Loading...
2024-11-04 Council Special Minutes AEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES November 4, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS Council President Olson thanked the Council, City Clerk Scott Passey, Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe and Mayor Rosen for attending the workshop last Saturday, relaying she thought it was very fruitful and there was a lot of creative conversations regarding the revenue side of the ledger. Ms. Dunscombe has prepared some questions to guide the council's conversation. She will ask Ms. Dunscombe her opinion and pros and cons regarding items and councilmembers are also welcome to ask questions. Once these questions are concluded, councilmembers can offer their thoughts, guiding principles for the budget process, etc. With regard to the first question, council touched on this at Saturday's workshop and she wanted to ensure there was a meeting of the minds. Is borrowing $7.5 million the appropriate amount or could a smaller amount suffice given other budget reductions? Council President Olson relayed she hoped greater cuts, such as $2-3 million, could be identified and a smaller amount borrowed. Those cuts will be hard, but she has been broke before, she was unsure if anyone else in the room can relate to that. When she went through that, the idea of what they were choosing not to spend versus what they were literally financing to have the things they were bringing into their household made the calculus different with regard to what they spent money on versus choosing to spend money that literally is or isn't in your bank account. This is a different position because the loan has to be repaid. For context, she compared it to counting on getting a good job in the future and maybe you are working toward getting ready for that or getting a degree, but that good job isn't lined up yet. Similarly, the levy hasn't been approved and the public hasn't agreed to RFA annexation yet. The less that can be borrowed, the less unstable the City's footing is going forward until the council knows what it is dealing with in the future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 1 COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO INTERNALLY BORROW $7.5 MILLION THROUGH THE INTERFUND LOAN PROCESS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Chen recalled the loan was discussed during the revenue generation workshop, but he was glad it had been brought up here for further consideration. In his personal view, the council needs to find ways to reduce the amount it borrows because internal borrowing, although easier, the utility fund is an enterprise fund and there are potential challenges and it is always good to have that enterprise fund reserved for operations. There are other ways the council can find opportunities to make cuts. For example, the $2.2 million contingency reserve was established for this purpose and the council can use those funds. There are other potential reorganizations, efficiencies in the administration's operations, that can restructure some departments' operations where it makes sense and to generate some savings. He summarized he would like to reduce the amount that is borrowed. Councilmember Eck commented there are no great options and the City is in a crisis. On one hand cuts are being considered that are quite painful and on the other hand, the council is continuing to look at all options. Although she has not made up her mind, because of the drastic nature of the situation, she was inclined to take the whole loan so no more staff had to be cut and then council realizes down the line that the cuts were too stringent. Councilmember Paine was glad the council was having this discussion at a somewhat regular council meeting. She asked about the repayment schedule for utility borrowing versus borrowing from the contingency reserve. Ms. Dunscombe answered what is proposed in the budget is a plan for paying back the internal fund loans on a ten year basis. Although she assumed a ten year payback, the State Auditor's Office (SAO), wants to see interfund loans paid back within three years. The amount included in the budget as a potential principal and interest payment isn't what SAO would want to see, but she wanted to set aside some funds in the budget to obligate repayment of that loan. Ms. Dunscombe continued, using the contingency fund was one of the options she noted for how to start this conversation during the deliberation process. If the council decides it wants to use the $2 million contingency fund, a decision would need to be made whether it would offset the $7.5 million to reduce the amount that is borrowed, whether to reduce the interfund loan and use the contingency, or other some other option. She can describe all the options, but the option included in the budget was to leave the contingency fund in full in the budget so there is still $2 million in the budget that is not appropriated in the proposed budget. Obviously, council can make a different decision; she felt leaving that reserve alone signaled a greater consideration to the amount the council wanted to borrow. She wanted to be more fiscally conservative in leaving the $2 million to force everyone to think about service levels provided to the community and priorities and leave that fund intact. Once it is spent, it is harder to figure out how to replenish it back to normal reserve levels. That was the reason she left the $2 million contingency fund in the budget. Mayor Rosen commented the opportunity that might exist if annexation takes place and if a levy lid lift is approved, depending on the level that the council approves and the voters approve it, potentially the internal loan could be repaid in full in 2026. Councilmember Paine asked the risk to the City's bond rating if the contingency reserve is spent. Ms. Dunscombe said if Councilmember Paine was seeking an exact answer such as the rate the City can borrow at, she did not have that number. She knew it would be a consideration, fund balance was always a consideration in the bond rating. She didn't know from a general government standpoint if the City was looking at borrowing or issuing bonds in the near term; it hasn't been something on her radar given the current CIP, the level of REET revenue the City is receiving and other revenue sources that provide funding for capital projects, but it certainly should be a consideration. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 2 Councilmember Paine said she was also asking because if funds are borrowed from the utility funds, there are some 20 year utility bonds coming up. She asked the risk to the City's ability to bond for long term utility and enterprise fund bonds for transportation, stormwater, wastewater, road projects, or other things that Public Works typically bonds for. She relayed her understanding $7.5 million was the absolute max that could be borrowed without impacting the ability to do the work. Ms. Dunscombe explained the analysis she did to determine if $7.5 million was doable for the utilities, she considered operating expenses and the current financial policies regarding utility reserves. She considered the amount to be borrowed, the amount in unreserved fund balance perspective. The budget book details fund balance for the utilities into four different categories. While the unrestricted balance in the budget does not equate exactly to the working capital which is prescribed in the financial policies, they are the most closely related. Using the unreserved fund balance shown in the budget is more conservative than just using working capital which is in the financial policies. She considered by fund and by year the amount required by the reserve policy plus the year's capital expenditures. She wanted to consider by borrowing $7.5 million from a utility to assist the General Fund, does that utility have enough to cover its reserves and enough to pay for the next year's capital. By the end of 2026, she recalled the water fund was getting close to the borderline of paying for 2027 capital projects. That was the analysis she did to determine that the utility funds could afford to loan the General Fund $7.5 million in 2025 and $5 million in 2026. Ms. Dunscombe explained when the City went through the bonding process this past spring/summer for the water and storm fund bond issuance, the City had a great rating considering the utilities alone; it did not consider whether the General Fund was in a position to need borrowing or if the general government side of the house was okay. It was strictly a great bond rating for the utility funds. Councilmember Paine commented she was not particularly in favor of borrowing into the contingency reserve and would like to find other funds in the budget through other mechanisms which will be important to long term stability, not just one year at a time. Stability also means having knowledge, guarantees and estimates about what is anticipated next year in terms of reorganizations and how that will affect operations. Consideration needs to be given to continuing to become more efficient which will be difficult because the City is already one of the lowest staffed cities for its size in the community. She was unsure staffing could get any tighter, there already are 40 positions not funded. The council needs to sharpen its pencil to find ways to do this and do it in ways that offer a lot of equity. She wanted to highlight and spotlight the need to focus on equity inside this budget because it seems out of balance. She wanted to ensure whatever is done is done with equity across all the positions and finding a good balance with the amount the council decides to borrow. She summarized the council will need to consider all its options. Councilmember Dotsch echoed Councilmember Chen's caution regarding the amount of borrowing, commenting it was basically taking out a credit card and digging the hole deeper with interest over the next two years without a defined source of revenue and going on a hope and a prayer. She asked if there was an opportunity to not borrow from the utility funds and borrow from the equipment rental fund instead. Ms. Dunscombe answered it is not recommended to borrow from the ER&R fund; the SAO is pretty strict on making sure those funds are for a purpose. There are rules around that and it is restricted money. The council could change the rate based on needs, but the council would need to focus on reducing needs for replacement vehicles in the ER&R fund and less on the expense on the rate side to the General Fund to be able to have the GF positively affected. Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was an opportunity to borrow $3 million from that fund. Ms. Dunscombe answered she did not think so. She knew there were a few items that had been raised for discussion such as police vehicles. The administration hasn't totally committed to a take home vehicle policy, but it's close. There are a lot of considerations related to that and it should definitely be a topic for the council and administration to discuss more formally, but that won't be $3 million. Councilmember Dotsch said she was very cautious about borrowing from the utility funds, their purpose is community health and safety and if there is a default on the loans, that is a big issue. The community will Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 3 be paying the interest on the loan as part of their taxes so it is another burden and not just gaining money from that account. She was hopeful the council could identify ways to reduce the amount borrowed from the utility funds. Councilmember Tibbott emphasized borrowing is something to resist as much as possible. He appreciated the prudence demonstrated by borrowing internally rather than outside. He echoed what other councilmembers have said about not using the contingency reserve. He preferred to maintain a reserve for true emergencies that are urgent and unexpected expenses. For example, there are times when an unusual amount of snow or even potentially a toxic spill when the City would need reserves readily available. He recalled from the Saturday workshop Ms. Dunscombe saying the loan would only be drawn upon as needed. He asked if she anticipated that draw would happen monthly or quarterly, via an amendment brought to council, or something else. Ms. Dunscombe answered she probably would draw on it monthly if needed given the ordinance is written in such a way that it allows the General Fund to borrow up to $7.5 million or whatever that number ends up being through the budget process. Given the 2024 experience, that doesn't have to be every single month. The General Fund was in a negative cash position the first couple months of the year; property tax comes in April and a couple months into the future the cashflow returned to a negative position. She anticipated borrowing on a monthly basis and ensuring an analysis is done so the cash is above zero through 2025. Councilmember Tibbott suggested the council would be interested in knowing when those draws happen as part of the monthly budget reports. Ms. Dunscombe anticipated it would be part of the monthly financial report in 2025. Councilmember Tibbott reminded everyone that the budget cuts presented by City staff are for services, programs and employees. There are cuts proposed across the spectrum of the City and when that happens, the expectation will be that service times will be longer such as obtaining a permit, or when a program is eliminated, citizens may have to look for other activities the City provides or utilize programs in other cities. With regard to staff, it is regrettable that some positions will go away, but the council wants to be prudent about bringing back positions that absolutely allow the City to fulfill essential services. He summarized cuts have been made across the board, not in one particular area. Councilmember Chen said he valued this discussion tremendously, but in terms of how much to borrow and how much levy lid lift to ask the citizens to approve, it is too early in the process to determine those amounts. By the end of the budget deliberation when all the budget amendments are voted on, the council will have a better understanding of how much the loan needs to be. Councilmember Nand commented when she looks at the date on the calendar, 11/4/24, she doesn't know how the community and hardworking City staff can be left in limbo. There are career public servants facing a pink slip after devoting decades in some cases of their lives toward bettering the community including staff in the police department and public works who actually risk their lives to serve the community. She felt the council owed it to them to follow the finance department's recommendation and authorize a $7.5 million internal loan. She acknowledged there was a structural budget gap that the council spent its way into over the last four years, but wanted to buy time for hardworking staff to figure that out in 2025. There are reserves and if she was a City employee, she would find it odd to hear the council didn't value them enough to tap into reserves to retain them. She strongly encouraged councilmembers to retain the City's talent. Councilmember Eck expressed her appreciation for the points being made by councilmembers. She did not support using reserves or the contingency fund as she did not think that was a smart idea. She agreed with Councilmember Tibbott, recalling she tried to make the point last week that it cannot be communicated enough to the community the impact on response times and services; citizens will feel a difference. In considering whether to borrow $7.5 million from the utilities in an internal loan, she wondered why the council wouldn't take everything they possibly can. The council is making cuts that are really severe for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 4 the community. It is not just to save jobs, it is what the community will experience. She summarized nothing in this situation was ideal. Councilmember Dotsch asked if anyone had looked into working with Verdant. They are involved with health and safety, maybe they could help support an embedded social worker. She knew they give out a lot of grants and taxpayers in Edmonds continue to fund Verdant. Ms. Dunscombe responded the City has received Verdant grants in the past. In asking Deputy Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Shannon Burley whether the City would benefit from any Verdant grants in the 2025/2026 biennium, she indicated Verdant is moving away from things that the City has benefitted from in the past and whether they would be doing other things that the City could benefit from in the future hasn't been explored yet. It was decided not to include anything in the 2025/202 budget. That doesn't mean funds won't be available in the future, but she wasn't confident enough to include funds in the 2025/2026 budget. She tends to be fiscally reserved when budgeting revenues and she felt the grant agreement was close to being done so she didn't include it in the budget. She likes the revenue forecast to be solid before including it in budget; with regard to Verdant in the next biennium, the answer was it wasn't available for the purposes the City has used them in the past. Mayor Rosen relayed he meets with Verdant on a pretty regular basis. The City has benefitted directly from Verdant, they support the community paramedic outreach program, partnering on social services in the community and reducing call levels. The intent of that program is to help people before they need to go to the emergency room, reduce police calls, etc. Verdant significantly changed their donating profile last year; they used to give a much broader number of grants and recently focused on a very critical few. Councilmember Dotsch commented it would seem a social worker would be right up their alley. She recalled when she attended the Edmonds Police Awards Ceremony, there was mention of the number of calls they respond to at the hospital, Edmonds Police responding to assist people from other communities who are at the hospital. She wondered if there was a way to ask for more help, anticipating more call volume when the hotel on Highway 99, which is a county facility, opens next year. It is Edmonds' burden because the hospital is located within the City and she wondered if other jurisdictions were supporting Edmonds police responding to calls at the hospital. Council President Olson referred to an earlier comment about operating reserves, pointing out operating reserves are very slim at this point. The operating reserve at yearend is forecast to be $800,000. She asked Ms. Dunscombe to confirm that amount. Ms. Dunscombe said she did not consider fund balance a reserve at all, but that was the forecast amount. Council President Olson observed that was fund balance not operating reserves. She asked if there were any operating reserves besides the emergency contingency. Ms. Dunscombe shook her head and Council President Olson confirmed there were no operating reserves. To the question of why not take all we can, Council President Olson said it is because it has to be repaid and at some point it is a struggle to make the loan payments and when the loan payments can't be made, that's called bankruptcy. She summarized that is why the council doesn't want to borrow any more than they have to in order to get by in the interim until the revenue side of things is addressed. As hard as this is, it is the council's responsibility. Council President Olson offered the following amendment, noting it is a not a huge move from the amount in the budget, but if the council could commit to finding another $1 million to reduce the amount to be borrowed, that would be a good place the start, acknowledging the council is working hard on revenues and hopefully will be able to have budget amendments during the year to bring the borrowing amount down further. She suggested a $6.5 million loan as the target for balancing the budget instead of $7.5 million. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED TO BORROW $6.5 MILLION IN THIS BUDGET RATHER THAN $7.5 MILLION AND LEAVING THE EMERGENCY RESERVES INTACT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 5 Mayor Rosen asked how the council would find the $1 million in cuts. Council President Olson answered in collaboration with the administration. Council President Olson took the lack of a second to her motion to mean the council was not ready to commit to a loan amount tonight. Councilmember Nand reiterated she was disappointed the council was unwilling to make a commitment tonight to follow Ms. Dunscombe and her staff s recommendation to authorize an interfund loan of $7.5 million. The council needs to build as much certainty into the 2025/2026 budget as possible, especially when non -represented employees are already being asked to furlough for the next year, do 100% of the work they are doing this year on 13% less income. She was considering fairness to City staff and retention of talent, commenting the City can keep training great people and they can go to other cities once Edmonds has invested the time and effort in training them or Edmonds can be a hospitable environment to work in and retain its civil servants for decades which she felt should be the goal of City government. Councilmember Chen asked how the council will be reviewing the budget, whether it will be account by account, line item by line item or pick and choose which items to vote on. He pointed out borrowing was one of the numerous items included in the budget book. Mayor Rosen recalled on Saturday the council agreed to a process of using an amendment form to make amendments and councilmembers were encouraged to look at them programmatically instead of line by line. The deadline for submitting those is November 13. Councilmember Chen commented the budget amendments will impact the amount that needs to be borrowed. If the loan amount is determined now, that is working backwards. Ms. Dunscombe thanked the council for allowing her to participate via Zoom. Her thought process for the council's first budget deliberation process was to agree on whether $7.5 million was the right amount given the positions that will remain vacant and are proposed to be laid off. Agreeing on whether $7.5 million was the right starting place was the first question. It appears there are four councilmembers who do not agree the $7.5 million loan is the right amount. If council decides $7.5 million is not the right amount, the next question is whether to use contingency reserves to reduce the loan amount. There are also some councilmembers who do not want to use reserves to reduce the loan amount. Once decisions are made on whether to leave the contingency reserve intact or not and if $7.5 million is not the correct number, the council needs to look at programs in the budget book and evaluate how they contribute to community priorities in the community survey, and using the scoring to determine what programs are essential, what can the City not reduce, what is non-negotiable, what needs to be fully funded? Once the ones that are off the table and need to be fully funded are identified, the consideration can be given to what programs can be considered for reduction or reduced schedule or delayed to the next biennium. She reiterated the first question to be answered was whether $7.5 million was the right amount. Councilmember Paine commented it is clear to her that $7.5 million is the right amount. To councilmembers who have mentioned the importance of staff, she totally agrees and the council needs to find a way to ensure as many staff members as possible are retained. She was hopeful amendments will be provided early enough so councilmembers have time to consider what they will support. Ms. Dunscombe commented if the council decides $7.5 million is the right number, there is no fund balance to borrow from. So every time an amendment is made, as was said on Saturday, there will need to be an offset. Mayor Rosen recalled council agreed to that at Saturday's meeting. Councilmember Eck sensed it was important to give Ms. Dunscombe an answer tonight regarding the internal loan amount so things aren't held up. She did not think the council should be hasty but felt providing her an answer tonight was reasonable. Mayor Rosen responded it is possible the council could make amendments that would lower the amount. During deliberations, the council can continue to make cuts or identify revenue opportunities so the motion could be no more than $7.5 million. Councilmember Eck Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 6 recalled Ms. Dunscombe saying amounts would be transferred a little at a time so even if the council approved a $7.5 million loan to give leeway, chances are not all of it will be needed. Ms. Dunscombe answered it sends a good signal to the community regarding what services the council feels are non-negotiable, required and identified as priorities by the community and the level they should be delivered. By agreeing to the $7.5 million in the proposed budget, that is the starting point and there will be amendments during the deliberation process. If the $7.5 million is correct and that level of service is what the council wants to provide to the community based on the survey and the scoring exercises, consideration should be given to 2026 to figure out if the proposed $5 million internal fund loan is the right number. COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE $7.5 MILLION AMOUNT TO GIVE TO STAFF SO THEY HAVE THAT AMOUNT AS A STARTING POINT. Councilmember Dotsch recalled Ms. Dunscombe explained the way the $7.5 million amount was determined was that was the amount that did not fully rob the utility funds and impact their work. The $7.5 million is not a set amount, it is the maximum that can be borrowed and not harm the work the utilities do in the community. She recalled the $5 million in 2026 was based on the same calculation. She did not have a sense of what the correct number was and she was concerned repaying that amount was a risk for the City. The budget currently shows the City going insolvent in 2027. She preferred the council do more moving around through the budget, noting the Saturday revenue workshop was very helpful. If the council plans to ask taxpayers for more money, the council needs to look at all options to avoid spending beyond its means. Edmonds only has so much revenue and the businesses it has; there is potential for more revenue in the longer term and some options for short term. Mayor Rosen reminded the motion was to approve the amount in the budget. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion, commenting the idea of up to $7.5 million was embedded into the motion, but not more than $7.5 million. To the extent this facilitates the budget conversation, it is worthy to approve it tonight to allow council to continue its deliberations. He hoped the council will be able to identify additional cuts to reduce the $7.5 million amount. MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson recalled Ms. Dunscombe saying the approach that will work best is for councilmembers to identify programs that can be cut versus line items or staff positions. For example, she traveled this year she saw the difference in the way parks are maintained in Rome and Florence; Florence maintained their parks much like Edmonds and they were beautiful and perfect. She thanked Parks for the amazing job they do maintaining Edmonds parks, but it is an option to mow once a month instead of once a week which is absolutely what she saw in Rome. She didn't love it as much, but it was okay, people were still enjoying the parks. There could be a carve out or exceptions for the ballfields, but the rest of the park mowed just once a month. 2. TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES AS PART OF THE 2024 TRANSPORTATION PLAN City Engineer Rob English introduced Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss who commented the title of this item was misleading as the intent was to review a Proposed Multi -Use Paths Revision (as part of Transportation Plan Update) • Background: o —100 Transportation Projects were listed in preliminary project list (preliminary estimate > $550 million) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 7 o Multi -use paths (MUP) projects were identified on State Routes (based on WSDOT Complete Streets Policy) 0 14 MUP Projects were identified on arterial and collector streets (=>preliminary estimate of —$125 million/covering total distance of — 10 miles) Non-MMLOS Project Map Aw DN3.331 ti YYYI0-1 } IM6YYOY•iwYl! � rYYYYIYW � ArpF ma rY� aMniJ yI1J eMan03 ■ M' rr • MMLOS Project Ma LEGEND Project TY N � Bue Leree tna.er �tneYerwYw "��'+. R t ■ iteeY«eY C �Intna.'uan tnelYa �..nn_ EOm.'M{ CW lerb =° t n y. s • Proposed Revision o Due to the high cost of non-MMLOS MUP's projects and low probability of securing grants to build them, removal of MUP projects on all arterials and collectors except ones on MMLOS Project Map: ■ Olympic View Dr. from 76"' Ave. to City Limits (MUP-01); ■ 228"' St. SW from 95"' Pl. W to Highway 99 (MUP-13); ■ 220"' St. SW from 76"' Ave. W to Highway 99 (MUP-21); ■ 212"' St. SW from 72nd Ave. W to Highway 99 (MUP-22); AND o Total number of projects Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 8 ■ Reduction from 100 projects to 90 projects o Preliminary estimate of all projects ■ Reduction from —$550 million to —$455 million o Reduction of MUP distance on collector and arterial streets ■ Reduction from 10 miles to 2 miles • Roadway & Intersection Projects 1 ,END A m,e.se,aai Pm,tt1 N = rwOray Prged Ebnatla c" 11-i �s 0 i s 0 -a - s a • Active Transportation Pro' ects LEGEND = t P'.0c, TYM = BYu Leas = N114 Ux PM . = SbvwaB BkNwalk rq BEM — l.slw = Trau 1 0 Fulnq � EEmonO, Uy 4mlia • Recommendation o Staff recommends keeping MUPs on State Routes and removing from collector/arterial streets except for the following stretches: ■ Olympic View Dr. from 76"' Ave. to City Limits (MUP-01) ■ 228"' St. SW from 95" Pl. W to Highway 99 (MUP-13) ■ 220"' St. SW from 76"' Ave. W to Highway 99 (MUP-21) ■ 212'h St. SW from 72nd Ave. W to Highway 99 (MUP-22) o Transportation Committee and North Sound Bicycle Advocacy Group support this recommendation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 9 Mayor Rosen asked if staff was seeking a decision from council tonight. Mr. Hauss answered yes, the Transportation Plan process is looking at prioritization of cost estimates; no further work would be done on the cost estimates for the projects to be removed. Councilmember Chen asked for confirmation with this proposal MUPs on Highway 99, SR-104 and SR- 524 would remain and MUPs on the smaller arterials would be removed. Mr. Hauss answered that was correct. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF MULTI -USE PATH PROJECTS ALONG MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS AS PROPOSED. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion, asking for confirmation that connectivity to new transit options will be prioritized. Mr. Hauss answered that was correct. Councilmember Tibbott commented this proposal would focus efforts on projects that have the highest possibility of getting grant funding. Mr. Hauss answered that is somewhat considered in the priority. Councilmember Paine commented one of the emails the Transportation Committee received pointed out multimodal levels of service can also be funded through impact fees. She asked if these projects would be eligible for impact fees if they were not on the list. Mr. Hauss answered if they are not shown in the plan at all, that indicates they are not a priority for the City over the next 20 years. Councilmember Paine commented impact fees are another funding opportunity in addition to grants. Mr. Hauss commented on average 10 projects would cost $100 million so $10 million each; impact fees would not provide that level of funding. The City was unlikely to secure grants for those because they would not fare well with other projects and most would require a local match. Councilmember Dotsch observed 196th narrows as it goes east and asked where the additional right-of-way would come from to accommodate the addition of a 10-foot wide sidewalk. Mr. Hauss answered the path is identified in the planning document, but further study would be required. He acknowledged there would be a significant right-of-way take. On the segment east of Olympic View Drive to 88th, grade differences on both sides would make that challenging and that has been identified as needs further study. In some areas where the 2-way left turn lane is pretty wide, there may be an opportunity to reduce the lane width. These have not been studied in great detail, this is just identifying preliminary cost estimates but a lot more work would need to be done. Councilmember Dotsch commented some days she turns there, it is backed up from 76th to the top of the hill almost to the fire station. She did not see a need for a MUP on 196th because no one walks on 196th because there is nothing to walk to other than housing and one church. She suggested 200th instead. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE 196TH MULTI -USE PATH FROM THIS AND APPROVE THE REST. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mayor Rosen restated the motion: TO APPROVAL THE REMOVAL OF MULTI -USE PATH PROJECTS ALONG MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE FOUR NOTED, OLYMPIC VIEW DR. FROM 76TH AVE. TO CITY LIMITS, 228TH ST. SW FROM 95TH PL. W TO HIGHWAY 99, 220TH ST. SW FROM 76TH AVE. W TO HIGHWAY 99 AND 212TH ST. SW FROM 72" AVE. W TO HIGHWAY 99 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 10 Mayor Rosen pointed out at the upcoming regular meeting, there was 45 minutes scheduled for budget deliberations. With the discussion that just occurred, he suggested council consider whether they wanted to continue that discussion. Council President Olson commented it was her sense there may not be content for continued budget deliberations at the regular meeting. Obviously she wanted to have deliberations if there were things that councilmembers wanted to talk about. She suggested during approval of the agenda the agenda item related to Council 2025-26 Budget Deliberations be removed. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 6:38 pm. C5;� SCOTT PASSE CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 4, 2024 Page 11