Loading...
20170124 City Council Special MeetingEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES January 24, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Thomas Mesaros, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmunds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5d' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Johnson. 3. 4. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 1 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF TANYA SHARP TO THE ARTS COMMISSION POSITION #2 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS David Richman, Edmonds, professional biologist and retired college professor at New Mexico State University, expressed support for the 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback as a standard for Edmonds Marsh. The marsh is a rare habitat that used to be more common in the area and represents an important local contribution to the health of Puget Sound, even though it is very small. Buffers are not only important for protecting the marsh, but are habitats themselves, increasing the biodiversity due to the edge ecotone effect. Ecotones allow more diversity of habitat within the boundaries of a given ecosystem which explains the increased biodiversity. He cited a 1992 case that recommended Category II wetlands in western Washington like the Edmonds Marsh have a 100 to 200 -foot buffer; the proposed 110 -foot buffer with a 15 -foot setback is at the lower end of that range. He provided written comments that included a list of buffer functions. As a biologist, he strongly supported the 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback as a minimum compromise figure and recommend the City Council adopt the science -based buffer approach. Alternative buffer proposals must be based on a rigorous site-specific study conducted by unbiased contractors. Edmonds Marsh, one of the many important areas of Puget Sound and even the entire Salish Sea, needs to be restored, not degraded in order to have a viable and sustainable ecosystem. He thanked Ecology Director Bellon for listening to the City and siding with a science -based buffer. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, thanked the Department of Ecology for their excellent review of the science involved in the marsh and doing their best to protect the marsh. Adopting the best science available is key to protecting the Edmonds Marsh. Of the Edmonds electeds, four chose not to support the 110 -foot buffer and he questioned whether polling their constituents would reveal the same result. This is about more than getting the last bit of development out of Edmonds; it is about protecting a rare treasure. He suggested elected who opposed the 110 -foot buffer poll their constituents to learn what the average person in Edmonds wants, envisioning most would heavily support the 110 -foot buffer. Janet Smith, Edmonds, a constituent, not a scientist, said when she heard about the controversy regarding the marsh, she knew she had to get involved with this important issue. The Edmonds Marsh is a tiny fraction of what it was originally and the best science available needs to be used to protect what's left. There is no room for error; we must listen to the scientists and do whatever possible to protect this resource. She described seeing a display in a museum recently about developers who wanted to make Seattle's waterfront better by tearing down Pike Place Market. She did not want Edmonds to be like those developers who want to make everything prettier and more modern with development; the marsh is that important. Similar to the previous speaker, she believed the constituents of Edmonds want a science - based approach and want the marsh protected at all costs. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, retired fisheries biologist, said it was awkward to comment on the SMP before Ecology makes their presentation but assumed Councilmembers had read and scrutinized Ecology's letter. Speaking for Save Our Marsh (SOM), he referred to their brochure provided to the Council which identifies why they are concerned about the marsh and why they do not want the SMP to allow any further encroachment of development into the marsh. The brochure addresses issues outside the buffer that are currently threatening the marsh; this is a bigger issue than just the buffers. SOM was formed to deal with all the issues and not just the buffer. SOM is pleased the Department of Ecology has agreed to the scientifically based 110 -foot buffer though they are also recommending a provision for an alternate buffer width based on site-specific study. This provision, if adopted by the Council, will need to have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 2 rigorous requirements adopted in the regulations to ensure it is a scientifically valid study that takes into account all variables especially the value of the marsh to wildlife. Wildlife usually require larger buffers for protection, especially birds. SOM also has concerns about details regarding the buffer, for example exactly where it starts it can be interpreted in different ways. He urged the Council to ensure their intent was clear in the regulations and not left to interpretation at the time of development. He referred to discussion about the current conditions in the marsh and at Harbor Square, pointing out in 2014 when the SMP update was submitted, the marsh buffer was 200 feet; the proposal is actually a reduction in the buffer width. Victoria Leistman, Seattle, organizer with the Sierra Club, recalled speaking to the Council in June 2016 when the Council passed a resolution on coal and oil trains. Since that time, she had not seen Edmonds citizens as riled up about anything as they are about the marsh. She was excited about Ecology's recommendation regarding the buffer and echoed Mr. Scordino's comment that this is one step in protecting a place that is important to the community and maintaining the marsh as a priority. She acknowledged the Puget Sound area is projected to grow exponentially in the next few decades; this is an amazing turning point to look at development plans and ensure as the community grows, special places are protected. Citizens are not saying Edmonds cannot grow or have a thriving downtown, but provisions must be in place to keep places special and to work with the development community. She was excited to see how engaged Ecology has been and the attention they have given this important area, one of the few salt water estuaries left in the Puget Sound area. Community members will continue to engage with the Council due to the importance of working with local elected officials and coming together on issues that are near and dear to their hearts. Suzy Schaefer, Edmonds, expressed her pleasure with the Department of Ecology's recommendation. If the Council pays attention to science, the SMP can move forward and the necessary steps will have been taken to protect the marsh. She expressed concern about what happens next, recalling the presentation by the Western Washington University students about the stormwater problems. She was hopeful that no matter what development occurs, some of the things the students described could be accomplished. The students had a lot of good ideas and she learned a lot, such as what a splash box is. She was excited about the students' ideas but wanted to ensure attention is paid to the marsh and birds. Audubon is planning to do monitoring in the marsh because not enough attention has been paid to the wildlife and there is not very good data. Their meetings with the Parks Department have been going well. George Keefe, Edmonds, said he lives near the marsh and enjoys walking there and observing the wildlife. His grandson, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, is a member of the Saving Our Sound group. In the past, there were many saltwater marshes between Everett and Olympia; they have been degraded and now reduced to 2% of what they were in the past, most of that is in Edmonds. He supported doing whatever possible to preserve the Edmonds Marsh and encouraged the Council to follow the science developed by Department of Ecology. Margaret Jones, representing Save Our Marsh, expressed their pleasure with the research done by the WWU students regarding stormwater and pollution runoff into the marsh and ways to mitigate it. She provided the Council a summary of the students' findings and recommendations. She referred to pictures in the summary of the problem which she discovered at Harbor Square after Sunday's rain, a blocked drain with oily water swirling around it, a 6 -inch deep puddle and building doors sandbagged, noting the biggest problem is all this water drains into the marsh. The Port is also very concerned because the polluted runoff from the marsh go into Puget Sound next to the marina and becomes their responsibility if the marina waters are polluted. She referred to a map developed by the WWU students of their recommendations at Harbor Square to help reduce runoff and pollution. She referred the students' recommendation for rain garden locations, relayed she visited the 238`h Street rain garden demo project sponsored by the City and Snohomish County Conservation District which they hoped could be done at Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 3 Harbor Square. Another of the students' recommendations was tree box filters including recommended locations. Tree box filters are helpful because they are underground, do not disturb the sidewalks and allow water to go into the soil and roots and be filtered before entering the stormwater system. Another recommendation was a large bioswale by Highway 104 and porous pavement as well as native plant revegetation. Earth Corp is already doing some revegetation around the marsh. She encouraged anyone with information about incentives, grants or rebates that would be helpful in getting this done at Harbor Square to contact SOM. 6. ACTION ITEM 1. FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Interlocal Agreement with FDI is coming to Council for consideration and action. He reviewed information provided in the Council packet: Attachment A: Clean proposed version of Interlocal Agreement Attachment B: Station Costing Model (revised today) Attachment C: Redlined version of Interlocal Agreement showing changes made since 12/02/16 Attachment D: Existing Interlocal Agreement He highlighted significant revisions made since the Council last reviewed the Interlocal Agreement: • Station Costing Model (Attachment C): Revised to reflect 2017 Esperance assessed value • Three formulas, 1) Unit Utilization factor, 2) Neighboring Unit Utilization factor and 3) Transport Balance Factor, which are assessed periodically to determine whether to renegotiate the Interlocal Agreement, were moved to Exhibit E. o If formulas need to be revised in the future; easier to revise if in an exhibit • Section 2.2.1: Added a negotiation threshold, Esperance Offset drops by 10% or more over any consecutive three-year period. o District's revenue significantly affected by assessed valuation; significant drop in assessed value results in reduced revenue. In times of significant drops in AV, District may need to lay off staff (usually administrative staff). • Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4: most difficult pieces of entire agreement; address what happens when a reopener occurs o The District proposes mitigation factors and the City proposes mitigating factors/changes and if the parties do not reach agreement, the City gets to select the remedial measure. Is Selection is subject to mediation if the District is unhappy with the City's selection but not arbitration. Arbitrator could not force a particular level of service — Exceptions: 1) If parties agree on remedial measure but not on the cost, the cost of the remedial measure can be subject to arbitration 2) If the District does not like the City's selection, in an extreme case, the District could terminate the contract. If that happens, triggers a 2 -year wind up period. During 2 -year wind-up period, the District would be able to choose the remedial measure and the parties would share the incremental cost of the remedial measure. Unlikely to reach that point, more likely would agree on remedial measure. Section 2.3: The Council requested language prohibiting 72 hour shifts in Edmonds. FDPs labor lawyers concerned about strength of that language. Language in Section 2.3 states the City prefers firefighters not work 72 -hour shifts in Edmonds. o District leadership does not have complete control over this issue. Will need to be negotiated with the union and could be the subject of interest arbitration Section 14: City has the right to subcontract fire and EMS services to Woodway Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 4 o The District requires the City consult with them and accept input prior to entering into a subcontract with Woodway. o No change in the contract payment unless City requests additional staff. Requesting additional staff reopens Interlocal Agreement. o Historically the City served Woodway with the existing three stations. o Whether or not the City is serving Woodway, Interlocal Agreement is still subject to same thresholds (unit utilization factor). Section 19.5: Allows Mayor and Council President to agree on a change to the formulas. Any other amendment to the agreement would come to City Council. o Example: Formulas contemplate Lynnwood and FDI are two different jurisdictions. If Lynnwood and FDI enter into a regional fire authority (RFA), the formulas may need to be tweaked to reflect the two entities are now one entity. If the Council agrees with the proposed Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Taraday requested a motion to approve. FDI confirmed if the Interlocal Agreement was approved by Council tonight, they would be able to make the change by February 1, 2017. If the Agreement is not approved tonight, the date will be delayed. Mayor Earling asked about the FDI Board's meeting to consider the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Taraday answered assuming the Council approves the Interlocal Agreement tonight, the District Board will have opportunity to take action at their meeting on Thursday. Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Taraday for the time and effort he has put into the agreement, commenting he was not a fan of it. He referred to Section 3. 1, use of City fire stations, a new development in this agreement that has not been talked about, yet reading this agreement, that appears to be the next priority. He read Section 3.1, "The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations are ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire stations" and asked where that idea came from. Mr. Taraday answered it definitely came from Fitch & Associates and District leadership shares the opinion about the poor location of the fire stations. Councilmember Nelson referred to language in Section 3.1 that the location of the three stations, "contributes to slower turnout times." Mr. Taraday said some the City's fire stations are old; if a new fire station were built, it would be laid out differently in light of current regulations. The District has developed an extensive capital facilities plan that included timing personnel exiting the stations. Some stations have challenges that do not allow firefighters to exit as quickly as they could if they were ideally designed. Councilmember Nelson recalled seeing reference to that in the Fitch report. He referred to a map that showed moving Stations 16 and 20 five to six blocks and eliminating Station 17. He expressed concern with eliminating a fire station and saying response time to downtown Edmonds would increase when there is no downtown fire engines or paramedic. Mr. Taraday answered it was conceivable that new fire stations could be built/relocated and still have three. A full study has not been done about that issue; this is at the very conceptual level. Because there was thought that maybe it could be done with two stations, it was included in the Interlocal Agreement. The number of fire stations and the number of units or firefighters are completely independent. If the Agreement is approved, there will be 9 firefighters working 24/7 in Edmonds. There could be nine firefighters working in two stations instead of three stations. If the travel times were adequate, there may be operational advantages to having nine firefighters in two station. He emphasized this was at the very conceptual level and really had not been extensively reviewed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to definitions in the existing contract that refer to Firefighter/EMS Personnel and the new contract states only Firefighters. She asked if all Firefighters were EMS personnel. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 5 Mr. Taraday relayed the definition of Firefighter, "full-time compensated employees, captains, firefighters emergency medical technicians and/or paramedics." Councilmember Buckshnis observed Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were moved to Exhibit E. Mr. Taraday answered Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were relocated in the December draft; the definitions were moved to Exhibit E. Section 4.4, Adjustment Date Not Met, is now in Section 4.2.2. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if any FDI Commissioners participated in the negotiations. Mr. Taraday answered Commissioners Meador and Board Chair McGaughey were present for most of the negotiations. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Agreement still includes an annual presentation as well as quarterly meetings. Mr. Taraday said the quarterly meetings are with representatives of the Council; the Council President may want to appoint representatives to attend quarterly meetings. Councilmember Teitzel referred to Section 2.3, Shift Arrangements, which states the City prefers personnel not work 72 hour shift due to fatigue issues. However, the last sentence in that section states, "The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to Chapter 41.45 RCW, to negotiate successfully for those arrangements, to be implemented." He expressed concern the statement indicated the District may not be successful in achieving this. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the District does not have complete control over this issue and would need to bargain it. If they are not able to reach agreement, the issue can be taken to interest arbitration to have an arbitrator to rule that 72-hour shifts should not be allowed. There are comparable jurisdictions that the District could reference to justify its case; for example Lynnwood does not allow 72-hour shifts. In the end, it is not something the District can do unilaterally and would need to bargain it and it was subject to interest arbitration under State law. Councilmember Teitzel suggested removing "successfully" because although the District commits to undertake in good faith, it may not happen. Including "successfully" presumes it will be successful in achieving the goal of the negotiation. Mr. Taraday said he interprets the sentence as the District will try to reach an agreement using their best efforts and good faith. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City Attorney felt the language was acceptable and the other party knows what it meant, he was comfortable. Mr. Taraday said he was comfortable with the existing language. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Sections 3.1, Use of City Fire Stations, recalling FDI Commissioners told the Council a few years ago that the fire stations were not in the best location and if they had unlimited amounts of money, they would build new fire stations in different places but it was talked about as a 20 year goal. She asked if there were any current plans to reduce the number of fire stations. Mr. Taraday answered the extent of the plan is in the document; it is an idea at this point. Certainly, if money were no object, it would be great to have ideally located fire stations but there is a cost to that. It would be up to the City Council to decide if they were interested in taking that on. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said since it is a theory, it may have been better not to include that section. Mayor Earling said he has no interest or intent to explore the relocation of fire stations in the City. He viewed it much like the Edmonds multimodal station near the Port which is unlikely to happen for 2-3 decades. Although the language is included in the Agreement, no one is interested in pursuing it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said including the language in the Agreement draws attention to it. Mr. Taraday said the language in the Agreement looks into the future; it is the type of agreement that may be in effect for decades and tries to anticipate as many issues as possible. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AS PRESENTED BY MR. TARADAY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 6 Councilmember Nelson commented there is a difference in what he read in the report and what he sees happening on the ground. He recently spent a second day in the field with the professionals who provide fire and EMS care, not the number crunchers, but the first responders who treat citizens. What he saw was concerning; in just one day, there were five requests to send Edmonds units north to cover other stations because the rest of FD1 was unavailable. The hope is that other stations can cover Edmonds, but they can't. He relayed hearing on the fire radio dispatch in response to battalion chiefs request for another paramedic, "Medic 14 not available, cross -staffed." He clarified that meant the one paramedic at that station was not available because he was out on a fire call. This is what happens when the paramedics are split up all over the City, asking them to respond to fire as well as medical calls. That response will be heard over and over in Edmond with these cuts because 70% of calls are basic life support (BLS), not advanced life support (ALS). Paramedics will be busy responding to BLS calls when ALS calls come in. Councilmember Nelson commented, in addition, twice that morning all four Edmonds fire units were out on calls and not available to respond to any additional calls in Edmonds. What will happen when only three Edmonds units will be available with thee cuts? He believed everyone wants the best fire service but doing more with less should be a last resort when it comes to public safety, especially while every other City department is growing. There is a difference between not wanting to pay more and needing to pay more. Healthcare demands are increasing every year and much of it has shifted squarely on first responders. He has heard, "we're backed into a corner, we have no choice," commenting we always have a choice. If the Council really wanted to, they could find the funding. Councilmember Nelson questioned what other contract services the City has, a fair question if the primary motivation is financial. For example, why does the City spend $42,000/month to contract for legal services when the City could hire an in-house City Attorney. Nine in ten residents surveyed last year felt safe in Edmonds and want safety to be a top priority in the coming years. He believed this agreement would jeopardize their safety; two fewer firefighters and EMTs on duty means less people to respond to emergencies He asked that the Council wait and find a different way to fund fire costs, put a fire/EMS levy forward if necessary and not make these cuts to these vital services, prioritize saving lives over saving money. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling recognized the hours Mr. Taraday and Finance Director Scott James spent on the Agreement, commented it had been a pleasure to work with them. He was provided several briefings and had an opportunity for input but the work they did and the cooperation from the FDI lawyer, while heated sometimes, resulted in a very positive outcome. Mr. Taraday commented they learned a lot. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is the continuation of the SMP update. The City Council sent proposed alternatives to Ecology in October 2016 and January 10, 2017, Ecology responded to Edmonds. Ecology representatives, David Pater and Joe Burcar, are here to present their response. Joe Burcar, SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, reviewed: R Chronology o June 27, 2016 Ecology issued conditional approval with several required changes and one recommended change. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 7 o October 19, 2016 City responded to Ecology's SMP changes and provided alternatives for Edmonds Marsh buffers o January 10, 2017 Ecology responded to the City's Edmonds Marsh buffer alternatives o In consultation with director, Ecology issued final response to evaluation of City's SMP • SMP Update Principles o The Comprehensive SMP update provides many improvements o Edmonds and Ecology are in agreement on most of the SMP — we are very close to being finished o We all share a common goal of protection and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh • Intent of Ecology's letter o Thoughtfully consider the City's October 2016 response o Formally accept the City's alternatives for Items 1-6 o Identify necessary clarifications to buffer provisions applicable to Edmonds Marsh • Marsh buffer clarifications o Recognizes 110 -foot wetland buffer + 15 -foot setback o Clarify mitigation responsibilities at the time of redevelopment to be informed by a site- specific study o Identify review process and criteria to determine appropriate buffer width • Clarification Options o Option A: ■ Adds a reference to the City's CAO (23.40.220.C.4); ■ Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area; ■ Would allow alternatives buffer to be established based on site specific conditions o Option B ■ Establishes criteria to allow for a site-specific assessment to determine buffer widths; ■ Requires demonstration of lift to eco -functions ■ Limits buffer reduction to no less than of 50 feet Mr. Burcar explained under both options, the default would be a 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback. If those provisions were built into the SMP, a development proposal would need to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process which is reviewed locally by the City and by Ecology to consider any reduction in the buffer. A CUP has addition criteria under the Washington Administrative Code regarding consistency with the Shoreline Act, with the green principles, and with accumulative impacts and would bring Ecology's into the review process. Councilmember Nelson thanked Ecology for agreeing that the default would be a 110 -foot buffer plus 15 - foot setback. He asked about the wetland scientist's role in the site-specific review; does the scientist look at a report, go on site, etc. David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, answered given the magnitude of the Edmonds Marsh and its importance to the City, it would include site visits in addition to reviewing reports. Site visits would be one of the most important aspects of the site-specific study. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at one time the City had an interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) N. She suggested the Council move the rest of the SMP forward and allow time to work on the UMU IV. Mr. Pater answered the options Ecology suggested get at that issue in a more scientific study way. Public comment seemed supportive of a rigorous scientific study with certain boundaries. It gets the Council to the same place because it allows studies to assist in determining what will work best. Councilmember Buckshnis said the City would still do the studies; her proposal was to proceed with the SMP and designate the UMU IV area as interim so the City would have an approved SMP, making it eligible for grants, and continuing to work on the UMU IV buffers and site specific report. She pointed out it will take a while to get a site-specific report done. Mr. Pater agreed the site-specific report is an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 8 important piece of the puzzle. With regard to grants, there are statements in the SMP regarding a standalone restoration project if the opportunity arises. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City is currently under the existing 2000 SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her goal was to update the SMP to 2016 or 2017 and allow time to get the site-specific reports done to get the two questions answered. Mr. Burcar explained Ecology's policy with comprehensive updates has been to ensure they are comprehensive and look at all elements of the update. He clarified the site-specific study is intended to be the developer's responsibility/obligation at the time of development. It is not the City's interim responsibility to do the site-specific study. The site-specific study is intended to react and assess how the redevelopment proposal affects the marsh and opportunities to build in the necessary protections at the time of development; it is a project -related study not a planning study. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are no plans for redevelopment at this time. She referred to Everett's interim designation due to a lawsuit. The City doesn't have a lawsuit but has the issue of clarifying this area. An interim designation was suggested at the beginning of this process to give the City time to get the information completed and still have an updated SMP. Mr. Pater answered doing what Councilmember Buckshnis suggested would require unwinding the process a little as the interim designation was one of conditional changes. He was hopeful the Council would move forward with these two options. Councilmember Buckshnis said her goal was to get something approved and allow time to continue work. Mr. Pater said Everett's interim was fairly unique due to the lawsuit, a specific area and the creation of a subarea plan for the marshlands area which they eventually received a State grant for. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concerns including the buffer setback definition in the SMP that has the buffer and setback starting at the same point of origin and Ecology does not have that. She asked whether a scientist would keep the 110 -foot buffer and 15 -foot setback separated and assumed the scientist would look at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Mr. Pater answered the 15 -foot setback does not change, the potential change is to the size of the buffer with a specific study. Ecology is open to possible hybrids of the options. Ecology internally believes they start at the wetland edge. Edmonds Marsh is complicated because of the combination of a salt and freshwater marsh. The berms make things simpler because it is a more uniform line compared to the other, more natural side of the marsh. Councilmember Teitzel reiterate Mr. Burcar's statement, that everyone is in support of restoring and preserving the marsh including the Council, Port, citizens and Ecology, the question is the practical reality of how to get there. He pointed out if the Council ultimately settles on a 125 -foot setback that corporates a 110 -foot buffer, that boundary would bisect three major building at Harbor Square including the Harbor Square Athletic Club. Creating that buffer/setback combination would require destruction of those buildings to create a natural buffer or they would remain non -conforming into the foreseeable future. That would not be the case with a 65 -foot setback which would miss those buildings, allowing it to be implemented. Recognizing the Port is operating in the UMU IV zone as a contract rezone with a 25 -foot setback/open space, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the 25 -foot setback would remain for an undetermined period of time absent any redevelopment activity. Mr. Taraday said the City Council always has the right to rezone a contracted rezone area. Absent redevelopment, all of this is irrelevant; the buffers are only relevant in the context of redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel summarized as long as the contract rezone remains in effect, the setback will be 25 -feet. A 125 -foot setback is a strong disincentive for the Port to do anything other than maintaining the Harbor Square area as it currently exists. In that case, everyone loses, the City, the environment, and the marsh losses the opportunity to create a buffer that essential triples the existing buffer. He was hopeful the Council to work through this to reach something that creates a practical and real buffer increase for the benefit of the marsh and the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 9 Councilmember Teitzel observed in Option B, the site-specific study shall use existing conditions as the baseline for assessing potential benefit of restoring the buffer including stormwater treatment. He asked if that would be existing conditions at the time the letter was written or existing conditions at the time a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether Ecology would be involved in approving who was selected to perform the site-specific study to avoid conflicting studies. Mr. Burcar answered Ecology puts more emphasis on making sure the criteria is clear. Ecology would defer to staff and the City attorney with regard to the process of influencing who the consultant is. Most jurisdictions have a list of qualified consultants; the emphasis would be more on the work product. Councilmember Teitzel asked what Ecology expects of the Council by March 30, 2017. Clearly it is a dilemma; the City cannot present a site-specific study until a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered in a perfect world if the Council reached agreement on one of the options or a hybrid option, the City only needs to submit a response to Ecology. Ecology is not looking for the site-specific study but authorization for the sites -specific study to be included in the alterative for the 110 -foot buffer plus 15 - foot setback. Council President Mesaros commented there is a lot of wisdom in the two options, they get to the heart of the matter and he anticipated the Council could reach agreement. He did not agree with Councilmember Buckshnis about separating out the UMU IV zone and having an interim designation. He preferred to consider the options and provide Ecology a response by March 30 and approve the entire SMP. He initially liked Option B best because it limits the reduction to 50 feet plus the 15 -foot setback. Option A would allow a determination that was smaller than 65 feet. He liked the flexibility the options provide especially around the Harbor Square area due to the existing building and it provides incentive to the Port for redevelopment. He emphasized without redevelopment, the 25 -foot buffer remains and the marsh deserves more than a 25 -foot buffer. Councilmember Tibbott said he was looking for the practicality of the options. He agreed with Council President Mesaros about Option B. Either option presents a lot of possibility for thought and if redevelopment were proposed, there would be a significant number of steps to determine what would be allowed. He asked whether Ecology had seen a 125 -foot buffer/setback result in improvement of the environmental situation around a wetland like the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Burcar answered the concept incentivizes improvements that are driven by redevelopment. He has seen examples around Lake Washington where jurisdictions have included provisions to request bulkhead removal or vegetation enhancement on shorelines in exchange for flexibility on redevelopment. That has helped reestablish areas lost historically to development. It is a proven concept in many jurisdictions. Councilmember Tibbott asked for clarification, the City could establish a 125 -foot buffer/setback but a development plan could show with development the environment could be improved with a 65 -foot buffer/setback. Mr. Pater answered possibly. The scientific study will provide answers regarding what will work, how it will protect the marsh, how will it improve habitat. The Edmonds Marsh has a unique setup; the berm is not going away and development will need to work around the berm which is not natural. Any study will need to look at the long term impact on the buffer; the berm will invariably impact some buffer function. Councilmember Tibbott asked about incentives for redevelopment and asked whether these types of options were an incentive for development in a highly -developed area. Mr. Pater commented he and Mr. Burcar are planners. Councilmember Tibbott asked staff if they were aware of development that had occurred with this baseline guidance. Mr. Lien answered he was not aware of any specific proposals that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 10 had been developed with a standard buffer that could be reduced with a site-specific study. Councilmember Tibbott said that was essential his concern. He appreciated the amount of study and collaboration that went into this proposal and he was inclined to support it and let the chips fall where they may. He was looking for what would be practical and usable and reduce the fog; this proposal does not reduce the fog but rather makes it foggier until a date in the future when it either goes to court or scientific research is done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented clearly Councilmember have separate opinions and there is still a majority and minority on the Council and she hated to put Ecology in the middle. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, splitting the UMU IV off and moving forward with the rest of the SMP. The UMU IV is a small issue within the SMP and the Council could move forward more quickly if that portion were split out. She asked if stormwater was the only water quality issue that would improve marsh. Mr. Pater answered his understanding from the studies that have been done is that untreated stormwater is a big problem. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if stormwater was the only problem. Mr. Pater answered probably not, there could be some habitat value from reestablishing the buffer and over time having mature trees on both sites. From what he's heard, stormwater is a big problem. Mr. Burcar said stormwater water quality and quantity are issues, regulating the flows would also be helpful. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there were other things that could assist the marsh. Mr. Burcar agreed there likely are; deferring to the site-specific study, part of the scope would be to look for those opportunities, what functions could be improved. If the Council adopts a125 buffer/setback, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if anything stopped the Port from redeveloping their property. Mr. Burcar said that may be a better question for the Port. The issue laid out in Ecology's letter with the 125 -foot buffer was it would require revegetation of the entire 110 -foot buffer in response to any type of redevelopment which Ecology felt went the beyond compensatory mitigation obligation under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in terms of ensuring the impacts associated with redevelopment are adequately mitigated. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Port currently has two large buildings with 30-40 year leases on the south end of their property. If the Council continued with the 125 -foot buffer, nothing would prohibit the Council from developing the north portion of the property. Mr. Pater said the entire site in theory could be redeveloped. He has heard that the health club would possibly remain as a part of new development as an amenity to a mixed-use development. The buildings could continue as they exist but could not expand to encroach further into the marsh. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the type of development may need to change. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the environment over the years has already lost to development. She remembered when the marsh extended to Dayton and has seen pictures of it all the way through the Safeway property. The marsh has shrunk over time due to development. She liked Option A but asked if it changed the legal opinion. Mr. Taraday answered no, he disagreed with some of Ecology's analysis. The missing piece is an assumption is being made by Ecology that new development could occur on the marsh that would not trigger the no net loss standard and that it could be done in a buffer of less than 110 feet, yet there is no science to prove that. The standard is no net loss; neither Option A or B rely on the no net loss standard. The question is to what extent can the property be redeveloped and not have a net loss. If scientists say it can be done with a 50 -foot buffer, great, but that science does not currently exist. Mr. Taraday explained Ecology is proposing a default buffer of 110 feet; if Option A were converted to say if scientists can show there can be no net loss with less than a 110 -foot buffer, that would be more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 11 consistent with the SMA than referencing the CAO that has nothing to do with the SMA. For example, a tennis court may have a very different impact on the marsh than a 3 -story residential structure. While it is true the tennis court footprint already exists, that does not mean a 3 -story building on that same footprint results in no net loss of habitat. He was disappointed in the analysis that has been done so far. Some flexibility could be built in so that when a development plan is proposed in the future, consideration is given to how close the development can get to the marsh and still have no net loss. There is no way to know that now which was why he was not sure an interim designation would help because that answer would not be provided until there was a development proposal. Mr. Burcar pointed out the footnote in Option B references no net loss. Mr. Taraday explained the standard he saw was the developer would have to demonstrate lift. Lift is the inverse of no net loss, putting the burden on the people interesting in preserving the marsh to demonstrate that it would improve. Mr. Burcar said these were suggestions for discussion. Mr. Pater reminded of the role of onsite mitigation when redevelopment is proposed. Depending on the proposal, the purpose of mitigation is to at a minimum bring it back to no net loss. For example, if there were a proposal to build a 10 -story building on the wetland edge and keep the buffer, that would degrade the condition of the marsh. The site-specific study would determine how to mitigate impacts from development to achieve no net loss, depending on the study and the willingness of the property owner go beyond no net loss. He agreed it was foggy until development is proposed and a study is done. Mr. Taraday said it's possible a scientist could say a 110 -foot revegetated buffer is needed just to mitigate the impact of a new development. Mr. Pater agreed, pointing out it was also a possibility the scientist could say 50 feet was also adequate. That is the reason for the two options, one with reference to the CAO and the other referencing the conditional change. He summarized there are a lot of unknowns because the type of redevelopment that will occur is unknown. Councilmember Nelson commented the Council is hearing a lot of doom and gloom. As the author of the amendment to the CAO which is partially providing the option for a site-specific scientific study, the intent is for the science to speak for itself. Instead of one -size -fits -all generic buffers, the goal is to have a scientist determine what buffer makes the most sense. It is important to look to the science and where that science leads within these parameters whether it is up to 110 feet or as low as 50 feet. As far as this approach being common or not, having site-specific scientific studies has been included in other jurisdictions' SMPs. Mr. Burcar agreed it is very common. Mr. Pater said it is a more detailed approach to mitigation requirements in the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is all just speculation. She relayed the citizens and the Bothell City Council spent $11 million for a golf course that Forterra bought and plan to turn it into a natural area and WRIA 8 provided some funding. The Port's Master Plan does not include moving the tennis courts or the hotel, only the building housing the breweries, Blue Collar and the accountant. She anticipated redevelopment would not happen for a while because the Port just made a lot of improvements to Harbor Square. She cited projects that WRIA 8 has funded including the removal of mobile home parks to allow free flowing water. Many cities have supported their environments using BAS to ensure its preservation for future generations. She recommended the Council only consider Option A. Council President Mesaros said Option A would allow for even a 10 -foot buffer if the science supported it. Mr. Burcar agreed there is no required dimension. Council President Mesaros said Option B does not allow the buffer to be below 50 feet and would be more restrictive in protecting the marsh. Mr. Burcar said the intent with Option A was a lot of jurisdictions want consistent provisions in the CAO and the SMP because development often deals with both. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 12 Council President Mesaros asked about the process for Council to provide a response to Ecology by March 30, 2017. Mr. Lien said he was looking for Council reaction. Staff could prepare a third alternative that combines Option A and B for consideration at the February 7 or 14 Council meeting. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the latest iteration of the agreement with Lynnwood that has been in place for a long time; Steve Fisher has been the City's Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator for the past 20 years. The proposed Interlocal Agreement extends that for the next biennium. The funding remains the same with grants that Edmonds and Lynnwood receive. The difference between the total cost and the grants is paid by the Water Utility as Mr. Fisher works on water conservation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled a few years ago the Council passed a motion to have all City - owned building participate in recycling. It was her understanding that was not happening in all City - owned buildings. Mr. Williams recalled the motion included the ability for facilities staff to use up materials. When the City contracts with building tenants, they are encouraged to use appropriate recyclable or made from recycled materials products. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Recycling Coordinator observe buildings, noting there is a major building owned by the City that does not recycle. Mr. Williams offered to meet with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Fisher and facilities staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested providing training and resources to tenants . Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled an effort to co -locate recycling containers downtown. Mr. Williams recalled the conversation but did not recall any action. Council President Mesaros said there are some recycling containers downtown. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said garbage cans should be co - located with recycling containers. Mr. Williams offered to research but did not recall any specific action or a funding source to provide publicly owned recycling containers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled there was a big push since she has been on the Council to have recycling containers co -located with garbage containers. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS TO JOINTLY FUND THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR POSITION AND IMPLEMENT THEIR RESPECTIVE WASTE PREVENTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS, STARTING IN 2017 AND CONTINUING THROUGH JUNE OF 2019. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE 2018 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained in November 2016 the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to hire a consultant to provide design engineering services for the 2018 and 2019 Waterline Replacement Projects. The City received responses from nine engineering firms and the selection committee selected Blueline based on their qualifications and experience. The proposed professional services agreement is for preliminary design and conceptual layout for 12 sites, approximately 11,000 lineal feet of pipeline replacement. From that, final design will be done on approximately 5,000 — 6,000 feet depending on the sites which is included in the scope of work. The scope of work includes related tasks such as geotechnical investigation, bid assistance and construction support. The total contract amount is $361,300 which includes a management reserve of $32,800 for unforeseen conditions and changes. The fee related to design services will be paid by the Water Utility Fund. Staff will return to Council next year to amend the contract to complete final design for the remaining sites. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 13 Councilmember Tibbott observed the 2017 Waterline Replacement Project will replace 5,000 lineal feet of water main and asked what percentage of the City's watermains that represents. Mr. Williams recalled when the waterline replacement project began five years ago, 7,000 feet represented approximately 1% of the total lineal footage of watermains in the City; 5,000 lineal feet would be slightly less than 1%. In some years, 8,000+ lineal feet have been replaced; this proposal is 11,000 lineal feet over two years. Rate revenues in excess of operations and maintenance go into a capital fund to fund this work. Cost increases were factored into the 6 -year rate increase; funds are included in the budget each year and the amount of work is matched to that dollar amount. The lineal footage may vary depending on the size of the main. Councilmember Tibbott observed replacing 7,000-8,000 lineal feet/year will cover the entire City in approximately 100 years. Mr. Williams agreed that was the plan; doing I% a year was not a stretch goal but it was better than doing no replacement which was done for many years. Great progress has been made, replacing 35,000 feet of watermains or approximately 5-6 miles in last few years. The projects usually start with the worst, although some waterlines are replaced when another project is occurring. The program targeted the steel mains first because they leaked the most and had the highest maintenance costs; now primarily cast iron pipes are being replaced. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE 2018 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. SALARY COMMISSION ORDINANCE City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained reinstating the Salary Commission arose during the budget process and it was agreed to defer it until after the 2017 budget was approved. The proposed ordinance tracks closely with state law. Most of the proposed Chapter 10.80 is from RCW 35.21.015; there are not many areas where the City has a lot of discretion. One area of discretion is the size of the commission; staff recommends five. In the past, HR has had difficulty filling the commission because it meets infrequently and has a limited scope and a seven -member commission has been challenging to fill. A three-member commission would create Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) challenges so staff recommended five. The ordinance also expressly states the judge's salary will not be set by the commission. The reasons include, 1) to remain eligible for court improvement funds, the judge's salary needs to track with 95% of the district court judge's salary and there is already a process in Chapter 2.15.040 for establishing the judge's salary, and 2) in the past there was confusion when the FTE of the current judge was increased from .55 to .85 which could potentially happen again. The commission would only set the salary of the Mayor and Council. The commission decides the salaries, holds public hearings, file the salaries with the City Clerk and unless there is a referendum petition to change the salaries, they go into effect automatically when the Council adopts the budget. He advised no action is required tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is different than the last commission where commissioners selected other commissioners. Mr. Taraday said the last commission was not compliant with State law. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Council could not select commissioners, it had to be the Mayor with the approval of Council. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining that was straight out of the RCW; the Mayor appoints with the approval of the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel referred to Section 10.80.030.13 which states any increase or decrease in salary established by the commission shall become effective and incorporated into the budget without further action of the city council or the salary commission, observing that was unique, the only time a board or commission action becomes effective without Council action. Mr. Taraday said the reason is because the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 14 Council is not allowed to set their own salaries; this is the State legislature's way keep of keeping the Council's hands off it and allowed a Councilmember to have have mid-term increase in compensation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the City Council is a public entity and having open, transparent discussions and hardcore dynamics around compensation is really important. She appreciated Mr. Taraday correcting the errors of the past. It was the consensus of Council to schedule approval on the February 7, 2017 Consent Agenda. 5. PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled development of an Urban Forest Management Plan has been an interest to the community for the last several years. The 2017 budget included $130,000 for this project. Following a competitive process late last year, Davey Resources Group was selected as the consultant for this project. The proposal includes an extensive public process. The focus of the Urban Forest Management Plan is on public property and rights-of-way with some recognition of other things such as a tree canopy assessment and assessment of trees in wildlife habitat corridors. The intent is to have a draft completed by the end of 2017. She requested authorization for Mayor Earling to executive a professional services agreement. Councilmember Buckshnis said she and another Tree Board Members participated in the selection review process; Davey Resources Group is owner operated and has been in business a long time. They have not done a lot of work in this area because few cities have spent the money for this type of a plan. She asked whether there was any conflict of interest for Ms. O'Connell since the City utilizes her for our purposes. Ms. Hope answered there was not. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVEY RESOURCES GROUP. Councilmember Nelson thanked Ms. Hope for moving this project forward. He asked if the tree canopy would provide a percentage of coverage. Ms. Hope answered that estimate will be determined via sampling, LiDAR and other technology. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD ,AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS This item was postpone to a future meeting. 9. MAYOR'S COMM[,'NTS Mayor Earling thanked Mr. James and Mr. Taraday for their work on the FDI Interlocal Agreement. He recognized it was a long, tedious process and they did a marvelous job representing the City. Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers to attend the Health District regional meeting tomorrow at 12;30 p.m. in the Brackett Room. The City is contributing $40,000/year to help the Health District. He relayed the District's plans to proceed with selling their building. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 15 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on the possibility of the Health District joining Snohomish County which could affect the sale of their building. She encouraged Councilmembers as well as the public to attend the Health District meeting which is open to the public. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Council had an excellent retreat last Friday and Saturday; he thanked Council President Mesaros for a full, tight agenda and a well-managed retreat. On Sunday he attended a multicultural listening forum at the Edmonds Methodist Church that included three speakers, a Palestinian immigrant, a Mexican immigrant and a member of the local LGBTQ community who talked about their personal experiences, the challenges they face and their hopes for living here. It was a good opportunity to hear their stories and ask questions; listening and talking in an interactive manner is a good way to improve understanding and create trust and respect. He relayed the Port of Edmonds' reminder about the Seattle Boat show on January 27 through February 4 and an invitation to visit the Port's booth. Council President Mesaros thanked Councilmembers for their time and energy at the retreat. The retreat included discussion regarding the format of business and study Council meetings as well as adding committees into the meeting structure. He, Mr. Taraday, Mr. Passey and Mr. Pierce plan to meet to discuss what changes will need to be made to accommodate committee meetings. Council President Mesaros said the retreat also included discussion about the Council participating in community projects. At Councilmember Buckshnis' suggestion, the first community project will be the April 22 ivy pull in Hutt Park which the public is also invited to participate in. He will create a schedule and assign Councilmembers to select a project. He hoped community projects would become a new tradition for the Council. Using notes and minutes from the retreat he will begin to establish the Council agenda for 2017. Councilmember Nelson thanked Council President Mesaros for his leadership at the retreat. Collaboration was evident by everyone in attendance, both Councilmembers and staff, and it was a pleasure to interact outside the dais. Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmembers' comments about the retreat. He especially liked the time spent with staff learning about their projects and for Councilmembers to discuss issues they would like to work on in 2017. He reported on Lynnwood's open house regarding the Regional Fire Authority and the upcoming vote. He provided Councilmembers a link to FAQs and other literature being distributed to inform voters. It will be important for Edmonds to watch that effort and the direction toward regional fire services. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation to Council President Mesaros for the concise, effective and efficient retreat, her seventh. As she will be absent for a couple weeks due to knee surgery, she reported on WRIA 8 and the Tree Board. WRIA8's request was $135 million; the budget includes $90 million. She anticipated cuts in salmon recovery due to the education issue. The WRIA 8 meeting also included discussion regarding their work plans and strategies. She provided Councilmembers a PowerPoint of WRIA 8's accomplishments last year. She reported the Tree Board selected co -presidents and now have a full board in place. Mayor Earling wished Councilmember Buckshnis the best in her surgery. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(l)(i) This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 16 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CL Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 17