20160503 City Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
May 3, 2016
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Teitzel requested Item 3 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
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 APRIL 26, 2016
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
4. AWARD OF TOURISM GRANTS TO EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS AND
EDMONDS WATERFRONT FESTIVAL
5. 2016 1ST QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 2
6. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2016
WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM TO D&G BACKHOE
7. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2016
SANITARY SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM TO KAR-VEL
CONSTRUCTION
8. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING JOB DESCRIPTION UPDATE &
RECLASSIFICATION
9. REMOVAL OF RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 820 MAPLE STREET FROM THE
EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ITEM 3: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP
Councilmember Teitzel said he was intrigued by the notion and thought it was a great idea but was
concerned with the timing. The City is doing the National Citizens Survey, spending about $19,000 to
learn what citizens want the City for focus on. In addition, there are many bright, talented, capable
volunteers on City boards and commissions and he preferred to challenge them with taking on some of
the items on the list to see if they could accomplish them at little or no cost before committing $100,000.
A number of the items are in the Comprehensive Plan Sustainable element, and he preferred to pursue
them through that mechanism rather than via the Sustainable Cities Partnership (SCP). He would be
interested in pursuing the the SCP if some of the items cannot be accomplished this year via alternative
means. For those reasons, he will not support the resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SUSTAINABLE CITIES
PARTNERSHIP. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO.
4. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. PUGET SOUND STARTS HERE PROCLAMATION
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May 2016 as Puget Sound Starts Here Month in Edmonds
and encourage all citizens to take action by attending local and regional events and to adopt behaviors in
their daily lives to help to protect and clean up Puget Sound and our local waterways. He presented the
proclamation to Public Works Director Phil Williams. Mr. Williams referred to Earth Day events in
Edmonds and surrounding communities. Large capital projects the City undertakes improve the water
quality of Puget Sound as does the wastewater treatment plant but most important are the individual small
decisions that City crews and operations staff and residents adjacent to Puget Sound make every day to
avoid contaminating stormwater in the first place. On behalf of the City departments involved in water
quality, he thanked the Council for the proclamation.
2. EDMONDS CEMETERY BOARD PRESENTATION
Dale Hoggins, Cemetery Board, on behalf of the Cemetery Board and Chair Jerry Janacek, invited
elected officials and the public to the 32nd Memorial Day Ceremony on May 30 at 11:00 a.m. at the
Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium to join in honoring the memories of those who died
while serving our country during time of war and to say thank you from a grateful nation to all veterans
and current military personnel and their families. A special invitation has been extended to the Military
Order of Purple Heart Veterans Chapter 12 to attend. Anyone who received a Purple Heart Medal or has a
Purple Heart of a family member is encouraged to wear it on Memorial Day.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 3
This year’s theme will refresh memories of stories passed down from long -gone family and friends
regarding WWI. He encouraged the public to recall their US History classes or google information
regarding WWI. Mr. Hoggins reported having four uncles who served in WWI, three serving in the
trenches and came home changed; the fourth a causality in training. The poppy and the phrase, “Lest we
forget” and the poem, “Flanders Fields” are symbols that help us remember that time in the country’s
history. This year the ceremony will remember a WWII Veteran, a local Edmonds boy, killed shortly
before Armistice Day, Frank Freese. The French government awarded Freese their highest military honor
for his heroism, equivalent to the USA Medal of Honor.
The ceremony is an outdoor event, dress for weather, seating limited, parking inside the cemetery is
limited to those with handicap permits. ASL translators will be present. Anyone with questions regarding
the ceremony was invited to call Mr. Hoggins.
3. ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PRESENTATION
Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed the City of Edmonds is a member of the Alliance for
Housing Affordability (AHA). Councilmember Tibbott recently replaced the original member of AHA
representing Edmonds, Councilmember Buckshnis.
Kristina Gallant, Policy Analyst, Alliance for Affordability Housing, presented Affordable Housing
101, explaining her goal is to instill a general sense of the broad spectrum and to start a conversation.
AHA members include 13 Snohomish County cities, Snohomish County and the Housing Authority of
Snohomish County (HASC). She reviewed:
Why is housing important?
o Complex issue, interwoven with my other issues
o Housing is a basic essential for citizens
o Preventing homelessness at all costs, being homeless for any period can be damaging long
term
o Minimizing stress that housing challenges cause families
What does “affordable” mean?
o Many different answers
o Housing itself – assisted property with subsidy, operated by non-profit or more affordable
market rate
o Households needs
o Cost burden concept: households should not spend more than 30% of income on rent or
ownership costs
o Other considerations
Type of housing
Location
Families
Seniors
- Edmonds’ median age 46.9 higher than the rest of Snohomish County
Other lifestyle differences
Ms. Gallant displayed a diagram of the Housing Continuum – what does it mean for a family of three in
Snohomish County. The continuum considers household income, HUD income levels (30% AMI
extremely low, 50% AMI very low, 80% AMI low) and area median income ($79,400). Housing types
ranges from homeless housing, rent subsidized, affordable rent, and market rate. She displayed a
comparison graph of income distribution for Edmonds and Snohomish County including extremely low,
very low, low, moderate, middle and above middle.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 4
She displayed a graph illustrating who is struggling in Edmonds, a comparison of renter and owner
affordability for the extremely low, very low, low, moderate and middle income levels. With regard to
how much you need, Ms. Gallant explained:
To afford the 2014 median rent: $43,991
o 29% of Edmonds households earn less
To afford the 2014 median home: $76,226
o 52% of Edmonds household earn less
Housing costs are rising, household incomes are dropping.
Ms. Gallant provided examples of two families that have HASC housing vouchers:
Doris & Larry
o Earn $21,150, just under 2014 average retirement income
o Can afford $529/month utilities included
o Can’t drive, other physical limitations
o Current market rent $825 plus $62 utilities
$469 total with voucher
o Have $1,294/month for other essentials vs. $876
Sheila and Family
o Works full-time as a manager making $58,600
o 3 children, two school age, one recent high school graduate still at home
o 3-bedroom home rents for $1500 plus $250 in utilities - 36% of her income
o With voucher, she pays $1100 total
o Landlords do not have participate, difficult finding unit
Ms. Gallant provided details regarding the extremely low and very low income levels including the
maximum they can afford and typical jobs that pay within that range. Additional considerations include:
Shrinking and growing household, more singles and multigenerational households
More seniors, people with disabilities
Location aspects – TOD, housing near employment
First time homebuyers
Preventing foreclosure
She displayed a continuum of who provides housing and how at various levels of the area median income:
30-50%
o Housing trust fund
o Section 8, USDA, public housing
o HOME
50-80%
o Tax Credit Bond
o Multifamily Tax exemption
100% and above
o Private sector
o Federal mortgage interest rate deduction
Major Types of Rental Housing Assistance
o Subsidized
Ongoing, tailored rent assistance
Serve up to 50% AMI, mostly <30% AMI
Almost exclusively federal sources
Subsets of this type serve the homeless – low barrier housing, transitional housing
o Workforce
Rents set at “affordable” level
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 5
Serve 50-60% AMI (sometimes up to 80%)
She reviewed the Olympic & Sound View development (a HASC project):
Took two years from PSA to beginning of rehab to accumulate funding
o Creates significant barrier to new entities getting into affordable housing
Funding Sources
o Tax Exempt Bond $6 million
o 4% Tax credit equity $4.1 million
o County trust fund $772,500
o State trust fund $2 million
o Deferred fees $800,233
Uses
o Acquisition $8.9 million
o Rehab $2,425,000
o Soft costs $2,382,460
With regard to where is the money, she commented on:
Federal funding challenges
Limitations in grant requirements
Risk in grant timing
Fewer local funding sources
Competition with neighboring counties
Local capacity limits
She described what cities can do for housing:
Minimize development barriers
Match housing to need
Expand assisted housing supply
Preserve assets
Councilmember Mesaros commented one of the big issue related to affordable housing is housing costs
are increasing rising but salaries are not, further squeezing households. Another challenge in Edmonds is
how to set the stage so it is easier for those interested in providing housing to meet the challenge.
Councilmember Nelson commended Ms. Gallant for identifying the challenges cites face related to
affordable house. He looked forward to Ms. Gallant returning to the Council to further explore what cities
can do, exploring options to tackle the issue in a tangible way. Ms. Hope relayed the recently adopted
Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy, looking at all income levels and housing
needs.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented AHA is a new organization; over the last couple years AHA
worked on cities’ profiles which were used in the Comprehensive Plan. Now that the cities have their
profiles, she asked whether Ms. Gallant had begun working with cities on legislative ideas, subsidizes,
etc. and were there any examples. Ms. Gallant explained after the cities’ profiles were completed, she
began working with cities on their Comprehensive Plans and has begun conversations about
implementing the multi-family tax exemption, adopting a dedicated housing strategy, and doing a code
audit to encourage development in certain areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the example of the HASC project that cost approximately $13.7
million to purchase and rehab an existing building. She noted there are some vacant properties on
Highway 99 that could be an opportunity for affordable housing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 6
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed finding land is the top issue; some cities/agencies have had
land donated by a church or citizen. The issue is not the rehab of a building but acquiring land as grants
are much easier to obtain for building than rehab. Finding that land in a city like Edmonds that is nearly
built out is challenging. She encouraged anyone with land to donate to inform the City. Ms. Gallant
agreed it depended on available opportunities and it is a huge challenge.
4. MARCH 2016 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director Scott James provided questions and multiple choice answers to a quiz that would be
revealed at the end of his presentation.
Mr. James displayed a General Fund – Funds Revenue comparison, pointing out the General Fund is
$562,000 ahead of last year. He displayed a General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual comparison,
advising taxes are 4.8% higher in 2016 compared to last year, due primarily to sales taxes that are over
$88,000 higher than 2015. License and permit revenues are 11.2% higher than last year due to building
permits that are $57,000 higher than 2015.
He reviewed a pie chart analyzing sales tax by category March 2016 YTD, pointing out retail automotive
is the largest source of sales tax revenue followed by contractors. He displayed a bar graph of Change in
Sales Tax Revenue March 2016 compared to March 2015, pointing out retail automotive had the largest
increase, $43,180 higher in 2016 than 2015.
Mr. James displayed a General Fund – Funds Expenditure Comparison, advising General Fund
expenditures are 15% higher in 2016 compared to 2015 primarily due to making the last Public Safety
bond payment ($936,500) early in the year which saved the City approximately $13,000. He reviewed a
General Fund Department Expense Summary, advising expenses are at 25%. He displayed a Special
Funds Revenue Comparison, advising special revenues are 224.5% higher in 2016 due to the City’s
receipt of more than $2.8 million in grant revenues in 2016 compared to 2015. He displayed a comparison
of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues that illustrates a modest increase over 2015. A graph of Hotel/Motel
Lodging Tax Revenues illustrates a continuing upward trend, $21,955 in 2016 (4.9% higher) compared to
$20,926 in 2015. REET Revenues continue to increase, 22% or approximately $100,000 higher in 2016
than 2015.
Mr. James displayed a Special Revenue Funds Expenditure Comparison, highlighting a 200.8% increase
in 2016 compared to 2015 due to increased street construction expenses, approximately $929,000 higher
than 2015. He provided a comparison of Utility Fund Revenue, advising revenues are 15.6% higher in
2016 than 2015; water sales are $157,000 higher, stormwater sales are over $6,000 higher and sewer sales
are $159,000 higher than 2015. The Utility Funds Expense Comparison illustrates utility expenses are
$176,000 higher due to waterline replacement expenses.
He revealed the answers to the quiz questions:
1. The chart below represents
a) Sales Tax Revenues (in Millions) & Recessions
b) Number of Housing Unit Permits Issued (in Tens) & Periods of Economic Recovery
c) Greater Seattle Unemployment Rate (in percent) & Recessionary Periods
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 7
2. The chart below represents:
a) Sales Tax Revenues (in Thousands), Commercial Building Permits & Recessions
b) Number of Housing Unit Permits Issued, Unemployment Rate & Periods of Recession
c) Street Lane Improvements (1,000’s of feet), Addition of New Residents to City(ten’s) &
Periods of Economic Recovery
Mr. James explained in the analyzing the City’s long range financials, the effect of the greater economic
climate on the City has to be considered. A recent conference he attended included a formula that has
accurately predicted the next downturn based on the first federal rate hike after recession recovery.
Applying that formula to the current upturn, the upturn will last through 2021.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the Summary of All Operating funds: Expenditures which states
during the week of January 18, 2016, the City invested in another $5 million in bonds. He asked the
source of funding for that investment. Mr. James answered several sources were used including reserves
and the General Fund. Instead of allow those funds to sit idle in the bank or the state investment pool
which earns a significantly lower rate and in an effort to diversify the City’s portfolio, those funds were
invested. Councilmember Teitzel asked what type of bonds were purchased. Mr. James advised they are
federal government issues such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For Councilmember Buckshnis Mr. James advised the $900,000 bond payment paid off the Public Safety
Bond issued to build the Public Safety building. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the source of remaining
$600,000 for the FD1 contract. Mr. James recalled the City paid $800,000 last year from the Contingency
Reserve and another $800,000 was budgeted from the Contingency Reserve for the final payment.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the interfund subsidy on page 6. Mr. James answered yes. As
General Fund revenues are performing well, he may address that via a budget amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested consideration be given to whether reserves are too high.
Councilmember Tibbott observed building permits in 2015 were below the 1990s and asked what impact
that would have on future revenue and how that impacts REET revenues. Mr. James referred to the term,
build-out, explaining in earlier years there was more land to develop. The City cannot rely on that activity
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
50
100
150
200
250
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 8
in the future long term because the City is reaching capacity. He suggested inventorying buildable lots to
use in estimating future revenue.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding REET revenues above $750,000 are available for the
walkway system. He asked about REET funds for 2016. Mr. James explained REET revenue in the first
quarter 2016 of $551,000 is approximately $100,000 over first quarter 2015. He referred to research done
last year with regarding using the first $750,000 for parks and the determination that a policy does not
actually exist although it was Council practice at that time.
Council President Johnson asked for clarification regarding the dedication of REET funds to parks and
transportation projects. In the past there was an understanding that anything above $750,000 could be
used for transportation. That past practice is not binding on the current Council or the allocation/use of
REET funds. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled there was no binding policy that commits the City
Council to using REET funds in a particular way, that was a past practice.
Council President Johnson asked the Council whether they wanted to allow Mayor Earling to speak.
Councilmember were agreeable to Mayor Earling speaking. Mayor Earling said upon realizing there was
not a formal policy in place, he worked with departments to find ways make other improvements
including continuing the road resurfacing program and funding the downtown restroom. An agreement
was reached with Parks and Public Works and the rest of the directors agreed which allowed the City to
make good progress in a number of areas this year.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Marilyn Lindberg, Edmonds, relayed an incident that occurred while walking her dog on Sunset
Avenue Sunday evening about 8:15 p.m. When she was about seven houses from the corner walking
south on the pedestrian walkway, her neighbor shouted for her to look behind; behind her were
headlights. She was unable to leave the walkway because of illegally parked cars on her right and the
bank drop off on the left. She stood in place for a few seconds, realizing the car was advancing toward
her, waiting for her to move off the walkway. The driver eventually determined they were in the wrong
and backed up and made a U-turn onto Sunset. She went home and called 9-1-1 but had no description of
the car or license plate number. She said this situation is pertinent enough to illustrate Sunset Avenue
drastically needs attention at this point. The residents have contended with speeding cars, illegally parked
cars, cars driving in the wrong direction, all kinds of wheeled vehicles on the walkway, creating a very
dangerous situation. She concluded at least the driver stopped without running her over.
Dorothy Trinen, Edmonds, commented on the lack of affordable housing and the critical need and how
that plays into the Highway 99 development project as well as long term, ongoing support of the poor in
the Edmonds community. One of the best kept secrets is that there are poor people in Edmonds;
volunteers who work with the poor and homeless know who they are, where they are and what caused
their situation. She recently joined a task force of community members who realize this needs to be
addressed and that more needs to be done. One of catalyst for the task force was the realization that
according to School Board data, there are over 138 homeless children in elementary, middle and senior
high schools in the community. She assured that was an undercount because the homeless are always
undercounted, partially because they do not want to be stigmatized and because no one knows about
them. Homelessness has social costs generations in the future and the children live with it for their entire
lives, particularly if they have been chronically homeless. Snohomish and King counties have the highest
cost of living in Washington and Edmonds is one of highest in Snohomish County. Although incomes
have risen for many, an income gap and livability gap has impacted the poor. She plead with the Council
to make this a priority, perhaps a City proclamation that says we will stand with the homeless every
minute we can.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 9
Gary Nelson, Edmonds, reported two of his coffee groups are glad the City is taking bite-size chunks out
of the development code. He relayed items discussed by his coffee groups related to cost and need,
relaying their hope that the Council consistently asks itself whether these changes are necessary and what
is the cost to the applicant or eventual homeowner:
1. A biannual report to Council regarding the number of applications and permits is required but
does not include the cost to the applicant. Most environmental studies cost $5,000-$10,000.
2. The department has the authority to ask for an independent review of a critical area report by
another environmental group but the applicant must pay for that additional review.
3. The ordinance requires critical area tract easements be recorded with Snohomish County Auditor
which is expensive and may be unnecessary. More expense is involved if the applicant/property
owner wants to remove/change the recording because staff has the authority to require another
assessment to prove the applicant/property owner has cause to remove the recorded easement.
4. Imposing bonds imposed on the applicant for a minimum of five years. The cost of bonds is based
on the length of time the bond is in effect.
He urged the Council to ask whether the requirement is necessary and what is the cost , because costs are
passed on and have a direct impact on affordable housing.
Don Hall, Edmonds, invited elected officials, City staff and the public to Garden Gear and Gallery’s
20th anniversary on Thursday. He remarked on the changes in Edmonds over the past 20 years; it was
difficult to do business when they started but they persevered. The population has changed in recent
years, there are more and more young people shopping downtown along with a lot of kids. The
beautification of downtown Edmonds is phenomenal. He recalled in the past when businesses were not
allowed to have a flower pot in front of their store and if they did, it had to be brought in at night. Now
the City is encouraging flower pots and the atmosphere is much better than it was 20 years ago. He
appreciated everyone who stops in to say hello or to shop.
6. ACTION ITEMS
1. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE UPDATE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the recent history of the CAO update:
February 2, 2016: Council discussed returning to the version of the critical area regulations
considered at the December 15, 2015 meeting and Councilmembers offering proposed
amendments.
February 23, 2016: An initial set of potential amendments were discussed and it was decided a
public hearing should be held and a potential universe of amendments would be established for
the public hearing. Councilmember agreed to provide potential amendments to staff by February
29.
Potential amendments posted on the City’s website along with a list of ideas a Councilmember
gleaned from public comments received to that point. Public hearing notice referenced the
website and the list of potential amendments.
After considering public comment at the March 15 public hearing, the Council began working
through the potential Council amendments and continued review and discuss of potential
amendments over an additional 3 Council meetings.
The potential Council amendments, decision on amendments and location of Council approved
amendments are included in the Table in Exhibit 2 in tonight’s packet.
Council President Johnson attached comments as Exhibit 9 to the April 19 CAO agenda item
which includes additional amendments which have not been discussed by the Council.
The City Attorney and staff prepared the ordinance in Exhibit 1 in tonight’s packet as directed by
Council at the April 19 meeting which incorporated the approved Council amendments as
detailed in Exhibit 2.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 10
Main Motion #1
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND STAFF.
Councilmember Mesaros commented the Council has spent a good amount of time on this, some may
think too long and some may think the Council should spend more time. This is a monumental time for
the City to approve and begin to implement the COA over the next 10 years. He was pleased the Council
has reached this point which was the result of a lot discussion, a lot of compromise, and a lot of ideas and
he looked forward to approving the CAO tonight.
Councilmember Teitzel echoed Councilmember Mesaros’ comments and thanked the public for the well
thought out, helpful information they provided for the Council’s consideration. He agreed the ordinance
was a solid product, acknowledging critical areas are a complicated issue. He appreciated all the input and
discussion and especially appreciated Mr. Lien’s work in constructing the CAO document.
Amendment #1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO DIVIDE THE RESOLUTION SO AS TO CONSIDER SEPARATELY
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 21.40.030 WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION TO
THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT FOR FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS.
Council President Johnson agreed the Council had done a very good job of discussing the CAO and
working through the details. The CAO, along with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), are probably the
most important environmental regulations for Edmonds. Some may agree/disagree with the complexity of
the issues or the action the Council is taking, but it is related to only a very few areas of the City that are
frequently flood or have streams, wetland, marshes, or very steep slopes and these regulations are needed
to protect future development. She did not support the exception to the ECDC but wanted to vote for
everything else which was the reason she was asking for this separation; by dividing the question, the
Council can vote on that issue first and then vote on the remainder.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented as she mentioned previously, she cannot look at the CAO as a
silo, it needed to be considered globally. And the fact of the matter is, you either get it or you don’t.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order that Councilmember Buckshnis was not speaking
to amendment. Mayor Earling agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized she would not support the
amendment.
Action on Amendment #1
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to minor issues that Joe Scordino identified, asking whether Mr. Lien
felt any changes were necessary. She recalled one of the amendments suggested by Mr. Scordino was
related to anadromous fish. Mr. Lien responded most of the items Mr. Scordino identified were typos;
scrivener’s errors that can be fixed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed typos could be fixed but he was not
familiar with the comment from Mr. Scordino that Councilmember Buckshnis was referring to. Mr. Lien
said most were scrivener’s errors; the one related to anadromous fish is the only one that may have some
substance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 11
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she would not support the motion to approve the CAO although she
believed most of the ordinance was very good. She thanked Councilmember Nelson for spending hours
with staff crafting what appears to be a very good CAO. She believed the Council was being short sighted
with regard to waterfront environmental concerns, the City’s most valuable resource.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Lien for the hours, weeks and months he spent working with
Council. This has been a learning experience for him, at times enlightening, disappointing and
challenging. He did not feel the CAO was there yet which was unfortunate because there were a lot of
good things in the update and a lot of good work had been done but there was still a lot of work to be
done. He did not support the motion.
Council President Johnson agreed there were a lot of loose ends. To address that, she proposed asking
several questions. With regard to the footprint of development, at one time graveled areas, swimming
pools and sidewalks and things of that nature had been removed. She asked if those areas were in or out.
Mr. Lien responded those were removed at the December 15, 2015 meeting and that ordinance was
subsequently vetoed. No Councilmember proposed any amendments to the footprint of development
when the Council went through the subsequent amendment process. Council President Johnson
commented that was certainly something she would ask for as she felt the footprint of development
should exclude things like patios and graveled areas. She summarized that was an amendment she would
make if she had the opportunity but most Councilmembers want to move forward tonight regardless of
any additional amendments.
With regard to the RS-12 and RS-20 zones, Council President Johnson asked what was the percentage of
coverage and whether it was vegetated coverage or trees less than 6 inch dbh. Mr. Lien referred to
Amendment 5C in Exhibit 2; the amendment the Council adopted was “…native trees over 6 inches in
dbh make up more than 40 percent of the canopy cover.”
With regard to restoration projects, Council President Johnson said the director’s authority was not clear.
Mr. Lien answered this was complicated; there were two potential decision makers for restoration
projects. One of the amendments was for a new critical area contingent review process. Restoration
projects that are on anadromous fish-bearing streams, Category I or II wetland, Category 1 or 2 estuarine
wetlands all fall into the new contingent review process. They begin as a Type II; if no one requests a
public hearing, the director is the decision maker. If a public hearing is requested, the Hearing Examiner
is the decision maker.
Council President Johnson recalled discussion regarding having map references in the CAO and asked
whether the online maps would be adopted by reference with a disclaimer. Mr. Lien advised two
amendments were proposed, 8A and B. One was to formally adopt the critical area maps; that action was
not taken by the Council. The Council decided to make the information available to public which has
been done. Council President Johnson asked whether there would be reference and a disclaimer in the
CAO. Mr. Lien advised there are a number of references to maps in the CAO and disclaimers but the
CAO does not include a reference to the maps on the website.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION
FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS,
MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON
AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Councilmember Tibbott said he will support the motion to adopt the CAO. He has observed a lot of give
and take during the process of discussing the CAO over the past four months. Some of the items in the
CAO are not necessarily preferable to him but he wanted to make accommodations for priorities of other
Councilmembers. He envisioned the ordinance functioning well for the City although he anticipated
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 12
revisions could be made before the next update in 8-10 years. He was comfortable with the CAO and
looked forward to approval and implementation.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in reviewing Mr. Scordino’s comments, she supported adding
“anadromous” to 23.90.010.1.d, third paragraph, in two places. Mr. Taraday agreed “anadromous” should
precede fish in that paragraph. He did not consider that a scrivener’s error but Council could direct staff
via motion to make that change.
Amendment #2
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO AMEND 23.90.010.d, TO ADD “ANADROMOUS” BEFORE “FISH” IN TWO PLACES.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has spent a lot of time with Mr. Scordino and Ms. Stewart and
values their opinions. Mr. Scordino read through the CAO and this is the only issue he found that needed
to be changed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the amendment was necessary. Mr. Lien agreed the
amendment clarifies the language; these are fish bearing streams that do not have anadromous fish. Mr.
Taraday agreed it makes sense.
Council President Johnson requested an opportunity to discuss the amendments she proposed on April 19
2016. Councilmember Mesaros raised a point of order, there was an amendment on the floor. Mayor
Earling agreed.
Action on Amendment #2
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Johnson referred to the 3 amendments she included in the April 19, 2016 packet. Mr.
Lien displayed and reviewed Council President’s first proposed amendment:
23.40.040 Purpose, amend to read, “A. The purpose of this title is to designate and classify
ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and
values. while also allowing for reasonable use of private property.
Mr. Lien explained the language proposed to be deleted recognizes private property rights. There is a
reasonable use variance process in the CAO to recognize private property rights. Mr. Taraday concurred,
advising the reason for the critical area reasonable use variance process is to ensure, notwithstanding
adoption of the CAO, that there is still some minimal economic use of property subject to the CAO. The
language in the code is consistent with the critical area reasonable use variance process in the code as well
as with one of the GMA goals that recognizes the importance of the protection of private property rights.
Council President Johnson said she carefully reviewed the RCW to find the definition of a critical area
and the intent. Although she understood protection of private property rights and that there is a variance
process, she objected to including this language in the definition of the purpose of the CAO. She found it
a bit misleading to have this language in the purpose section. Mr. Taraday explained it probably does not
legally make a different. The CAO ordinance contains a specific provision that addresses private property
rights and provides a special process for owners to use if they feel their rights have been severely
impacted by the CAO. He summarized removing that language would not affect the legality of the CAO,
as it is only a purpose statement.
Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, asking what action Council took on April 19, 2016 with
regard to this amendment. Council President Johnson said no action was taken. Mr. Lien explained this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 13
was not part of the list of amendments the Council had been working through; Council President Johnson
attached these additional amendments to the April 19 agenda which was the first time they were
introduced.
Amendment #3
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO STRIKE “WHILE ALSO ALLOWING FOR REASONABLE USE OF
PROPERTY” FROM 23.40.000 PURPOSE, ITEM A.
Action on Amendment #3
MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING YES.
Amendment #4
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND 23.50.010 DESIGNATION RATING AND MAPPING – WETLAND, TO
ADD ADDITIONAL WETLANDS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH, GOODHOPE POND AND THE
MOUTH OF SHELL CREEK TO THE LIST.
Council President Johnson said in speaking with Mr. Scordino, a wildlife fisheries expert, he suggested it
would helpful to identify these for the purpose of implementing the section.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the Council was just seeing this tonight, recalling she and Mr. Lien
discussed adding the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Lien explained the process established by Council was to
establish the universe of amendments by February 29 and consider them at the March 15 public hearing.
The amendments were included in the April 19 packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether just the Mouth of Shell Creek could be identified or should it
be identified only as Shell Creek. Mr. Lien explained Section 23.50.010 is Designation Rating and
Mapping. The letters are different sections: Section A is related to Designating Wetlands, Section B
describes the Wetland Ratings, how the City has adopted the Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington, categories of wetlands with Category I being the highest and Category IV being the lowest
with regard to wetland quality. Section C is related to Dating of Wetland Rating, D is related to Mapping
and inventories of wetland. Section E is related to Delineation and Section F Lake Ballinger is a
clarification added in 2004 via an amendment to describe how lake fringe wetlands are rated versus the
whole lake. Section F does not specifically identify any wetlands although it references Lake Ballinger. It
is related to how to categorize wetlands around Lake Ballinger.
Mr. Lien observed the proposed amendment would add specific wetlands; he was uncertain whether the
language, “The City has one wetland, the 23 acre Edmonds Marsh…” was proposed as an amendment as
it was not in red or underlined. Council President Johnson clarified her amendment was only the language
in red. Mr. Lien clarified this section does not identify specific wetlands. The reference to Lake Ballinger
is related to how wetlands around Lake Ballinger are characterized when a wetland delineation is done.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Mr. Scordino’s suggestion was in error. Mr. Taraday said
this language by itself would have no regulatory effect; there needs to be some meat on the bones. For
example, the Lake Ballinger section contains information regarding wetlands around Lake Ballinger. The
proposed language does not have that and would have no regulatory effect. Mr. Lien said it was
unnecessary to identify specific critical areas. The CAO defines characteristics of a wetland; to be a
wetland the wetland rating system requires wetland hydrology, hydraulic soils, and a predominance of
wetland vegetation. Determining the category of wetland follows the Western Washington Wetland
Rating System. The mapping section addresses maps that identify wetland; those maps as well as other
information has been included on the City website. Those maps incl ude Edmonds Marsh, Goodhope
Creek, Shell Creek, Lake Ballinger. It is not necessary to name specific wetlands in the CAO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 14
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded the Council under Roberts of Order, any Councilmember has
the right to bring amendments forward until a main motion passes. Just because the process suggested
amendments be submitted by a certain date, that is not actually parliamentary procedure.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Lake Ballinger was described in Section F and suggested including
a definition of the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Lien explained the information related to Lake Ballinger does not
describe Lake Ballinger, it describes how wetlands around Lake Ballinger are delineated. Around 2004
there was a change to the wetland rating system and how wetland were categorized; this language was
inserted at that time. He read from the Lake Ballinger section, “Consistent with guidance for delineating
lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands along Lake
Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in
shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth,” clarifying this section was not identifying Lake Ballinger as a
wetland but how wetlands around Lake Ballinger are to be characterized.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the shoreline designation of the marsh was recently changed. If the
wetland designation of Lake Ballinger was changed in 2004 and the designation of the marsh was recently
changed, it would be prudent to add the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Lien reiterated the section on Lake
Ballinger does not designate Lake Ballinger as a I, II, III or IV wetland. It states when wetland s around
Lake Ballinger are rated, this is what is considered, language from the Wetland Delineation Manual. The
marsh would be designated in accordance with the Western Washington Wetland Rating System.
Council President Johnson expressed confusion with Mr. Lien last response to Councilmember
Buckshnis, recalling a similar rating system and definition for the Edmonds Marsh and Councilmember
Buckshnis’ work with WRIA 8 to evaluate the marsh. Identifying the Edmonds Marsh and other wetlands
as special areas may be placeholders for future specific language and may serve to inform future Councils
and future updates. Mr. Lien explained the SMP update deals specifically with the marsh, established a
new environment around the marsh and described types of uses. That is a more appropriate venue for any
details about the Edmonds Marsh since it was designated a Shoreline of the State and the City is
considering site specific considerations for the marsh. The wetland rating for both the Edmonds Marsh
and Lake Ballinger would use the same Western Washington Wetland Rating System. The CAO is not the
place to identify those specific wetlands.
Amendment #4 Restated:
TO ADD TO SECTION 23.50.010 DESIGNATION RATING AND MAPPING – WETLANDS,
SECTION G – EDMONDS MARSH, AND H – OTHER SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, 1.
GOODHOPE POND, 2. MOUTH OF SHELL CREEK.
Action on Amendment #4
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Amendment #5
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO ADD
UNDER G – EDMONDS MARSH “THE CITY HAS ONE WETLAND, THE 23 ACRE EDMONDS
MARSH DESIGNATED AS A CATEGORY 1 WETLAND “HIGHEST QUALITY”, IN ADDITION
TO A WILDLIFE HABITAT AND NATURAL RESOURCE SANCTUARY. IT IS ALSO
CLASSIFIED BY THE STATE AS A PRIORITY HABITAT.”
Mr. Lien referred to Section B that states, “Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State
Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington.” That is the BAS document published by DOE that describes how
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 15
wetlands in Western Washington are rated. He strongly recommended agains t specifically stating the
category for any specific wetland. If the City wanted to develop its own wetland rating system, that could
have been done although it is very complicated. All the cities in Western Washington use the 2014
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington because that is the BAS document. He
cautioned against including the category for any critical area in the code. Mr. Taraday said the norm is to
have scientists classify wetlands not legislators.
Council President Johnson spoke in support of motion. While what Mr. Lien said was true, underlying
issues could be addressed by having this in the CAO. For example, in the event the marsh is downgraded,
it is currently a Category I, the Council would be informed if there were a change. She understood there
were discussions at DOE about changing the category of the marsh. This amendment identifies the current
category using regulatory requirements, stating the obvious so the City is not blindsided by a change in
the future.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Councilmembers are not scientists and cannot arbitrarily state a wetland’s
rating.
Action on Amendment #5
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Council President Johnson commented it was not the Council’s wetland rating system, it was the existing
wetland rating using the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. She
recalled that rating was done as part of this CAO update and the previous update. Mr. Lien explained the
2004 BAS called the marsh a Category I wetland which was referenced in the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization. He displayed language from the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington
regarding how estuarine wetland are characterized. The marsh has been determined to be an estuarine
wetland. An estuarine wetland is either a Category I or II wetland. Other considerations are whether the
wetland is a national wildlife refuge, national park, natural estuarine reserve, natural area preserve, state
park, educational environmental science designation. For the marsh to be a Category I it must meet two of
the following three criteria, the wetland is relatively undisturbed, has no diking, ditching, filling,
cultivation, grazing; has less than 10% cover of non-native species; at least three quarters of the landward
edge of the wetland has a 100-foot buffer of shrub, forest or grass. It has been argued the marsh does not
meet those first two categories which is why DOE has called it a Category II wetland. It may have bee n
miscategorized in 2004; this is what the current Wetland Rating System states.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested removing the category and retaining the description of the
marsh: “The city has one wetland, the 23-acre Edmonds Marsh designed as a Category 1 Wetland Highest
quality in addition to a wildlife habitat and natural resources sanctuary. It is also classified by the state as
a priority habitat.”
Council President Johnson asked for clarification, Mr. Lien clarified the marsh was identified as a
Category I wetland in the 2004 BAS Report. Council President Johnson pointed out to date it has not been
reclassified. Mr. Lien explained the letter from DOE, based on the criteria, considered it a Category II
wetland. Another wetland report that was associated with potential development at Harbor Square,
unaware of the letter from DOE, characterized the marsh as a Category II wetland based on the Western
Washington Wetland Rating System. Those are the only two delineations he was aware of; one was an
official wetlands report. Council President Johnson observed it is officially a Category I wetland but more
recent reports indicate it could be a Category II although the official designation has not been changed.
Mr. Lien clarified it is not officially a Category I as categorized by the Western Washington Wetland
Rating System. It is officially an estuarine wetland and therefore it is either a Category I or II wetland
based on the criteria in the Western Washington Wetland Rating System.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 16
Council President Johnson asked who made that determination. Mr. Lien answered according to the
critical area regulations, a qualified wetland specialist makes that determination. Council President
Johnson said she was confused because there has been a lot of discussion but no clarity yet from DOE.
Mr. Lien reiterated the marsh is an SMP issue and should not be specifically identified in the CAO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested including the description of the Edmonds Marsh without the
category; the category will be determined in a wetland report in the future. Mr. Lien explained a wetland
report with the wetland categorization is prepared at the time development is proposed. The City could
hire its own wetland specialist to do a delineation and category determin ation on the marsh which would
use the Western Washington Wetland Rating System. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed
including a description of the marsh would not hurt anything. Mr. Lien said if that description is included,
all it does is name the marsh and as the City Attorney stated, it has no regulatory impact. Development
Services Director Shane Hope advised it is up to a wetland biologist to identify the category based on the
criteria.
Amendment #6
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD THE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE CATEGORY, “THE CITY HAS ONE
WETLAND, THE 23-ACRE EDMONDS MARSH DESIGNED AS A CATEGORY 1 WETLAND
HIGHEST QUALITY IN ADDITION TO A WILDLIFE HABITAT AND NATURAL RESOURCE
SANCTUARY. IT IS ALSO CLASSIFIED BY THE STATE AS A PRIORITY HABITAT.”
Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it was accurate the marsh has been classified as priority habitat.
Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott observed adding the description had no regulatory
impact. Mr. Lien advised the marsh is on the State priority habitat list. Councilmember Tibbott expressed
concern that it was starting to sound like other streams and wetlands in Edmonds should be added to the
list. He viewed the amendment as adding a description to one of the wetlands but questioned whether
descriptions should be added to the others. As it was not helpful in implementing the ordinance, he did
not support the amendment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the amendment.
Councilmember Teitzel did not support motion, expressing concern Councilmembers were chasing their
tails. The State has identified the marsh as a priority habitat; that does not change regardless of the
addition of this definition and it accomplishes nothing for the City.
Mayor Earling said he would need to think long and hard about this, cautioning he did not want to put the
CAO in the position of another veto. Council President Johnson asked the Council if they wanted Mayor
Earling to speak to the potential of a veto. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that should not be part of
the Council’s deliberation on an amendment. It was the consensus of the Council to allow Mayor Earli ng
to speak. Mayor Earling said he was troubled by the discussion and the slicing and dicing. He was
hopeful the Council did not put the CAO in the position of a veto which would require review of this
material again.
Action on Amendment #6
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Amendment #7
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO REVISE SECTION 23.90.040 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 17
SPECIFIC HABITATS, TO READ, “C. RETENTION OF NATIVE TREES AND UNDERSTORY
VEGETATION ON SUB-DIVIDABLE, UNDEVELOPED PARCELS.”
Council President Johnson recalled when this was last discussed on April 19, staff provide a visual about
how the 40% would be measured. Stating only vegetation means it could include things like huckleberry
bushes or salal and she felt it was important to identify an ecosystem that includes trees and understory
vegetation. Mr. Lien said he was unclear where this amendment would be added. Council President
Johnson identified potential locations, noting the issue was retention of trees; native vegetation which
could be anything from a grass to a tree. Mr. Lien explained the existing language is very nondescript and
similar to language struck down in King County because it was broad and did not add definition to the
type of habitat to be retained. This change was intended to make it more defensible, to describe the type
of habitat which is the reason for native trees over 6 inch dba making up more than 40% of the canopy
coverage. How the 30% or 40% could be met would be via maintaining existing vegetation or
establishing new vegetation or a combination. On sites that have native vegetation, a 30% area has been
set aside; on sites that do not have native vegetation, a landscape plan with native vegetation has been
developed that includes trees, bushes, shrubs and ground covers.
Mr. Lien relayed his understanding of the amendment was to change 30% to 40%. Council President
Johnson said her amendment included only the description of the vegetation to prevent a developer from
retain native vegetation that was not trees. Mr. Lien said if 6 inch dba trees did not make up 40% of the
canopy coverage, this would not be triggered. He asked if Council President Johnson’s concern was if this
were triggered, the developer could remove all the trees and only retain 40% of native land cover. Council
President Johnson said her concern is related to what is vegetation, stating native trees and understory
provides a broader range than just vegetation. Mr. Lien argued that is more specific; vegetation covers
trees, understory, groundcover, etc. Council President Johnson feared there was wiggle room with the
word vegetation.
Mr. Taraday said if the motion was to insert those words into the title of Subsection C, absent any other
change, it would not have any regulatory effect on the substance of the language in C, it only changes the
title of the subsection. Council President Johnson asked how that language could be incorporated in the
regulatory part of the section. Mr. Taraday questioned whether it was needed because the regulation
addresses vegetation which is already a broad term; adding understory is simply a subset of vegetation
and could reduce the applicability of the language by narrowing its applicability.
Council President Johnson asked if there was a way to modify this section to accommodate her intent. Mr.
Lien assumed the intent was not to be specific to trees, understory or groundcover but to include all; in
practice that is what happens today.
Action on Amendment #7
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Main Motion #1 Restated:
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4026, THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED.
Council President Johnson said she cannot support the main motion because it encompasses everything.
She was opposed to any regulation that is specific to a specific project whether it is by an individual
developer or the City. She found the inclusion of the definition of height to accommodate the new
community center offensive and she cannot ethically support that.
Vote on Main Motion #1
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS,
TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 18
2. DAYTON STREET PLAZA PROJECT BUDGET AUTHORIZATION
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite requested the Council authorize project budget for the Dayton
Street Plaza. She provided details regarding the project:
Adopted in both the CIP and PROS Plan 5-6 years ago
Authorized in the budget for the past 3 years
Not completed because City has not had the capacity to construct it
Went out to bid in January 2016
Low bid was $93,223
Work authorized under the Mayor’s authority
Design errors in curb heights and sidewalk widths resulted in change orders bringing the project
over the $100,000 threshold for Council authorization
She recalled significant conversations with the City Council in recent years regarding capital projects and
the purchasing policy. Language was included in the purchasing policy that allows staff to continue a
project even if it goes over $100,000 that allows the Mayor to preliminarily authorize it to avoid stopping
the project awaiting Council approval. She noted stopping a project often adds to the project cost. Mayor
Earling provided preliminary authorization and requested it be scheduled on the next Council meeting for
Council authorization. An additional management reserve of 15% was added which she did not anticipate
using as the project was 85% complete. The budget includes $168,000; the $120,000 authorization is
within that budget amount.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the initial bid was $95,000 but the budget was $168,000. Ms. Hite
explained the budget authorized $168,000 which included other elements of the plaza. Park crews
demolished and graded the plaza which saved money. Although $168,000 was included in the budget, the
low bid was $94,000. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was a lot money for that little plaza.
Councilmember Teitzel observed 3 years ago the Council authorized $168,000 for this project. The bid
was less than that but due to change orders, the project cost exceeded $100,000. He asked why further
Council authorization was necessary if the Council already approved $168,000 in the budget. Ms. Hite
explained even though the funds are authorized in the budget, capital projects over $100,000 require
additional Council authorization. The purchasing policy to require Council authorization over $100,000
was established as a result of the Haines Wharf project.
Council President Johnson asked if a management reserve is normally included in the project budget. Ms.
Hite answered it is common to have a management reserve. Because a budget of $168,000 was already
authorized, she did not request a management reserve. The low bid was $94,000 wh ich the Mayor
authorized and construction began. With change orders bringing the cost over $100,000, the purchasing
policy requires additional authorization from Council. Council President Johnson observed if the project
had had a management reserve, it would have been over $100,000 and would have likely come to Council
for authorization. Ms. Hite answered agreed a 10% management reserve would have added $9,000 for a
$103,000 project budget; however, the contract was only $94,000.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
AUTHORIZE PROJECT BUDGET FOR DAYTON STREET PLAZA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 19
Mayor Earling commented on the great kickoff for Civic Field Master Plan, an opportunity to begin
imaging what that eight-acre site might be. He appreciated the great citizen participation at the kick-off
meeting.
Mayor Earling relayed Snohomish County is considering a Public Safety bond issue that would raise the
sales tax by $.002. Snohomish County will hold a public hearing on Monday and must vote by
Wednesday or Thursday for the measure to be on the August ballot. If the County Council approves the
ballot measure, he suggested the Edmonds Council may want to schedule discussion on an upcoming
agenda.
Mayor Earling wished a Happy Mother’s Day on Sunday.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis reminded of the Cass Turnbull presentation on Thursday in Council
Chambers, 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. on the Seven Myths of Site, Selection and Care of Trees Admission is free
and refreshments will be provided. She announced the Floretum Garden Club plant sale in the PCC
Parking lot on Saturday at 9:00 a.m.
Councilmember Nelson announced the open house for the Edmonds Waterfront Access Study on May 12
in the Library Plaza Room, 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. The open house will be an opportunity for the task force to
share a smaller list of possible alternative and get feedback on the alternatives and criteria that will be
applied to the smaller list of alternatives.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the Diversity Commission will hold its third meeting of the
month tomorrow at the Senior Center. She requested a future Council agenda include discussion
regarding the lack of parking enforcement and what the Council expect s with regard to parking
enforcement. She heard about this issue at the BID’s yearend function as well as from a number of
citizens. She advised Sunset Avenue is on the May 24 agenda.
Council President Johnson announced a public open house for the Highway 99 project on May 19 in the
Swedish Hospital 4th Floor auditorium from 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Councilmember Mesaros advised the Edmonds Center for the Arts Center Stage event where
programming for the coming year is announced is May 4. With regard to planning underway for the
annual volunteer picnic, he observed the tentative date is Labor Day weekend and suggested
consideration be given to selecting another date to maximize attendance.
As a member of the Civic Field CAP Councilmember Teitzel was pleased a lot of public attended the
kickoff meeting. He was thrilled Walker | Macy was selected and assured there were wonderful thing in
store for Civic Field and that everyone will love the changes.
Councilmember Tibbott reported on FD1’s neighbor program at Fire Station 17 regarding neighborhoods
organizing to respond to emergencies. He relayed practical suggestions to have a flashlight, sturdy shoes
and a hardhat next to your bed. He provided Councilmember Teitzel a check for the volunteer
appreciation picnic, noting donations allow volunteers to bring their families to the picnic.
9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 20
10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.