[0:01] Good morning, everyone. This is August 18th, and it is a special meeting of the Edmund City Council, and I'm calling that meeting to order at 11 o'clock.

[0:13] We are opening the meeting. Our first item of businesses, audience comments. To be clear, we also have a public hearing. The public hearing is on the moratorium.

[0:24] for ordinance 4, 4, 3, 0, but audience comments are open to anybody who wishes to address

[0:30] counsel on items other than the public hearing. So if there are individuals who wish to

[0:35] address counsel on items other than the public hearing, please raise your virtual hand when I

[0:40] call on you, you will have three minutes. When you have 30 seconds left, the clerk will let you know

[0:45] and return time is up, the clerk will also let you know that. So we have a couple hands up and the

[0:51] first individual is can read.

[0:58] I can read e-sibs and

[1:01] events. I am not speaking for or against annexing

[1:05] Esperance. annexation may prove beneficial for both

[1:08] Edmunds and Esperance residents. My comments are about

[1:11] due diligence and the framework council uses for making

[1:14] future decisions. As I understand it, the resolution before you

[1:18] today would declare the citizen tent to annex area one and direct

[1:23] staff to work with Snohomish County on an interlocal agreement.

[1:27] At the same time, the resolution states that it does not bind the city to proceed and that

[1:32] staff may ultimately recommend a different process or annexation area as additional information

[1:38] becomes available.

[1:40] The staff report also identifies the need for continued evaluation of infrastructure, future

[1:46] costs, service impacts, staffing assumptions, interlocal agreement terms, public participation

[1:51] and other matters before any annexation decision is made.

[1:56] That raises an important question.

[1:58] What information does Council want before making future annexation decisions?

[2:05] And what specific questions should staff be directed to answer during the process?

[2:11] Last week, I submitted a citizen proposed alternative resolution

[2:14] designed to identify the information council may wish to have before deciding whether annexation should

[2:22] proceed and under what conditions it focuses on topics such as infrastructure obligations,

[2:28] service and staffing impacts, funding sources, interlocal agreement risks and other

[2:32] unresolved uncertainties. My question, my concern is that council clearly identifies the

[2:39] questions it wants answered before the process moves forward.

[2:44] I respectfully encourage the council to establish a clear due diligence framework

[2:48] describing the financial infrastructure, service staffing, legal, and public participation

[2:53] information it wants developed before declaring any intent to annex.

[3:00] Although the resolution does not bind the city to proceed, declaring an intent to annex

[3:06] This area one may reasonably create expectations among residents, property owners,

[3:11] knowledge, county and other stakeholders regarding the direction of the process.

[3:16] The more information council develops before creating those expectations, the stronger

[3:21] the foundation for whatever decision ultimately follows.

[3:24] A clearly defined framework would also create a transparent public record of the information

[3:32] considered and the basis for the council's eventual decision. Good decisions are built on

[3:37] fatty seconds. Stronger the factual foundation, engraved the public's confidence in the outcome.

[3:43] Thank you. Thank you. I also see a hand in council office if that individual would like to

[3:51] participate.

[3:59] Free sigo and Nega.

[4:10] You looks like you're unmuted. We are not hearing you.

[4:24] We sure can.

[4:25] Thank you so much.

[4:27] My name is Jack Malik.

[4:28] I'm a resident of Shoreline and I'm a local

[4:30] real through doing business in the city of Edmunds.

[4:33] I'm currently trying to lease a space at 471

[4:36] at World Way, which is the Port of Edmunds building.

[4:39] I've been before you once before on this issue.

[4:41] I've at D-mailed you.

[4:43] And thank you all very much for your kindness

[4:45] in response.

[4:47] And for the for listening.

[4:50] Our timeline is very short on this matter.

[4:52] We either will or won't be able to sign a lease.

[4:56] The amount of money for a traffic impact fee is exorbitant.

[5:00] The least it could be, at least at this time, is roughly 85,000. The most is somewhere between 105 and 110,000. That's

[5:08] way beyond the budget of the small business owner. Again, as I mentioned, trying to charge someone,

[5:14] a traffic intact, at this level, would really exclude small business from the city of

[5:19] Veterans altogether. It would relegate you to corporate interests. I don't think that's really

[5:24] in the goal here at all, it's clearly not evident from, you know, who's here at running

[5:28] small businesses. We've been very much desired to sign this place move forward. We cannot

[5:33] do it with what's happening right now. We will waste it somewhere between 60 and 90,000 dollars

[5:40] just in soft costs up to now, up to this point. And I'm asking for your consideration and for you

[5:47] to expedite this if they're all possible. So again, we really do want to keep in theme with what we see

[5:54] admins to be, which is a local, small business community place, and I think we will contribute

[6:00] great. Thank you for that. Thank you for listening.

[6:05] Thank you. Joe, you're next.

[6:14] Thank you, Mayor Rosen and members of the Council. My name is Joe Scordino. I'm a long time

[6:20] resident of Edmunds. I want to make two requests of the council or two requests for the

[6:26] Council of Consider, one is go back to the complete minutes of your meetings and posting

[6:34] those.

[6:35] I'm finding that, for example, public comments made during council meetings or all comments

[6:42] are summarized into one sentences that don't necessarily capture the full thrust of the public

[6:49] comment, especially when people are commenting on different things.

[6:54] And what you've also lost in is an opportunity for the council to go back and quickly look

[7:00] at written comments, both by the public, as well as comments by other council members

[7:09] during deliberations.

[7:11] It takes a lot of time to go back and look at a video and try and find it's a spot where something

[7:18] was discussed in a lot of time as wasted. And given nowadays you could have AI actually do

[7:25] your minutes of your meeting and it's just a matter of somebody reviewing it. It seems like

[7:32] it'd be a good thing for the council to do especially in the current day with there seems to be

[7:37] a lot of, I don't know what to call it, but the city seems to be getting very divisive in this city

[7:45] And it just sure be nice to see things get transparent and avoiding some of that.

[7:51] The second thing I'd like the Council to consider is allowing for public comments at your

[7:57] committee meetings.

[7:58] There are many agenda items on there that, for example, coming up today that aren't, that

[8:05] the briefing material is not complete.

[8:08] And it sure be good to have council members allow an opportunity for the public to fill in

[8:14] blanks that aren't complete or need additional information. Anyway, just a couple of suggestions

[8:23] to hopefully improve things, improve transparency, and just a request that you consider that.

[8:30] Thank you. Thank you. Again, we are taking public comments on items other than the public hearing.

[8:37] So if there are other individuals who wish to address council on items other than the public hearing,

[8:42] Would you please raise your virtual hand now?

[8:48] Seeing no one, we will close public comments and our next item of business is the public hearing,

[8:54] which is on extending the moratorium established by ordinance 4430 on the acceptance of any

[9:00] permanent applications which would require stormwater management within the dear Greek critical

[9:04] aquifer reach our area for an additional six months.

[9:08] Mr. Territory will be doing the opening comments prior to the public hearing.

[9:14] Good morning, Mayor and Council.

[9:18] I just wanted to briefly introduce this before the mayor opens the hearing.

[9:25] With any extension of a moratorium or an interim zoning ordinance,

[9:31] the hearing needs to take place before the extension does.

[9:35] And so that's the purpose of the hearing this morning is to provide an opportunity for the public

[9:42] to comment on whether or not the moratorium should be extended, just by way of brief review,

[9:51] the Moratorium was created initially because of the...

[10:00] High likelihood that the city would be in the absence of a moratorium would be accepting development applications that ultimately have to spend a lot of time processing and then ultimately deny.

[10:14] So we'd be we'd be taking application fees from applicants only to ultimately deny the application.

[10:22] And so staff felt that the Moratorium provided the best interim option while the PFAS study was being completed.

[10:37] And just an update on that.

[10:40] We probably won't need an additional six months of this to have the PFAS study come back.

[10:52] We're hoping the PFAS study comes back in September.

[10:57] As far as how quickly or the regulatory actions that take place after the PFAS study

[11:09] is a whole separate discussion that hasn't really started yet and so it's unclear

[11:18] like how long that that part of it would take but at least in September we'll

[11:23] have some additional analysis to have in front of you. So I think I think that's

[11:30] probably a sufficient introduction for the hearing but if there's any questions

[11:36] them happy to try to answer them.

[11:41] You're muted mayor. Yes, I am. I always say my most brilliant

[11:45] things when I'm muted. We will go to the public hearing and then because the next item of

[11:52] business for council is this item we will have council deliberations at that time. So we will now

[12:01] open the public hearing on extending the moratorium. As before, if you wish to address council

[12:06] participate in this public hearing. Please raise your virtual hand. When I call on you, as before,

[12:11] please state your name, your city of residents, then you'll have three minutes. You have 30 seconds

[12:16] left to clerk alert. You know, and you'll also let you know when your time is up. We first go to the

[12:21] participant in the council office.

[12:31] Good morning.

[12:36] My name is for a book. I submitted my

[12:39] complete application with a public number VOD-2026-0185 on February 17.

[12:47] Before the bureaucrac caravortoyant took effect, the CDF said in my application and because

[12:53] of the moratorium, the CDO-9 then proceeded with phase 1 and phase 2 approach.

[13:00] Phase 1 for the model and phase 2 for the addition.

[13:04] Yesterday, however, the C4V that the Moratorium is not actually the main issue, but rather

[13:10] the critical area has covered that my perfect best into last February, either for understand

[13:16] that even if the Moratorium expires, my addition cannot proceed, because infiltration

[13:22] is not is prohibited, and this totally no other feasible way to manage the stormwater from

[13:28] the new roof.

[13:29] But this is where I get confused.

[13:32] On the series website, on the public information,

[13:36] it says, quote, if your project is located within the

[13:39] bureaucrac era, contact engineering staff to verify options

[13:45] for stormwater management projects to design

[13:48] in any stormwater management systems.

[13:52] If infiltration is prohibited, then

[13:56] It doesn't by itself answer what the applicable code requires the cities to do it by projects.

[14:02] I'm asking the cities to identify exact provisions of the code bested to my February 17 application,

[14:09] and the specific stormwater analysis calling the conclusion that my initiative cannot be authorized.

[14:16] The city previously directed me to one of the phase one phase to process, and I relied on that direction.

[14:21] I have never abandoned phase 2.

[14:24] And I, in terms to submit those materials consistent, we will see this prior instructions.

[14:30] I respectfully ask that my February 7th application and the C.D.S. prior representations,

[14:35] you can see them before the tuning that my face is too easy possible.

[14:41] Thank you very much.

[14:43] Thank you.

[14:45] Our next individual is John.

[14:53] Thank you for this opportunity for public hearing comment.

[14:56] I'm John Brock, Woodway Resident, Council Member, and E-

[15:00] EEC Board Member. Our common goal here is to keep contaminants, including PFAS, out-of-the-Dear Creek Springs

[15:07] Cara, and lift the permit acceptance moratorium. To accomplish this, Edmund's needs a

[15:14] defensible connection between prohibited materials and protection of the aquifer. Washington's

[15:20] Cara rule, whack 365, 190, 100. Recognizes that once ground water is contaminated, cleanup can

[15:28] difficult, costly, or impossible, and emphasizes preventing contamination, the direct cities

[15:36] to evaluate activities based on their potential to contaminate groundwater.

[15:41] For the Dear Creek Springs Cara, Edmunds could establish a Cara-specific material's

[15:47] management requirement triggered by development permits.

[15:52] The regulatory nexus is straightforward.

[15:54] start with source control to storm water pathway to groundwater protection.

[16:01] Researching should only apply to materials for which best available science establishes a credible pathway to groundwater,

[16:10] not everything incorporated into the building.

[16:13] Examples could include exterior coatings, sealants and treatment subject weathering,

[16:18] roofing, siding, or pressure treated wood capable of releasing regulated contaminants, concrete

[16:25] curing, and sealing compounds, and construction chemicals used on site, and materials containing

[16:31] PFAS, or other persistent and mobile contaminants, where BAS establishes a credible groundwater

[16:39] pathway. Interior products isolated from precipitation, storm water, and groundwater

[16:46] have a substantially weaker caron excess. Edmund's therefore has a credible path to address

[16:52] this as a caron groundwater protection and source control development standard supported by

[16:59] BIS rather than as a general building material regulation. This approach could be cost effective,

[17:06] defensible, and timely, while providing a path to lift the caron permit acceptance

[17:11] I ask Council to direct staff to evaluate this approach and return with a

[17:17] care-specific source control and materials management standard based on

[17:22] best available science.

[17:25] Thank you.

[17:29] Next up is Ken.

[17:39] I believe the proposed ordinance will establish a future moratorium period to

[17:44] out time to complete the PFAS study presented to Council, evaluate other feasible storm water management

[17:51] approaches and if appropriate, consider changes to deer, creek, carrot or storm water regulations.

[17:57] The packet also states that the PFAS study is expected to be ready for Council review on September

[18:02] 2026. I appreciate the city's desire to ensure that future decisions are informed by sound

[18:09] science and a complete factual record. As Council considers this proposal, I respectfully

[18:14] asked several questions. First, the February 2026 study scope indicates that the consultant is evaluating

[18:21] PFAS sources, pathways, source controls, mitigation measures, monitoring strategies, and alternative

[18:28] aquifer protection approaches. Once the study is completed, how will council and staff use those

[18:35] findings to evaluate whether changes to the dear, creak, care or stormwater regulations are warranted.

[18:42] Second, the February 2026, Herrera of Memorandum, and staff presentation identified several reasons why staff believed there was no approval pathway under the current regulations.

[18:54] Since adoption of ordinance 4403O, has the city completed any additional analysis and generic review, permit review, stormwater alternatives evaluation, or other work that changes, refines, or confirms those February conclusions.

[19:09] Third, will the review process consider a range of round water protection approaches before

[19:15] any permanent decisions are made, including source controls, prevention measures, and other

[19:21] other aquifer protection strategies. Fourth, the draft ordinance acknowledges a gap of several

[19:28] days between expiration of the current moratorium and the effective data of the proposed ordinance.

[19:34] If a development or permit application is submitted during that gap period, how will the city

[19:39] process it?

[19:41] Will it be accepted and reviewed under the regulations then, in effect, or handled another

[19:46] way?

[19:47] Fifth, I noticed that the draft ordinance already contains recitals and a finding section

[19:52] supporting adoption of the proposed ordinance.

[19:55] Who drafted the proposed findings contained in the ordinance and how can the public determine

[20:00] Whether testimony received today could result in revisions to those findings or changes to the proposed ordinance.

[20:07] Finally, I hope to conclude some past that he will be made public and that residents will have a meaningful opportunity to comment before permanent regulatory changes are considered.

[20:17] The Dear Creek, the Dear Creek Aquifer is a critical drinking water resource and future decisions should be supported by transparent analysis, clear reasoning, meaningful public participation and the best available science.

[20:34] Thank you.

[20:35] Thank you.

[20:37] Next is Joe.

[20:47] Sorry, the unmute wasn't popping up.

[20:49] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Joe Scordino,

[20:53] a long time resident of Edmunds. I'd wanted to comment,

[20:57] you know, the issue of the Council should be discussing here is whether it can

[21:01] factually document a justification for a continued moratorium, or if the

[21:07] Council should be deferring to the updated and improved critical area processes

[21:12] that the Council approved in January for approving building permit applications

[21:17] in the Deer Creek era, as well as all other areas.

[21:21] This isn't an issue of denying applications.

[21:25] The new critical area ordinance made it very clear that it's supposed to be a two-step

[21:31] process.

[21:32] If you're building or taking any action in a critical area, first step is to go through

[21:38] and determine your effects on critical area, whether those effects can be mitigated, whether

[21:44] could come up with a way to avoid impacts. All of that process was intended to avoid the

[21:53] possibility of having to deny an application after the fact. And there's no reason that shouldn't

[22:01] apply to the gear creek area, as well as any other area. For example, as Mr. Brock mentioned,

[22:09] And if an applicant comes in and shows that the materials that they are proposing to use

[22:15] are all certified to be keyfoss free or whatever the terminology is, there's no reason

[22:21] the city shouldn't then determine is that adequate justification and the director as it requires

[22:28] in the critical area ordinance make a determination that that building approach will not impact

[22:35] the critical area. So, let the process go. There's no reason for a moratorium. There's no reason

[22:42] to be waiting for a study, which I really question, but I'll talk about that later, that Israel

[22:50] is not going to give us additional best available science. And remember, the purpose of this study

[22:57] is to find ways to put exceptions and exemptions in the critical area ordinance. The study isn't

[23:05] to come out with new methods for dealing with treatment, etc. The study is trying to find a way to say,

[23:14] oh, it's okay to just dump your stormwater into the drinking water aquifer and everybody will be happy.

[23:20] 30 seconds. We don't need that. I'm going to say the city did do a good job of letting the

[23:27] Creek, uh, Kara residents know about the new updated ordinance. So the notice is out. There's

[23:36] no reason to continue moratorium. Let's get on with let people be creative if they could come

[23:41] up with the way, avoid contaminating the aquifer and do their building, let them do it. What we don't

[23:49] One, you're talking about your comments.

[23:54] That's my comment.

[23:55] Thank you.

[23:56] Thank you.

[23:58] If there is anybody else who wishes to participate

[24:00] in this public hearing, please raise your virtual hand now.

[24:10] Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing,

[24:12] which now brings us to council business,

[24:14] the first item of which is to discuss the ordinance

[24:17] extending the moratorium.

[24:20] Mr. Territate, do you have additional comments?

[24:22] You wish to offer prior to council?

[24:27] not really just the the ordinance will extend the moratorium for an additional six months.

[24:35] I don't think that we will need all of that time. I think as soon as the council has an opportunity to

[24:44] number one review the study and then number two determine whether the existing regulations are

[24:51] still what you want them to be or whether you want something different in place

[24:56] you know we'll need some time for that.

[25:00] Questioned happen, but in any case, whatever you decide to do in the future, you'll be able to

[25:07] you'll be able to repeal the moratorium in advance of the six months if it turns out to be unnecessary.

[25:16] Thank you. Council will not go to your questions, your comments, or your motions.

[25:26] Councilmember Nand.

[25:32] Mr. Charity, I was wondering, are you at liberty to comment on the situation that the

[25:37] first public hearing participant raised regarding the issues with his permit application

[25:46] for the addition on his property?

[25:50] I'm not in the loop on that particular application, so I can't speak to the specifics of

[25:58] application, but I can point you to the existing code language, which 2310-420 subsection A,

[26:13] says the use of stormwater infiltration, best management practices,

[26:19] including those that qualify as a Class V underground injection control well, are prohibited

[26:25] for all land uses within all wellhead protection areas associated with Olympic

[26:33] viewwater and sewer districts. Wellheads and their buffers. I'm paraphrasing that

[26:40] last bit, but I'm not aware of any exception in the code.

[26:49] For example, if somebody

[26:51] were to come in today and certify that none of their building materials contained PFAS.

[27:00] But I don't think the code allows us to authorize infiltration in that particular scenario.

[27:08] That's what's currently written.

[27:10] Thank you.

[27:12] I would appreciate.

[27:14] Obviously we can't direct the mayor of this staff in this regard or the city attorney.

[27:18] But if we can't get further updates, the gentleman stated that he was told by staff that it was the addition of his new roof and hellowed impact stormwater that is preventing his project from going forward.

[27:34] And whenever we take action under interim ordinances and moratoriums, I'm always very concerned about the potential for litigation, if we're, what we're doing is considered to be unduly burdensome to property owners.

[27:49] So if we, again, not trying to dark staff just speaking as one of seven council members, if we could reach out to the administration can reach out to this gentleman and try to ascertain the issues pertaining to the holdup on his.

[28:04] What is development? I would be very appreciative. Thank you.

[28:09] Yeah, just to be clear that I understood the speaker to be saying that the problem wasn't the

[28:15] moratorium. It's the it's it's it's it's 23 10 for 20 that is preventing that application from

[28:24] going forward as I understand the speaker. Thank you. I'll still remember pain.

[28:34] I believe that

[28:35] Chen is ahead of me. I trusted, I trusted, I would need to give it to me in order. Thank you,

[28:44] Kazuma Richen. All right, I appreciate that Mr. Terry, would you be able to kind of

[28:54] re-describe the scope of the PFAS study because earlier there was a comment about the studies

[29:02] focusing on finding ways to guide the PFAS pollutants in that kind of focus. I'm just

[29:16] wanting to have a clear understanding about the scope of the study so that the

[29:25] topic, I'll wear, because now my understanding is the study has not been published, so I

[29:36] want to clear the confusion.

[29:40] Yeah, so first of all, the study hasn't been completed yet.

[29:44] I have not seen a final draft, and so there's a reason why it hasn't been published, it hasn't

[29:53] completed yet. As far as the scope, the scope document is several pages long.

[30:00] It would be difficult to summarize it in a couple of words here, but I would just say, and this is, you know, probably an oversimplification, but the goal of this study is to use best available science to determine the best way to protect the aquifer from PFAS and stormwater.

[30:27] Okay. Yeah, that's why I thought, so there's, there's no available report to the public

[30:40] and to the council at this point, and we're waiting for that to come forward.

[30:46] And hopefully in September, we'll have that to you.

[30:49] Okay. Thanks for that collective occasion.

[30:53] Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for this discussion. I'm eager to see the report. This is a report that was

[31:05] you know, encouraged through the litigation from ECC and now we're EEC and now we're we're just at the very final stages. I would appreciate getting the information regarding

[31:17] the local PFAS concerns and threats and then we can then we can make a decision. I hope quickly

[31:25] I do continue to believe that moratorium do offer threats of litigation and I am on but it comes from either side

[31:34] apparently so eager to see that report and the sooner the better. So I will be supporting the extension of the moratorium.

[31:43] I'll remember by now.

[31:49] Yes, thank you. I have a comment somewhat related to Council Member Nance,

[31:55] area of questioning. Now that we know when we expect this beef off-study to be completed in September,

[32:01] rather than assuming we need another six months of what is effectively a blanket more Torium.

[32:07] Could we use that study to create a more targeted interim pathway so related to the public comments we received today

[32:14] If there are ways in which once the study is published, we could regulate the materials or the activities

[32:20] where the best available science demonstrates an actual pathway versus treating every project that triggers stormwater management the same.

[32:30] Perhaps we could put something into our ordinance that would trigger that update once the PFAS study is available.

[32:37] And so my question is, is there a way for staff to evaluate that approach so that residents can proceed with work that does not present a contamination risk we are trying to prevent and we could revisit this in September once that study has been published.

[32:53] Yeah. So I think those are good comments. I would anticipate that the initial step after receiving the study and bringing it to Council probably would be some kind of an interim measure that we could put in place potentially as early as September.

[33:19] But until we know what the study is going to say, we can't really draft that interim measure

[33:28] yet either.

[33:32] I think part of your question I think was, do we really have to wait six months to lift

[33:39] the moratorium?

[33:40] And I don't think we do, and I think with the adoption of the interim, I guess the sequence

[33:47] would be, receive and evaluate the study, adopt some kind of interim ordinance to respond

[33:55] to the study or based on the study.

[33:58] And then consecutively with the adoption of that interim ordinance repeal the moratorium.

[34:05] So that would be, I think, how it would go.

[34:08] Does that answer your question?

[34:09] It does. I think my concern is that with the current just extending the current blanket

[34:16] more Torium for another six months, there is risk that if we don't put something on the agenda

[34:22] that we could just let it go, and it would not necessarily have any trigger to force us to revisit that

[34:30] and to narrow the scope and to make any interim changes once that report comes out.

[34:35] So my question was whether we should modify the existing ordinance to require us to revisit

[34:42] it in September once that date is available.

[34:46] It's certainly an option the council has.

[34:49] You can cancel could amend the ordinance to shorten the moratorium.

[34:53] I would rather my recommendation would be not to do that only because if...

[35:00] If we are incorrect on the study delivery date, or if we are incorrect on the amount of time that

[35:08] the council needs to process the even the interim regulation,

[35:15] then we could be coming back again

[35:17] with another request for an extension, which just takes that whole time on the council agenda,

[35:22] and you need another hearing for that.

[35:24] And so while I totally understand the desire to be done with the

[35:29] moratorium as soon as possible, and I, and I, and I do see a path to get there.

[35:35] I, I think it would, it would be against my recommendation anyway to shorten this

[35:41] extension.

[35:42] Well, thank you very much.

[35:45] Council member Olsen.

[35:50] Yes.

[35:51] Thank you.

[35:52] I just had a couple of quick comments.

[35:54] For starters, I did want to let everybody know that there was a little housekeeping thing

[35:58] that's being taken care of by the city clerk,

[36:01] where the end of section 11 in the adopted by line

[36:05] said a regular meeting.

[36:06] And this has been struck and replaced

[36:08] with a at a special meeting

[36:09] by the city clerk as a scribert nurse.

[36:15] And I did appreciate the residents comment

[36:19] during the public hearing,

[36:21] that there's sort of a prefabricated ordinance

[36:24] in our packet, but they're always able to be considered and amended, so, you know, that really

[36:33] is the legislative process and we do have that option of adding anything that is appropriate

[36:40] to be changed or added additionally or removed.

[36:45] And then what others have said about the permit application question, I just hope that we're

[36:52] being super customer service oriented in general.

[36:55] So this is, I read the email that Director Cludston had replied to the applicant that did

[37:01] say that that had nothing to do with the moratorium and was about the critical areas,

[37:05] ordinance that he was vested under.

[37:07] But if the new critical area code and putting in a new permit application with the new code might

[37:14] make a difference, I hope that he's getting the hand holding to be able to explore, you know,

[37:20] whatever the options are that let us responsibly develop if that's an option. And then lastly, on the

[37:28] council member, Brock's communication, his suggested approach is actually something that I have

[37:34] heard our city attorneys say exactly that might be a possible outcome of this PFAS study that that

[37:41] might be exactly how we're going to want to proceed in the Dear Creek, Cara. So I am, you know, pleased to hear

[37:48] that he, as someone who's super involved in the environmental community, is thinking if that is a

[37:55] green that that might be a good path forward and then just reiterating what others have said about

[38:01] ending it as soon as we are able as at which six months, so that we don't have to keep coming back

[38:08] and doing the process, make sense to me, but I think we're all of like mind that if we can finish it in

[38:14] or two that that would be our preference.

[38:16] Thank you.

[38:19] Thanks.

[38:19] I'll remember that.

[38:21] Thank you.

[38:23] So, I appreciate the comments we've received and also Mr. Terri Day, your input

[38:29] as well.

[38:30] I find it unfortunate that we're in this place that we're needing to discuss extending

[38:35] the moratorium, but that's where we're at from a realistic standpoint.

[38:41] I very much appreciate knowing that it really for all intents and purposes won't take

[38:48] another six months and even Council Member Brock suggestion I really appreciate that as

[38:56] well although I have to wonder the best of intentions of a homeowner to start breaking

[39:06] at material to taking material off a building that's not harmful, does that shake up more harmful

[39:15] material in the process? I mean, there's still some amount of risk. So if down the line

[39:21] we consider that, I'd want to understand that more deeply as there's still inherent risk

[39:27] even when you're moving materials around that you're going to shake up harmful material in

[39:32] process, but that's down the road. I also think that the way we have it now, albeit unfortunate

[39:39] is a clean process, so people understand very clearly that we are not accepting applications,

[39:47] because if we were to allow them, it would be extremely inefficient and not work the applicants

[39:56] time and money to go through the process and our staff.

[40:01] And the cost of staff to go through the process only to reject the permit. So I don't like we're in the same situation that paying on for another month and extending the moratorium as written is something that I think we need to do.

[40:25] Council Member Dash.

[40:27] Council President Dash.

[40:29] Excuse me.

[40:31] I appreciate everybody's input and the input we receive from the public as well.

[40:37] And I believe with this study that we have been waiting on and that is sure the need to come back in September now.

[40:46] That we will have an opportunity to really use that information to craft something a little more specific.

[40:51] But in the interim, I would like to move to adopt the attached ordinance, extending the

[40:59] moratorium established by ordinance 44030 on the acceptance of any permit applications,

[41:06] which will require stormwater engagement within the Deer Creek critical aquifer recharge

[41:11] area for additional six months.

[41:14] Second.

[41:14] Thank you, Smith.

[41:15] Who did second make her the motion for the comment I made and then I think what other people

[41:21] have put forward again. The study is coming by soon. I think we do have opportunities that

[41:28] as Council President will make sure that you know we are getting those timely onto the schedule

[41:34] and have the opportunity to craft a more specific and result after we get all the information.

[41:42] Thank you. We will now take comments on the motion. Council member now.

[41:45] Thank you, Mayor. I am in support of the motion cover. I would like to note for the public

[41:50] First of all, that I know we are placing a special burden on the property owners in the

[41:56] Deercare Care and it's always important to balance the right of property owners against environmental concerns.

[42:03] I also really appreciate it and would we count some of our John Brock's comments about a more specific material management code

[42:11] So that we can attempt to limit PFOS exposure through precipitation and run off into our

[42:20] critical aquifer recharge area.

[42:25] And if we do down the road, decide to direct the staff to develop such a code, I would encourage

[42:31] us to adopt it, city-wide, because we are a coastal community, and our building materials

[42:36] do impact wildlife such as, you know, our salmon and our orgasms out. Thank you.

[42:44] I don't remember, Chad.

[42:48] Thank you, Matt. I do support this

[42:51] most interesting ordinance, 44th, 30th, but I also want to add that once the study is available,

[43:01] It is the best thing to be clear at the auditorium I would like to see that happening with the best available science.

[43:14] On the extent since I have already ever extending the same kind of approach to city why I will need more professional input because

[43:27] the entire city is known to aqua for, and we do, we do want to see developments to fulfill

[43:36] our housing needs in other city developments required by the states in and such, so that's a

[43:47] different discussion though, but for the most, and I do support that. Thank you. Any further comments

[43:53] on the motion, Councilmember Brenna.

[43:56] Yeah, I just wanted to say that I too am in support

[43:59] of the motion with the expectation

[44:01] that as Council President Dosh indicated

[44:04] that we would actively be revisiting an off ramp

[44:08] that is more tailored and specific to the findings

[44:11] of the PFAS study in September

[44:14] or whenever that information is made available

[44:17] and that this moratorium does not really run

[44:19] as is for the six month window.

[44:21] Thank you.

[44:23] So for their comments, I will now ask for a vote on the motion which is to adopt the

[44:27] attached ordinance extending the moratorium established by ordinance 4430 on the acceptance

[44:32] of any permit applications which would require stormwater management within the Dear Creek

[44:37] critical aquifer recharge area for an additional six months.

[44:41] All in favor of that motion please raise your hands and say aye.

[44:44] Aye.

[44:46] Anybody opposed please raise your hand and say nay.

[44:49] Thank you.

[44:49] The motion carries unanimously.

[44:52] We now turn to Council Business Item 2, which is a resolution of intent to annex Esperance.

[45:00] Is it annexation area one excuse me? And again, I will just share that there were staff members who, as you know from the agenda, who were scheduled to be here in parts of the state in both of these discussions and whatever is going around came around.

[45:18] But Mister Territory is well pre-time all of these and he will also facilitate this discussion at the beginning. Mister Territory.

[45:27] Yes. Thank you. In the packet is a resolution to resolution of intent to annex the

[45:38] a portion of the Esperance area. As has been discussed, there are some reasons for wanting to

[45:49] to Annex's Esperance in two different phases.

[45:56] The principle one being some additional due diligence

[46:00] that needs to be done with regard to the bridge

[46:03] on 84th Avenue.

[46:05] And so by proceeding with two separate annexations

[46:12] and with just proceeding immediately with the first area,

[46:17] provides some space for the city, some time really, for the city to acquire the additional information that it needs regarding that bridge.

[46:30] And that additional information sort of falls into two buckets. There's the sort of engineering side of it.

[46:37] What does the bridge actually need? How much is that going to cost?

[46:41] And then there's the second bucket, which I would describe as more financial and legal questions,

[46:51] specifically whether the sales tax credit that is an incentive for annexation,

[47:01] to be able to confirm that we can use that money to fund whatever repairs the bridge might need.

[47:09] So they're related, but they're different types of analysis.

[47:18] There's obviously just another thing about the resolution.

[47:22] This resolution is really primarily intended to make sure the city council wants the staff to proceed

[47:29] and that the staff isn't wasting time by engaging with snowmish County

[47:35] because there isn't really a legal requirement for the mayor and his staff to get this resolution

[47:46] adopted as a prerequisite to engagement with the county. It's really more a check-in to make

[47:55] sure that before that engagement happens in a significant way that there's real interest in

[48:01] in annexing the area and that we are going to be wasting staff time on that endeavor.

[48:12] So there are with some annexation methods, a resolution is to actually a legal prerequisite,

[48:20] with this particular annexation method, it is not a legal prerequisite and the mayor and

[48:27] staff could bring back an ILA to the council even if this resolution was never adopted.

[48:34] So I don't want to make it sound like this resolution is some make or break moment in the

[48:43] annexation of Esperance. It really is just a check in with the council to make sure that

[48:51] there's enough interest in annexation to warrant the staff time that would be needed.

[48:59] So, I guess I don't have any other prepared comments.

[49:04] I'm happy to answer questions, though.

[49:07] Thank you.

[49:08] Council questions, comments, and or motions.

[49:10] Council member Paine.

[49:12] Thank you.

[49:13] I'm just going to make a comment.

[49:15] Now I am in support of this resolution.

[49:18] With the common and caveat that I am what I would really like to see prioritized is the collection of the information regarding the bridge that is the topic of the rationale for having two different areas.

[49:41] And we've received a couple of emails and I know that all of us receive them with some compelling reason is to why keeping it.

[49:53] One, you know, one big full area for Esperance and then.

[50:00] But we do need to understand what the possible costs are for the bridge, just as part of our due diligence. In any case, I am in support. I do think that this is a good way to go if we can make this the study of the bridge.

[50:20] a top priority and getting that done, then we can look at starting a second process for

[50:27] area two or to modify the the ILA to include area two. I think that I think that it's

[50:38] we want to be clear that we want to you know what our intentions are with area two as well.

[50:44] So anyway, those are my thoughts and I am eager to take this vote today.

[50:52] I'll remember now.

[50:55] Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for bringing forth this resolution of Mr. Kennedy administration.

[51:02] Even if it's not a legal requirement, I do think it is very important that we be very

[51:07] clear transparent with the residents of us friends about what annexation would entail and

[51:14] intentions going forward. If we do not intend to follow the previously established process

[51:22] for annexation, which would require a vote of the residents and has been previously voted

[51:26] down 20 years ago, I was strongly encouraged of administration to undertake a survey of

[51:33] the 4,000 households to see if we could, if we could fund a survey and see if there is a majority

[51:41] support for annexation in the Esperance now. I think that this would help us by

[51:48] pass a lot of difficulty if organized opposition to annexation does emerge within

[51:54] the community which it has previously to my understanding of discussion with

[51:59] residents of Esperance. Again, I think that this would make it a much smoother process

[52:04] both for the city and for the residents of the community. It would also create an

[52:09] opportunity for us to gather, statistically, valid information about their concerns, their

[52:17] desires, and what they would like to see out of amicsation, and ensure to everyone in Edmunds,

[52:25] especially the residents of WestPrincess. This is a bilateral and collaborative process. Thank you.

[52:31] That's a member about it.

[52:36] Yes, thank you.

[52:37] I appreciate City Attorney Tier A for the communication you shared with me the email explaining

[52:43] the rationale and the reasons for splitting us into two areas.

[52:48] I also completely understand why we need more information about the 84th Avenue Bridge before

[52:53] moving that portion forward.

[52:55] But I just want to say that what we're hearing from the residents of area two is some anxiety around

[53:01] timing and certainty of annexation for that particular neighborhood group. So what I'd like us as

[53:09] this moves forward to be clear about is what milestones need to be completed before area two

[53:14] can proceed, what kind of timeline we may be looking at or anticipating and then how we're going

[53:19] to keep those residents informed as we move through that. So what I don't want folks to feel like is that

[53:26] you are in phase two that they feel like they've been put into some sort of end-definite

[53:30] holding pattern.

[53:32] So I don't know.

[53:33] Mr. Terry, if you have any comments or thoughts as to the timing that can be shared now

[53:37] or kind of how you're viewing that concurrent process to work.

[53:41] Yeah.

[53:41] Thanks for the question.

[53:44] Council Member Barnett.

[53:45] I think we have sort of a rough guide, I guess, that we can share with residents of

[53:54] I, you know, the, the annexation study that was done has already shown that there's, you know, a financial incentive for the city to proceed with annexation and so that's not going away by splitting it into two phases and in fact, if anything, it is enhanced by splitting it into two phases.

[54:20] But where this relates to your question about the timing,

[54:26] if one of the goals here is to ensure that there is a funding source for the 84th Avenue Bridge repairs,

[54:36] the most likely source of funds for that, or one of the most likely sources of funds for that would be through this annexation incentive sales tax credit.

[54:48] that we've discussed before. In order for the city to take advantage of that sales tax credit,

[54:58] Um, it would need to add.

[55:00] Act, it would need to have completed an annexation of area 2 before July 1, of 2028. So we're not talking

[55:13] about a significant gap in time between area 1 and area 2, because the city has its own incentive,

[55:21] and frankly, the residents of Esperance area too would also have their own incentive to

[55:29] to number one, want to see it in two phases. And number two, see both of those phases completed

[55:35] before July 1st of 2028. So, you know, it could be that they're only separated by a matter of a few

[55:46] months. I don't really know, but that's a significant date because in order to take advantage

[55:53] of the second 0.1% sales tax credit, the city would need to have completed its annexation

[56:05] by July 1, 2028.

[56:08] Thank you so much, I appreciate that answer.

[56:12] I want to remember, Chen.

[56:15] Thank you, ma'am.

[56:16] It's the time of day.

[56:18] I understand the rationale for spreading in the two phrases.

[56:24] But I want to kind of mention these as a consideration.

[56:32] Since like the reasoning for spreading into two phrases is to

[56:37] taking advantage of the 0.1% sale tax credits, but in substance, it's by population for

[56:51] every 2,000,000 population and next area, then we'll get that 0.1% if we propose the question to

[57:07] state Department of Revenue on the basis of the population, would that be possible for us to say

[57:17] that we're annexing 4,000 people, which will qualify us for the 0.2% sales tax, because it's

[57:26] double of that 2,000 population of votes, and if that question is asking a proof, then it opens up the

[57:35] for an exashing both the entire Esperance at the same time.

[57:45] So I'm open to that, if that's a possibility.

[57:49] But my question is, if we go with the phrase approach,

[57:53] that does not, my understanding is that does not lock down our proceeding

[57:59] that we have to separate into two phrases.

[58:02] if the scenario that I'm proposing, well I'm asking, does that approve by the Department of Revenue?

[58:09] We can still go back to, and like I said, the entire Esperance.

[58:15] Do you have any comments on that?

[58:17] Yes, thank you for that question, Council Member Chen.

[58:21] Yeah, first of all, nothing in the resolution that you have before you today,

[58:26] binds the city to one phase or two phase.

[58:31] It's just to get city staff started.

[58:36] So I just want to emphasize that.

[58:38] Nothing in that resolution binds the city to one phase or two phases.

[58:44] It contemplates two phases, but it is not binding in that respect.

[58:49] As far as your question about ways in which the city can qualify for the second to 0.1%.

[59:01] percent, I do want to make a clarification there, because the way the statute is written,

[59:10] the annexation area, to qualify for 0.1%, the annexation area has to be between 2010,000

[59:18] population. So a single annexation of 4,000 population would only get you 0.1%. Now, I don't

[59:29] it to sound in this discussion like this whole thing is being driven by the tax credit. We have

[59:36] a very real consideration here with that bridge. We need to understand what that bridge is going

[59:42] to cost. The tax credit, the second 0.1% if it is separated as a separate annexation, it does provide

[59:51] a vehicle, a funding mechanism to repair that bridge, which the city would otherwise not have

[59:59] Clear funny.

[1:00:01] So, you know, there's a very real reason to separate them.

[1:00:07] But do we need a single annexation of 4,000 does not qualify you for the second 0.1%. And just to put real numbers on it, as I understand the calculations that were done by Burke, we're talking about, for each 0.1% over a 10-year period, we're talking about an extra 13 points.

[1:00:30] six million dollars that needs to be spent in the annexation area.

[1:00:36] So the residents of these areas are benefiting to the tune of $13.6 million over a ten year period,

[1:00:46] potentially, you know, the money has to be spent in order to get reimbursed.

[1:00:50] But the point is that the residents of these areas are the primary beneficiaries of it being split into two phases,

[1:00:58] because the money has to be spent there.

[1:01:02] Yeah, I appreciate the analysis,

[1:01:04] and that's what the council and the public need

[1:01:08] that collectification.

[1:01:10] I also want to say that I'm going to abstain from this vote,

[1:01:17] because my office building is in the Esperance area.

[1:01:26] I'm also worried on council member Chen.

[1:01:29] Yeah, I'm that.

[1:01:30] Thank you.

[1:01:31] Council president thought?

[1:01:34] Thank you. And on that last question and explanation, I think it's it's important to really evaluate this bridge because if we don't have the funding then that would fall on

[1:01:49] actual Edmund's residence now as well too, if that came from another source that we come

[1:01:55] from our existing residence and not from Esperanza for that bridge is located. So I think

[1:02:03] that's an important point to make as well. And I did have a conversation earlier about kind

[1:02:08] of the phasing and I appreciate Mr. Terrate giving us the information about how timely these

[1:02:17] could be brought forward, so that it's not a long wait for the furl

[1:02:26] for area two, because I hate the whole goal, as Council has noted, it is, you know,

[1:02:33] the areas intact, but because of the infrastructure, we just have to be really mindful of

[1:02:39] not putting ourselves in a real bind if the funding or whatever things are not there, and that

[1:02:46] to send a book deficit.

[1:02:48] So I appreciate all of the information.

[1:02:50] Thank you.

[1:02:52] Don't remember it.

[1:02:54] Thank you.

[1:02:55] I think every conversation we have about this that's

[1:02:58] public is really important to encourage

[1:03:02] Edmund's residents that also

[1:03:04] Esperance residents to watch.

[1:03:07] And if they can't play the video,

[1:03:10] I, as I mentioned, are last meeting about this.

[1:03:13] We can't, I don't think, over-late communicate.

[1:03:15] I like that in this meeting and I was going to bring it up that it was mentioned earlier that this doesn't bind us to this particular plan.

[1:03:25] And in fact it just helps us move to the next step and I think it's a very important statement for us to make.

[1:03:32] I too have seen the emails to all of us. I've also gotten some just to myself from Esperitt's residents.

[1:03:39] And what I take away from that is there is an eagerness to join Edmonts.

[1:03:45] And I don't want to lose that excitement as we're getting into the weeds and talking about these really important details.

[1:03:54] I want everyone to make sure to now and ask friends who wants to join Edmonts that this is part of the process.

[1:04:03] it's not a done deal. We'll do lots of, I hope, infosessions, public hearings, all of that along the way,

[1:04:10] and keep everybody well informed about what's going on. I mean, it's an exciting time,

[1:04:15] and these details have to be covered, and everything needs to be researched. This bridge

[1:04:21] absolutely is something that we need to look into before. We get much further down the road,

[1:04:28] but don't lose the excitement piece of this because this isn't something that was favorable

[1:04:33] in the past, and all of a sudden, we have this opportunity, and a lot of Esperance, for

[1:04:39] a sense, wanting this.

[1:04:43] So, yeah, I actually know that I would like to make a motion, so I'll bring up the motion,

[1:04:53] the language.

[1:04:54] So, I motion that we adopt the attached resolution, declaring the city's intent, to pursue

[1:05:00] Excession, that best friends, annexation, area 1, through an interlocal agreement with Snowmish County, directing staff to begin collaboration with the county and the required public participation process and deferring action on annexation area 2, pending further investigation of the 84th Avenue West Bridge.

[1:05:21] It's been moved in second make or in the motion for the comment.

[1:05:25] No for the comment.

[1:05:26] Thank you. Now we are moving the conversation to the motion council member Paulson.

[1:05:33] Thank you. I think that everything that's been said already really covered the subject quite well.

[1:05:40] I think the bottom line is that we're not ready to move forward with such a resolution in the actual process without

[1:05:47] exploring the bridge option. And that in fact, this is more forward activity and motion on this

[1:05:55] than if we were waiting until we got completely satisfied that we were ready to go on that.

[1:06:01] So I think it's a good idea for that reason as well. I had thought of that like ceiling fan

[1:06:08] analogy like it takes forever to install a single ceiling fan if it's been a while since you've done

[1:06:13] But, you know, when you've done the second and subsequent ones, it takes so much less time.

[1:06:18] And I kind of feel like we're actually moving the process forward faster by getting started with this phase one.

[1:06:25] And we'll have done community engagement and we'll be further along with the process.

[1:06:29] And the second ILA will be, you know, faster and easier.

[1:06:32] And then there's the other reasons that we had as well for for separating it.

[1:06:36] But I really do understand the phase two residents feeling left behind.

[1:06:41] And I know Council President Dodge had sent out an email for proposed amendment, which I would

[1:06:47] be supportive of just for that reason, just so that the phase two people have that communication

[1:06:53] of the why and that they know that it's really just a process thing.

[1:07:02] So in any case, I'm very supportive of this motion and supportive of the amendment that's

[1:07:08] going to be getting made later by Council President Dutch.

[1:07:13] Council President Dutch.

[1:07:17] Okay, thank you.

[1:07:19] So I would like to pose an amendment

[1:07:23] to my move to insert the following language in section seven.

[1:07:29] In the first sentence,

[1:07:32] two reference and additional sentence at the end of the same section after

[1:07:36] quote at this time, add the words except as described in this section seven below,

[1:07:46] and I did

[1:07:47] send this to the clerk, so yes, as well. And add an additional sentence, the one that it refers

[1:07:53] to at the end of section seven that states, while the city performs its due diligence regarding

[1:08:00] the bridge, comma, the city council would request at the interlocal agreement for annexation area one,

[1:08:07] Contain a commitment from Stahomish County to not make any zoning changes to annexation area two

[1:08:14] That would take effect before July 1st

[1:08:18] There are second to his amendment

[1:08:22] Second

[1:08:24] And moved in second maker of the motion about the amendments

[1:08:28] Yeah, one of the things that I heard from

[1:08:31] some residents of Esperance, and especially if this is split into two, is there concern about

[1:08:40] some of which counting having deferred any changes to zoning because of our intent.

[1:08:48] And while this initial resolution doesn't describe it, this will add that assurance in there

[1:08:53] that we are understanding that that is a concern and that we will support that

[1:09:01] deferral to continue to the July 1st, 2028.

[1:09:06] So that doesn't conflict or create any conflict of zoning in that area too.

[1:09:15] We are now talking about the amendment specifically, Council Member Dan.

[1:09:20] Thank you. I have a question for the city attorney.

[1:09:23] Um, Mr. Chair, if we defer annexation of areas to until July 28th and the county does make a zoning change, wouldn't our, our city code and zoning override any changes that the county made to the unincorporate area wants it would be incorporated into the city events.

[1:09:48] That's correct, they're upon annexation of either of these two areas, it will be city zoning that governs.

[1:10:00] I think the council president's amendment is really addressing the interim period to ensure that

[1:10:11] the projects don't vest under a different zoning prior to the time that annexation would occur.

[1:10:21] Okay, thank you. And throughout the course of this discussion, I haven't heard, although I know that I believe I could be wrong,

[1:10:28] part of this would be in one of the hubs and the the neighborhood centers and hubs projected

[1:10:37] up-sowning that any particular parcels are being targeted by developers from major projects

[1:10:44] at this time. So I'm concerned about asking for this commitment from Stahomish County because I'm

[1:10:52] not sure if it would be necessary and I'm not sure if the county would agree and I'd rather that

[1:10:58] if this process goes forward, that we just rely on the preemption that would occur with the

[1:11:05] cities of encode once the annexation is complete rather than asking as to adopt a holding pattern

[1:11:12] regarding annexation area too. So I appreciate Council President Dasha bringing this forward

[1:11:17] be unable to support this amendment. You're talking about the amendment and Council Member Chen.

[1:11:25] Yeah, I mean, in spirit, I support this intention, but I'm concerned that the county is not going to

[1:11:36] just to presend to not make any changes. I mean, they have the county plans.

[1:11:45] With that say, I'm going to abstain anyway. Thank you.

[1:11:50] That's a member of our net.

[1:11:55] Thank you.

[1:11:56] Yes, thank you.

[1:11:57] I am in support of this amendment, as mentioned, some of the concerns we've heard from

[1:12:02] the area to residents is, you know, there being asked to sit in this interim status while

[1:12:08] we complete our due diligence, and they are worried about what could happen to them during

[1:12:12] that period.

[1:12:13] And so if we're the ones asking them to wait, then I think it's reasonable for us to do

[1:12:18] whatever we can to protect them from any intervening county

[1:12:21] up zone while that process is underway.

[1:12:24] I do think this also reinforces why we need a clear timeline

[1:12:27] in regular communication with those residents so that July 20, 28 does not

[1:12:32] feel like they're sitting in an indefinite holding pattern and who knows

[1:12:36] what will happen between here and there.

[1:12:38] I also trust that the county because we're interested in training in ILA with them

[1:12:42] will understand our intent and be respectful of our request to hold off on any

[1:12:47] zoning for aspirants and given the fact that ideally as of July 2028 they will be

[1:12:52] come part of the city of Edmunds and our codes will then take over at that point.

[1:12:56] Thank you. Thank you. Come to remember Ed.

[1:13:02] Thank you. I believe this is a practical amendment

[1:13:05] and I support it. My view is the county has been very favorable about this conversation a whole time

[1:13:14] and actually seems to be encouraging.

[1:13:18] And I have no reason to think that they wouldn't respect

[1:13:22] this addition.

[1:13:23] Thank you.

[1:13:26] Don't suppose any of that?

[1:13:30] Yeah, just to clarify, the county already did defer the

[1:13:36] up zoning because they knew the intent of Edmunds to annex.

[1:13:41] And that's just something to say, hey, yeah, as we're doing this,

[1:13:44] that's still in place.

[1:13:45] So it's not asking anything new of them.

[1:13:47] It's just continuing what they have already told

[1:13:50] and Esperance at the time,

[1:13:51] but that was what they're going to do.

[1:13:53] So just holding them to a during this process.

[1:13:55] Thank you.

[1:13:57] That's a member of Olsen.

[1:14:03] That's a member of Olsen.

[1:14:05] You are frozen.

[1:14:07] If you can hear me, maybe turn off your camera.

[1:14:19] Maybe signboard and signback.

[1:14:20] There you are, okay.

[1:14:25] Try it in.

[1:14:29] Sorry, we can't hear you.

[1:14:41] Councilmember Wilson, I'm sorry you are breaking up. We can't even make out a single word.

[1:14:47] We are not able to hear you.

[1:14:55] Councilmember Chen, your hand is still up. I assume that's from your last comment.

[1:15:00] No, I just need to lower it.

[1:15:06] Let's give it a beat and see if council member Wilson comes back.

[1:15:13] There she is. Do you want to try again?

[1:15:19] And you hear me now?

[1:15:20] We can.

[1:15:22] I really had just wanted to say that I think it's just signaling to the county that it's still our intention to, you know, that we're still working on the annexation.

[1:15:32] So, I think there's some value to that.

[1:15:37] Thank you.

[1:15:38] Again, this is about the amendment.

[1:15:40] The amendment is under section 7.

[1:15:43] It adds to the first sentence.

[1:15:45] The city council hereby determines that it is not appropriate at this time.

[1:15:49] Come a new word except as described in this section 7 comma below.

[1:15:56] That additional text below says,

[1:15:58] while the city performs this due diligence regarding the bridge,

[1:16:01] The city council would request that the inter-local agreement for annexation

[1:16:05] area one contained a commitment from Snowmish County to not make any zoning changes to annexation

[1:16:10] area two that would take effect before July 1st, 2028. All in favor of that amendment, please raise your

[1:16:17] hands and say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed please raise your hands and say nay. Nay. Thank you.

[1:16:24] And we have one of those things.

[1:16:27] So the motion passes with five, yes, is one, no and one abstention.

[1:16:33] So we now move to the full motion as amended.

[1:16:38] The full motion was to adopt the attached resolution declaring the city's intent to pursue

[1:16:43] annexation of Esperance annexation area one through an interlocal agreement with the

[1:16:47] Homish County, directing staff to begin collaboration with the county and the required public

[1:16:52] participation process and deferring action on an annotation area 2 and further investigation

[1:16:58] of the 84th Avenue West Bridge. That is the motion as amended previously. All in favor

[1:17:03] of that motion please raise your hands and say hi. Hi. Anybody opposed please raise your hand

[1:17:09] and say nay and any abstentions. Abstents and due to a calfragile interest. The motion carries

[1:17:18] six with one, six yeses, one abstention. Thank you. It is now 12, 17. We have a third agenda item.

[1:17:27] I would ask for a motion to extend. Motion to extend to one PM, second.

[1:17:34] It's been moved in second to extend to one PM. All in favor, please raise your hands and say aye.

[1:17:40] Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody? Poles, please raise your hands nay. That motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much.

[1:17:46] The next item of business is the Edmund's automated traffic safety program and ordinance

[1:17:51] amending chapter.

[1:17:53] This will be facilitated this conversation by City Administrator Lukash, Chief Dawkins,

[1:18:00] and Mr. House, who is already on-screen.

[1:18:08] Ms. Lukash.

[1:18:20] Thank you so much.

[1:18:21] It is great to be here, Mayor, council president and members of the council.

[1:18:26] So, we are here in a second reading of this item, this Edmund's Audement of Traffic Safety Program.

[1:18:36] So, can you see my slide?

[1:18:38] Yes.

[1:18:39] Okay, perfect.

[1:18:40] Making sure.

[1:18:41] Okay, so we have the team with us again, this is again the second reading.

[1:18:45] So, we have some of the same slides that you saw last week,

[1:18:48] and then we've added some additional information to the presentation that we hope will address

[1:18:53] one of the questions that you have in the last point.

[1:18:57] So, again, second reading, and then the

[1:19:07] purpose of today's presentation is to bring

[1:19:10] this back to you for further discussion.

[1:19:13] And this was something that was asked for at the budget retreat that we had in July.

[1:19:17] And we've had several conversations about speeding.

[1:19:20] This is a common topic that comes up in with all of you in the community.

[1:19:25] And we wanted to bring you trends and data and some additional data that we talked about last week,

[1:19:32] and there will be opportunity for deliberation and there's an ordinance for your consideration.

[1:19:40] So, cheap dock and I believe it's what that's.

[1:19:43] It's an everyone here, me, okay?

[1:20:08] We're just going to recap what we presented last week. Again, the current program is

[1:20:17] We have five cameras of schools on cameras that are currently in place.

[1:20:25] All of those have the ability to run 24 hour enforcement with no additional cost to the city.

[1:20:34] And let's see here.

[1:20:37] Sorry, I'm going to use the phone and can't see there.

[1:20:41] And that current schools on operating schedule is 45 minutes during drop off and pick up drop off starts 30 minutes before school and 15 minutes after and pick up starts 15 minutes prior to the final bill and ends 30 minutes after.

[1:21:01] Chief, I'm in that interrupt you for a second council president.

[1:21:06] I know she's going in and out and when it goes out it really gets too quiet to hear.

[1:21:12] Thank you.

[1:21:14] Yeah, you are.

[1:21:15] It's going very much in and out in a pattern.

[1:21:18] So maybe if you can talk more closely to the microphone, hopefully that would help.

[1:21:24] And please continue with you or whoever was next.

[1:21:31] I believe this is very true.

[1:21:33] Or, no, I'm sorry,

[1:21:37] can we hear me now?

[1:21:39] So far.

[1:21:40] Okay, let's see if we can get through this year.

[1:21:48] So here, again, are the locations on the map of our five schools on cameras, as well as

[1:21:57] our red light cameras.

[1:22:00] And with those red light cameras, we have five cameras in two locations.

[1:22:05] We're

[1:22:08] still having that problem.

[1:22:17] I wonder if you were to maybe turn off your camera and hold the microphone more closely.

[1:22:23] I can try. Let me try one other thing.

[1:22:33] Are we okay to go to the next slide?

[1:22:36] Yes.

[1:22:38] Yes.

[1:22:39] Perhaps Bertrand can, and then he's going to cover the next few slides.

[1:22:43] Sure, I can go with that if you like, sure, good morning, I'll bring you an else translation

[1:22:49] museum. So this is just to show the magnitude of the speeding issue along those force

[1:22:57] puzzles. So there was a two-week study that was completed in summer of 2026. So from June

[1:23:03] 33 to July 6, as you can see from the results, it recorded all the vehicles that went over the

[1:23:12] that stretch and in terms of, there was approximately just under 6,000

[1:23:17] violations, 6 miles, 7 miles, and over the speed limit, and obviously this is

[1:23:24] during the, there's no squaduring so there will be the regular speed limit in

[1:23:29] place, then chase like it's pretty similar about 6,000 violations during that same

[1:23:33] time period. Obviously Westgate was the last, that's just the volumes are a little

[1:23:39] last, but it was still had 2000 violations, and then Scarvel Egg was a pretty high step

[1:23:44] 5000 as well. So as you can see it's an ongoing issues throughout the day along these

[1:23:52] schozons. Next slide please.

[1:23:57] And this is just, I mean I started a previous chart, this is actually

[1:24:00] to show, it's not just there are going 8 or 9 miles over the speed limit, there's a lot of

[1:24:05] 12 miles over the speed limit, if not 17 miles over the speed limit, which is always

[1:24:11] that's quite alarming. You've about 300 going to 12 miles over in what Edmunds would

[1:24:19] wait, that's on 76 and 212. And then the one that's really even greater, it's chase

[1:24:24] late, you got 700 and then you got 500 and a script were like, so if you do the math, you

[1:24:29] 100 or 700. Every day that comes up to about, it'll probably 30 or 40

[1:24:36] validations of that magnitude throughout the day. And then on 17 miles and over,

[1:24:42] 17, first miles over the speed limit, the main one is actually chasedly with almost 200.

[1:24:49] So you're looking at, that's probably about 10 to 15 every day right there. Next slide,

[1:24:57] please.

[1:24:57] I was, we basically added this like this.

[1:25:00] At our last meeting. So we ran the accident history along these four schools on the accident, there's four

[1:25:08] five stretches, because on the Edmonds, where do I have your school? There's 76 as well as

[1:25:13] two 12. As you can see, there are at the one year period. So we ran it from August 1st of 2025 to July 31st

[1:25:21] to 26. There's obviously numerous accidents that have been along all of the corridors. So it's just

[1:25:28] show you other. These are not all of them were speed-related. There are, there was quite a high

[1:25:33] number that were, if the speeds of the vehicles would have been lowered, that would have

[1:25:37] definitely potentially not created a collision.

[1:25:42] So, yeah, the 24-hour cameras will definitely

[1:25:44] help the quarter safety by reducing speeds. Next slide,

[1:25:53] please. Okay,

[1:26:00] can you hear me now?

[1:26:04] So animal impacts, this is a population of the city that we had not discussed.

[1:26:13] Our animal control officer responds to approximately 40 calls a year for deceased pets in a roadway

[1:26:20] who have been hit by a vehicle.

[1:26:23] In 24 hour cameras will help to improve the safety of either those impacts by reducing.

[1:26:32] It's happening again. Sorry.

[1:26:40] Hopefully we'll be able to get through it. Is this okay now?

[1:26:44] Yeah, but only for a few seconds, so please use your outside voice for a while and see if that works.

[1:26:58] Okay, so the...

[1:27:13] Okay, so this slide we had talked about last time, and it was a question that has come up so we can see this is for all of the cameras in the city both the red light cameras and the school zone cameras, but for that that full number about 24% of the recipients of the infractions are Edmund's residents and the 76% are non Edmund's residents, which we think is helpful as we have to conversation.

[1:27:42] And then Bertrand, I think you were going to talk a little bit, we added some data to the slide as well.

[1:27:50] So this is, we're providing some schools to come for comparisons that are being run right now.

[1:27:59] Within other cities in the area.

[1:28:01] So you have bell view, but though every fellow way can't, then we're redmin and seal and I'm not going to go over all that information.

[1:28:08] As you can see, the thresholds when, when is a fine back in place, it ranges.

[1:28:14] I mean, obviously this is all based on 20 mile an hour of school zones.

[1:28:17] Speel limits.

[1:28:18] So, both you got eight miles, and then bottle, you're one mile over, you're going to get a ticket.

[1:28:23] I've ever had some little moth and I've had some, that's eight miles, and then fed away

[1:28:29] similar to bottle, and then the other, the other series on the bottom of the chart, they're

[1:28:34] to 6 to 8 miles over the speed limit. So 20 to 26 to 28. And then some of them have fixed

[1:28:42] fine schedules. So it doesn't matter if you go on one miles over the threshold or 20 miles,

[1:28:48] you're going to get the same fee, the same fine that's shown on the last column. And then there's a

[1:28:53] couple of cities such as bottle fed away. Then when it's redmond that have it's more of a tiered approach,

[1:28:59] they give you a certain speed, a certain fine based on if you go on a couple miles over the threshold.

[1:29:04] But then if you're maybe 10 miles over the thresholds,

[1:29:08] you're going to think it could be doubled or maybe either $50,

[1:29:13] actually, or such as a minimum.

[1:29:15] Next slide, please.

[1:29:19] So what's speeding data shows, and this is based on some national research.

[1:29:23] Obviously, just as you can imagine, as you speed increases,

[1:29:28] and you had a question, your injuries, or substantial fatality

[1:29:33] increase. So if you have vehicle that's going to impact a pedestrian going at 20 miles an hour they've

[1:29:38] about a 5% chance of being a fatality. And obviously 95% will be a series or the pedestrian will

[1:29:48] survive the collision but then you can also, it doesn't show in the chart but also in terms of

[1:30:00] It all accident, but I'll see your high injury risk are going to go higher as well. And then just to show the impact of an increased speed if you're going to 40 miles an hour, such as we saw in that data where I showed you the range of how fast people are going throughout the difference.

[1:30:19] two zones during the off-school hours.

[1:30:22] I mean, that would be the scenario.

[1:30:23] If the best one is going to get hit,

[1:30:24] but one of those cars going 15 to 20 miles over the speed limit,

[1:30:30] or at 40 miles an hour, in this case,

[1:30:32] they have 85% chance of being killed.

[1:30:37] And this obviously applies to things

[1:30:38] to other active transmission users, such as cyclists,

[1:30:42] but like I said before vehicles,

[1:30:43] they're also our drivers of other vehicles

[1:30:46] want be as impacted,

[1:30:48] But there will definitely potentially be some serious injuries if as cars are going faster.

[1:30:54] So just another reason why we, the cameras are definitely something that's wanted and would improve the safety alarm many of our corridors.

[1:31:02] Next slide please.

[1:31:05] This used to show that this is also one that I was added just in terms of supporting plans that we've, that the council has approved or adopted in the past.

[1:31:16] And this is actually a safety action plan, it's something that was brought to Council earlier this year.

[1:31:24] And basically I just wanted to reiterate the goal of that plan, which was like I said completed in early 2026 still limiting the fatalities and serious injury collisions by 2040.

[1:31:35] The initial goal was to lower the fail and in serious injuries by 50% by 35

[1:31:42] With a city the city formerly we are valing the progress towards both those goals every five years

[1:31:49] So I mean that just like these cameras. It's to reduce speed and obviously to lower the number of

[1:31:56] Series injury or potentially for accidents for especially when you have drivers going on quarters are going at excessive rates of speed

[1:32:05] next slide please.

[1:32:09] This is just a map of proposed safety improvements. We've talked about before.

[1:32:17] It's this would be the goal of these cameras that have to improve the safety on these

[1:32:21] quarters or throughout the whole city. There's a lot of other safety transportation projects

[1:32:28] throughout the city and this is just to show you that obviously there are throughout the

[1:32:33] It's not just spread just in the downtown or in the southern part of the city, it's everywhere.

[1:32:41] So in the north end you can see there's a metal deal beach road.

[1:32:45] There's a sidewalk price that we're proposing there.

[1:32:48] Then just up the main street hill, there's potentially some bike lane improvement we're looking at.

[1:32:53] There's a couple other walkway prices, there's one right the one that's right next to the downtown Edmonds.

[1:32:58] It's on 7th, so that's a walkway project.

[1:33:01] There's also, in addition traffic to active transportation projects, there are also some

[1:33:06] capacity roadway projects.

[1:33:08] There's the S114 adaptive system from 226 to 236 as well as there's a 76 and 12th intersection

[1:33:17] improvement projects which were currently designed with some a grant and some city funding,

[1:33:25] but with this kind of funding from the cameras, that would be potentially for future grants

[1:33:30] could be some local matches. So that's with the purpose of those, the funds would be

[1:33:36] at enhanced the safety throughout the city. Next slide, please.

[1:33:45] Hi, Doc, should we give it one more chance? Please, we can hear you.

[1:33:49] Okay, fingers crossed that this works this time. Hopefully this is better. So for consideration,

[1:33:55] we're proposing to expand the current cameras to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[1:34:00] And the proposed fines for during the school zone in fraction hours are listed here.

[1:34:08] 6.10 over is $200 in greater than 10 miles per hour is $2.90.

[1:34:14] And then the proposed fines during the walk zone in fraction hours is $144 if it is

[1:34:22] if a person is speeding over six, excuse me, if their speed is greater than 6 miles per hour over.

[1:34:33] Okay, so this is our last slide, so this is the conclusion of our presentation.

[1:34:40] I did want to mention, so any expansions would include a warning period, and so that's important

[1:34:46] that would be an opportunity for a driver's to receive warnings before infections,

[1:34:52] real infections take place, and then we heard from our courts last week and I met again with

[1:34:57] of course, yesterday to talk about timing.

[1:35:00] Next month. And this is about safety. This proposal that we're bringing forth to.

[1:35:08] Can I add something? Oh, of course.

[1:35:10] I'm sorry, really quickly.

[1:35:13] So the one thing that I also wanted to emphasize is that a fairer mobility, the vendor that we use for the automated camera enforcement,

[1:35:23] advised us that the number of violations dropped significantly after that warning period.

[1:35:34] So while we have in the study that was conducted at the end of June until early July,

[1:35:41] we had a tremendous amount of speeding.

[1:35:43] The expectation is that those violations will automatically drop by over 50% after

[1:35:53] the goal life after that warning period. So while we expect, we expect, actually, we expect

[1:36:01] an immediate change in the behavior, which is what we're wanting to see. But for those that

[1:36:08] do not get the message that do not understand that safety is paramount and slowing down is what we're

[1:36:23] open for comments, questions, and or motion.

[1:36:32] Council member, EC.

[1:36:41] You muted.

[1:36:46] In thinking this through some of the questions that we've gotten our concerns have been around

[1:36:50] why, why expand in these particular areas?

[1:36:54] Well, the cameras are there already.

[1:36:58] And we have real data now as we've seen in an additional data today that shows there are real

[1:37:05] dangers, real risks to people's safety, whether they're pedestrians, or they're bicyclists,

[1:37:13] or even in another car, it's quite eye-popping to see these figures quite frankly.

[1:37:20] And you, I don't think, need to be apparent to really understand the safety risks here.

[1:37:26] I also have reached down really deep to try to empathize with those who just dislike these

[1:37:36] cameras to begin with and what I think is, well, the speed limits are there on every

[1:37:42] single road for a reason and with any other law that we have for our city, we expect people

[1:37:50] to comply and roles of the road are no different in my view. We don't get a pass on

[1:37:59] shoplifting so I'm really not trying to be to try by saying you know we're not going to get a pass

[1:38:08] on this either and we're not just talking hypotheticals again we have today to hear and

[1:38:16] And we have complaints almost daily across the city from community members concerned about

[1:38:23] the safety issues, whether it be people running stop signs, people not paying attention

[1:38:29] being on their phones, but most often than not around speeding.

[1:38:35] So I support us moving forward.

[1:38:38] I would make a motion, but I know that there are several other council members that would

[1:38:42] like to speak first.

[1:38:44] Thank you. I did try to, you all put your hands up very quickly. I think I'm close to having them in the right order. Councilmember NAND.

[1:38:52] I believe Councilmember Burnett is ahead of me there.

[1:38:57] This is right off of that. Councilmember Burnett.

[1:39:01] Yes, thank you. I am in support of the 24 hour operation of the school zone cameras. I did want to re-emphasize once more that this does not mean the reduced school zone speed will be

[1:39:13] up for 24 hours a day, so outside of the school zone hours the cameras would simply enforce the normal posted speed limits.

[1:39:22] I also really appreciate the no ticket buffer for minor speeding, the zero to five miles per hour.

[1:39:27] I think that that is completely reasonable.

[1:39:30] And I want to make sure that the signage that we do put up is very clear so that drivers know both the applicable speed for school hours and for the normal speed zone for those enforcement hours as well.

[1:39:43] And then there was one remaining concern that I think we'd seen through some of the citizen emails and comments was around a concern about neighborhood cut-through traffic and I would just like us, you know, if this does go forward and we do move ahead with the 24-hour cameras that...

[1:40:00] We monitor, then, you're by residential streets after implementation so that we're not simply shifting

[1:40:05] speeding or traffic into those neighborhoods. And if we do see an uptick that we take steps and measures

[1:40:12] to address that as well. But with those safeguards, I'm completely comfortable supporting

[1:40:17] turning these cameras on for 24 operation for the safety of all of our citizens. Thank you.

[1:40:23] How's it going to happen?

[1:40:26] Before I get my comments, I have a question for the city clerk or a parliamentarian.

[1:40:33] Please, let's go.

[1:40:35] Hi Luke, I was a Mr. Wolf.

[1:40:38] I was wondering, am I allowed to propose amendments before somebody has made the main motion?

[1:40:43] I don't believe I am.

[1:40:45] I would say no, you're not.

[1:40:47] Okay, I will loop back around with my amendments then. Thank you.

[1:40:50] So I'll just go ahead and make my initial comments.

[1:40:52] I voted in favor of placing the school zone cameras initially because the community was very strongly asking for them.

[1:41:03] There seemed to be a very tight nexus to public safety in the timing in which the school zone cameras were operating.

[1:41:12] And I felt very comfortable moving forward.

[1:41:14] However, I do have serious concerns about expanding these cameras and also the revenue generation potential.

[1:41:25] I am in no way defining our administration. Thank you, Mr. House, and Chief Dawkins, and, you know, Assistant Chief McClure,

[1:41:34] for your hard work on this presentation as directed by the mayor. But I will share my concerns about some of the revenue sharing

[1:41:41] that's proposed under these cameras.

[1:41:44] First of all, viromobility is a national company,

[1:41:47] the more cameras and the more, you know,

[1:41:50] the more hours in which they operate,

[1:41:52] the more profit that private company is going to make.

[1:41:55] And then also, there's proposed revenue sharing

[1:41:58] with the state after four years,

[1:42:00] 25% of the revenue generated by these cameras goes to the state.

[1:42:05] And as our, you know, judge, you know,

[1:42:08] has stated quite strongly the purpose of the courts is to minister justice. It's not to generate

[1:42:16] revenue from the city. We have the power of taxation to be able to fund city operations and traffic

[1:42:23] expansions. And I think that that is a more appropriate way in which to fund traffic safety improvements

[1:42:29] in which we seek to see. So I do have multiple concerns and I will be proposing amendments

[1:42:34] after one of my colleagues makes the main motion.

[1:42:38] Again, thank you for your hard work, but I'll unfortunately, I do have serious concerns about

[1:42:42] the punitive impact of $290 on people in our community, especially parents with young children.

[1:42:51] That could be a week's worth of groceries for their family, and I do find that find to be excessive,

[1:42:55] so I will be proposing amendments accordingly. Thank you.

[1:43:00] No, it's a president, Ash.

[1:43:05] Thank you.

[1:43:05] On the collision data, was there a note with their pedestrians or bikes or just car car or

[1:43:12] I just wanted to get clarity on that?

[1:43:17] That was a range.

[1:43:19] I don't have the design numbers in front, but yeah, range.

[1:43:21] There was some corridor where some pedestrians got hit.

[1:43:24] But most of them were vehicles or vehicle collisions though.

[1:43:28] I have not heard any.

[1:43:29] I mean, I've heard some other areas.

[1:43:30] getting pedestrians getting hit on crosswalks, that always stops downtown, but I don't know if

[1:43:36] I've heard any of that area recently, at least, so I'm just kind of curious to the difference.

[1:43:41] And if I, sorry, if I may add actually to lead a little bit more, I forgot to mention that,

[1:43:46] but there was actually a lot of all these accidents. There was one on, um, it was the scribble lake

[1:43:52] on a hundred, there was actually a fetal. That was, they didn't hit, uh, it was just a vehicle that

[1:43:56] question to the light pool but due to speeding but like I said before if there was a

[1:44:01] question I would have definitely been on the driver died but there would have been another

[1:44:06] feetality as well if there was a question or a bicycle in the area at that time. Yeah that was actually

[1:44:11] it like it was going. Okay thank you. Thanks man for chatting.

[1:45:00] Common, this is about public safety. This is known about revenue, generations, and the data.

[1:45:08] I appreciate cheap tokens and Mr. Bottrum and the people who are involved in this project to gather those evidence.

[1:45:19] and over and over again, it's all about public safety, so I'm going to support this motion

[1:45:27] to move forward. But just we have 15 minutes before the 1 o'clock. Thank you.

[1:45:39] Council member Olsen. Yes, regarding the process in general, I do want to make sure everybody

[1:45:45] understands that it's to capture violations only that it's not like a video that's constantly running

[1:45:52] and that it's based on the trigger speeds. So I know there have been some concerns about what

[1:45:57] gets saved in the system. I feel like our overall consideration as council members on this agenda item

[1:46:06] is about our overall culture, not just for visitors, but also for the people who live here and

[1:46:12] about balancing being welcoming and also having a safe environment for both the people who live here

[1:46:20] and the people who visit. So I just ask people to keep that bigger picture in mind about

[1:46:26] what overall coach culture we're promoting regarding being welcoming and safe. I do hope that

[1:46:32] there'll be a communications campaign regarding speeding an advance and for our safety and

[1:46:37] that we enforce the speed limit and the enforcement around the speed zones. I think somebody else

[1:46:46] already brought that up and I think that is a really important point for the law enforcement to

[1:46:54] periodically do emphasis controls on those surrounding streets for those who are avoiding

[1:47:01] where the cameras are and committing those violations and safety hazards elsewhere.

[1:47:06] And then lastly, I wanted to ask that the administration also evaluate the area on Main Street around the Francis Anderson Center.

[1:47:15] There's, there is a preschool there and it's a park and I've seen people completely, you know, blow through this.

[1:47:24] That area, you know, laid at night and not even stopping for the stop signs, which is obviously really dangerous.

[1:47:30] Even if there aren't a lot of people out, if there is that one person out, they're going to get moved down.

[1:47:34] So, thank you for the agenda item and look forward to the discussion on the amendments.

[1:47:41] I don't remember paying. We still do not have a motion.

[1:47:43] Yes. Well, I will take care of that, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate everyone's discussion during their presentations.

[1:47:53] and I will move that we adopt the ordinance amending chapter 8.10 ECC, automated traffic safety

[1:48:02] cameras to provide for 24-hour operations in the school's speed zones and the school walk zone

[1:48:09] cameras to provide the fine structure for school zone and school walk zone interactions come

[1:48:17] and to update definitions of statutory reference to confirm to conform to chapter 307 laws of 2024

[1:48:28] and chapter 1, 2, 3 laws of 2026. Is there a second?

[1:48:34] Thank you, I just to touch lightly on some of the comments that some of our council members

[1:48:42] here have made today. We're not expanding the number of cameras.

[1:48:45] We are just using the cameras more efficiently to support public safety across the city.

[1:48:55] It's our school zones where we have a lot of activity.

[1:48:58] Some of these are in neighborhood commercial centers.

[1:49:01] Some of these are just high volume, you know, family centered neighborhoods where we have a lot of people out there in the world,

[1:49:10] making these their tricks over to the school playgrounds, et cetera.

[1:49:14] So I am firmly in support of this expansion to 24 hours for our school zones and the school of

[1:49:22] walk zones and I hope that everyone recognizes the need that it's within their control and that is within

[1:49:30] our, you know, our ability to ask all of our residents and our visitors to just be very mindful of our

[1:49:39] school zones. Thank you.

[1:49:40] I also remember name.

[1:49:43] Thank you.

[1:49:44] I'd like to propose two amendments.

[1:49:46] The first amendment will be to language, which is on packet page 43 under 8.10.0.010G, which currently

[1:49:59] Stay.

[1:50:00] In school speed zones and on roadways within the school walk zones are authorized to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

[1:50:07] I would like to amend that language to indicate that the cameras would operate for 10 hours a day, five days a week so that they correlate more closely to school,

[1:50:18] school operating hours.

[1:50:22] Is there a second? Here he knows. Second, the amendment dies. You said you had a second one.

[1:50:29] I do. I would like to direct my colleagues towards packet page 45 out of 47 and specifically to the

[1:50:39] language under 8.10.050 finds B3 in which it states that, well let me find my own language

[1:50:53] first, it currently states that the fine finds four school zones, speed zones and school

[1:51:04] walk zone infractions, under section one cease as greater than 10 miles per hour over the post

[1:51:14] of school zones, be limit the fine will be $290. I would like to strike that and replace that

[1:51:21] with $200. Is there a second for that amendment?

[1:51:28] Hearing none, the amendment fails.

[1:51:29] Thank you.

[1:51:31] Council President Tosh.

[1:51:39] Try to quit here.

[1:51:42] You know, that was the last one.

[1:51:44] Ooh, goodness.

[1:51:46] I would like to move to a men's section B dot 2 school,

[1:51:53] walk zone infections under section 3,

[1:51:56] to strike the number 6 in subsections A and B,

[1:52:00] and replace it with the number 8.

[1:52:06] Just real quick, this is just for the walk zone hours, I think, implementing this program.

[1:52:13] I'm in favor of the 24-7 and safety and increasing of fractions during the school zone.

[1:52:20] One of the slides presented at school zone areas and not walk zone.

[1:52:26] So this is going to be a fairly new program and I do worry about cut-throughs.

[1:52:30] I know 76 especially when I first ran for council, they were really concerned about speeding and cut throughs in their neighborhood along that stretch and that's one of our main thoroughfares and I know there's the three schools which obviously during school hours is important, but I feel outside of those hours and when this is initially being proposed a higher threshold would be a more meaningful way to capture those speeders that we talked about during our budget retreat and not those that are just on the lower end.

[1:53:00] and the published results this days within that larger number, but doesn't capture just

[1:53:08] the very lowest end, so I hope that people will support this amendment. Thank you.

[1:53:16] I don't think Councilmember Olsen.

[1:53:18] This really goes to the committee made earlier about that balancing between welcoming

[1:53:22] and safety. I think this is the right move for us to make for these non-school hours.

[1:53:29] Thank you.

[1:53:32] I don't remember paying.

[1:53:34] Thank you.

[1:53:35] I'm not able to support this amendment for the reasons of safety.

[1:53:41] I understand that there might be some desire to offer a little bit more cushion, but just

[1:53:49] by looking at the fatality and risk for accidents based on speeding.

[1:53:57] That data is incontrovertible, so I am not able to support this.

[1:54:01] Thank you.

[1:54:03] Councilmember Nand.

[1:54:05] Thank you. I'm in support of this amendment.

[1:54:07] I do think one of the frustrations that we see with the cameras is that people often feel that they're receiving

[1:54:13] exorbitant fines for behavior that a human police officer would not pull them over for.

[1:54:18] I do think raising the threshold to 8 miles per hour over this speed limit does indicate that we are not doing this for revenue generation

[1:54:27] and that we are actually just trying to get people to slow down.

[1:54:30] So I think that that's a common sense, compromise.

[1:54:36] That's a member of that.

[1:54:37] Thank you, I'll try to be brief.

[1:54:39] When we're talking about speed limits of 20, 25, 30,

[1:54:44] the current exception of six miles and under

[1:54:47] is already pretty in generous in my view.

[1:54:50] Again, we're talking about areas within our neighborhoods.

[1:54:56] And they're already fundamentally

[1:54:57] and loves me, it's a worst thing.

[1:55:03] One last thought was because of the sheer number of violations initially, and the thought was a 40 hours for police time that this would also allow for that amount of time to be lowered, understanding the things for ideally lower over time, but we do have, these are literally just a few blocks in our entire city.

[1:55:24] We have a lot of, you know, distracted driving, you know, this we want capture, drunk driving,

[1:55:31] won't capture unless they're speeding to easily don't, they do into the slow down and

[1:55:36] leave around.

[1:55:37] So I do feel like rather have the enforcement time on other things as well.

[1:55:43] All right.

[1:55:43] The amendment, I'm sorry, is there somebody else who, what did I miss?

[1:55:49] All right.

[1:55:49] The amendment is to amend Section B to school walks on in fractions under Section 3,

[1:55:58] just write the number 6 in subsections A and B, and replace it with the number 8, that is the amendment.

[1:56:05] All in favor of that amendment, please raise your hands and say aye.

[1:56:08] They put the full screen up. Sorry, I'll see you later.

[1:56:11] It's not on screen. I just read it.

[1:56:14] No, no, no. The people. Sorry.

[1:56:20] All in favor of the amendment, please raise your hands and say hi.

[1:56:25] Opposed, please raise your hands and say nay.

[1:56:27] No, no.

[1:56:29] The motion fails for two,

[1:56:33] three.

[1:56:34] Can I get a little more, please?

[1:56:39] We'll call somebody.

[1:56:41] No.

[1:56:42] Call somebody.

[1:56:45] Oh no.

[1:56:47] There we go.

[1:56:48] No.

[1:56:50] Council member Barnett? No. Council President Dutch? Yes. Council member Olson? Yes.

[1:56:59] Council member Payne? No. Council member NAND? Yes.

[1:57:05] It is four nos and three yeses. Thank you.

[1:57:10] That brings us back to the main motion. All in favor of the main motion. Please raise your hands and say aye. Aye.

[1:57:19] All those opposed, please raise your hand and say nay.

[1:57:22] No.

[1:57:23] Motion carries five to two.

[1:57:26] Thank you.

[1:57:27] I believe that ends Council Business and as Council Member Chen informed, the Finance Committee will be starting at.

City Council - Special Meeting

Agenda

Transcript