City Council approves homeless, opioid funds as part of final budget; elects Mike Nelson 2018 president

Councilmember Mike Nelson is the 2018 Edmonds City Council President.

The Edmonds City Council Tuesday night approved an amended 2018 city budget that includes half a million dollars to address homeless and opioid addiction issues, $106,000 for a new police officer, a $41,250 contribution to the Snohomish County Health District and $130,000 for a climate/renewable energy consultant.

In addition, the council voted unanimously to appoint Councilmember Mike Nelson as its 2018 president, replacing 2017 Council President Tom Mesaros. Nelson, who was just re-elected to the council after running unopposed, has served for the past year as president pro tem.

Both Diane Buckshnis and Neil Tibbott were nominated to replace Nelson as council president pro tem. Buckshnis was elected to the job on a 4-3 vote.

Many of the budget additions approved by the council Tuesday night had been proposed by Nelson, and the council also passed some of the spending cuts he had proposed to pay for the new initiatives.

Those votes were not unanimous, however. Councilmembers Teitzel and Tibbott in particular expressed reservations about allocating $250,000 each toward addressing homelessness and opioid addiction when there was no accompanying plan for spending the money or for council oversight. Council President Mesaros proposed reducing the dollar amount to $150,000 for each of those funds — with the idea of adding more money later as plans are more fully developed — but that idea was rejected twice on a 3-4 vote (Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Nelson and Kristiana Johnson opposed).

Councilmember Buckshnis, who supported full funding of both measures, likened it to a fund the council established several years ago for Edmonds Marsh restoration — before there was a plan to use the money.

Added Fraley-Monillas: “This council put $200,000 away to help with the issues around the marsh and I think the least we could do is save the lives of women and children and families that are living on our streets for $50,000 more than what we did to save the marsh.”

The council cut several significant items that Edmonds Mayor Dave Earling and city staff had proposed as part of the draft budget. Among them: $72,000 for a federal lobbyist, $128,000  for a new capital projects manager to oversee upcoming parks and recreation initiatives, and $40,000 to remodel city conference rooms.

Nelson had also proposed cutting an assistant engineer position requested by the public works department, but that proposal failed on a 2-5 vote (Nelson and Fraley-Monillas voting for). And Nelson withdrew his earlier proposal to cut $253,00 designated to replace the city’s outdated phone system.

Some councilmembers questioned Earling’s effort, as part of his proposed budget, to assign $2 million for the future development of Civic Field. Buckshnis argued that the council should have a say in whether that money is designated for that purpose. “”That’s a lot of money,” she said.

“I believe that it’s our budget and we get to make the decision,” Councilmember Johnson added. “For myself, i would like to see us set aside for open space. And I would like to see more money for sidewalks. I would support a lesser amount (for Civic Field) to accomplish other goals.”

Johnson acknowledged that the $2 million committed by Earling to Civic Field as part of his budget may have helped the city get a recent $1.5 million contribution to the project from the Hazel Miller Foundation. “But boy, if we cut it in half I don’t think it will hurt us.”

Replied Earling: “If you diminish that $2 million I will veto the budget.” That $2 million “was made with a certain dynamic and it’s already gotten us another $1.5 million,” he added. “We need to show serious commitment. It’s not an intent to fritter away $2 million.”

In an attempt to address council concerns, Councilmember Teitzel made a motion to set up a specific $2 million Civic Field fund, but that measure was defeated 2-4 with Councilmember Buckshnis abstaining. Buckshnis said she abstained from voting ‘because the mayor said he was going to veto our budget; so it’s no longer our budget.”

“Let him veto it,” Fraley-Monllas added.

Among the other budget additions approved by the council Tuesday night:

– From Kristiana Johnson, $14,485 to increase the half-time parking enforcement officer to a three-quarter-time position.

– From Dave Teitzel, $15,000 for two radar feedback signs to assist with traffic calming.

– From Diana Buckshnis, $100,000 for a new Edmonds Marsh fund to support future restoration efforts.

– Also from Buckshnis, an amendment that changes the percentage of the budget that the city allocates to its contingency reserve fund from the mayor’s suggested amount of 16 percent to 14 percent.

– Councilmember Tibbott withdrew his proposal to designate $300,000 to fund an in-house crew of city employees that could keep up with sidewalk repairs and start to address the city’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. “I’m hopeful this is something we could add to the budget the following year,” Tibbott said, after additional planning is completed.

The council also:

– Agreed to a one-month extension of the city’s current agreement for backup police services with the Town of Woodway, while the two sides continue negotiating a new contract. Woodway separately is also trying to negotiate a contract with the City of Mountlake Terrace, Earling told the council. You can read more on that issue here.

– After a lengthy discussion, authorized the mayor to sign a professional services agreement for $917,494 with Parametrix for design services for the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector. The project includes a one-lane bridge from Edmonds Street to Brackett’s Landing that is aimed at providing an emergency connection when the railroad tracks are blocked. The rest of the time, the bridge can be used as for pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the waterfront.

The measure was approved 5-1 with Buckshnis voting no. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had to leave the meeting by the time this issue was raised.) Buckshnis said she can’t support the current project and instead favors having a crew of first responders stationed on the other side of the tracks.

Speaking about the project, Earling made it clear that he wasn’t pleased about the council’s decision to cut the lobbyist, stating that federal influence is critical to the city obtaining grant funding for key transportation projects. The city will work to acquire additional state funding for the estimated $30 million project, and that money will be used to show “good faith” for acquiring federal dollars.

When the state Legislature learns the city no longer has a Washington, D.C. lobbyist to work for federal funds, “we’re beginning to bury ourselves,” Earling said. “If we don’t have a federal lobbyist carrying the weight of probably $24-$25 million, it will provide a problem for us.”

Nelson replied that since the council had indeed eliminated the lobbyist, he had confidence that Earling could work with state and federal legislators to secure the needed funding. The mayor responded that he would be bringing Nelson — as the new council president — with him to lobby for such requests.

– Authorized a contract change order of $700,000 for the 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Southwest intersection project due to unanticipated work on a sewer line in the construction area.

– Approved the 2018-2023 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Plan.

– Received a presentation regarding a U.S. Department of Energy award recognizing the city’s efforts to promote solar energy.

– Approved the Edmonds Downtown Alliance 2018 budget and work plan.

— By Teresa Wippel

  1. Thanks, as always, for bringing the city council meeting decisions to our mailboxes…an invaluable service.

  2. I still can’t believe you allocate funds (tax payer monies) to a fund with no idea what is to be done with the epidemic. There is no plan in affect to deal with this HUGE problem, and throwing tax payer money at it won’t change the situation. You first need a plan. So far NO ONE in the US has figured it out. Giving our money to Snohomish County will not be the feel good answer to address this growing problem. first you need a plan or goal. Then you figure how much money or resources you will need to accomplish the goal. This sounds to me a slush fund of our money.

  3. I agree with addressing the drug and homeless problem, but not without a plan. It’s like launching a ship without knowing its dimensions, without a captain, navigation charts or any means to know when we’ve reached our final destination or ports of call along the uncharted trip. Please don’t play “Me too”, and dump money in a trough for potential waste.

  4. I agree with the Council that opioid addiction needs some allocation. I don’t know how the money would be allocated; could be punitive, could be funds on a more clinical approach. We we can all agree that Seattle’s approach to homelessness has only made it worse. Seattle is now the case study for how direct subsidies create more homelessness. The ultimate problem (which Portland has been able to make some ground in some areas) is that it is illegal to do marginally better than homeless. If you’re living in a tent, but now get an RV to live in, the City will tow it. If you get a job, you’ll be taxed and garnished for things like back child support. Going from homeless to affording $2k per month for an apartment is many incremental steps, and most are under the table. The city could do things like Portland did, ease building codes for transitional shelters (they call them “pods”). Those sort of strategies are free and don’t require allocations, but allocations can help if they aren’t squandered as hand-outs.

  5. Sometimes you need to “set aside” funds before you have a full plan. There are many instances where once you have a plan, the money is no longer available and/or reallocated to other programs and initiatives. Knowing what you have to work with allows for better planning and parameters for the funds you know you have to work with, as opposed to a theoretical amount that may not be available later.

    1. Alicia, In business, setting aside money before you have a plan is pretty normal. So I know what you mean. Its tremendously expensive to bid contracts and you have no idea if you’d win them even if you bid. Im trying to secure capital Im my business without a full plan as we speak. That said, most ventures fail. Its more difficult to justify not having a plan when tax payer money is allocated. We need a fresh approach to addiction and homelessness. Shelters create dependence. Gotta find a way for poorest ppl to live in society and allow incremental improvements in their living conditions, such as pods, campers, etc.

      1. Matthew, I’m in agreement with you (as a former corporate banker). I think now that the money has been set aside, discussions around what’s feasible can happen. Now that I work for an organization that focused on helping the homeless, I also agree with you that creating shelters shouldn’t be seen as an end-all/permanent solution. I (and my organization) are big believers of creating programs around rapid rehousing and economic empowerment programs around job training. YWCA currently have programs that train people to work in banking and medical fields, many that our clients participate, graduate and now have gainful employment.

        1. Many props to YMCA, one of my favorite organizations. My family recently made a sizable donation of tooling and equipment to Goodwill in AZ, which they are using for skills development programs for gang-affiliated minors. I really like the private sector approach. As much as I am for government approaches, I’m also for means testing. Im also okay with those who are happy to just drink and panhandle and who really have no inclination beyond that. Its a diverse society with plenty of room.

  6. Thank you Teresa for providing the summary to an exhausting meeting.

    Voting Edmonds citizens please stop co-mingling subjects!

    There is no doubt there are wonderful organizations that could use an influx of money to enhance their good work to address homelessness and addiction. This action by our council now invites the beggars to show up touting their need and put’s the council in the power position of allocating funds “our money”. Whom on the council is a certified addiction expert? Whom on the council is the homelessness expert?

    Stay focused on the subject -> The Edmonds City Council just approved the dedication of spending yours and my/”our” money, without any type of plan. “Mom/Dad, I scommand you dedicate a percentage of our family income to address a problem. There are countless examples of wasted money already spent on this problem, but I believe I can resolve the issue without industry or professional guidance. Just take away from your rainy day fund, improvements to our home or lifestyle. At some point, we’ll come up with a plan to spend the money you’ve set aside.”

    Please!! We’ve seen this story before, money set aside to address city needs only to magically disappear.

    * Has anyone forgot we’re paying twice for street overlays? There was money set aside, spent elsewhere by the powers at be and yet we pay again. Is any citizen happy with the condition of Edmonds streets?
    * Previous city administration’s agreed to Edmonds living by climate/renewable energy standards, but never budgeted on-going accountability and guidance. Hmm, smells like allocating money with out a plan to me. We’re being “told” we’re spending another $130K to just establish a way point for the money already spent.
    * $917,494 with Parametrix for design services for the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector. This is just a drop in the bucket of the future dollars coming. Let’s say the city builds this bridge for the estimated $29M. Has anyone from the city provided an estimated annual budget for this bridge post build? Earthquake, ground settling post construction, human safety?

    Please citizens: Stay focused on how our money is being spent and trust your personal values as to the correct decisions.

    1. Oh yeah and I forgot more joy coming our way related to money spent with no plan or accountability;

      We were told just a few short weeks ago, citizens have spent their money to build sidewalks and curbs according to an Edmonds government master plan. Yet we now require an additional $11M of our dollars to fix 8,000 non-ADA compliant curbs (we already paid for) to become compliant with federal regulations. This doesn’t include the +$100M master plan revealed when we were told were 8,000 curbs require action.

      Can any voting citizen, current council member or Mayor Earling provide justification for our money to be spent on a bridge that may truly be required less than once a year. Instead of directing the money toward our non-ADA compliant sidewalk infrastructure? The condition of our sidewalk infrastructure has a daily impact on thousands of Edmonds citizens daily and is not something a visitor would brag about to their friends.

      I can’t be the only person seeing more of the same fiscal antics we’ve seen from previous council’s and mayor’s.

      1. “we’re paying twice for street overlays” <- We pay twice for K-12 funding; once in the form of taxes, then in the form of levies. Washington state legislature is in contempt of the Washington State Supreme court because of budget tricks where money allocated for kids is being spent on fire trucks and pension plans [and whatever] instead, then using levies "for the kids" to get extra money. Allocating money to a slush fund is at least honestly-dishonest as far as governance goes, and it feels good to say it's for homeless people. We're not being lied to about it being a slush fund at least. Let's pay for the plan before we write it before we read it.
        https://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsnorthwest/2014/09/11/supreme-court-finds-legislature-in-contempt-on-education-funding/

        That said, homelessness and opiod addiction is real concern. I read that 1% of homes in this area have detached domiciles (mother in-law apartments). It would be pretty tough to build one in this town given the expensive permitting process, zoning, rental regulations, and neighbors who would complain that a homeless person was living in a structure in another person's back yard. No would go through the effort of developing $300/mo living spaces (something homeless people could afford) when it would cost them more than that to set up and a year to permit (even if getting a permit for such a thing in this town were possible). The Council has it within their power (for free) to try some of the deregulation and de-zoning that seems to be working in Portland. It's a strategy that seems to be tried, shown promise many times, and shut down by City Councils in many cities [see video from reason]:
        https://reason.com/reasontv/2016/12/09/los-angeles-homeless-tiny-houses
        At the heart of the issue is that communities are not tolerant to people who aren't living in permanent structures with elevators and CO2 detectors.

      2. EP or MR Help me understand the comment “we are paying twice for street overlays” I cannot understand the comment and need to understand before making an informed comment.

        1. I didn’t fully understand that comment either. I’ve lived in Edmonds [going on] 7 years. I’ve seen incremental improvements to the side walks since here, and as I’ve read in MyEdmondsNews, those improvements weren’t compliant with federal ADA standards and will need to be redone (paid for twice). I am not 100% sure; there could have been some other appropriation for side walks that was squandered. Ed? I walk to work every day. The side walks are fantastic and I really think the city is doing an amazing job with that. We got flowers hanging everywhere. It’s a beautiful town. However, a friend of my uses a chair, she has a tough time with some transitions that are rough in several places. [Some] relatively small amount of money could be spent to grind down the bumps on those transitions, but even incremental improvements like that not compliant with ADA width and slope standards which will require more than a hundred million dollars to comply with. The irony is that disabled people I know just need the bumps at the transitions tweaked to be taken care of, but that would be money wasted if the whole transition is redone to make them federally compliant. The mayor seeks grants, and they can be contingent on retrofit compliance which will cost us a lot of money. It might not be worth it.

  7. Councilwoman Buckshnis: Thank you for your position for a more effective waterfront emergency safety contingency plan. And thank you for being willing to put the Civic Field fund on the chopping block (we’re still a LONG ways from $10M!) plus the added $128k for a CPM seemed high, too.

  8. At this time, it might be helpful to review what the City has done with the $250,000 set aside in the Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund and the $250,000 set aside in the Edmonds Opioid Response Fund.
    What plans were developed to provide aid? Assuming plans were developed, how did our City government execute the plans?
    The 2019 Budget Summary indicates that not a penny was spent out of either fund to respond to homelessness or to respond to Opioid issues. However, the 2020 Budget Summary seems to indicate that $24,557 was spent out of the Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund at some time during 2019, so let’s assume that happened. The 2019 Budget Summary represents that $200,000 was transferred from the Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund to the Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund. This is a mistake in the 2019 Adopted Budget as the $200,000 transferred to the Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund was taken from the Edmonds Opioid Response Fund.
    The 2020 Budget Summary indicates that we will have the following Fund Balances at the end of 2020:
    Fund 018 – Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund – $225,443
    Fund 019 – Edmonds Opioid Response Fund – $28,445
    If true, that will mean that only $46,112 of the $500,000 (9.22%) budgeted to address homeless and opioid addiction issues will be used for those purposes during the 3 years ending December 31, 2020.
    Has anybody heard of any plans developed to use more of these funds between now and year end?
    Has the City really not used over 90% of the funds originally budgeted for in December of 2017 during a time where there was and is such great need? Or am I missing something?

  9. Hi Ken, some added history as I understand it.
    Homeless $250k, Authorized in Dec 2017, $25k spend on Kone consulting to do assessment in 2018 Presented to council Feb 2019. I thought the study was well done and provided some interesting “data” on which to ponder how we should and could respond. That left $225k.

    (An aside but an important issue in Edmonds was getting access to the study. It was not posted on the web and search did not produce the study. After a publics records request, I was given a link to the council packet with hundreds of pages in it and told I could find it there. Yes the 65 page report was indeed buried in the council packet! Wrote to Council members and finely it was posted on the Council page but still not found by search. But now you can find it on the right side of the council page. We can do better on public information.)

    Attending several committee meetings some on council we trying to pursue how best to use these remaining $250k. Several of us had proposed to the School Board and SB staff to find a way to provide shelter to the 24 kids in ESD who did not have shelter. Lynnwood pursued it with the idea of buying and converting the Rodway Inn. Cost was very large and would have cost more than building sheltered space on property the EDS already owned. Good idea to pursue shelter but the execution was too costly. Meanwhile some council members were trying to get the elected in south Snohomish County to work on the issue. As I understand the politics (it was election time) some who were in charge of the public agenda simply did not what a public discussion on Homeless issues, The public was already angry and speaking out about low barrier housing and all that and fuel on that fire would not be good for some candidates in that election. Some of that last remark while sounding political was actually gained by talking to council members and putting the puzzle together. I think the current council has discussed the idea of using some of that homeless money and giving it to needy folks as part of the CV response. The ESD always has unsheltered kids. Over the years it has ranged from 17 to 25. Best statistical guess is the “Edmonds” portion of that number is never over 10. So our $225 fund would help each of the Edmonds kids to the tune of $22k or more.

    Opioid Fund; Indeed $200k has been transfered out but I cannot find out where it was transferred to when looking at the budget. Ken your information may well be correct. I guess one could do a public records request to find out but that should not have to be the way the public finds information. We should find better ways to keep the public informed and find better ways to allow the public to get information. When I was on the Citizens Technology Advisory Committee. (and I am not speaking for them with what follows these are my personal opinions) the who issue of information availability was widely discussed. I have made a couple of 3 minute inputs to council over the years talking about public information and I often suggest that the way the City want the citizens to get information is to go Helen Hunt for it. We can do better.

    Some of our budget stuff is like the pea under the 3 walnut shells at the circus. Find it if you can. Move it around enough and folks may not see it. It would be helpful for Edmonds if we were indeed finally given a voice in the budget process though the Budgeting By Priorities. Now more than ever it is truly important. I really don’t care if we do it by Code, Ordinance, Resolution, Emergency Order or what ever. Let’s “Just Do It.”

  10. Thanks for the additional history Darrol. I find it to be of great concern that over 90% of the money budgeted for these two significant needs sat untouched for such a long time and that 40% of it ($200,000) was eventually transferred to the Marsh Restoration and Preservation Fund. Page 68 of the 2019 Adopted Budget states the following:

    Function:
    The Edmonds Opioid Response Fund (019) was established through Ordinance No. 4105 effective April 6, 2018. The fund was established to provide moneys with which to alleviate the problem of opioid addiction in Edmonds and the surrounding area.

    2019 Budget Changes:
    Council amendment added $200,000 for a transfer to the Marsh Restoration Fund.

    I encourage others to read the December 5, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes which include powerful Audience Comments about these issues. One Audience Comment made by a current Councilmember before she was on Council discussed:

    “In June 2016 homelessness was one of the top five ideas at Mayor Earling’s town hall. In August 2017, Mayor Earling announced appointments to a housing strategy task force, stating many groups in the region are working on housing and homelessness issues and the City needed its own approach, one that recognizes good examples from others but tailored to our community, our people and our needs. It has been a slow start locally to begin discussing these issues and once the task force presents its findings this spring, funds will be needed to begin implementation.”

    Funds were allocated and the great majority of the funds have remained unused. How is that possible?

    Councilmember Luke Distelhorst is now proposing a transfer $100,000 from the existing Homelessness Response Fund to assist Edmonds residents on limited incomes who have been financially impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak. Funding would come from a transfer of up to $100,000 from the existing Homelessness Response Fund.

    The City Council agenda packet for tomorrow’s April 28, 2020 Council meeting confirms that $225,443 of the original $250,000 remains unspent in this fund (General Fund, Edmonds Homelessness Response Subfund 018).

    I salute Councilmember Distelhorst’s efforts to actually get this money in the hands of those who need it. At the same time, I must ask: Why did it take a pandemic to start the flow of this money to people who need it? Homelessness problems were well known long before the Covid-19 outbreak, and the money was budgeted. As stated earlier: In June 2016 homelessness was one of the top five ideas at Mayor Earling’s town hall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.