
While most businesses have suffered during this economic crisis, storefront businesses that typically
rely on walk-in customers and foot traffic, including those owned by people of color and women, have
felt the pain the worst. Business revenue has dropped - in some cases by up to 90%.
These retail, restaurant/caf6, personal service and entertainment establishments provide hundreds of
jobs in our community for entry-level and lower -skilled workers who earn less than $20/hour. By
receiving grants that will help them stay open, these businesses will be able to help local employees get
back to work and earn a living. This, in turn. will help lower -income households in Edmonds who have
suffered financially during this crisis.
C. Housing and Supplementary Relief Program. $300,000 will be allocated to the "Housing and
Supplemental Relief Program," together with reallocation of up to $50,000 initially earmarked for
a potential second round of funding for the Chamber Foundation WISH grant program. Added to
the $100,000 already allocated by City Council to the "Housing and Supplemental Relief Program,"
a total of $450,000 will be available to this program, providing grants of up to $1000 to individuals,
households and families suffering economic loss and/or distress and potential homelessness. lays
out the provisions described here.
Mr. Doherty highlighted provisions in the proposed draft ordinance in the packet:
* Section 1 —The City of Edmonds accepts the allocation of $1,265,1000 which is administered by
the Department of Commerce in the form of reimbursable funds and authorizes the Mayor to enter
into the contract with the Department of Commerce for administration and disbursement of those
funds
• Section 2 — Authorizes the Administrative Services Director to create and number a new fund to be
known as the Edmonds CARES Fund
• Section 3 — The Edmonds CARES Fund will be administered by the Administrative Services
Director under the direction of the Mayor
• Section 4 — Necessary books, accounts and records will be kept by and under the direction of the
Administrative Services Director and describes the division of funds into the three programs
• Section 5 — Authorizes the end of the program by December 31, 2020. Funds can be expended no
later than October 31, 2020 and final invoice due November 15, 2020
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 6
• Section 6 — Requires at a minimum that any organizations that assists the City in providing aid and
assistance provide written reports by December 31, 2020
• Section 7 — Severability clause
• Section 8 — Declaration of Emergency. The City Council declares that an emergency exists
necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one
of the whole membership of the Council
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to packet page 142 (second page of the agenda memo) which states,
"While most businesses have suffered during this economic crisis, storefront businesses that typically rely
on walk-in customers and foot traffic, including those owned by people of color and women, have felt the
pain the worst. Business revenue has dropped - in some cases by up to 90%." She referred to small
businesses such as landscaping, housekeeping or construction that do not have a storefront and are operated
from a resident's home, business owners and residents of Edmonds, envisioning they would experience a
similar reduction in business. She asked why the proposal was to limit the grants to storefront businesses.
Mr. Doherty explained if a grant were given to all the businesses in Edmonds, it would be approximately
$300 each. The intent was to identify a subset of businesses for whom a substantial grant, up to $10,000,
could be provided to assist them in recovering from this crisis. Many storefront businesses were entirely
closed or suffered very substantial reductions in the business they could conduct during the shutdown.
Conversely essential businesses, grocery stores, hardware stores, etc., remained open and may have done
even better. Storefront businesses was proposed for three reasons, 1) they have suffered so much and to
create a subset of a consistent type businesses, 2) they constitute the public face of the City — the downtown,
neighborhood business districts and Highway 99 — businesses that front the street which when boarded up
can lead to blight, and 3) they often provide entry level and lower income jobs for community members.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if consideration had been given to instead of specifying a certain subset
of businesses, increasing the percentage of loss from 30% to 40-50% to identify the businesses that have
struggled the most. Mr. Doherty answered the proposed selection criteria has different numerically ranked
ranges of business loss, 30% would be the minimum. For example, businesses that lost 40-45% would rank
lower than businesses that lost 75%. In response to what he assumed Councilmember L. Johnson's question,
creating a subset of businesses based on the amount of business loss they have experienced was not the
proposal.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the phrase "particular consideration will be given," and said as a
numbers person she wanted to know exactly how the matrix will be created. She agreed with
Councilmember L. Johnson that the program should consider all businesses and the amount they have lost.
The criteria has been softened with the use of the phrase "particular consideration" rather than a point
system; she asked how the applications will be reviewed. Mr. Doherty answered the administration of the
program, down to the details of the scoring matrix, was not included in the ordinance. The intent is to have
a scoring systems that produces the relative consideration. For example, while the eligibility criterion would
be 30% business loss, if there is a range of applications, a business with a 30-40% loss might receive a
score of 1 in a matrix and a business with a 50% or 75% loss would receive more points, essentially brackets
of loss with an associated number. In a criterion related to geographic distribution, businesses outside the
bowl might receive an additional point in the scoring matrix. In a criterion related to number of employees,
the proposal gives preference to more employees due to its increased impact on the community and
providing more jobs so for example, a business with under 5 employees might receive 1 point with points
given for brackets up to 30 employees. All the criteria will be coded with numbers and applied to a
spreadsheet of the applications.
Mr. Doherty explained this was exactly what was done in helping administer the State's $10,000 grant
program. It was divided up among all the counties' economic development agencies including the
Economic Alliance of Snohomish County (EASC). The EASC was overwhelmed with application and sent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 7
the applications back to the originating cities. Edmonds had 243 applications. All the cities' Economic
Development Directors decided on a similar scoring matrix with ranges, a very objective numerical ranked
system. The applications were then reviewed, scored and ranked and a clear top 20 applications were
identified that were provided to EASC via a non -subjective numerical based system.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she does scoring for WRIA 8 applications and was aware there can be some
level of subjectivity. She wished the scoring system had been included in the packet and requested the point
system be send to her. She wanted to ensure the scoring was objective because similar to WRIA 8, people
will ask to see the scoring criteria. She asked who would be evaluating the criteria and whether it would be
truly objective in term of numbers so there was no subjectivity at all. Mr. Doherty referred to the 243
applications that were reviewed for EASC; there was agreement on the criteria and he worked with Finance
staff to develop a matrix and the matrix was completed with information from the applications. He
anticipated the same would be done with this City's program. The application form will have fields that
correspond to the selection criteria numeral ranking field.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked who was the numbers person. Mr. Doherty said that had not yet been
decided; there was a great partnership with Finance staff in the EASC process and he planned to talk to
Acting Finance Director Dave Turley about a similar process.
With regard to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that
would be managed the same way as had been approved by Council for the first $100,000 using two agencies.
Mr. Doherty answered that was the proposal; there are currently two agencies, Wellspring Family Services
and Washington Kids in Transition, who are working in a partnership. Notice was provided to the public a
few days ago, there is an application portal for Edmonds on the Wellspring website. That application
similarly has fields for information related to criteria. They have already received 94 applications. He
envisioned if the City were able to announce a more robust program for the community, more applications
would be received and the City would be able to help more families.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about adding another agency. Mr. Doherty answered that was up to the
Council. Administration spoke with six agencies and selected two. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if
another agency should be added if the amount was increased to $400,000. Mr. Doherty answered that could
be considered if the Council wished, noting with a larger amount and more applications there would be
justification for considering the addition of another agency.
Councilmember Olson said in previous discussions with Mr. Doherty, he said any charity could refer people
to the agencies administering Edmonds' grants. Regarding particular consideration of other grant sources,
she asked if there could be a requirement that funding via Edmonds CARES be returned if someone were
successful in receiving another grant prior to the date the Edmonds CARES money had to be expended so
it could be granted to someone else. Mr. Doherty said consideration had been given to that; there are
different grants and amounts available, for example, the WISH grant which is $1000 or less, PPP grants
may be large and State grants that are up to $25,000 (decisions begin coming out June 24"'). The proposal
to have brackets, applicants sign an affidavit, the application asks about funding they have applied for and
what expect to receive; that information would be considered in the matrix. For example someone who has
receive nothing or very little will likely receive a higher score than someone that received $25,000 or more.
The person that has received more is not ineligible from applying but they likely would not score as well
in the scoring matrix. He agreed it was possible a business could apply and then receive other funds.
Councilmember Olson said she did not want to disadvantage someone who applied for grant because they
may not get it. However, if they do receive the other funds, it would be great to be able to help another
business. Mr. Doherty said it would be difficult to know how that would affect a business because of the
timeframe of when they receive another grant. For example if they receive $10,000 and they used it for an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 8
immediate need and then 2-4 weeks later they received $25,000, they may not be able to give back the
City's $10,000. Councilmember Olson suggested they could give the City back the $10,000 from the
$25,000 they received. Mr. Doherty said he has heard from some business who are deciding whether to
continue in business and to incur additional expenses on the hope they ultimately will be able to defray
those expenses with income. A first grant may get a business over a hump and allow them to try continue
to move forward and if they receive another grant they may have incurred more expenses during a time of
lower business volume and it could potentially hurt them to give the money back. He summarized there are
so many variables in every business' financial structure, he was unsure a requirement to pay money back
was sound.
Councilmember Olson asked whether the Council has the option this week to approve the dollar amounts
for the different accounts but not approve the eligibility and selection criteria. She said there have been
quite a few alternatives posed that also have real merit and there has not been enough opportunity for that
collaboration based on the timing. She was not talking about the Council having meetings that were not
open to the public, but Councilmembers talking one-on-one and trying to flesh out the smartest, best, most
justifiable approach to the eligibility and selection criteria. She suggested the Council identify the amount
to be allocated to each fund and flesh out the eligibility and selection criteria next week. Mr. Doherty
answered that was an option, but that was not the Administration's proposal as the Administration wants to
move forward with the urgency they believe exists. The ordinance is proposed as an emergency ordinance
to get the money out in the community as soon as possible. The proposal has six criteria with different
ranges and ranking; he envisioned it would be a difficult exercise for the Council to develop criteria and
decide on the ranking brackets. He summarized Administration has a proposal that makes sense but
ultimately it was the Council's decision.
Councilmember Paine referred to Section 3 of the proposed ordinance which states, The Edmonds CARES
Fund shall be administered by the Administrative Services Director under the direction of the Mayor,"
noting the Administrative Services Director was Mr. Doherty. Mr. Doherty clarified the Finance Director
was actually the Administrative Services Director. Councilmember Paine asked what was meant by
"administering the Edmonds CARES Fund," whether it was the financial aspects, the distribution, etc. Mr.
Doherty answered similar to the EASC grant process, his staff collaborated with Finance staff to develop a
matrix, Finance staff did the number crunching and it was sent back to the EASC. When this is approved,
staff will confer with Finance staff who will create a fund number and prepare a budget amendment, and
discuss review of the applications. The goal is to create an objective system that Finance staff can
implement. When the grants are awarded, there will also be contract work to get awards out to the awardees.
Councilmember Paine referred to forgivable loans that turn into grants and asked if the matrix for decisions
and the scoring rubric will be published for transparency. Mr. Doherty answered they could be, the process
had not yet reach that level of administrative detail. Councilmember Paine said Councilmembers are all
getting questions from the community about the fund, the matrix and the scoring rubric. Due to the
importance of transparency, she wanted an opportunity to review the matrix and the scoring rubric before
it was published to the community to ensure it reflected the shared input that the Council provided to the
Administration about distributing the CARES funds. Mr. Doherty said the proposed selection criteria is
included in the packet. The actual point system for each criterion is being developed; he created a working
version so it could be beta tested with 400 ghost businesses to see how they would score. Each of the
criterion are either binary (yes/no answer with a 0/1 point) or have a range for which points would be
awarded such as the percentage of business loss. The matrix and scoring rubric can be included on the
application and shared with the community. Councilmember Paine agreed with providing the matrix and
scoring rubric which will provide clarity to the community.
Councilmember Paine recalled the Snohomish County grants used FTE of 1-20 employees and asked why
the proposal was 2-30 in Edmonds' proposal. Mr. Doherty said that experience led him to propose a higher
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 9
number of 2-30. When the criterion was 1-20, there were 243 applications from Edmonds, but only 17
grants. A lot of business went through the process of completing an application when at the end of the day,
they probably wouldn't receive a grant. The idea was to slightly reduce the eligibility given the desire that
these grants be significant.
Councilmember Paine said she was more curious about the top number, why 30 was chosen versus 20. Mr.
Doherty answered there are a lot of businesses in the proposed category with 20-something employees and
the goal was to make the storefront category as inclusive as possible. There are few storefront businesses
with more than 30 employees, but the limit of 30 includes more businesses than the limit of 20.
Councilmember Paine asked whether there was data on how many Edmonds businesses employ Edmonds
residents. Mr. Doherty answered not easily; there is dated census information that provides gross numbers
such as the number of people who live in Edmonds and work in Edmonds. There is no way to tie those
people to type of jobs. Councilmember Paine wondered whether restaurants or homebased businesses hire
local people. Mr. Doherty answered there are no homebased businesses with employees because they are
not allowed to have employees on site. The proposed subset of storefront businesses tend to have lower
wage jobs and tend to pull from a tighter trade area than higher paid jobs. For example, people in higher
paid jobs may be willing to commute further and people in lower paid jobs tend to find jobs nearer their
home and not incur excessive commuting costs. Councilmember Paine commented that was a lot of
assumption. Mr. Doherty agreed it was a general observation and not a fact.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said lower/minimum wage workers cannot afford to live in Edmonds
unless they live with their parents or in another similar living situation. She relayed her plan to begin making
motions and any further questions can be answered after motions are made.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order; according to Roberts Rules of Order, Councilmembers
are not to make motions until all questions have been asked. Mayor Nelson answered point taken and
supported Councilmember K. Johnson's point of order.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson and Mr. Doherty for listening and incorporating last
week's Council feedback, noting last week's proposal was significantly different. With regard to
businesses, he asked whether business names would be included in the matrix and scoring rubric or would
the applications be numbered or lettered or that the business name would not be included in the matrix. Mr.
Doherty answered that could be done. Councilmember Distelhorst said that would be a more objective way
to do the scoring and avoid any subconscious bias to favorite restaurants, stores, etc.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked the criteria for determining the amount of up to $10,000, whether it was
maximizing the number of forgivable loans or maximizing the amount. Although there was a lot of criteria
for selecting businesses, there was no criteria for selecting the up to monetary amount. Mr. Doherty said
the State grant administered by the EASC began with $10,000 grants. The State quickly realized they would
receive a lot of applications and requested applicants indicate the amount they needed; some businesses
requested less than $10,000. He said if there are a lot of applications, that will be a question, whether to
adhere to up to $10,000 based on their stated need or offer slightly less to spread the money further to reach
more businesses. The initial proposal was up to $10,000 assuming some businesses will not ask for $10,000.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the State program had a clause relate to franchise or chain businesses
which was not included in the Edmonds CARES program. Mr. Doherty answered that was not included
because the EASC process discovered most chains and franchises area owned by someone who has
franchise right to use that brand/name and are independent in the sense they do not get a bail out from the
corporation. In the EASC process, applicants were asked to indicate that on their application. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 10
summarized there were few franchise business that either were not essential or not owned independently
but that could be added to the eligibility criteria. It was not felt necessary given the subset that was proposed.
With regard to the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the
same criteria in the other program would be used such as 60% AMI. Mr. Doherty answered it would be
smoother and better in the public call for applications if the same criteria was used and to simply add
funding to that program. In adjudicating the disbursement of awards, while 60% AMI may be the entry
level eligibility criterion, there will be applications from people with much lower incomes. The triage that
the social workers from the two agencies the City has contracted with starts at the bottom and goes up,
starting with people with no money and those who are far from 60% AMI. Given the limited funds,
disbursement of the grants will be to much lower income levels than 60% AMI.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the 94 applications received so far were inclusive of both agencies.
Mr. Doherty answered they come in through one portal at Wellspring and then are triaged; applicants with
students in the Edmonds School District go to Washing Kids in Transition. The agencies were very busy
today and he was unable to get a breakdown between the number that are families, single people, etc. He
said 94 applications in a short period of time shows a lot of interest. If all those households were eligible,
the $100,000 would nearly be exhausted. He noted the entire $100,000 cannot be distributed initially
because it was allocated 1/3 in the first month, another issue for the Council to discuss.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the EASC eligibility criteria, observing it excluded any business
that was suspended or barred from use of federal funds. She asked if should be an eligibility criteria for the
Edmonds CARES grants. Mr. Doherty said that could be added to the application form.
Councilmember L. Johnson said another criterion that EASC had was excluding any business facing any
pending or actual legal action. Mr. Doherty answered a version of that may make sense; any legal action is
very broad, the State was concerned about anything that could incumber the money via action, claim,
bankruptcy, etc. He envisioned that could be "fine print" eligibility criteria that could be added.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the EASC grant program had various ways to evaluate the applications
including dividing costs into three categories, 1) salaries and benefits, 2) facility costs and goods, and 3)
general and administrative costs. Mr. Doherty said the proposal did not go to that level of detail on the use
of the grant funds.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the EASC grant requested counting employees/FTE as of 1/1/20 and as of
5/l/20 which she said seemed to be a good way of demonstrating a year-to-year business loss of at least
30% in April or May. Mr. Doherty observed some businesses received PPP which allowed them to continue
paying employees. Edmonds' proposal is that businesses provide proof of their business loss in April or
May year-to-year. Employee count is not necessarily a direct relation to how much the business lost.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked what time period the PPP covered. Mr. Doherty answered it was through
June 30. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not know how that program worked but maybe it should
be a factor somehow. She asked when the governor closed non -essential businesses. Mr. Doherty answered
March 23rd. Councilmember K. Johnson said it may make more sense to cover the period of Phase 1 rather
than April or May. Mr. Doherty said the proposed business subset, unless they were essential, were not able
to open until Phase 2 which was in June. The reason for April or May was business losses varied by
business. Some saw significant losses in the first month after closure before they could figure out online
sales, pickup, curbside pickup, etc. and business may have improved in May. Conversely other businesses
may have had the most losses in May.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 11
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with other Councilmembers' comments about ensuring there was an
objective, rational process. The purpose has not been entirely stated; in her opinion, there were two
purposes, to save as many businesses in Edmonds as possible in order to maintain sales tax revenue and to
maintain as many jobs as possible to keep people working in Edmonds. She suggested the competitive grant
process include sales tax from the pre-COVID period such as the year 2019, and the post-COVID period to
help the businesses that have been most successful and are the most likely to be successful. She did not
support including the number of employees in the eligibility criteria, preferring to rank businesses using
other criteria. She asked if Mr. Doherty was able to test that in his beta analysis. Mr. Doherty answered he
did not have the pre and post-COVID sales tax information at the business level. Quarterly sales tax
information provided to the City is in broad categories, not by individual businesses. If a business states
their revenue is down by 50%, their sales tax contribution is down a similar amount.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the application ask the sales tax amount in the first quarter of 2019
and 2020. Mr. Doherty asked if Councilmember K. Johnson's proposal was a business that generated
greater sales tax would rank higher. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed that was her proposal. Mr. Doherty
said that was significant change and he was unsure whether that needed to be voted on.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to giving particular consideration to creative sector business
within the State certified Creative Business District and asked what were creative sector businesses. Mr.
Doherty answered there is a long list of businesses from the State Office of Creative District that fit in the
creative sector; they range from galleries, stores that sell art -related supplies, design firms, photography
studios, food and drink establishments, breweries, distilleries, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked
what was not considered a creative sector business within the Edmonds Creative District. Mr. Doherty
answered retail establishments that sell wholesale goods (compared to a retail establishment that sells
artifacts, handcrafts or items such as jewelry or clothing made by artisans), a law firm, CPA firm, financial
planning firm, insurance company, real estate company, etc.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the City contracted with two agencies, Washington Kids in
Transition and Wellspring, an organization out of Seattle. She preferred the additional $350,000 for the
Housing and Supplementary Relief Program go through a Snohomish County non-profit such as United
Way of Snohomish County. She feared if citizens went to Wellspring which is in King County, Wellspring
would not necessarily be able to refer them to free services in Snohomish County because they may not
know about them. United Way serves all people with needs and could point individuals to organizations in
Snohomish County who provide assistance.
Mr. Doherty responded the process of triaging applicants that both Washington Kids in, Transition and
Wellspring are using includes starting with the most need but also requires individuals and households to
enroll in the 211 system, enroll in utility assistance programs, connect with a local food bank or delivery
option, students attend school, etc. He advised the Wellspring Family Services CEO and COO live in
Edmonds so they are very aware of the community. That was one of the reasons Administration was
comfortable with what may feel like a King County organization. United Way of King County, which is
strapped with many requests for assistance, has turned to Wellspring to administer the CARES funding for
King County. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it was great that Wellspring CEO and COO
could afford to live in Edmonds; she was interested in who could do the best job. Wellspring's website
prioritizes kids and families which is similar to Washington Kids in Transition. She planned to recommend
utilizing an organization within Snohomish County that could provide more resources to applicants in
addition to the grant.
If a business receiving other grants such as PPP was used as a qualifier to receiving funds, Councilmember
L. Johnson agreed there needed to be a qualifier if they received funds after. If a business received funds
before completing the application, they were at a slight disadvantage for receiving Edmonds CARES funds,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 12
but if they received it after, there was no balance. Mr. Doherty anticipated the application would ask how
much a business received and how much more they have applied for and expect to receive. Depending on
the time between awards of other grants, it may be just enough to keep a business afloat and he was unsure
whether it would be desirable to take back the City's grant. Councilmember L. Johnson asked the deadline
for PPP grants. Mr. Doherty answered application are being accepted until the until end of the month and
may be retroactive.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there was a process to check whether someone receiving funds via the
Housing Supplemental Relief Program received it from the other non-profit administering the grants. Mr.
Doherty answered the agencies are cross-checking; both organizations have social workers who review the
applications and do follow-up calls and other verification research. Their selection criteria is much more
complicated than the business grants and asks about other assistance they are receiving. The City contracted
for a specific scope of services with both agencies, recognizing this is somewhat different from their typical
work. They are doing the work without compensation and it has been clear that individuals, non -family
households, younger, older, seniors, veterans, etc. are all equally eligible applicants and not just families
with children.
Councilmember Paine said it seems rather invasive to collect sales tax information for specific businesses.
Mr. Doherty answered the State is hesitant to give out sales tax information. The State will readily provide
that information by category or for an area of a city, but information for individual businesses is on a need -
to -know basis. The Finance Director may be only one who can request that information and must sign a
waiver stating the information will be used only for the reason stated.
If a resident qualified under the matrix for the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program due to reduced
income and was also a business owner, Councilmember Paine asked whether they could access both funds.
Mr. Doherty answered the residential program is only up to $1,000 so it is an immediate need response
program and not to set someone up for the future. Councilmember Paine asked if there would be a
prohibition on accessing both fund from both programs. Mr. Doherty said he viewed a household and a
business separately. If someone shared they had received a $1,000 grand from the Housing and
Supplementary Relief Program, that is a very minimal amount. In the ranking criteria, he anticipated receipt
of $0-$5000 would be a permissible amount compared to receipt of amount above that.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. Doherty said the Finance Director can get the sales tax information
and that it can be kept confidential. Mr. Doherty said that was his understanding; he has been told the
requester must demonstrate to the State a legitimate need and purpose for the information.
Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND CREATING A NEW EDMONDS CARES
FUND WHICH SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
Amendment 1
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION, IN THE CASE THAT THERE ARE ANY UNSPENT FUNDS
IN THE EDMONDS CARES ACT ALLOCATION WITH ONE WEEK REMAINING BEFORE THE
DISBURSEMENT DEADLINE, THAT THESE FUNDS BE USED TO PURCHASE PERSONAL
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FOR USE BY THE CITY AND/OR FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO DIRECT SERVICE COMMUNITY BASED CARE CENTERS.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked where in the ordinance Councilmember Paine envisioned that would be
placed. Councilmember Paine answered between Sections 4 and 5.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 13
Councilmember K. Johnson asked what a Community Based Care Center includes. Councilmember Paine
answered a retirement living center where people live within a community such as Edmonds Landing or
other care facilities, people who are frail or with disabilities living in a community. Councilmember K.
Johnson asked if that included group homes or medical facilities. Councilmember Paine answered care
centers are not medical centers. It would include a group home for people with disabilities or adults who
live in a family care situation.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked the date for distribution of those items. Councilmember Paine answered
the disbursement deadline is October 3 1 " so it would be a week in advance of that. Mr. Doherty related his
understanding that if funds remain a week prior to the October 31St deadline for expenditures, the funds be
used to purchase PPE. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested that be part of Councilmember Paine's
amendment. Councilmember Paine answered she use "disbursement deadline" in the event that the date
changed.
Councilmember Olson suggested stating it would be unspent money from any of the three funds or all of
the CARES Act funds. Councilmember Paine referred to Section 1 of the ordinance that referenced the City
of Edmonds' Federal CARES Act as rationale for the language in the amendment. Councilmember Olson
supported the amendment.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she had a similar idea, that the City of Edmonds use some of the CARES
Act funds to purchase disposal masks and hand sanitizers in bulk for disbursement to businesses. She has
done some preliminary estimates.
Action on Amendment 1
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment 2
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
CHANGE THE SUM IN ACCOUNT B, HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF PROGRAM,
FROM UP TO $300,000 TO UP TO $100,000 ACCOUNT C, EDMONDS BUSINESS SUPPORT
GRANT PROGRAM, FROM $700,000 TO $900,000.
Councilmember Olson said it was critical to add sole proprietors to the grant program. As stated in Council
commentary as well as in My Edmonds News and the Beacon, a lot of the sole proprietors are Edmonds
residents, some working from home, some not. She did not want to exclude them entirely and increasing
the Business Support Grant Program to $900,000 would provide an opportunity to dedicate more money to
include more sole proprietors. She was not swayed by the choices that other cities have made and the
amounts that other cities have dedicated to direct human services because the City has funded those earlier
from other funding sources compared to other cities. The amount other cities are allocating from their
CARES Act funding may be the only money they are dedicating to those things, whereas Edmonds provided
$100,000 of the $200,000 in the Mayor's Relief Funds directly to human services, the food bank and the
senior center and another $100,000 from the Homelessness Relief Fund reallocated to human services via
Wellspring and Washington Kids in Transition. This is not an issue of whether the Council cares about
people or businesses, but whether they care for people -via- a one-time stipend or through employment which
also helps the business as well as the City.
With regard to the $200,000 in expenditures from the Mayor's Relief Fund, Councilmember Olson pointed
out those funds came from previously budgeted items that had been approved by the past Council and
impacted projects like fire hydrant maintenance and a desperately needed code revision. She can accept
what won't get done this year, but in thinking ahead to what won't get done next year, those items are
financed by property and sales taxes. In the macro picture, the City can help people and help businesses
which ultimately helps the City. If the City finds itself in a bind, there is still $150,000 in the Homelessness
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 14
Relief Fund that could potentially be considered for more human service funding if the additional $100,000
wasn't adequate.
Council President Fraley-Monillas requested the Council not support the amendment to increase the
Business Support Grant Program instead of the Housing and Supplementary Relief Program. Business were
eligible for county, state and federal grants including PPP funds that allowed them to retain their employees.
Now more than ever, people are about to be kicked out of their homes due to inability to pay their rents
because they were laid off as a result of the pandemic. The majority of minimum wage workers cannot
afford to live in Edmonds unless they live with their parents. The people who are left behind and are the
most impacted by COVID and layoffs, inability to afford medical care, etc. are communities of color,
communities along Highway 99 and in working class neighborhoods.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with adding sole proprietor businesses to Account C (Edmonds
Business Support Program). Given the extraordinary demand in the Housing and Supplemental Relief
Program, including maxing out that funding source in 4-5 days with very little communication to the public,
he anticipated a great need and feared with only $100,000, it could be allocated in only 4 days. He
anticipated this will continue to be a slow building financial pain for many residents. He did not support
the amendment to move funds out of human services.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the amendment. Rather than let the $100,000 that the
Council set aside in 2018 sit in the Homelessness Fund, it was time to utilize it. As Council President
Fraley-Monillas said, those funds could be used to pay for housing or rent so residents do not become
homeless: The Council can always replenish the Homelessness Fund when there is more data. She recalled
during a previous downturn when downtown Edmonds turned into a ghost town and Old Mill Towne had
a fence around it for a couple years. She expressed support for including sole proprietors.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed opposition to the amendment for the reasons stated by Council
President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Distelhorst.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how much money was left in the Homelessness Fund. Council President
Fraley-Monillas answered there was $125,000.
Councilmember Paine appreciated the Council's support for sole proprietors, commenting that will be very
important for the health of the community. There are families struggling who may qualify for both. She did
not support the amendment, but would support an amendment to include sole proprietors.
Councilmember Olson said she had attended Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, Business
Improvement District and Chamber of Commerce meetings via Zoom, few businesses are receiving funds
so they will need help.
Amendment 2A
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO REDUCE ACCOUNT B FROM $300,000 TO
$175,000.
Councilmember K. Johnson said there is $125,000 remaining in the Homelessness Fund that could be
transferred to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, bringing it back to $300,000. That way the
Council could increase the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program as well as increase the Business
Support Grant Program.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, that there is already an amendment on the floor.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 15
Councilmember Olson withdrew her motion.
Mr. Taraday advised Councilmember K. Johnson's amendment is proper because it modifies
Councilmember Olson's amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not hear Councilmember K. Johnson say amend the amendment.
She withdrew her point of order.
Councilmember Olson said she would let her amendment stand.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained her amendment would accomplish two things, the Council could add
$125,000 to Account C, bringing the $700,000 to $825,000 and the intent is to supplement the Housing and
Supplemental Relief Program with $125,000 from the Homelessness Fund.
Councilmember Distelhorst made a distinction between the Homeless Response Fund and the CARES Act
funds. The $125,000 in the Homelessness Respond Fund is in the General Fund and requires Council
approval to use it. If the Council uses up that money, money will have to be moved from other General
Fund areas to replenish it. CARES Act funds are refundable, federal funds so the City is basically a pass -
through to support families most in need which should be the number one priority. It does not impact the
City budget and helps vulnerable residents.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the money left in the Homelessness Fund was intended to go toward
the purchase a building; the Council put funds aside when the City of Lynnwood was interested in
purchasing the Rodeo Inn for homeless families, but that later fell through. Lynnwood is still looking at
buildings.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order that Councilmember Olson withdrew her motion
and did not restate it which was not proper.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support Councilmember K. Johnson's amendment until there
was a clear decision regarding what to do with the funds in the Homeless Fund.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order that she did not hear Councilmember K. Johnson state
amendment to the amendment. Once Mr. Taraday clarified what was said, Councilmember Olson changed
her decision about pulling her amendment.
Councilmember Olson said the CARES Act funds that the City received do impact the City's budget. If the
Council supports residents through businesses, that will impact the City's budget and if the Council does
not, it won't. These are very trying economic times.
Action on Amendment 2
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT SO THAT COUNCILMEMBER
K. JOHNSON'S MOTION CAN BE THE MAIN AMENDMENT.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the City has had the Homelessness Fund for several years. If the Council
spends it now during the COVID crisis, the Council can budget additional funds in the future if the City of
Lynnwood identifies a project or there is some other need. Therefore, the objection to moving those funds
in future was not pertinent.
Councilmember Paine asked if the Homelessness Fund was being used for the new human services position.
Mr. Doherty answered the human services position was approved by Council as a new part-time position
funded via the General Fund.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed Fund 018 was a specified fund and was not part of the General Fund
similar to the Marsh Restoration Fund. The Council voted to use $100,000 from that fund a month ago. She
agreed these were troubling economic times and the Council was trying to make everybody whole. She
proposed a month ago using it all and supported the use of it now because the Council could always budget
additional funds in the future. Sole proprietors, businesses and citizens need money now and there was no
reason for the money to sit in that fund drawing minimal interest.
Council President Fraley-Monillas urged Council to vote no on Councilmember K. Johnson amendment.
The Homelessness Fund is money the Council set aside to deal with the poor living in the community, many
of who live in the working class neighborhoods along Highway 99 and include people of color. She
encouraged the Council to maintain that fund until there was a good reason to spend it. The City is not
actually in a fiscal crisis at this time although she acknowledged there may be a fiscal crisis in the future
where all the funds will be considered.
Action on Amendment 2A
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Amendment 3
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE SIXTH WHEREAS ON PAGE 145 OF THE PACKET TO READ,
"...FUNDING GRANTS OF UP TO $1,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS OF 2, AND
$1,500 FOR HOUSEHOLD OF 3 OR MORE."
Mr. Doherty said whereas clauses are statements of fact of something the Council did, leading to the
therefore clause in the ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the $1,000 is not addressed in the Now Therefore because that addressed
the Housing and Supplemental Relief Fund and the Housing and Supplement Relief Fund states $1,000.
She wanted the ordinance to state that grants would be to $1,000 for individuals households of 2 and $1,500
for households of 3 or more. In addition, if a household of 3 or more previously received $1,000 grant, they
would be eligible to receive an additional $500.
Mr. Doherty suggested what Councilmember L. Johnson was proposing could be an addition to Section
4.13, the only place in the ordinance that discusses the Supplemental Relief Program by incorporating it into
the new fund.
Councilmember L. Johnson proposed adding a line vi under Section 4, to allow up to $1,500 for households
of 3 or more and if someone previously qualified for $1,000 and was a household of 3 or more, they could
receive another $500. Mr. Doherty said because the application period has not ended and no decisions have
been made on this program, that would not be necessary as the Council's new direction would take place
immediately.
Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion:
$1,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS OF 2 AND $1,500 FOR HOUSEHOLD OF 3 OR
MORE.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification regarding where that would go in the ordinance. He suggested it could
be added to the end of Section 4.13 (page 148 of the packet). Councilmember L. Johnson agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 17
Councilmember Paine expressed support for amendment as larger families cost more.
Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion:
ALLOW UP TO $1,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS UP TO 2 AND UP TO $1,500
FOR HOUSEHOLDS OF 3 OR MORE.
Action on Amendment 3
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the following motion was in the interest of helping all businesses in
Edmonds.
Amendment 4
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND STARTING ON PAGE 144, STRIKE "STOREFRONT' KEEP
"BUSINESS," STRIKE FROM "INCLUDING TO GALLERIES, ETC.", KEEP THE REST OF IT
AND THEN IN THE FIRST WHEREAS ON PAGE 145, STRIKE THE ENTIRE WHEREAS AND
IN THE SECOND WHEREAS ON PAGE 145, STRIKE "STOREFRONT."
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, recalling Mr. Doherty said it did not make sense to edit
the whereas clauses because they reflect the action of Council. Mr. Doherty responded if the gist of the
motion was to change the eligibility criteria, that it was not only storefront type businesses, he would agree
the whereas clauses should not support that conclusion.
Councilmember L. Johnson added to the motion:
DELETE SECTION 4.C.i ON PAGE 148.
Councilmember Olson commented on the possibility of THE Council voting tonight versus giving the
Council another week to bring back what they want to discuss and support with regard to the criteria. She
said making amendments related to eligibility and selection criteria were only relevant if the Council did
not support them.
Councilmember L. Johnson suggested that would be a separate motion, to discontinue discussion, not
during the discussion of individual amendments. Councilmember Olson recalled Mr. Doherty saying it was
an option for the Council to vote on the amounts and agree on eligibility criteria later. She preferred taking
the time to be thoughtful and vet all ideas and she did not think there would be the ability to do that tonight
in the time available.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion as she felt storefront businesses was too limiting
and this adds clarity that all businesses are important to Edmonds.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment and reminded that making these
tough decision is the Council's job and the Council has had two weeks to mull over this and send questions
to staff. It is important to get this moving so the program can get started because people are waiting for the
funds. She encouraged Councilmembers to support Councilmember L. Johnson's amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested retaining the whereas clauses.
Councilmember L. Johnson said that was not her amendment. She restated the amendment:
IN THE LAST WHEREAS ON PAGE 144, REMOVE "STOREFRONT, KEEP "BUSINESS" AND
REMOVE EVERYTHING FROM "INCLUDING RESTAURANTS" TO `GALLERIES, ETC.", ON
PAGE 146 STRIKE THE FIRST WHEREAS, AND ON THE SECOND WHEREAS REMOVE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 18
"STOREFRONT," THIRD WHEREAS REMOVED "STOREFRONT" AND UNDER THE
THEREFORE ON PAGE 148, REMOVE THE FIRST SUBSECTION UNDER ITEM C.
Councilmember Buckshnis said whereas clauses are statements about various things happening in the
economy and as she read the whereas clauses, they could be correct. Mr. Taraday explained whereas clauses
explain the reason why the Council is doing what it is doing. He suggested focusing on the language
following "Now Therefore" and then come back and figure out to what extent the whereas clauses need to
be edited later. He was not suggesting that whereas clauses could not be amended, but it was a bit of cart
before horse because until the Council knew what it was doing, it was hard to say why they were doing it.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it felt like the Council was doing this backwards. Normally
the Council would make comments on the agenda memo and then an ordinance would be written based on
the Council's direction. She asked if staff could listen to the Council amendments and come back with
another ordinance next week. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council whether to adopt an amended
ordinance tonight that would be effective immediately which was staff s proposal, or for staff to do clean
up and return with a clean ordinance or to hold a special meeting. If a majority of the Council want to get
this done tonight no matter what, then that can be done. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if
Councilmembers should continue making amendments on the ordinance itself. Mr. Taraday answered yes,
especially if the Council wanted to pass it tonight.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO NOT VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT SO THAT WE CAN
CLEAN UP THE ELIGIBILITY AND SELECTION CRITERIA.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, that there was already a motion on the floor. Mr.
Taraday said to the extent that Councilmember Olson was offering to either table or defer to a date certain,
either of those motions would be in order.
Councilmember Olson restated the motion:
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
THAT WE BRING THIS BACK NEXT WEEK WITH INPUT FROM COUNCIL.
City Clerk Scott Passey advised a motion to postpone to a date certain is not debatable; a motion to postpone
indefinitely is debatable.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Doherty said removing the specification of storefront businesses raises 2-3 concerns. It expands the
business sample size to about 2,200 businesses that would qualify which will set up a lot of people for
disappointment by inviting a large number of people to apply with a much smaller number who will be
successful. The focus on storefront businesses was because they tend to have lower wage jobs that help
families that are struggling the most; a lot of businesses such as law firms, financial planners, real estate
firms, etc. while they are all struggling, they, 1) do not necessarily employ the people that are in the most
need right now and 2) do not occupy the storefronts that if they fail would become boarded up buildings in
the City's neighborhoods, downtown and on Highway 99 and boarded up buildings are part of the definition
of blight that leads to disinvestment and a downward spiral.
Councilmember L. Johnson disagreed with the statement that storefront businesses employ more of the
lower wage workers, pointing out housekeeping and gardening are possibility as well. The program as
stated sets up a lot of homebased businesses for disappointment as well; either way people will be
disappointed. She was interested in setting this up so those most in need were the ones served, regardless
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 19
of business type. Having been both a sole proprietor as well as the owner of a C corporation without a
storefront and not in Edmonds, she would find that challenging. She summarized the City needs to serve
and help all businesses.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment, recognizing it would be hard
work and more businesses would apply. She pointed out not every business will apply because not all of
them were impacted by pandemic or would meet need the criteria of need and some businesses were
surviving including several on Main Street.
Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion:
IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSES, IN THE THEREFORE
CLAUSE ON PAGE 148, UNDER C, REMOVE THE FIRST ONE, "STOREFRONT" -TYPE
BUSINESS, INCLUDING RESTAURANTS, CAFES, RETAIL SHOPS, GALLERIES, PERSONAL -
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, ENTERTAINMENT VENUES, ETC."
Action on Amendment 4
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Amendment 5
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND UNDER SECTION 4.C.ii, CHANGE "TWO" TO "ONE" SO IT WOULD
READ, ONE TO 30 EMPLOYEES (PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME COMBINED).
Councilmember Distelhorst said the intent of the amendment was to include sole proprietors.
Councilmember L. Johnson wanted to ensure that sole proprietors qualified as an employee.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked whether a business owner was counted as an employee of the business.
Mr. Doherty answered not always, that would need to be specified.
Amendment 5A
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO ADD "SOLE PROPRIETORS."
Councilmember Distelhorst requested Council President Fraley-Monillas read Section 4.C.ii with that
amendment. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her amendment was to add sole proprietor to indicate
it included a one person business. She suggested "Sole Proprietor to 30."
Councilmember Olson asked if there was merit to changing the language to "30 employees or less" which
would cover sole proprietors. Mr. Doherty said not all business owners are employees.
Councilmember L. Johnson suggested "individual business owner," noting a business could be a
partnership. She asked how it could be stated to ensure it was not limiting a type of business ownership.
Councilmember Olson suggested "businesses that employ 30 or fewer people." Councilmember L. Johnson
pointed out a sole proprietor is not necessarily an employee and neither are partnerships. Mr. Doherty
suggested "businesses with or without employees up to 30." Mr. Taraday suggested, "businesses with 0-30
employees."
Action to Amendment 5A
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Distelhorst restated the amendment:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 20
AMEND SECTION 4.C.ii TO READ, "0 TO 30 EMPLOYEES (PART-TIME AND FULL-TIME
COMBINED).
Action on Amendment 5
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment 6
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO AMEND SECTION 4.0 IN THE SECOND SET OF ROMAN
NUMERALS, UNDER SELECTION CRITERIA, SECTION ii, TO READ, "PARTICULAR
CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE NOT RECEIVED
FEDERAL, STATE OR COUNTY GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE, AND SECONDARY
CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO THOSE BUSINESSES THAT RECEIVED LOWER
THAN REQUESTED AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL, STATE OR COUNTY ASSISTANCE."
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with the first statement, "particular consideration will be given to those
businesses that have not received federal, state or county government assistance" but did understand the
second part. Councilmember Distelhorst repeated the second part, "and secondary consideration will be
given to those businesses that received lower than requested amounts of federal, state or county assistance."
He said the existing language is vague about splitting up businesses that had not received any money versus
businesses that have received money but maybe less than they requested. The intent of the amendment was
to prioritize businesses that have not received PPP or other funds and then a secondary level for businesses
that have received assistant at other government levels but maybe less than requested.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if Mr. Doherty and Mr. Taraday understood the second half of the
amendment so it would be clear when implemented. Mr. Taraday said the way he understood it, for example
if someone applied for $10,000 in aid and they received $1, they would still be eligible but would get
secondary consideration compared to if someone applied for $10,000 and received nothing, they would be
in the primary consideration group. Mr. Doherty agreed. Councilmember Distelhorst said that was his
intent.
Action on Amendment 6
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment 7
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 8 BETWEEN THE SECTION
BEGINNING "ANY ORGANIZATION ASSISTING..." AND THE SEVERABILITY SECTION,
THAT READS, "THE ADMINISTRATION SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL AND
GENERAL PUBLIC A WRITTEN REPORT BY DECEMBER 31, 2020 ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF
AID PROVIDED BY THE CITY, THE PURPOSE AND CRITERIA BY WHICH IT WAS
DISTRIBUTED, THE REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, AND ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION REGARDING SECTION 4.C,
THE EDMONDS BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT PROGRAM."
Councilmember Distelhorst explained this would mirror the section on the Housing Relief and
Supplementary Aid Program. Ordinance 4186 included a requirement for a monthly reporting which was
included for the CARES Act funding and having a public report in this ordinance would be beneficial to
Council, Administration and the public for increased transparency. He recalled instances of less than
transparent support during this pandemic at the federal level and providing transparency at the City level
about how the funds were spent would be beneficial for everyone.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 21
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was a monthly report or just a yearly report on December
31, 2020. Councilmember Distelhorst answered the way the amendment is stated, it would be a yearly report
the same as the section above it regarding the Housing and Supplementary Relief.
Amendment 7A
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO ADD MONTHLY REPORTS.
Councilmember Olson agreed having monthly reports so if the criteria were not working, there would be
an opportunity for feedback.
Councilmember Paine wanted to ensure the criteria for decisions and scoring was established and well
understood before the end of the year. Councilmember Distelhorst said his intent was only for funds
disbursed which Mr. Doherty said can be provided. Councilmember Paine said she was satisfied if it was
strictly related to funds already disbursed but wanted to be 100% clear that the scoring criteria matrix were
developed in advance. She agreed it will be interesting to see how distribution lines up with the matrix.
Action on Amendment 7A
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action on Amendment 7
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M.
Before the meeting was extended, Councilmember K. Johnson said she wanted to know if the agenda would
be amended, what items will not be covered, and whether the Council planned to stay until 1 a.m. or was
the plan only to finish this item and then have Council comments. Council President Fraley-Monillas
deferred to Mayor Nelson, citing the remaining items, Contract Change Order for the Dayton Street Utility
Replacement Project (15 minutes), Wastewater treatment Plan Incinerator Replacement Project Update and
Recommendation (45 minutes) and Community Services Resource Guide (10 minutes), advising the
Resource Guide Agenda Item 8.1 could be postpone but she was uncertain about the other items. Mr.
Williams said both have a timeliness dimension, an answer is needed very quickly regarding the Contract
Change Order and an answer is also needed related to the Incinerator Replacement Project. He suggested
doing the Change Order which was pretty straightforward and then reevaluate.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to defer the Wastewater Treatment Plan Incinerator Replacement
Project and possibly scheduling a special meeting as there were a lot of questions. She recalled Mr. Williams
saying the Council has until July I" to make a decision. Due to the number of questions and the financial
aspects of the project, she anticipated that item would take much longer than 45 minutes. Mr. Williams said
he could reduce the length of his presentation and he has the financial information.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested it may be most efficient if Mr. Williams sent the questions
and responses from last week to Councilmembers and any further questions be forwarded to him before
next Tuesday's meeting. She agreed it likely would take 45 minutes and maybe longer.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Nelson if he wanted to let staff go as the Council had not
completed the Edmonds CARES Fund agenda Item. Mayor Nelson conferred with staff; Mr. Williams said
there were four people on the call who were being paid and it would be nice to go through at least four
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 22
slides to give the Council information regarding the financials and the contracts which have been the topic
of most of the questions. Then if the Council wished, they could postpone action to next week and send
him follow-up questions. He anticipated the Contract Change Order would not take very long.
Councilmember Paine suggested the Council at least discuss the Contract Change Order.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested since there are consultants present for the WWTP item, the
Contract Change Order be considered next week. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Williams to address the
necessity of the Contract Change Order. Mr. Williams said that needs to be done tonight. City Engineer
Rob English said the contractor need that direction otherwise there will be delay costs.
Mr. Williams advised consultants Lonn Inman and Dave Parry they could leave the Zoom meeting.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, questioning whether the discussion on the Edmonds CARES
Fund could be paused and return to after the other items. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was
not generally done.
Amendment 8
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO AMEND TO INDICATE THE $350,000 BE ALLOCATED TO A PASS THROUGH
FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY INSTEAD OF KING COUNTY AND ONE THAT SERVES ALL
SORTS OF PEOPLE THAT MAY BE IN NEED OF SOME ASSISTANCE.
Councilmember Olson asked where in the ordinance that would be included. Council President Fraley-
Monillas was uncertain where it would fit and said it may need to be a separate section. She wanted to
ensure the $350,000 the Council was allocating to citizens be handled by a group in Snohomish County,
noting there were a number of groups that do that sort of work. Mr. Doherty suggested it could be added to
Section 4.13.
Council President Fraley-Monillas restated the motion:
INSERT IN 4.13 THAT THE MONEY BE ALLOCATED TO A SNOHOMISH COUNTY NON-
PROFIT.
Mr. Doherty explained the City has two existing contract with Wellspring and with Washington Kids in
Transition who serves Edmonds School District. He asked if Council President Fraley-Monillas' intent was
the entire additional money can only go to a new, as yet undefined, Snohomish County -based agency or
that that the totality should include a new Snohomish County -only based agency. Council President Fraley-
Monillas answered she was interested in doing it either way as long as it was a Snohomish County -based
agency. In her research, Wellsprings seems to be a good group but their focus is families and children. She
was aware Wellspring offered to assist Edmonds in resources for others. However, for example, the United
Way of Snohomish County actually serves the entire population and would know different types of no -cost
organizations that perhaps people should apply to within Snohomish County. She did not think Wellspring
or Washington Kids in Transition were well educated regarding the various resources in Snohomish County.
She would be satisfied if the entire amount was allocated to a Snohomish County -based organization or
split between Washington Kids in Transition and another Snohomish County -based organization, as long
as it was in Snohomish County and not King County.
Amendment 8A
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT THAT THE BALANCE OF THE FUNDS GO TO
SNOHOMISH COUNTY NON-PROFIT THAT SERVES A BROAD BASE OF COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY NEEDS TO INCLUDE SENIORS, VETERANS AND THE
DISABLED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 23
Councilmember Paine said it was important to have a broad range of services that are well-known within
Snohomish County.
Action on Amendment 8
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if funds have already distributed. Mr. Doherty answered no funds have
been distributed as the program is in the first application phase. He commented the amount of funding
would be more than tripled and even with $100,000, the two agencies felt they needed to collaborate to deal
with applications. If the proposal is for a new, unnamed third agency to take on all the applications and
distribution for another $350,000, he feared that would overburden one agency. He recommended adding
another Snohomish County -based organization that covered the populations identified and have them triage
among the three agencies. He feared one agency would be unable to take that on.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this an administrative issue, the Council can suggest what they want, but
aren't the agencies and the selection process part of the administrative process? Mayor Nelson answered it
is in pretty much every other city in Snohomish County that has been doing this. Councilmember Buckshnis
supported what Councilmember Paine was saying, but preferred the Council simply say they wanted two
or three and to include one Snohomish County and allow the Administration to figure it out, recalling that
was what was done with the original $100,000.
Councilmember Paine was hopeful and assumed there was a 10-15% overhead fee and possibly lower. She
acknowledged Wellspring was probably a well-meaning group and she knew a lot about United Way of
King County, but she agreed there needed to be a large, broadly resourced group in Snohomish County.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said organizations like the United Ways distribute millions of dollars in
a year; this would be small chump change to them. She was not necessarily suggesting United Way, but
she preferred an organization in Snohomish County because they seemed to have a better feel for
opportunities in Snohomish County versus a group in King County that would not necessarily have that
ability. She did not have any vested interest in which organization, but knew that Wellspring was King
County -based and it should have probably been a Snohomish County -based organization to begin with. She
encouraged the Council to support Councilmember Paine's amendment.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the intent in stating "the balance" in the motion was for the entire
$350,000 be allocated to a single Snohomish County organization. Councilmember Paine said her intent
was the $350,000 could be split amongst other Snohomish County -based organizations. Council President
Fraley-Monillas agreed with having the funds allocated by Snohomish County organizations.
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed that Councilmember K. Johnson is offline due to computer
issues. She requested Mayor Nelson forward her the code to the Zoom meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis
she had provided Councilmember K. Johnson the phone number to participate.
Mr. Taraday said because Mr. Passey and he will be preparing the ordinance following Council
amendments, he requested motions be made without interruption. He did not get Councilmember Paine's
motion in its entirety because she was interrupted before it could be completed. He asked her to restate the
motion.
Councilmember Paine restated the motion:
AMEND SECTION 4.13 TO INSERT ii BELOW COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON'S THAT
WOULD SAY THESE FUNDS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BASED
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 24
NON -PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISTRIBUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
ORDINANCE.
Mr. Doherty clarified the existing two partners are Snohomish County -based Washington Kids in Transition
and King County -based Wellspring whose leadership live in Edmonds. He asked if the intent was not to
allow Wellspring to process any further applications. He pointed out Wellspring created the application
portal, are running a fundraising campaign for Edmonds to generate more money, but the amendment
appeared to say they could not have any more of the funds. In his opinion it was bad faith for organizations
that the City had just contracted with. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was a different fund, they
have the $100,000 although it was currently at $33,000 and they can keep working on that. However the
$350,000, the CARES Act funds need to go to a Snohomish County organization. Mr. Doherty said Section
4.13 of the ordinance adds $350,000 to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, subsuming the
program previously approved into the overall CARES Fund program.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if that needed to be separated out. Mr. Doherty said he was
suggesting the City already has two partners and should add a third that would be a Snohomish County -
based partner. He would personally feel badly if the City told one of its founding partners one who had
gone the extra mile for no compensation that they could not help the City further.
Mr. Taraday suggested taking Councilmember Paine's amendment which begins with the words "these
funds" and change it to read "these additional funds" meaning the supplemental infusion of $350,000. That
would indicate the existing arrangement with Wellspring could remain intact. Councilmember Paine
agreed.
(Councilmember K. Johnson resumed participation in the virtual meeting.)
Councilmember Olson said that did not address Mr. Doherty's legitimate concern that the founding partner
who had done the work on the first $100,000 for no compensation would not participate in the paid portion
which she felt was unjust. She recommended Councilmembers not support the amendment or alter the
amendment to add another partner and the existing organizations continue, each with one-third of the funds.
Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in having the City's money go into a different county;
Wellspring is based in King County and the City needs to send the money to Snohomish County. She hoped
Wellspring hadn't been promised more money through a contract. Wellspring will receive the profit, and
she was sure they would want some sort of profit, with the rest of the money if it was allocated back to
them as well as Washington Kids in Transition. Mr. Doherty said the contracts for administration of the
$100,000 initial funds with the two agencies included no compensation. Wellspring started a fundraising
campaign on its website to grown the fund and did wish to participate in administration of any additional
funds they raised with a 10% or so fee. The additional CARES Act funds were not even a proposal until
this week so they had not been told about that. Given the larger amount of funds, it would make sense to
have three agencies working on it. He assured the funds were being disbursed to Edmonds residents.
Councilmember Paine asked if the prior ordinance would need to be amended to change the percentage of
what they would get, acknowledging they had put in a lot of work. Mr. Doherty explained this ordinance
subsumes the creation of that initial fund; any amendments to that initial Housing and Supplemental Relief
Program, now being subsumed by this new ordinance can be made in Section 4.13. He clarified no
percentage for an overhead fee was included in the initial $100,000.
Councilmember Paine restated the motion:
TO ALLOW FOR WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION TO COLLECT A NORMAL
OVERHEAD FEE AS WELL AS WELLSPRING FOR THE AMOUNT UP TO $100,000 AS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 25
APPROVED IN PRIOR FUNDS FROM THE HOMELESS AND FOR THE ADDITIONAL CARES
ACT FUND ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR AN OVERHEAD COST.
Mr. Taraday said this ordinance will be very difficult to put together. He will do his best but he requested
Councilmembers read it very carefully because it may not be what they think it will be and may need to be
amended because at this point it is getting very messy.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the organizations should have been offered something to offset
their overhead as non -profits cannot be successful without funds for their overhead. The $350,000 will
require some overhead fees.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked about the passage of this ordinance and one fund subsuming other. It was
his understanding that even if the Council passed this ordnance, there would still need to be a budget
amendment. Mr. Doherty agreed, advising the budget amendment is intended to be a very simple ordinance
that shows a funds was set up and moving the money into it. Given the volume of applications and given
these new funds, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if it would be appropriate to transfer some of the
$66,666 that would have been in the second and third months of the program, in the budget amendment
versus this ordinance. Mr. Doherty answered it could be done either way, state the intent to do that in
Section 4.13 and execute that in the budget amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated this is administrative; the Council is getting into the weeds and the
ordinance will be very confusing. She asked whether the intent was to have three organizations instead of
two or was it to get rid of the two that the Administration had selected. Mr. Doherty said it was not clear to
him, whether the amendment was to have three agencies adm.n.ster, ,g the ne..' total o..vhether :t .vas only
a new organization and Washington Kids in Transition. Councilmember Buckshnis said her opinion was
the same as Councilmember Olson, the City has in good faith gone to a company and they have done
fundraising and suddenly the Council makes a different decision just because they are outside Snohomish
County. She pointed out the funds are being distributed within Edmonds. She preferred to include one more
organization, and questioned why this was put into the code when it was an administrative issue.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Wellspring focuses on children and families. They have been given
a shot with the $100,000 to see if they can give it to more people than just families and children such as the
disabled, veterans, seniors and other groups. She wanted the CARES Act funds allocated by a Snohomish
County -based organization who know about the resources and programs in Snohomish County. Wellspring
sounds like a fine organization; they just don't have experience in a lot of other areas. She wanted to ensure
the money was being distributed by Snohomish County -based organizations.
Councilmember Distelhorst suggested a shorter, cleaner amendment:
Amendment 8B
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO INSERT AT THE END OF 4.11, "AN ADDITIONAL SNOHOMISH
COUNTY -BASED ORGANIZATION WILL BE ADDED TO THE EXISTING PROGRAM."
Councilmember Distelhorst explained that would add a Snohomish County -based organization and does
not address any fees, etc. because that would be handled in the contract between the Administration and
those agencies.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 26
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the intent was to include the current two organizations working
on the distribution of the $100,000 in with the distribution of $350,000 and add one more organization.
Councilmember Distelhorst answered yes and how that was done would be up to the Administration. He
noted Wellspring is currently doing the applications for Washington Kids in Transition; he was not implying
they would do the applications for a third agency, only that an additional Snohomish County -based
organization would be added to the existing two. How that was accomplish would be organized by Mr.
Doherty and his staff.
Action on Amendment 8A
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she missed some of the discussion. She asked if the motion was to add
administrative fees to the agencies distributing the funds. Mayor Nelson and Councilmember Distelhorst
said it was not.
Action on Amendment 8B
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING.
Amendment 9
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
ADD SALES TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 2019 AND THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2020 TO
THE CRITERIA SECTION AND FURTHER MOVED THAT THIS INFORMATION SHALL
REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL.
Councilmember Olson said it was legitimate to consider the impact to the City budget which is how all the
City's services are delivered to citizens.
Councilmember Paine said she would be very curious to know if this was allowable information to include
in the criteria. It was not necessarily bad, but wanted to ensure it was within the confidentiality criteria as
identified by the State. Mr. Taraday answered once the City takes possession of the document, assuming
that the City would, whether it was kept confidential or not was entirely dependent on whether there was
an exemption in the Public Records Act (PRA). If there is not an exemption to the PRA, the City has
essentially no ability to keep it confidential.
Councilmember Olson asked if there was any way to include a caveat, if the City learned it would be subject
to the PRA, that the criteria would be deleted. Mr. Taraday said he could add that the material shall remain
confidential to the extent of the City's ability under the PRA.
Councilmember Paine asked if that would be in conflict with Councilmember Distelhorst's amendment
about transparency via monthly reports and the end of the year summation report. Mr. Taraday answered
probably. Mr. Doherty answered potentially, yes.
Action on Amendment 9
AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES AND
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING.
Amendment 10
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
STRIKE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IN SECTION 4.13: "IN ADDITION, UP TO $50,000
FROM THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC RELIEF PROGRAM, INITIALLY EARMARKED
AS A POTENTIAL SECOND ROUND OF FUNDING FOR THE CHAMBER FOUNDATION WISH
GRANT PROGRAM, SHALL BE REALLOCATED TO THIS ACCOUNT."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 27
Councilmember K. Johnson said her research found other cities such as the City of San Antonio have found
it very useful to provide direct relief to businesses. The City of San Antonio has been a bulk supplier of
hand sanitizer, masks and temperature reading devices which may be difficult for individual businesses to
purchase. She went to one business recent that only had a small can of Purell at the register. Edmonds could
spend that $50,000 on those supplies to benefit the businesses and citizens who visit those businesses. She
recommended not spending that money right now and continuing to keep it as a potential grant to the
Chamber of Commerce and working with the Chamber on ways to help support businesses. The initial grant
was intended to help support small businesses, but in fact few needed the type of resources that were offered.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why $50,000 from the funds allocated to the Chamber was
proposed to be reallocated. Mr. Doherty answered the contract with the Chamber is up to $50,000 through
the Foundation WISH Grant program; the City initially allocated up to $100,000 if it was needed for that
program. The Chamber has distributed approximately $30,000; in an effort to propose a robust community
support program along with a robust business support program, Councilmember K. Johnson's proposal was
to reallocate the $50,000.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the Chamber said about that. Mr. Doherty said the Chamber
knows, they weren't specific one way or another; the Chamber was happy about business grants so it was
somewhat of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mayor Nelson advised the City will be getting over 18,000 cloths
masks from the State that can be distributed to citizens in addition to 10,000 disposal masks that are being
distributed.
Councilmember Olson said there is truly no limit to the need that businesses have and this indirectly benefits
businesses in the City so she will support the amendment.
Action on Amendment 10
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
I3UCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-NIONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Amendment 11
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO
AMEND IN SECTION 4.13 TO REMOVE "UP TO" BEFORE $300,000 AND REMOVE "UP TO"
BEFORE $50,000.
Action on Amendment 11
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, FOR THE COUNCIL TO SEE A CLEAN COPY NEXT WEEK.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, a previous motion to postpone was unsuccessful and she
questioned whether this was the same motion. Mr. Taraday said someone who voted on the prevailing side
of that motion could make a motion to reconsider.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO POSTPONE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON AND DISTELHORST VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday said he will revise the ordinance and include it in the packet for next week's meeting. If
Councilmembers saw anything that looked inconsistent with their recollection before next week's meeting,
he invited them to bring it to his or Mr. Doherty's attention sooner rather than later.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 28
2. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR DAYTON STREET UTILITY REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English displayed an aerial view of the Dayton Street Utility Replacement Project,
cxplaining this is a proposed change order for the section of Dayton Street between 6"' Avenue and 8"'
Avenue. The original contract called for pavement restoration that included a 2-inch grind, placement of
pavement fabric and a 2-inch overlay within this section of Dayton Street. The restoration plan was based
on cores taken during design that showed a pavement thickness of 5 inches between 6th Avenue and 7th
Avenue and 4 inches between 7th Avenue and 8"' Avenue. Once the utilities began to be installed and the
pavement trench patch was done, the contractor found 3-inch pavement thickness in some sections which
present a problem because grinding 2 of the 3 inches will likely damage and crack the remaining 1-inch
layer.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO EXTEND FOR 25 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. English relayed the recommendation for a full depth reconstruction between 61" Avenue and 8"' Avenue.
He displayed a photograph of the pavement condition that includes alligator cracking. Reconstruction has
already begun between 6" Avenue and 7" Avenue. This is critical for action tonight because that work will
be paved Friday and the contractor needs to move to the 7"' Avenue to 8"' Avenue portion which exceeds
the $100,00 threshold and requires Council to authorize the Mayor to approve the contract change order.
Mr. Englisli reviewed the additional cost of street reconstruction:
6"' Avenue to 7"' Avenue
$70,000
7" Avenue to 8t1i Avenue
$53 100
Subtotal
$123,100
10% contingency
$12,300
Total
$135,400
Mr. English said this would be paid from the project management reserve, the current balance is $712,00
and the funds for this work are from the Stormwater and Water Utility Funds. Staff recommends authorizing
the Mayor to approve a change order up to $135,400 for that full depth reconstruction on Dayton Street
which will provide a much longer pavement life in this section.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO APPROVE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER UP
TO $135,400 TO RECONSTRUCTION DAYTON ST FROM 6TH AVENUE TO 8TH AVENUE (100
FT EAST OF 8TH AVENUE). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Mr. English and Public Works Director Phil Williams left the virtual meeting).
3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was her understanding that the Council would not be considering this
item tonight.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, stating that was not her understanding as Mr. Williams
wanted to present four slides. Mayor Nelson said because staff left the meeting, he believed they were done
for the night.
9. STUDY ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 29
COMMUNITY SERVICES RESOURCE GUIDE
Mayor Nelson said Mr. Doherty had also left the meeting, perhaps understanding that the Council would
not be considering this item.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
END THE MEETING AFTER MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson advised there will be a pedestrian friendly Main Street on Saturday and Sunday and mask
will be available.
(Mr. Williams returned to the virtual meeting.)
Councilmember L. Johnson supported allowing Mr. Williams to make his presentation as he had waited all
evening. Discussion followed regarding what motion would be appropriate. Mr. Taraday said all
Councilmembers voted on the prevailing side of the motion to end the meeting so any could move to
reconsider.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO END THE MEETING AFTER MAYOR AND COUNCIL
COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS
VOTING NO.
9. ACTION ITEMS (CON'T)
3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT
UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION (CON'T)
Mr. Williams reviewed the approximate financial impacts
• All numbers are estimates only at this point
r Includes all sales taxes
• Bond Insurance ($301,000 est.) not included
• Interest rates could increase or decrease prior to sale of bonds
• We could evaluate using levelized DS or a debt service wrap
• Final arrangement could include our partners as well but wouldn't change Edmond's numbers
• Edmonds Partners Shares
o Mountlake Terrace 23.174 %
o Ronald 9.488 %
o OVWSD 16.551 %
o Edmonds 50.787%
• 20 year term, levelized debt service, 2.7% Interest Rate
Project Cost
$26,121,250
Edmonds share g, 50.787%
13,266,000
Debt Service Reserves
$1,507,500
Issuance Costs
$301,500
Total Bond
$15,075,000
Insurance?
301,500
Gross Payment
$81,360* 12 = $976,320
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 30
Interest on Reserves
976 x 1 % x 12 = $11,712
Net Payment
$964,608/ r.
2020 Projected Rate Revenue (approved 2020 budget)
$12,873,846
New Rate Revenue Needed/Projected 2020 Rate Revenue
$964,608/12,873,846 = 7.49%*
• The Project team estimates savings of $341,247/yr. in O&M
• Edmonds share of that varies but averages approx. 47% or $160,3 86
• Net Edmonds cost increase = $964,608 - $160,386 = $804,222 or 6.25%
• Single Family Residential would increase from $45.84/mo. to $48.70 or $2.86/mo.
• Graph of existing and proposed bonds
o Existing debt
• WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011
■ WS Rev 2013
so WS Rev 2015
o Proposed 2020 Bond, 20 year Level Debt Service
Mr. Williams suggested Councilmembers forward him any questions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about the increase for the average rate payer. Mr. Williams
answered $2.86/month for a single family wastewater ratepayer in Edmonds. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked if that was for a family of four. Mr. Williams answered sewer is billed on a per -household
basis and does not matter the size of the family or house, everyone pays a flat rate.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked what was the current flat rate. Mr. Williams answered it is $45.84/month
and $48.70 after the increase, a difference of $2.86/month.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS [CON'T)
Mayor Nelson encouraged the public to visit the pedestrian- friendly Main Street this weekend wearing
masks to shop, dine or walk.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember L. Johnson advised Friday, June 16t' is a holiday known as Juneteenth which
commemorates Black freedom from slavery and recognition of the ongoing struggle for equality and true
freedom. The Black Student Unions at Edmonds School District high schools have planned a march on
Friday at 11 a.m. and are encouraging community members to gather at College Place Middle School and
march to the District administrative officers. The public can come early at 10 a.m. to make signs or at 11
a.m. with prepared signs. There will also be a candlelight vigil at 7 p.m. at Meadowdale High School. Masks
are highly encouraged at these and other events. Masks will be provided to those without one.
Councilmember Buckshnis wished a Happy Father's Day to Mr. Passey, Mayor Nelson, Mr. Taraday and
Councilmember Distelhorst. She relayed with great sadness the passing of Evan Zhao, a founding member
of Students Saving Salmon and the Edmonds Stream Team who was tragically killed in a rock climbing
accident. His family has set up a memorial scholarship fund through the Foundation for Edmonds School
District.
Councilmember Olson reported the Economic Development Commission is meeting on Wednesday, June
17"' at 6 p.m. to talk about recovery. She invited Councilmembers and/or the public to contact her or other
commissioners with input. The Housing Commission Zoom meeting is on Thursday, June 18"' at 6:30 p.m.;
further information is available on the City's website.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 31
Councilmember Olson acknowledged the amount of time and effort that Councilmembers have devoted to
studying agenda items. Although Councilmembers have differences of opinion about how to be helpful,
she assured they all want to be helpful and really care and are sorry for everything that everyone is going
through. She urged citizens to keep their chin up and keep moving forward, noting there are many resources
available. She encouraged citizens to contact the City if they need information on available resources.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Councilmember Olson's comments and thanked Council, Mayor
Nelson, Mr. Taraday and Mr. Passey for bearing with the Council through a very long discussion on the
CARES Act funding, noting that was representative of how important it was to businesses, residents, elected
officials and staff. He thanked everyone for working together in a collaborative manner as it will benefit
everyone in the end. He thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for announcing the Juneteenth event with the
Black Student Unions in the Edmonds School District on Friday. He looked forward to putting on his mask
for multiple events including the Main Street pedestrian plaza which he thanked Mayor Nelson and staff
for arranging. He urged he public to wear masks to keep each other safe.
Councilmember Paine said she was looking forward to the weekend with appreciation to all the fathers in
world and to the plaza and seeing how that works and potential opportunities to expand if it is successful
as well as the Juneteenth rally and march. She noted all the discussions around equity are very important
and a great way to look at policies through the lens of equity. She hoped everyone had a great time for the
rest of the week after all the work that was done tonight.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m.
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 32
Councilmember Olson acknowledged the amount of time and effort that Councilmembers have devoted to
studying agenda items. Although Councilmembers have differences of opinion about how to be helpful,
she assured they all want to be helpful and really care and are sorry for everything that everyone is going
through. She urged citizens to keep their chin up and keep moving forward, noting there are many resources
available. She encouraged citizens to contact the City if they need information on available resources.
Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Councilmember Olson's comments and thanked Council, Mayor
Nelson, Mr. Taraday and Mr. Passey for bearing with the Council through a very long discussion on the
CARES Act funding, noting that was representative of how important it was to businesses, residents, elected
officials and staff. He thanked everyone for working together in a collaborative manner as it will benefit
everyone in the end. He thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for announcing the Juneteenth event with the
Black Student Unions in the Edmonds School District on Friday. He looked forward to putting on his mask
for multiple events including the Main Street pedestrian plaza which he thanked Mayor Nelson and staff
for arranging. He urged he public to wear masks to keep each other safe.
Councilmember Paine said she was looking forward to the weekend with appreciation to all the fathers in
world and to the plaza and seeing how that works and potential opportunities to expand if it is successful
as well as the Juneteenth rally and march. She noted all the discussions around equity are very important
and a great way to look at policies through the lens of equity. She hoped everyone had a great time for the
rest of the week after all the work that was done tonight.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m.
MI HAEL NELSON, MAYOR
7
SCO PASSEY, CITY C K
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 32
Public Comment for June 1612020 Council Meeting:
6/10/20 Randall Hodge, Subject: RE: Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association Support for Cares ACT
Grant Program
I wanted to send my comments about the Edmonds Cares Act Program
We need the help. It is as simple as that. And it should for to 1-30 employees. In the Randall J Hodges
Photography Gallery, it is just me and one employee. My business has lost so much in this difficult time. I
have dipped into saving just to pay the rent. Now that we are open again, it will take a long time to get
back up to full business and customer counts. I do not want to loose what I have worked for over 21
years due to Covid. We need the help. So many large business have benefited from government help,
but those of use with 1-2 employees have not. Payroll protection was not a good for for my business.
And with only one employee, I have been turned down for all grants, like I am not worth saving. Please
consider helping the small business in the downtown core, the are the core of Edmonds Thank you for
your consideration
6/10/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comment for the June 16, 2020 City Council Meeting
The June 5, 2007 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes include the following:
"Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute."(As a side
note — please appreciate the failure to call the meeting to order prior to entering Executive Session.)
From Page 8 of the June 5, 2007 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes:"With regard to the allegation
that something occurred in Executive Session, Mr. Snyder advised once the process was concluded, all
Executive Session minutes would be available to the public. As the minutes would reveal, he was very
clear to the Council when this was discussed that a settlement proposal had been presented to the
Council; the settlement proposal depended upon passage of the development agreement. He assured
he had not polled the Council and only sought reactions and feedback regarding negotiating the terms.
He had advised the Council they could not make a decision in Executive Session and that they should not
give direction regarding the development agreement. The Council was not asked their opinion regarding
the development agreement in Executive Session as that could only be done in open session after a
public hearing." Please note that the approved minutes clearly indicate that Mr. Snyder advised the
following: once the process was concluded all Executive Session minutes would be available to the
public. The following detailed discussion about Executive Sessions is documented in the July 17, 2007
City Council Approved Minutes: Executive Session Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a
resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He recalled during the discussions of the park in
south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion regarding what information was and was
not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss certain issues in Executive Session and in at
least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session was broken. The intent of the resolution
was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of
an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would accomplish two purposes, 1) if a
Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that should not, they could propose a
motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have discussion and make a determination
during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from revealing information that other
Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 33
Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address
Councilmembers questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was
appropriate for Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in
Executive Session. She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the
retreat with the way meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the
number of times each Councilmembers could speak. Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did
not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to question an inappropriate Executive Session. City
Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember could always leave an Executive Session that they felt
was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future
date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue. He explained the Council could reach consensus
in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an issue in the open meeting, they could come out
of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue placed on a future agenda and/or request
information be released. In the absence of a motion, the confidence of the Executive Session would be
observed. He noted the resolution did not address the appropriateness of a subject for Executive
Session because that was addressed in state law. Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were
Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council had agreed should not be disclosed. His
intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the same understanding. Mr. Snyder
agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information was a crime and a potential basis
for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when
Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session information remained confidential
as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO SCHEDULE
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.To the 2020 City Council, please note the following: 1. Resolution No. 1150 is still in
effect. Are you complying? The intent of the Resolution is to identity a way for the Council to reach a
consensus regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session.2. Executive Session
minutes are supposed to be made available to the public after the related process is concluded. 3. City
Council used to keep minutes of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council
discussed appropriate issues in Executive Session. This was in the Public Interest. Such practice was
done away with via Resolution 1360 — a legislative act contrary to the Public Interest. Please consider
requesting an item be added to next week's agenda to reconsider/rescind Resolution 1360.
4. Executive Session information remains confidential as long as the City Council feels it should remain
confidential. This requires consensus. Per RCW 42.30.110, the Edmonds City Council may exclude the
public from the meeting place and meet in Executive Session to discuss certain matters. However,
entering Executive Session is optional, not mandatory. Executive Session discussions sometimes do not
warrant permanent confidentiality. Rescinding Resolution 853 via Resolution 1360 was a decision
promoting permanent confidentiality of all Executive Session discussions — even when the reason for
the Executive Session has expired. The 1996 Edmonds City Council voted that it was in the public
interest to maintain summary minutes, The rescission of Resolution 853 twenty years later was
contrary to open government and not in the public interest. Councilmember Tom Meseros made the
motion to rescind Resolution 853. In doing so he stated that the Council has created an "atmosphere"
that there are minutes being kept. Mr. Mesaros failed to provide support for the so called
"atmosphere". Mr. Mesaros also claimed that Council has given the public an impression that is
"unreal". I strongly disagree and I think these comments showed great disrespect to the public. I believe
citizens are plenty smart enough to know exactly what the summary minutes are. What the summary
minutes actually are has great value. Summary minutes of Executive Session are a tool that promotes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 34
more open government, which increases trust in City government. Councilmember Mesaros also
stated that decisions are not made in Executive Session and that the public will have quite a bit of
opportunity to come to know what is discussed. Again, I disagree. It is often the practice of the City
Council to exit Executive Session and vote without discussing the related matter and without providing
the public hardly any related information. Furthermore, Council has a practice of reaching consensus in
Executive Session. The October 2, 2012 City Council Meeting minutes indicate Council reaches
consensus in Executive Session by head nod and/or by discussion. Resolution 1150 even adopted policy
requiring the City Council to reach a consensus prior to adjournment of Executive Session. The 2016
vote by City Council was a blow to open government and harmed the citizens of Edmonds. The 2016
City Council had an opportunity to be the beacon for open government and transparency in the State
of Washington and improve upon Resolution 853. Instead, the 2016 City Council chose to rescind this
good policy that was adopted because it was in the public interest. Hopefully the 2020 City Council
will act in the public interest like the 1996 City Council did and reverse the acts of the 2016 City
Council. Please reconsider/repeal Resolution 1360. Thank you.
6/10/20 Jaime Williams, Subject: Re: Cares Act grants
I just read through the article in MyEdmondsNews talking about the businesses you are considering for
the grant. I am very sad and disheartened that you are not considering single person businesses in your
process. I get that you get more bang for your buck if you eliminate us from the pool. But let me tell you
that we are in just as great of a need. I am a single mother of two 3 year old boys. I am my sole income
for my home. I have not received any other loans of grants. I am a small business that is owned by a
woman. I have work on 5th ave south for 5 years now doing hair. I lost 100% of my revenue due to the
closure. I was closed 12 long weeks. I have begged and borrowed from my extended family to make it
through and it really hits hard to know I won't even be given a chance to receive a grant. This seems like
yet another blow and the hits keep coming. First to learn that the SBA small business loans went to big
businesses now this. I have no problem working my tail off to provide for my boys. I will admit I am
nervous to be back behind the chair and risk the health of my preemie boys if I bring this virus home. I
guess I am just urging you to reconsider. I don't understand why I get punished for being a small 1 chair
1 employee- myself business. Thank you for your time
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 16, 2020
Page 35