Loading...
2024-12-03 Council MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 3, 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/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Rod Sniffen, Assistant Police Chief Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm., Culture & Econ. Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND COUNCIL BUSINESS, MOVING ITEM 10.1, COUNCIL 2025-2026 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, TO FOLLOW ITEM 10.5, POLICE COMMAND STRUCTURE COMPS, SO THE COUNCIL CAN RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION FROM THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BEFORE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 1 CONSIDER THE BEVY OF AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. MAYOR'S FINANCE UPDATE Mayor Rosen relayed during the budget agenda item, there will be an update on the current status of the budget process reflecting the changes council approved at the last meeting. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, explained she spent several years doing enterprise budgeting at a large utility. What council has done in the 2-year budget is backward; finalizing the General Fund expenditure budget without knowing revenues with any degree of certainty. Expense budgeting is supposed to be at a number less than revenues. The public has very little information about plans to increase property taxes through a vote on a new ballot measure, possibly as soon as next year. There are far too many unknowns in the revenue forecast; it is so vague it can't really be called a forecast. She felt she had been dealt into a poker game with the council and mayor holding the revenue cards close to their vest and the vibe of the poker game is whether or not the RFA annexation be approved which has a $6.5 million impact on budget assumptions, whether the new fee -based revenue streams will be $3 million or $5 million or some other amount, and how big the new property tax levy lid lift be will. She acknowledged the need to raise property taxes and believed it was important to have layoffs at this time. She urged the council to return in January and do their revenue budgeting work and deal her out of this poker game with all the revenue unknowns and stop borrowing money because she can't afford it. Will Morris, Marysville, President, Edmonds Police Officer Association, relayed the membership's concern that not enough was being done to cut the city's budget to allow them to continue to serve the citizens of Edmonds. They think it would be a great disservice if the council does not continue to cut the budget and are forced into looking at contracting police services through Snohomish County Sheriffs Office. That is the members' biggest concern because being unable to serve the citizens of Edmonds would be a large disservice to them. He relayed the members' suggestion that the council cut another $1-2 million from the police budget. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, invited everyone to Holiday Night at the Marina on December 12 from 6 to 8 pm, a free event that includes fun festivities including live music, Santa, snowball toss, glow stick station, tour of the whale watching boat, warm up with hot apple cider and cookies, and food trucks. Mike McMurray, Edmonds, commented while watching Hallmark movies, he notices every town is low profile like Edmonds. A lot of the character of downtown Edmonds is keeping the low profile for the core area from 3rd and 6th which is generally 2 stories and 30 feet which his development on 01i & Main stayed within, illustrating that new development can occur in downtown Edmonds. He referred to tonight's 800 page packet, pointing out in comparing the proposed future land use map on page 357 with the current map, he noticed an expansion of commercial mixed use which he assumed would include residential. The 800- page packet doesn't mention any height restriction which is a big deal in Edmonds; the 30-foot limit has existed for about 50 years and is probably one of the reason downtown Edmonds looks the way it does and it would be a mistake not to protect that. The city council has an opportunity to protect the town's character and leave that 3-4 block area the same to ensure downtown stays low profile. He was concerned with backdoor incentives and manipulation; imagining the outrage if his building had been 4 stories. When running for office, councilmembers made promises to maintain the town's character; if the council intends Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 2 to rush the comprehensive plan, there is no reason not to add that the downtown core needs to be respected and retain the 30-height limit. A lot of development will occur due to the state mandates, but not every square inch of the town needs to be redeveloped. Pamela Crumpacker, Edmonds, relayed she and her husband, now retired, were business owners in Seattle's Central District for many years. She thanked Council President Olson for responding to her email that expressed concern with each property owner being assessed $1000, a large amount considering Snohomish County also raised their taxes. Tax increases result in citizens having less money to spend at local businesses which will affect those businesses. She suggested the city and state needed departments of government efficiency. She requested the council reconsider that property tax increase and instead cut departments and lay off employees. She asked whether state mandates imposed during the past four years had resulted in skyrocketing property taxes. Mayor Rosen relayed public comments are not an opportunity to respond to comment; he encouraged Ms. Crumpacker to email her questions to councilmembers or to him. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, following up on an email sent today, wondered how councilmembers feel about the Edmonds City Code and the importance of following the rule of law. The hearing examiner position is established by statute and requires appointment by the mayor. The item on tonight's consent agenda confirming the hearing examiner does not include appointment of Phil Olbrechts by the mayor, there is only a third party claim by the planning department that Mr. Olbrechts is his appointment. The request for council confirmation does not include a written or negotiated contract; the planning department and the mayor are requesting a blank check. The definition of foolishness is doing something over and over again and expecting a much different result. The city has good cause to terminate both the Lighthouse and hearing examiner contracts; both Phil Olbrechts and Sharon Cates are Washington State Bar members and both have a sworn duty to obey and interpret the Edmonds City Code. Both participated in the violation of Edmonds City Code 10.35.010.A, a one year contract which he attached to his email, signed by Sharon Cates and Phil Olbrechts, that didn't include mayor appointment or council confirmation and did not include a term of four years. Individuals are cited for violating city and state laws every day, but when employees and contractors violate Edmonds law, there is no accountability. He summarized good government includes transparency and accountability. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented approximately a year ago, the former hearing examiner executed a one- year contract with a former director that involved a $20/hour pay raise; both parties did so with full knowledge that the former hearing examiner had not been appointed or confirmed to do anything past December 31, 2023. Lighthouse Law Group approved the contract as to form with full knowledge that the former hearing examiner had not been appointed or confirmed to do anything past December 31, 2023. He asked whether Lighthouse should be held accountable for that conduct. On March 29, 2023, he informed city officials the hearing examiner contract would expire at the end of 2023, expressing his hope the Edmonds city government would not overlook that for the third time, and suggesting all his questions and more should be considered prior to confirming the mayor's appointment for a four-year term starting I/1/24. Despite that, a 4-year appointment did not occur for the four years commencing 1/l/24. City staff even documents on packet page 54 that the hearing examiner must be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by city council for a period of four years. ECC 10.35 was the law in December 2023 and he questioned why it wasn't respected. He wished the hearing examiner system worked in Edmonds, but history shows that is simply not the case. He recommended the council consider ending the use of a hearing examiner system and urged the council to remove confirmation of the hearing from the consent agenda and give the issue the attention it deserves. He also urged the council to consider other insurance alternatives; WCIA is not the only option available and the city may be able to save money and get better coverage elsewhere. He requested the council issue an RFP for city attorney services, recalling that has only been done once since 1968. If Lighthouse Law Group is the best candidate, they will win the bidding process. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 3 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER ECK MOVED, SECONDED BY PAINE, TO AMEND THE NOVEMBER 11, 2024 MINUTES PER THE EMAIL SENT OUT TODAY WITH UPDATED WORDING. Councilmember Eck requested the minutes be updated and approved on a future consent. Council President Olson raised a point of clarification, relaying because the memo was sent out in advance, the minutes could be approved as amended per the email from the clerk. City Clerk Scott Passey agreed if all councilmembers saw the memo and the proposed changed, the minutes could be approved tonight on consent. Councilmember Eck advised that was acceptable to her. Councilmember Nand asked when the email was sent out. Councilmember Eck answered it was an email from Mr. Passey summarizing the correction. The correction was related to the summary of her comments which she felt was incorrect so she requested they be updated. Councilmember Nand said after reviewing the requested change, she was comfortable approving it tonight. COUNCILMEMBER ECK WITHDREW HER MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDING THE MINUTES THAT WERE CORRECTED BY THE CLERK'S MEMO. Councilmember Dotsch advised she did not see that email. A councilmember showed Councilmember Dotsch the correction. Councilmember Dotsch asked for clarification regarding the correction. Councilmember Eck explained her comment was specifically related to asking community members to have empathy in mind when talking about city staff and cuts to the budget. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2024 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2024 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. CONFIRMATION OF HEARING EXAMINER 5. 2025 UPDATE OF FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT 9. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE/EMS SERVICES OPTIONS Council President Olson stated she was happy to have the audience here and the council looked forward to their input and comments. She referred to the special meeting held tonight at 5:30 pm regarding the potential RFA annexation. For anyone who missed that meeting and would like to review the video, it will be available tomorrow. This has been a long conversation and an opportunity to begin looking at the specific details and facts of the annexation which were not available until a week ago. If audience members were basing their opinions on things they heard more than a week ago, that was partial information and she hoped they would partake of all the information going forward. Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing, commenting individuals corresponding via email or other formats are also part of the public record and the council's deliberations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 4 Theresa Hutchison, Edmonds, commented it's evident some councilmembers have taken money from the RFA to help support their campaigns for city council. The PDC makes note of this and the endorsement signs across campaign yard signs tell one all they need to know. These councilmembers are conflicted and should not have a vote on the RFA annexation. Those on the negotiating team who have taken money from the RFA have negotiated in bad faith, negotiating against the voters and their families. She understood councilmembers were all well intentioned and given the RFA was identified as the preferred option, had been negotiating against themselves. The city's team was negotiating with professional RFA negotiators and were outsmarted and out negotiated before they even started, sheep thrown to the wolves and the council let that happen. The council needs to delay annexation to negotiate with the RFA for a much lower cost 2026 contract and give Edmonds and its taxpayers time to evaluate the alternatives. The voters will watch to see how councilmembers whose campaigns were supported by the RFA vote on the RFA annexation. In the spirit of full transparency, councilmembers should have a sign at their seat on the dais reading, "campaign supported by the RFA." The city needs to balance its budget immediately, but the council is unwilling to eliminate even one job. Boeing just announced plans to lay off 17,000 employees; many other companies have laid off hundreds and thousands of employees to remain solvent, yet the council can't bring themselves to eliminate any employees, saying it is heartless to do so. She questioned whether it was heartless to push the RFA annexation, raise Edmonds property taxes on young families, veterans many of whom are on disability, and senior citizens. Bill Krepick, Woodway, said he is working with a variety of Edmonds residents on the RFA issue and submitted a petition signed by 80 Edmonds residents opposed to annexation, 80 responses to only 250 emails, an impressive 32% response rate that included zero responses in favor of annexation. These 80 residents are asking to delay annexation until 2026 after the city has negotiated a reasonable 1-year contract with the RFA and done due diligence on the feasibility and potential cost savings of having a fire/EMS interlocal agreement with Everett or Mukilteo or both or having an Edmonds -run fire department. The council put themselves and the taxpayers in an untenable position by proclaiming in May that the RFA was the preferred and least costly alternative, relying on a flawed, incomplete, and biased Fitch Associate consultant report to make that decision. Mr. Krepick continued, the council failed to get any concessions in negotiations with the RFA and lost $1.4 million worth of transport credits and the ownership of three fire stations and failed to get any cost analysis from the RFA or any justification for the 65% increase in the 2026 price compared to the current $11.5 million. Residents of Everett and Mukilteo pay about $300/person/year for safe and responsive fire and EMS service. Edmonds residents will pay over $450/year/resident based on the new RFA proposal for annexation, 50% more than Everett and Mukilteo pay. This vast difference in cost for service shows how the RFA has failed to lower their costs and failed to deliver on their highly touted regional economies of scale. Instead of penalizing taxpayers, the council should support taxpayers and demand an RFA cost - accounting audit complete with analysis of every employee's overtime and idle hours. He questioned why the only people supporting annexation are firefighters, RFA management and the Edmonds City Council, recalling the council refused to measure cost per capita, cost per service call and efficiency metrics. Mario Rossi, Edmonds, was troubled by the news that the city administration plans to annex its fire and EMS department to the RFA with terms that look very favorable to its finances and residents as well in a time when Edmonds and its residents are financially struggling. The terms include the RFA raising charges from $11.5 million to $19 million which would increase the property tax on a $1 million home by over $950, further straining many residents' finances. Interestingly, this sudden increase occurs when services are being transferred, not before. The terms also include the city transferring ownership of fire stations to the RFA for free and allowing the RFA to sell them back to Edmonds in the future. In normal times, this would raise eyebrows, however, in a time when city is struggling and looking to raise taxes even more, this seems utterly absurd and sounds like banana republic type business. The blue ribbon team created by Mayor Rosen feel like the cost cutting measures and other solutions they proposed are not being heard, measures that did not include RFA annexation. If the council cannot figure out how to manage the expense of reckless Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 5 spending, what did they expect from the population, many of whom are living paycheck to paycheck and resorting to food banks to eat. He asked how they were supposed to pay absurd tax increases that are not well explained; whether they are supposed to tax their cats and dogs or sell themselves into slavery. He questioned why the RFA believes it has the right to charge the population based on property value, assuming a more expensive house catches fire as easily as a house of lower value. He questioned why the RFA does not monitor its expenses, can charge as much as they want and whether they would continue to increase the price in the future. He urged the council not to betray the trust of the people who voted for them. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, asked how the city got here, commenting looking back, it was a convoluted story. The prior administration seems to have worked behind the scenes, outside the public and council, to encourage the RFA to send a contract cancellation notice. The prior administration also proposed a resolution to study annexation with the RFA, with whom they were working behind the scenes to cancel the city's contract. The council at that time voted 4-3 to adopt that resolution and continue with evaluating annexation, with what was going on behind the scenes unbeknownst to them. The Fitch report was commissioned and there were a lot of questions with it. The RFA then cancels the city's contract, after the election and before the new administration is sworn in. During that interim when they already knew a new administration was coming in, there were no attempts to negotiate the current contract. The council approves moving forward with annexation after the RFA "divorced" the city and wants to "remarry" under the terms of the annexation agreement. He personally did not think the terms between the city and RFA were negotiated in good faith on the RFA's part, and the end result is a flawed Annexation Agreement. The city did not set up a parallel process to explore opportunities outside annexing to the RFA which he suggested be done. While these negotiations were occurring, the RFA has withheld millions of dollars from the city under the current contract. Patricia Evelad, Edmonds, commented this is a soap opera by numbers, a $20 million deficit and it doesn't look good for the next two years. The city collected $12 million for fire and EMS, of which the city kept $6.2 million to plug the deficit hole and now want to contract with the RFA that has a $10 million deficit and says unless they get the $10 million, they cannot provide the same services. The city is supposed to help the RFA at their expense while they owe the city $7 million which they are not paying because they are in a hole. The $6.2 million that the city kept plus the $7 million the RFA owes the city would go a long way toward covering the city's $20 million deficit which is only the beginning because the city needs to cut expenses in order to not default. In the proposed contract, the RFA wants the city to give them the fire stations and if the contract with the RFA is ever severed, the city would be allowed to buy them back from the RFA; she anticipated the mafia would give the city a better deal than that. She found it ridiculous for the city to give assets to the RFA when they are charging more for services than they charge anyone else. Councilmembers who received campaign contributions from the RFA should recuse themselves from the decision due to a conflict of interest. She is totally against it; every year her taxes have gone up. This contract is the result of intellectual laziness and rather than being the best contract, it is the worst. The voters will remember who voted for RFA annexation. Clint Wright, Edmonds, relayed his strong belief that Edmonds giving up its own fire department was a huge blunder and he had no intention of voting for annexation or any additional levies the council proposed in the near future. If annexation and other levies the council is contemplating pass, his property taxes will increase at least $1000/year. The public needs to be aware that the increase will average $100/month on apartment rents and mortgages in Edmonds. Julie Johnson, Edmonds, commented their home needs a new roof and they started the process by getting bids from three contractors. This same process should be followed for city's fire/EMS protection. This will be a huge, expensive, forever change that will be hard to get out of, yet the council seems to be in a great hurry to annex into the RFA without considering a second option. She hoped the council was not using this as a way to help the budget problem. The council owes taxpayers due diligence, it isn't just homeowners' finances at stake, it is also businesses. Edmonds has a spending problem and the city government must live Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 6 within its means. It's time to cut the budget down to basics. Sadly, she had no confidence this council could make a practical decision regarding the RFA. The council has seemed intrenched from the beginning that annexing into the RFA is the only answer. It also feels like the council and mayor are against taxpayers rather than with them. She questioned why the council was fighting with constituents when there are more of them than there are councilmembers and they vote. She is not the only person who feels this way; residents are frustrated the council is acting in a way that does not represent the citizens who elected them and there has not been any meaningful public outreach or transparency. When she asks various people, nearly 100% of her Edmonds neighbors have little or no knowledge about the RFA annexation which she found quite shocking; people are unable to vote correctly when they don't know what they are voting on. She cited other significant RFA flaws which include the deficit with the RFA, it is not Edmonds' duty to plug their deficit particularly when the city has its own; significant transport fees not paid to Edmonds by SCF, the $6.2 million that will be withheld from taxpayers, and the city signing over two fire stations to the RFA for free. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, relayed her serious concern about the business management of this fire agency, expressing her appreciation for the fire commissioner observing the public hearing. She wondered how the city's cost plus overhead contract got so far out of alignment with the RFA's taxing of their own customers. The city's $11.5 million compared to $19 million is a big jump and doesn't make sense. Only monopolies can get away with the size annual increase the RFA is offering in their 2026 temporary contract, not public sector agencies. She wondered why the city was not negotiating increases spread over several years in the ILA like a business would and why the RFA wasn't opening their books to the city and to show what their overhead costs were. As a retired cost accountant, she would love to see the RFA's books. She didn't accept the notion that she heard at a November commission meeting that other cities are subsidizing Edmonds; a cost plus overhead pricing model cannot be compared to a property tax/assessed value model on a city by city basis. An RFA pools the risk of fire or medical events happening amongst a large population and their large overhead costs are spread over the entire service area. If overhead costs go up, the RFA should renegotiate the contract with Edmonds, not force an annexation vote. Ms. Hollis continued, if RFA commissioners want to continue using the subsidy or parity argument, an Edmonds parcel has a higher assessed value than property in Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace. If Edmonds voters approve annexation, Edmonds property owners will be subsidizing those two cities for infinity. Mayor Rosen ran a community survey earlier this year to ask what services were important and to priority rank them; fast fire and EMS response was the number one public service priority. She pointed out the RFA has a problem in their response time to the most common type of incident, basic life support. Before residents are asked to vote on annexation, she asked the RFA to provide a plan for improving on their performance and start delivering performance that meets or beats their own standards. She asked why the RFA didn't publish their annual reports for their total service area; according to RCW 52.33, it is the law and other RFAs are doing it. She summarized Edmonds is not ready for an annexation vote next spring and it is not right to ask residents to make an irreversible decision on annexation when the RFA doesn't disclose operating information for their service area as required by law. Peter Scott, Edmonds, said he had a lot of concern when looking at the pricing structure the RFA intends to bill the Edmonds for services after breaking their contract. He asked what cost cutting measures the RFA had instituted to reduce their overhead, noting the benefit package they provide firefighters is grossly out of line. People say it is because of the job. He asked whether random drug tests were done of firefighters driving ambulances and fire trucks at excessive speeds. When he attended Brier's RFA annexation meetings, he was concerned when 20+ firefighters lined the back wall and he didn't feel comfortable speaking out regarding this matter because a company they own has investments in Brier. RFA firefighters worked without a contract for a number of years, but then received large pay raises, they work unbelievable amounts of overtime, and some firefighters make over $200,000/year. He acknowledged it was dangerous work, but in his opinion, they were grossly overpaid which needed to end. For that reason he asked the city council to pursue other proposals for residents to consider. If the city does annex into the RFA, he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 7 recommended the city not give up the fire stations, but instead lease the stations to the RFA for $1/year and the RFA be responsible for all building maintenance. He recommended the city not give away property or equipment to the RFA. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented when former Mayor Gary Haakenson recommended the city contract with South County Fire, it was supposed to save the city money, something this negotiation with the RFA has completely lost sight of. Back when Laura Hall was the mayor, there was a successful annexation in the South Country Fire area which included Sherwood, Woodway High School, and the Alderwood area, only the Esperance bubble wasn't annexed. Annexation of the Esperance bubble failed twice and South County Firefighters doorbelled and campaigned against that annexation. South County Fire paid the city $298,000/year to supply fire service for Esperance and Edmonds also supplied fire service to Woodway. He urged the city not to give away its assets and suggested hiring a fire chief this year and begin investigating how to restore the city's fire department in a cost efficient way. Mayor Rosen thanked everyone who participated and those observing both in council chambers and online; it is a testimony to how strongly they feel about this issue. The public can continue to reach out to councilmembers via email and public comments at future meetings. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 2. 2024 TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced City Engineer Rob English and Paul Sharman and Patrick Lynch, Transpo Group. Since the last presentation to council, a project list and prioritization of the projects have been developed. He reviewed: hamonas i ransoortation vision "Edmonds is a charming and welcoming Pedestrians city offering outstanding quality of life with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, 'qpSingle Bicycles safe streets, parks, and a thriving arts Public Transit scene shaped in a way to promote healthier lifestyles, climate resiliency, and Commercial/Freight access to the natural beauty of our High OccupancyVehicle COnlnlulllty." Occupancy Vehicle Mr. Sharman reviewed • Roadway & Intersection Projects Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 8 I FGFND A o Intersection Improvements • Intersection Protect Ra�wa, Pro,e ■ Traffic signal E°°°°°rLme ■ Mini roundabout ■ Mid -block crossings ■ Additional travel lanes o Corridor improvements ■ Signal adaptive systems ■ Revitalization projects ■ Access management ca Active 1 ranS ortatlon Froects LEGEND _ A o Active Transportation Network Proja TYce e M°N U. PaN ■ Segments from 2015 plan e Si°ewalk (Lag) r =Si°awMR,SM1°°, ■ Alignment with land use growth S,d- L� e9 alternatives e BiLo Lams 2— 4 Faro°°°=�i" i" Improvements needed for Active Transportation LOS `green' o A few routes will require additional study Lsw given geometric constraints (OVD & 196"' aQ St SW) .eP< 4- 3 n _ • rotai rroject Losts Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 9 , Percent of 0 87 Projects ImprovernentType ' ' ' ' 51 sidewalk Transportation Capital ProjectO 1 11 Roadway Roadway $ 291,850,000 47% a 9 Multiuse paths 8 bike lanes Multi Use Path $ 111,070,000 18% ■ 8 intersections Intersection $ 24,710,000 4% Sidewalk - Long $ 106,980,000 17% o SR 99 Revitalization project stages total $243M — 39% of entire capital Sidewalk -Short $ s,soo,000 1% costs Bike Lanes $ 18,120,000 3% Pavement Preservation $ 56,000,000 9% Subtotal Capital Projects $ 617,230,000 100% Transportation Maintenance & Operations (M & 0) Programs General Maintenance $47,800,000 100% Subtotal M & O Programs $47,800,000 100% Total Costs $680,660,000 e Estimated Fundinu Capacity (2025-2044) Forecast o Funding estimates based on 2022, 2023 Revenue Source a' Revenue revenue and spending as well as 2024 budget Transportation Capital Revenues Grant Funds $103,960,000 66% a Assumes continued TBD collection GMA Fees/(TIF) $8,050,000 5% at $40/vehicle through plan State Gas Tax $2,860,000 2% o All costs in 2024 dollars General Fund $2,860,000 2% REET (Fund 125 & 126) $36,760,000 23% Other (Stormwater, sewer, $2 720,000 2% water, etc.) Subtotal Capital Revenue $157,210,000 100% Transportation Maintenance & Operations (M & O) Revenue Transportation Benefit $25,600,000 54.0% District Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $12,880,000 27.2% General Funds $8,160,000 17.2% Other $800,000 1.7% Subtotal M & O Revenue $47,440,000 100% Total Revenue $204,650,000 e Estimated Funding Shortfall Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 10 o Transportation Capital Costs greatly exceed forecast revenues. oportation Capital Revenues $157,210,000 o >50% of capital shortfall occurs on Capital Project Costs $617,230,000 State Routes (SR 99 & 104) Capital Estimated Shortfall ($460,020,000) More likely to secure Funding through future State cportation M&O Revenues $47,440,000 appropriation ;portation M&O Costs $47,800,000 o How to prioritize capital projects? M & O Estimated Shortfall ($360,000) Total Estimated Shortfall ($460,380,000) ect Prioritization Proximity to Proximity to transit stops, Up to 45 points Policy 2.3 / 2.4 Activity Centers & growth hubs, parks, Other Key schools, public buildings, Locations hospitals, and commercial areas Safety Project addresses safety Up to 20 points Goal 3 issue in one of the top 10 areas of safety concern in the city Equity Project within area of low Up to 20 points Policy 3.1 opportunity index area as defined by PSRC Capacity Project improves capacity Up to 15 points Policy 6.2 along concurrency corridor TOTAL Up to 100 points High Priority Projects High Priority Project Costs by Type - $248 million Pavement Preservation, $56,000,000 , Roadway, 23% $72,360,000 , A,M&L 29% Bike Lanes, $9,840,000 , 4% Sidewalk, $10,840,000 , 4% Mr. Hauss reviewed: • Schedule Multi Use Path, $99,420,000 , 40% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 11 SCHEDULE Multimodal Level of Service Program Environmental Impact Statement Develop Draft Project List Draft Transportation Element Updated Land Use / Modeling Finalize Project List and Transportation Element 2024 June I duly I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dee Outreach • Remaining Items o Approval of comprehensive plan by planning board (December 4t1i) o Comprehensive plan public hearing (December 10t1i) o Plan adoption (scheduled for December 17"') Mr. Hauss relayed responses to council comments from the prior meeting: • Alternative to bike markings on 88"' due to steep grades on that corridor. The plan has been revised to show marking on Maplewood from Main to 200'b, a street parallel to 88"' that is much flatter. • Vision statement was revised. • Adding a policy or goal regarding scooters. The city was approached in 2022 by Bird, a company that promotes scooters. The feasibility of that addition needs to be discussed internally before adding it to the goals and policies. Multiple jurisdictions have placed scooters and later pulled out. Council President Olson commended staff and the consultant for a great process, commenting she has actively enjoyed the collaboration and different things the transportation plan brought to the table and felt like residents and councilmembers were heard and this plan reflects the community. She noticed the recommendation was to approve adding this to the comprehensive plan; the comprehensive plan won't be approved until later this year. She asked about the sequencing, with this going to the planning board tomorrow, the council likes to get their input and recommendations before approving the plan, although she recognized the planning board had previously provided preliminary comments. Mr. Hauss recalled multiple comments were provided at last week's planning board meeting; those are addressed in the draft plan. The goal is for the planning board to hold a public hearing and approve the transportation plan next week. Council President Olson commented she would rather have those steps occur prior to council approval of the plan. Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was a dedicated bike lane planned from the ferry to 6t1'. Mr. Hauss referred to the Active Transportation Project map and said that was correct. Councilmember Dotsch asked where that came from. Mr. Hauss said it creates a connection from the ferry to Five Corners. Councilmember Dotsch observed the cost for a dedicated bike lane was approximately $8 million and requires remove parking and/or changing sidewalks between the ferry terminal and the fountain. Mr. Hauss explained the overlay on Main from 6"' to 9`b includes adding an uphill bike lane and a downhill sharrow. No parking would be removed on either side from the ferry terminal to 6"', but there would be additional space for an uphill bike lane in the eastbound direction. As the buildings cannot be moved, the sidewalks will potentially be narrowed on both sides of the street to fit a bike lane on that stretch. Councilmember Dotsch asked if staff had talked to the businesses on Main Street about losing their outdoor dining due to the narrowed sidewalks. Mr. Hauss answered this is planning document, there would definitely be outreach during the design phase. The first step is identify funding. Councilmember Dotsch said for the size and scope of this project, she preferred to retain the sharrow. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 12 Councilmember Dotsch referred to packet page 217, total project costs, commenting multiuse paths have the same dimension for bikes as pedestrian, approximately 10 feet. In the total project cost there is nearly a 50150 split between the cost of multiuse paths, bike lanes and sidewalk. She recalled in the statistically significant survey by EMC, of 19 priorities, bike lanes were last. Sidewalks were rated much higher, yet the cost of projects seems to prioritize things the public is not asking for. She suggested reassessing the amount of cement and project costs to lower that investment and include more sidewalks which is what the public is asking for. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO APPROVE 2024 TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO BE PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. MOTION DIED LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Nand asked how many times the consultants had presented to council regarding this topic. Mr. Sharman answered six times. Councilmember Nand commented it is very expensive to bring consultants to council meetings. In the interest of economy, she was in favor of adding the transportation plan to the comprehensive plan as inhouse staff and the consultants have explained tonight so it can be accomplished in a timely fashion and so the council can be good stewards of taxpayers' resources. Councilmember Eck said she was also hesitant to push this out further, but the fact that the council hasn't gotten all the planning board's input gives her pause. In her view, staff and the consultants have done a great job incorporating all the feedback they received and as soon as the planning board feedback is finalized in the document, it will be ready for approval. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for bringing in the ADA curb study as part of the Transportation Plan. She loved that the mission includes multimodal LOS which includes multiuse paths. Calming elements are also important; a dozen neighborhoods have raised significant concerns about traffic and speeds from Firdale up to Meadowdale. She recognized newer transportation infrastructure includes electric vehicles. She was eager to hear what the planning board has to say and then the council can finalize this. With regard to sharrows in the downtown core, Council President Olson suggested as long as the projects are not in works or vested based on this plan, she could go either way. She agreed with a previous councilmembers who suggested businesses be consulted before this was included in the comprehensive plan. She suggested a comprehensive plan amendment next year based on a sharrow versus a bike lane in the downtown core area. Mr. English advised the next step next year is to develop a 6-year CIP which will help separate projects into the 6 year versus the 20 year list. Councilmember Eck commented multimodal transportation is the way of the future as well as now and it is important to make Edmonds accessible to everyone regardless of the mode of transportation they use. She reminded not all the projects in the transportation plan will begin tomorrow; this is a plan and the City will be seeking funding from sources other than the City. It is important to build to accommodate current and future community members. Councilmember Dotsch asked if multimodal required a multiuse path. Mr. English answered multiuse paths are most often on state routes such as Hwy 99, SR-104 and SR-524. The multiuse path meets WSDOT's requirement for building complete streets which is why there is a multiuse path on Highway 99. That same model is used on SR-104 and SR-524 due to the need to comply with the state's requirements. Councilmember Dotsch recalled discussions about a multiuse path on Maplewood and asked if that was planned in the future. Mr. English reiterated the bulk of multiuse paths are state routes. There are a couple selective segments where a multiuse path is proposed such as 220th from 76 b to Highway 99 to provide a connection to the Interurban Trail. Councilmember Dotsch commented a multiuse path is very expensive and there are sidewalks in other areas that are in disrepair. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 13 Councilmember Dotsch commented the multimodal plan for the comprehensive plan is not due until 2028. Mr. English explained the goal is to adopt this transportation plan with the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was time to work this out. Mr. English responding a new transportation plan with new projects will be used in the calculation of an impact fee in early 2025. Councilmember Dotsch observed the City was ahead of the game with this plan. Mr. English answered yes and consistent with the comprehensive plan deadline. Councilmember Nand asked based on the revised timeline, what was the latest date for the council to adopt the transportation element and not delay overall adoption of the comprehensive plan beyond the state's deadline of December 31, 2024. Ms. Hope relayed the transportation element should be adopted along with the rest of the comprehensive plan which is scheduled for adoption on December 17. Like the rest of the comprehensive plan, it needs to be adopted before the end of the year, but it can be done at the same time as the rest of the comprehensive plan. 3. REVIEW OF REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope commented the council just heard about the transportation element of the comprehensive plan which required special consideration due to the complexity of issues. The transportation element has to be consistent with the land use element and other parts of the comprehensive plan. She reviewed: Questions that have come up • What are the next required adoption dates? o December 31, 2024 — adoption of updated comprehensive plan o December 31, 2024 — various development regulations (e.g., stormwater codes) previously done as needed) o June 30, 2025 — other development regulations ("codes"): ■ To implement recent state legislation for middle housing (at least 2 units per lot) + accessory dwellings + conversion of commercial to multifamily use ■ To implement other aspects of comprehensive plan (including HB 1220 to accommodate housing at different income levels o December 31, 2025 — additional regulations ("codes") for: ■ Critical areas, as needed (this reflects state's 1-year "grace period" to not be considered out of compliance for purposes of grants and loans) ■ Allowing co -living where 6 or more multifamily residential units may be located on a lot. • What if City does not meet state deadlines? o RCW 36.70.130(7)(a): (7)(a) The requirements imposed on counties and cities under this section shall be considered "requirements of this chapter" under the terms of RCW 36.70A.040(1). Only those counties and cities that meet the following criteria may receive grants, loans, pledges, or financial guarantees under chapter 43.155 or 70A.135 RCW: (i) Complying with the deadlines in this section; or (ii) Demonstrating substantial progress towards compliance with the schedules in this section for development regulations that protect critical areas. (b) A county or city that is fewer than 12 months out of compliance with the schedules in this section for development regulations that protect critical areas is making substantial progress towards compliance. Only those counties and cities in compliance with the schedules in this section may receive preference for grants or loans subject to the provisions of RCW 43.17.250. o City is also subject to appeals or litigation for non-compliance Can comprehensive plan require growth to be "phased in" (some areas not allowed to grow till later?) o No. Comprehensive plan needs to show growth targets can be met — knowing that: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 14 ■ Market will ensure development does not happen all at once ■ Development already is prohibited or restricted in critical areas o If a hub or center is not suitable for growth, it should not be included now as a place to help meet growth targets o Note: Implementation of HB 1110 applies to all appliable areas of the city (meaning boundaries cannot be drawn around particular areas to prevent middle housing or ADUs there) Revision to draft future land use map and table o Revision underway o Expect to issue December 4 Summary of changes from (October) draft Plan o Incorporated "preferred alternative" growth strategy as approved by city council on November 4 o Moved language about other alternatives (not selected) out of the Land Use element and described them elsewhere o Refined some policy language, based on input o Addition of action steps into Housing element o Revised narrative in Introduction chapter to include more information (no goals or policies o Added appendices for background details (including calculation of growth targets) plus potential actions to consider o Note: council previously received a "tracked changes" version of the revised draft Key Land use Element Changes o Illustrations of 4 centers and 6 hubs (reflecting preferred growth alternative), including: ■ Specific area of each ■ Building height limit for each o Centers: Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, Medical District Expansion o Hubs: West Edmonds Way, South Lake Ballinger, East Sea View, North Bowl, Maplewood, Perrinville • Components of Draft Comprehensive plan o Introductory Chapter & Elements ■ Introduction ■ Land use element ■ Housing Element ■ Climate Element (a start toward fuller update required in 2029) ■ Economic Element ■ Culture, History & Urban Design Element ■ Capital Facilities Element ■ Utilities Element o Appendices (for background info) ■ Methodology for land use capacity ■ analysis ■ Growth targets methodology ■ Growth alternatives explanation ■ Community engagement summary ■ Potential actions to consider as recommended by Planning Board ■ Potential action items (full list) Next Steps o Review of revised draft Plan (ongoing) o Recommendation from Planning Board — December 4 o Issuance of Final EIS (December 4) o Discussion of Final EIS (Council special meeting December 10) o Public hearing on revised draft Plan (December 10) o City council adoption of Plan, with any changes (December 17) o Staff submittal of final Plan to state agencies o January thru June 2025 — preparation to adopt codes implementing comprehensive plan and meeting state requirements o By end of 2025 — review and adoption of any updates to critical area regulations + permitting for co -living housing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 15 Councilmember Eck recognized Ms. Hope for seamlessly championing and keeping the process moving since she joined the City. She referred to feedback she received as late as today from environmental champions in the community about the marsh about strengthening language in the document related to restoration of the marsh and the estuary. She recognized the balance of not getting into too much in detail in the comprehensive plan and keeping it high level, but asked for Ms. Hope's input regarding whether it makes sense to firm up language in the document about the marsh. Ms. Hope responded the language is pretty clear that the marsh and its habitat are a priority. It may not meet everybody's idea of exactly what should be said, but it is pretty strong. She offered to specifically identify that at the public hearing. Councilmember Eck said she will encourage the environmental champions to attend the public hearing. If she can develop stronger language for Ms. Hope's consideration, she will do that. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for all the hard work done in a condensed schedule to meet the December 17 deadline. He asked about updates to the centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered the centers and hubs were identified in the revised draft comprehensive plan, the November version, where a map was shown for each in the same manner as the council's decision on November 4"' other than where there was a change requested by council, that change was made in the draft comprehensive plan. Councilmember Chen recalled transition zones would be addressed at the code level. Ms. Hope agreed there could be more about the transition zones in the development regulations next year. Councilmember Dotsch recalled there was some confusion in the last draft regarding transition zones and asked about transition zones extending well beyond centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered that is not the intent. When the council sees the next revision to the table that went with the land use map, the wording will be changed. Councilmember Dotsch referred to walkability, commenting what people think of as walkability in Edmonds may not be same as in urban planning. Ms. Hope assured there will be different wording, returning to a simpler version closer to what the council was expecting. Councilmember Dotsch commented the land use policies contain a lot of urban verbiage. The idea of centers and hubs was being intentional about where growth would occur. There is an opportunity to be more intentional throughout Edmonds. She recognized heights are an issue for Edmonds residents including haphazard building heights where residents don't know what can be built next door. She did not want to see language that pushed the City in a direction that residents do not want. Councilmember Dotsch reiterated the policies still contain a lot of urban terms. She referred to Mukilteo's comprehensive plan which has the type of language she preferred. For example, one of their land use policies is facilitate new development and redevelopment that is compatible with the residential character of existing neighborhoods and provides a robust mix of housing, employment, retail and services, and recreation amenities. That language indicates neighborhoods will still be neighborhoods even if they include duplexes, triplexes or ADUs. The idea is for the rest of the heights and density to be closer to the centers and hubs. Mukilteo's comprehensive plan also contains language regarding preservation of character for existing development, compared to the more urban planning language in Edmonds' draft plan. She suggested more intentional language related to neighborhoods. With regard to activity centers, Councilmember Dotsch said the language includes a lot about centers. She asked if an activity center was a center. Ms. Hope answered it is a different kind of center; activity center is a term that has been in the comprehensive plan in years past. It refers to areas that are much more commercial and substantially multifamily which would not be in single family type neighborhoods. For example the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center and parts of Highway 99 are considered activity centers. Activity centers are more regional in nature attracting people from outside the area. Neighborhood centers and hubs are more for people in the general neighborhoods and not as much attracting people from outside the neighborhood. Councilmember Dotsch commented there is a language regarding density in centers, assuming that was referring to centers and hubs. The Downtown Waterfront Activity Center extends from the waterfront to 9' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 16 which is highly residential and not a commercial area. Ms. Hope agreed there was a lot of residential in that area; that activity center has been in the comprehensive plan for many years. Centers and hubs are much smaller in scale. Councilmember Dotsch commented the centers and hubs relate to transportation and intentionality related to density and heights. The activity center includes the downtown core and as one speaker mentioned, what makes downtown unique is the lower profile buildings. In the Highway 99 Activity Center, there was interest in avoiding a canyon with 75-foot buildings. She cautioned against not conflating activity centers and centers. She preferred the language in Mukilteo's comprehensive plan. Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Hope for pulling this all together so quickly. She shared Councilmember Eck's concern about the marsh, referring to goals on page 57 related to Unocal. She was aware the comprehensive plan cannot be too specific, the property is still not cleaned up and is awaiting Ecology's determination. She asked if goals for the marsh restoration and nearshore estuary should be included. Ms. Hope answered it is a bit of a balancing act, recognizing the situation with the Unocal property, the timing, etc. so it would be premature to set things up in the comprehensive plan until more is known while recognizing the importance of the marsh and all the City has done to create a good environment there and recognizing more improvements are needed. Councilmember Paine referred to page 703 which references the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE), commenting there hasn't been any discussion about expanding the MFTE. She was eager to hear changes proposed to the MFTE program to ensure it includes commercial on the ground floor. Two areas allow MFTE, one in Westgate and another on the Highway 99 corridor. There needs to be commercial on the first floor to support the housing and draw visitors. Ms. Hope commented the Highway 99 area in particular needs to be revisited in the code update in first six months of 2025 and possibly SR-104 with regard to transitions due to the importance of commercial in those areas. There was good reason for in the past for allowing some of that development to be residential -only, but next year may be a good time to address that again, particularly the ground floor. Whether there is MFTE or not, that would be appropriate. With regard to Edmonds' housing targets, Councilmember Paine said she was pleased to see reference to housing type to meet the AMI standards. Density will be important to meet those standards. Councilmember Nand expressed her appreciation to Ms. Hope for saving this process. With regard to the draft climate element, in the period between Ms. Hope's retirement and her return, the community advocated for a climate action manager including a petition with 200 signatures asking the council to fund a full-time climate action manager in 2023. Unfortunately the council saw budget issues looming and couldn't afford that position. She was impressed by the high level policy statements in the comprehensive plan draft climate element as well as the action items. For the public who were disheartened the city did not fund a climate action manager in 2023 or in the foreseeable future, she asked if this might guide staff with implementation in the future. Ms. Hope anticipated it would be useful; many pieces from the climate action plan were included in the draft comprehensive plan. The climate action plan includes numerous projects; it will be a matter of department directors and staff seeing what can be done. Some of the items on that list are also budget items; for example, a new analysis of GHG emissions. A great idea, but it costs money. The City will need to determine what can be done without significant new budget and things that will need to be addressed in the future. A lot of climate change issues such as sea level rise are very important; the City will need to come up with ways to accomplish the highest priorities. Councilmember Dotsch referred to bonus incentives and questioned whether the public had been involved. Ms. Hope answered the incentives will be part of code update that will include a public process, planning board review, and council approval. The incentives will be required to provide a community benefit. Parts of the comprehensive plan that she inherited had gone a long way on a number of issues. Some of them have been changed, others would require wholesale reinventing; staff has tried to streamline and identify things that need further discussion via the code update. Councilmember Dotsch commented an incentive could be commercial on the ground floor. Ms. Hope agreed that could be a benefit. Councilmember Dotsch Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 17 commented now that there is excess in the centers and hubs, could staff map out the capacity for each center and hub and the excess capacity. Ms. Hope answered that could be done. Councilmember Chen asked if there was a radius for the centers and hubs. Ms. Hope answered the maps illustrated exactly where those are; it varies by each center and hub. Councilmember Chen observed they are not all uniform. Ms. Hope agreed they are not uniform, it is based on the topography, and where it is a center or a hub. Councilmember Chen observed the centers and hubs do not cover the entire City. Ms. Hope answered the newer version of the land use element identifies the center and hub areas. She offered to highlight that in an email. Councilmember Chen inquired about the process, adoption on December 17 followed by submission to the state for their review. Ms. Hope advised the first draft of the comprehensive plan was submitted to the state as required at least 60 days before adoption. The state's feedback was primarily questioning whether the numbers adequately met the housing targets and to strengthen the explanation of the calculations which was done in the November draft. All the cities and counties who are adopting plans have to submit a checklist to the state regarding where the various laws are addressed and, most importantly, submit the draft 60 days prior to adoption. The state reviews the plan and provides direction prior to adoption. Staff has tried hard to address all the bills and ensure the plan meets the mark. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. 4. PROSECUTOR SERVICES RFP HR Director Neill Hoyson relayed one of applicants for the position, Zachor Stock Krepps, withdrew from consideration so the Walls Law Firm is the only applicant. The City only received two responses to the RFP, the Walls Law Firm and Zachor Stock Krepps. The current contract with The Walls Law Firm goes through June 2026. The packet contains recommendations from the interview panel and the firm's response to the request to consider adding an attorney to manage the workload. Councilmember Tibbott commented he read the packet and found it very interesting; four were in favor of The Walls Law Firm and two were in favor of Zachor Stock Krepp; the police department was pretty certain regarding their preference. He asked if Ms. Neill Hoyson was confident if Walls adding an attorney would be adequate to address the problems that occurred during the past year. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she was uncertain it was her place to answer that; Walls has made a commitment to retaining an additional attorney and keeping up with the current caseload and the backlog. It was her understanding the domestic violence backlog has been addressed at this point. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Ms. Neill Hoyson has had conversations with The Walls Law Firm regarding their plans moving forward. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, during the panel interviews, both applicants were questioned about their ability to address that, their ability to be in person for court and Walls committed to being in person as well as having a plan in place to address the backlog and hire an attorney. For the public, Councilmember Nand stated Councilmember Dotsch and she were invited to be part of the interview panel as part of the council's legal assessment subcommittee. She appreciated both applicants' responsiveness to requests. In response to Councilmember Tibbott's question, there was a proposal to reconvene the subcommittee on a quarterly basis for the first year of the amended contract to ensure there is a proper venue to iron out any difficulties between the police department, the city prosecutor, the administration, and the various stakeholders in providing this very important function for the City. Council President Olson said she also found the packet interesting and found merit in both candidates. Since there has historically been an issue related to structuring the contract so payment is made based on a maximum size of backlog and an alternate smaller payment if the backlog grew to a certain size, she asked if that could that be considered. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered if Council President Olson was referring to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 18 performance metrics related to the contract, she could look into that. If council says go forward with amending the contract with The Walls Law Group and are interested in having some performance metrics included in the contract, staff can look into that. She deferred to legal regarding how that would be incorporated into the contract. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ACCEPT MOVING FORWARD WITH WALLS. Councilmember Dotsch relayed concern with the current backlog especially for the victims. If Walls is the only applicant, she absolutely wanted metrics in the contract because their reassurance that things would be different was not specific. She was not confident there was a plan and favored having checkpoints/check- ins and metrics to ensure backlogs do not occur, timeliness of reporting, communication, etc. due to Walls' history, and wanted that proactively addressed in the contract. Walls has assured they have plans to do something different, but it is a very skeletal commitment and she wanted specifics to hold them accountable. Councilmember Nand referred to page 832, Walls' revised RFP, explaining Walls submitted an initial RFP and after receiving feedback from the subcommittee, revised their RFP to include a detailed breakdown of the cost for an additional attorney. She learned a lot about criminal law from participating in the subcommittee process; a misdemeanor court like Edmonds provides an opportunity to train young lawyers and the subcommittee's recommendation to Walls was to hire a junior attorney and train them on Edmonds' work. The Walls Law Firm responded with a detailed breakdown, itemizing the expenses and incorporating that into their revised monthly fee. As long as those contract terms are fulfilled by the city prosecutor and there is a contract enforcement mechanism through the subcommittee or however the stakeholders want to ensure adequate specific performance, she would like to see how Mr. Walls and his team perform in the future. Councilmember Chen shared the concern about the backlog and the history. With only one candidate remaining, he asked whether there was time to publish the RFP again. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there is a contract in place with Walls through June 2026, but the contract terms are not adequate to meet the City's needs. Because the existing contract does not include the additional attorney, she feared they will struggle to keep up with the City's caseload. The City's prosecutorial services would be covered, but likely would continue to experience issues with backlog if the contract is not amended. The RFP process takes at least 2%2-3 months and she was not sure it would elicit further interest. The City has run RFPs for prosecutor services for the last few years and has gotten very limited interest, the most the City has received is two responses. She favored contracting with Walls, having them add an attorney to see if they can keep up, and then looking at alternative options such as bringing prosecutor services in-house. As prosecutor services continue to increase in cost, it may make more sense for the City to that as an inhouse function. Councilmember Eck commented it was good to learn there was some support for Walls. She expressed appreciation for Councilmembers Dotsch and Nand being part of process. She shared a lot of the same concerns related to the backlog and a wrong decision on a sensitive case. However, it appears they are using that as a learning opportunity and she feel some comfort that Councilmembers Dotsch and Nand would continue to be part of the process for the next few months to ensure prosecutor services were moving in a better direction. Councilmember Nand asked if that motion authorized the city attorney to renegotiate the contract terms in the revised RFP. City Clerk Scott Passey responded the motion was only to approve the Walls contract. Councilmember Nand asked if that should be addressed in the motion or was it implied. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded the firm proposed for selection is already under contract; until there is a reason to amend the contract, there is no need for a motion to approve the contract. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the contract needs to be amended. Councilmember Nand agreed the contract needed to be amended to reflect the terms of the revised RFP. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the packet does not include a contract; there is a proposal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 19 that includes an additional attorney. Mr. Taraday advised the contract would come back on consent for approval. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RENEGOTIATE THE EXISTING PROSECUTOR CONTRACT TO INCLUDE THE TERMS PROPOSED BY THE WALLS LAW FIRM IN THEIR REVISED RFP AND BRING IT BACK ON CONSENT AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING. Councilmember Chen asked if the additional cost of the attorney was included in the budget or would a budget amendment be required. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she did not believe it was included in the budget; a budget amendment would have been required regardless of which firm was selected. Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe advised if the contract is amended and will include an increase, a 2024 budget amendment will be required. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the contract will not increase in 2024. Ms. Dunscombe advised the current contract includes an escalator in 2025 of 13%. She will need to doublecheck the amount included in the 2025 budget for the prosecutor contract. Councilmember Chen wanted to ensure that was not missed. Councilmember Dotsch recalled from the discussion with both firms that their costs were increasing based on the red light cameras program. Ms. Neill Hoyson did not recall reference to red light cameras program. Councilmember Dotsch wondered if revenue from that program could help cover the cost of the contract. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. POLICE COMMAND STAFF COMPS HR Director Neill Hoyson recalled the council was interested in looking at the command staff pay structure and Mayor Rosen directed her department to review that and provide data to council which is included in the packet. The comps looked at comparators for the City using the council's current compensation policy and philosophy which is to attempt to pay at the median of the comparators. The comps looked at entry level, first step in the range for the position, and the top stop as well as additional compensation items. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe commented as the council is nearing the end of its budget deliberations, she wanted to take a moment to reflect on where the council is in the process and provide a short summary. Her role is to provide data and context necessary to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community. She did not want to belabor the point about how the City reached the General Fund ending fund balance in 2023 of $2.4 million, but it is essential to recognize the decisions that got the City there and the discipline it will take to get the City on a different and much better financial path. She wanted to ensure the council clearly understands the trajectory the City is on and what that means for the sustainability of its financial position. She displayed the following chart: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 20 70.000.000 60,000.000 50.000.000 40.000.000 30.000.000 20.000.000 10.000.000 2018 ACT GENERAL FUND ACTUAL2018-2023 REVENUES AND EXPENSES FUND BALANCE 20151,..I 2020ACT 2021 ACT 2022A_1 2023 ACT 2024FORECAST 2025PROPOSED 2026PROPOSED ASAMENDED ASAMENDED �REVEN UES EXPENSES -ENDING FUND BALANCE 18,000,000 16.000,000 14,000.000 12.000,000 10.000.000 8.000,000 6.000,D00 4,000,000 2.000,000 Ms. Dunscombe explained over the last few years the City has experienced increased operational costs and limited revenue growth. Without strategic adjustments, the City risks total depletion of the fund balance while increasing General Fund debt and compromising critical services. The above graph illustrates revenues were higher than expenses in several years. The graph illustrates total revenues and total expenses so she urged some caution in doing trend analysis from these bars. For example, in 2019, $4M was transferred from the Contingency Fund 012 to the General Fund so while 2019 looks like a good year, it can be misleading. Another example is in 2025 where it looks like revenues and expenses are even, the City is borrowing money to support expenses that year. She referred to the line indicating the General Fund balance and slope between 2021 and 2022 and 2022 to 2023, pointing out the slope gradually gets steeper. That decline slowed in 2024 with staff making a lot of difficult decisions with the council's help. There is an opportunity in the next biennium to change the trajectory to ensure fiscal stability in alignment with community priorities. She displayed the following graphic which she borrowed from Mike Bailey's Blue Ribbon Panel presentation. Fund Balance Amendment Effect Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 21 Ms. Dunscombe explained the decrease in fund balance starts with accepting and approving budgets and budget amendments. She recalled Mr. Bailey noting in 2019 the City budgeted to spend fund balance in the amount of $1.8M and further amended the budget throughout the year, increasing that spending to $3M which shows the fund balance story starts with approving the budget. She reviewed the following: • Budget Amendments thus far: OVERALL CHANGE TO FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BALANCE • In 2025 we reduced revenue by$1,985,000 • $1,500,000 is the loan • In 2025 we reduced expenditures by $1,808,042 • Therefore in 2025 we DECREASED fund balance by $176,958 • In 2026 we have not changed proposed revenue • In 2026 we reduced expenses by $273,360 • Therefore in 2026 we INCREASED fund balance by $273,360 • For the biennium we have increased 2026 ending fund balance by$96,402 1 325 203 REVENUE (1,985,000) EXPENDITURES (1,808,042) (273,360) END FUND BAL CHANGE (176,958) 273,360 BIENNIUM TOTAL END FUND BAL CHANGE 96,401 Ms. Dunscombe explained the $2M reduction made at the last council meeting is offset by a payment on the interfund loan. Staff Recommended Budget Amendments: Court Red -Light Program - Staff Recommendation #18 Ms. Dunscombe recalled at the last council meeting, some decisions were made regarding the court's red light camera program for 2025. She felt the intent was to continue with the same spending for that program. Staff recommendation #18 is to mirror in 2026 what was done in 2025. This amendment proposes to increase spending by $25,000 for pro tem services, $15,000 for interpreter services, and increase salaries and benefits by $75,996.27 to bring the FTE count up from 2.0 in the proposed budget to 2.66. Mirroring the decisions made for 2025 includes a corresponding decrease of $500,000 in revenue. The net change in fund balance for this staff recommendation is $615,996. Councilmember Nand asked if this was in the packet or had been emailed. Ms. Dunscombe advised it was provided by Council Executive Assistant Beckie Peterson and was in the blue folder. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION #18, AN INCREASE OF $115,996.27 TO THE COURT'S 2026 EXPENDITURE BUDGET AND REDUCE GENERAL FUND FORECASTED RED LIGHT CAMERA REVENUE BY $500,000 THUS ALIGNING STAFFING, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND REVENUE REQUESTS WITH THE APPROVED RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED BY COURT STAFF ON NOVEMBER 26, 2024. Councilmember Paine relayed her appreciation to Ms. Dunscombe for incorporating this amendment. She looked forward to a summary from the courts in the spring about the red light camera program. Councilmember Chen wondered if there was an opportunity to share the ticket system with other jurisdictions in terms of head count; was there any information about that to reduce the 2.66 FTE. Ms. Dunscombe said she saw some emails about that today including concern about whether it was allowed. She recalled the judge mentioning he would be interested to see how Mukilteo got around some of the RCWs that he believed would not necessarily allow for that. He is open to looking into and researching it and Mayor Rosen and Council President Olson are also looking into options with regard to processing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 22 infractions. Mayor Rosen advised he had an initial meeting with Mukilteo's mayor today to advance that conversation. Councilmember Chen commented he was satisfied with approving these budget amendments that increase expenses and reduce revenue. Councilmember Paine commented Mukilteo does not have its own court; they have basically a ticket bureau that doesn't handle all the things the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge handles. When she was running Everett District Court, that court handled a lot of bigger tickets sent to them by Mukilteo, although she acknowledged things had likely changed since 2002. A ticket bureau, a traffic violation, and a TVV is not the same thing as a court and she wanted to ensure the discussions include someone who has been working in the court system for a long time such as Judge Fair if he was available. She recommended proceeding very cautiously as there are a lot of rules around courts. Mayor Rosen assured there was a conversation with Judge Weiss before the conversation with Mukilteo's mayor. Councilmember Dotsch said for transparency, when programs begin, it would be nice to see hard numbers. She appreciated seeing this information and wanted everyone to be mindful of how programs are run and delivered and that there are more impacts than just the one side. She was hopeful this now presents a more realistic picture. Councilmember Nand commented since the conversation has strayed to rumors about the outsourcing of Edmonds Municipal Court, she asked the city attorney whether it was legitimate for the administration to engage in these discussions without authorization from a majority of councilmembers via resolution. Mayor Rosen assured there was no outsourcing involved. Councilmember Nand said Mayor Rosen used administrative resources to discuss outsourcing without the express approval of council. Mayor Rosen clarified the conversation was not about outsourcing, it was about Edmonds providing services to another jurisdiction. Councilmember Nand said she has heard rumors in the legal community that Edmonds' administration, without approval by the council, is seeking to outsource. Mayor Rosen assured there were no conversations like that taking place. Councilmember Nand thanked Mayor Rosen for the clarification, commenting it is always a good idea to clear up rumors on the dais. Councilmember Nand asked Mr. Taraday for any insight on this topic. Mr. Taraday responded the mayor is authorized to explore proposals and formulate proposals before bringing them to council for consideration and action. A proposal of any kind has to be formulated by someone, they usually aren't formulated on the dais. It is not inappropriate for a mayor to explore, formulate, decide what they want to bring to council. Councilmember Nand commented the mayor does have a spending authority. This issue arose under the previous administration, significant amounts of staff time and the administration's resources were used to explore projects for many months without any notice or authorization from council. Mayor Rosen hoped in the last 11 months the council had seen nothing but collaboration. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Gateway Art Project - Staff Recommendation #20 Ms. Dunscombe explained this is budget neutral and is related to the Municipal Arts Fund 117, not the General Fund. In 2024 a reimbursable grant of $60,000 was awarded from the WA Arts Commission, as well as a donation of up to $75,000 from a private source for the Gateway Art Project; $5500 will be expended by the end of 2024 and the remaining funds will be expended in 2025 to complete the project. The amendment provides the spending authority in 2025 to spend the grant funds. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO APPROVE AN INCREASE OF $129,500 TO CULTURAL SERVICES 2025 EXPENDITURE BUDGET AND AN INCREASE OF $129,500 TO THE CULTURAL SERVICES 2025 REVENUE BUDGET FOR THE GATEWAY ART PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 23 Council President Olson pointed out the WA Arts Commission provided $60,000 for this project and the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation provided the match. Councilmember Nand relayed she and Councilmember Paine were asked participated on the committee that selected the artwork. She complimented Frances Chapin and the Economic Development Department for their work on this project. Councilmember Paine asked if the Arts Festival Foundation was the private source mentioned by Ms. Dunscombe. Council President Olson answered yes. Councilmember Paine clarified there is more than one gateway in Edmonds; this is for the gateway project at the ferry holding lanes, not on Highway 99. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2026 Lew Lid Lift - Staff Recommendation #19 Ms. Dunscombe explained this proposed revision is consistent with the council and administration's discussions and provides a prudent financial adjustment aimed at fostering financial stability. This approach not only addresses immediate fiscal challenges, but also sets the stage for more robust financial planning with respect to other non -tax revenue sources. The staff recommendation is to remove the $5M interfund loan in 2026 and replace it with a $6M levy lid lift. She acknowledged it may be more appropriate to delay discussion of this item until the council reviews other amendments/recommendations. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO HEAR THE EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS WAS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dunscombe explained part of the reason there is a $5M loan in 2026 is throughout budget development and realizing the need to close a $13-14M gap, it took a lot of time to come up with half that and everyone felt good about being able to bridge $7M of the budget deficit. However, staff ran out of time and she was not prepared to include a levy lid lift in 2026 and commit to a number and an ongoing revenue source. It was apparent to the administration that further adjustments were needed to cut expenditures in 2025 and to lower the loan in 2025 to have a more reasonable levy lid lift in 2026. That took time, council has made motions to reduce expenditures of $1M in 2025 and $2.5M in 2026 which allowed her to make some adjustments to what the levy lid lift amount would need to be to start replenishing reserves and pay back the loan in three years as recommended by the state auditor. Taking those two motions that the council passed previously, to true up the interfund loans and start to show a replenishment plan in the strategic outlook and other motions to significantly reduce 2025 and 2026, allowed the loan amount in 2026 to be replaced with a reasonable levy lid lift. She did not take the term "reasonable" lightly, knowing it had meaning to a taxpayer, but a levy lid lift with a sustained amount of revenue going forward is the only way to replenish reserves and pay back the 2025 loan. Mayor Rosen advised this amendment also reflects previous discussions about a potential annexation vote in April and based on that information and the budget, most likely seeking a levy lid lift in November. In addition, those conversations have included loan repayment in one lump sum, but it makes more sense to repay it in two years. There has also been discussion about sustainability beyond 2026. This approach is consistent with those discussions, and is informed and updated by the numbers and decisions the council has been making. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO EXTEND 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Eck said because she is participating remotely, she did not have the visual she assumed was provided by staff. She asked Ms. Dunscombe to repeat the dollar amount this would equate to in estimated revenue. Ms. Dunscombe explained staff s recommendation is to remove the $5M loan in 2026 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 24 and replace it with a $6M levy lid lift in 2026. Councilmember Eck relayed her belief that a balanced budget needed to account for revenue and the council cannot cut its way out of this. The council knew this was coming and have been discussing it, but are not having this conversation lightly. Councilmember Nand asked if the council wants to pass a balanced biennial budget by December 31, 2024, when would the council need to make a decision about replacing the $5M interfund loan in 2026 with the proposed $6M levy lid lift. Ms. Dunscombe commented with some of the other recommendations such as the one the council just passed that removed $500,000 in revenue, the council would need to revisit other decisions for 2026. The budget needs to be effective by December 31, 2024 so there is appropriation authority by January 1, 2025. There is usually a waiting period and notice period with most ordinances; that was bypassed last year by inserting language in the ordinance to make it effective immediately. The hope is to pass the budget within the next 1-2 council meetings, if not tonight. Councilmember Nand recalled references to the levy lid lift during the RFA public hearing. Many constituents are very upset about the unknowns related to tax increases. The sooner the council can reach resolution about the amount of a levy lid lift, the more assurance it will provide the public. She assumed constituents may be angrier, but at least they would know how much the council intends to ask for. She hoped the council could reach resolution tonight or the next council meeting. Ms. Dunscombe wanted to ensure she was clear regarding use of the term "reasonable," realizing this was a heavy ask for taxpayers and a big consideration. She explained the levy lid lift would affect 2026; there are still major decisions to be made for 2025, and other assumptions in the biennial budget that provide the opportunity to make other choices. If the council approves including a levy lid lift in the proposed budget, it doesn't actual levy anything for 2026, it would just be part of the adopted budget. Councilmember Paine commented the $6M is an amount anticipated based on the loan and all the other moving parts. Ms. Dunscombe answered that was correct. Councilmember Paine asked if Ms. Dunscombe foresees it might be less or more. Ms. Dunscombe said she sees it being less. Councilmember Paine asked if $6M was the top estimate. Ms. Dunscombe answered yes. Councilmember Paine referred to a comment during audience comments about why the property taxes are so high, and explained it is because Washington does not have a state income tax. She liked how this sounds and asked whether the vote on a levy lid lift would at the end of 2025 and effective in 2026. Ms. Dunscombe responded the vote on a levy lid lift would be in August and/or November, depending on type of levy lid lift. That was part of the difficulty with including a levy lid lift in the original proposed budget was there are so many scenarios and flavors of levy lid lifts and even in this request, there isn't a commitment to one or the other; the process is further along and other motions have been made which allowed the administration to provide this scenario as option that would fit in the adopted budget. Councilmember Dotsch asked if the council was able to reduce the budget further, ideally there would be less borrowing initially and less interest and a lower levy lid lift. Ms. Dunscombe referred to Councilmember Chen's recommendation to use the contingency fund, Fund 012, as a way to reduce the loan as well as possibly reduce the levy lid lift. She agreed there were other options. Councilmember Dotsch observed there is no assumption at this point about the type of levy lid lift, staff s recommendation is just to include it in the 2026 budget. She relayed a feeling of responsibility to ensure the budget matches the City's spending capability and wanted to ensure if the council asked for more, it was not just adding expenditures, that it included being very mindful about expenditures and being cognizant about tax fatigue. Ms. Dunscombe responded that is also some of the complexity of why the initial proposed budget included a loan instead of a levy lid lift; more time was needed to look at options. Councilmember Chen commented no matter how it is done, the City will need additional funds, either internal borrowing or a levy lid lift. However, in terms of how much, staff s recommendation # 18 has a net impact on the budget of $615,000 and additional amendments councilmembers propose tonight will also Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 25 have an impact. He agreed it would be appropriate to wait until next week when there may be a clearer picture of the amount. Councilmember Eck commented this is a serious issue that no one takes lightly. She pointed out there are still a number of staff positions on the table that council has not put back into the budget. She asked for a current tally of the staff positions that are still on table that the council does not plan to put back in the budget. She referred to concerns she has heard that the council has not cut enough positions and wanted to share with the public the number of position that are still on the table to be cut. Ms. Dunscombe referred to a list of positions that will remain vacant and positions in the proposed budget for layoff; there are about 22 positions, but they are not all full-time FTEs, several are in parks and do not equate to a full FTE. An amendment to bring back the public disclosure specialist in the police department failed; a motion to bring back the community engagement coordinator was approved. There have not been any other motions to bring back positions in the proposed budget as layoffs. Councilmember Eck commented the council has consistently not raised taxes as it could have out of sensitivity to the public and it is not something the council does lightly. A small percentage of property taxes is collected by the city versus the amount that is collected by the county, school district and other entities. She wanted to ensure there was a well-rounded conversation and provide assurance the council was not hopping to different revenue ideas quickly. Mayor Rosen summarized the City receives about $0.14 of every $1 paid in property taxes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO BRING THIS BACK FOR DISCUSSION AS SOON AS ALL THE REST OF THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council Amendments Non -Departmental Expense Reductions — Election Costs — Amendment #C20 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REDUCE 2026 ELECTION COSTS TO ZERO. Councilmember Dotsch explained there was a placeholder of $75,000 in the 2026 budget for election costs. As there are no elections planned in 2026, that amount could be removed. Ms. Dunscombe explained she included $75,000 in the 2026 budget as a fail stop; in case things go wrong in 2025, she wanted budget available in case the City needed to go back to the voters. She acknowledged that was a decision that could be made at a later time if necessary. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND NAND VOTING NO. Non -Departmental Expense Reductions — Ambulance Fees - #C21 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REDUCE AMBULANCE FEE COST TO ZERO IN 2026. Councilmember Dotsch explained her original motion was for 2025 and 2026, but there was discussion if the RFA annexation is approved, there would be no costs in 2026. She retained the cost in the 2025 budget to see how the vote goes. Ms. Dunscombe explained the proposed budget assumed voter approval of RFA annexation. There are a lot of moving pieces that are part of negotiations that she is not 100% privy to. She made adjustments to the three biggest, removing the EMS property tax in 2026, removing EMS transport fees in 2026 and removing the contract expense in 2026. There are other smaller items such as this that she left in as well as small revenues such as the RFA pays the City for some custodial services in the fire stations. Retirement for firefighters remains an expense in 2026. She wanted to ensure whatever falls out during negotiations, those items were covered. She respected it was the council's decision to remove this; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 26 reiterating it was a fail stop to ensure these items were budgeted in case negotiations and the vote go a different way. Councilmember Paine appreciated the thought behind this, but felt it was getting ahead of the voters' decision on the RFA. Whatever happens with the annexation vote, the council will need to make some decisions later. She did not support the motion as it seems a little premature although she appreciated the effort. Council President Olson asked how much staff time it would take to adjust all this stuff so it reflected annexation into the RFA. Annexation was the only assumption, but it has feelers on both revenue and expense. She did not want staff to waste a lot of time, but if it could be done easily, she would rather be consistent. If the budget assumes RFA annexation, all these other things should also fall out. Ms. Dunscomb said the difficult one was retirement and she would need to spend time with Mr. Taraday to understand whether that was wrapped up into the RFA annexation. Some of smaller items like ambulance fees and custodial revenue wouldn't take much time to true up. Regardless of how the vote goes in the spring, mid biennium adjustments will need to be made to the adopted budget in 2025. Council President Olson commented it would reduce the levy amount in 2026. She will not support this budget amendment as it was not a good use of staff time. Councilmember Nand asked for an explanation of the LEOFF 1 and whether ambulance fees would impact that or was it just a mandatory expense in the 2026 budget regardless of whether voters approve annexation into the RFA. Mr. Taraday responded he would like to look into that before answering as it was not something he has studied in a while. As part of the pre -annexation agreement and the RFA plan amendment, the RFA pledged to take that on, but he was not prepared to speak to the alternate scenario. Councilmember Nand commented it is typical when planning a budget to include placeholders. When the City is running on such a tight margin, if all the assumptions are taken out regarding the alternate plan if annexation fails or the levy lid lift fails, the council could find itself in a very uncomfortable place in 2026. She was concerned with removing placeholder items until there is more certainty about revenue forecasts. MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING YES. Reduce Police Department Professional Services — Amendment #C22 Councilmember Dotsch withdrew this amendment. Reduce Police Miscellaneous — Amendment #C23 COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO REDUCE POLICE DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET BY $25,000 IN 2025 AND 2026. Councilmember Dotsch said there was no explanation regarding what the miscellaneous budget is for; removing this brings the budget back to approximately 2024 levels, Police Chief Michelle Bennett explained some of the things covered by the miscellaneous budget include dues for professional organizations, accreditation, merchant banking fees, LIARA police personnel admin fee, notary fees, cell hawk subscription, food for juvenile interviewees, extended callout food, dump fees, special event equipment, inclement weather needs, explosive licenses, NSM yearly payments, department training fees, etc. Some of these have been transferred from professional services into miscellaneous so they match better. Ms. Dunscombe explained through the budget process, the administration forced the police department to true up their BARS code a little which tends to make the year -over -year analysis difficult which means a comparison of 2024 to 2025 does not necessarily pan out. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 27 Councilmember Nand said she was comfortable with Chief Bennett's explanation regarding the essential services that would be funded with this $25,000 allocation and she did not support the amendment. Councilmember Paine asked if this included training. Chief Bennett answered it covers department training fees; there is mandatory training for things like the taser instructor, pepper ball instructor, etc., those certifications have to be maintained and those instructor fees are paid out of the miscellaneous budget. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND TO 11. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, DOTSCH AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. With regard to merchant fees, Ms. Dunscombe recalled a conversation on November 2 regarding ways the City can recoup expenses via revenue; however the departments still need the spending authority to pay merchant fees. The revenue collected is booked as a revenue and when the merchant fee is paid, it is booked as expense. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH WITHDREW THE MOTION. Automated Camera Ticket Increase COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO RAISE THE AUTOMATED CAMERA FINE FROM $130 TO $145. Councilmember Paine explained this will increase the red light cameras infraction fine and the school zone infraction fine from $130 to $145. An ordinance enacting this change will be required. The purpose of this amendment is to increase traffic safety awareness through a more noticeable fine. The needed personnel expenditures are already a sunk cost and there will be no other additional costs associated with this change. With this change it is anticipated the red light cameras would generate an additional $210,000 in revenue and school zone cameras would generate $72,000. Council President Olson said as much as she hates this, she will vote for it. Councilmember Nand commented her philosophical objection to the use of red light cameras for revenue generation is no secret. She found that program random, regressive, and it hurts low income earners. Although reaching into people's pockets and taking out an extra $15 might sound simple, it could be money they use for their child's school, gas money to get to work, a child's Christmas gifts, etc. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Tibbott commented this is a reasonable motion and he will support it. It has been sobering for everyone that this program has significant related costs. This is not only a way to help cover those costs, but also demonstrate a commitment to reducing infractions in intersections with cameras. Councilmember Chen commented red light cameras are for public safety, not revenue generation and a $130 ticket is a severe enough reminder. Although the City needs revenue, this isn't the right way to get it. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Paine asked how the $130 infraction amount was determined. Assistant Police Chief Rod Sniffen responded that is the state average in jurisdictions doing camera enforcement so that amount was selected to be fair and consistent. Councilmember Paine relayed Seattle's school zone cameras fine is $237 and the City of Lynnwood has escalators in their red light camera fines. She agreed public safety is critically important. She originally thought the $130 fine was low and when she learned the maximum for red light cameras is $145, she did not think it was unreasonable to increase the fine to the maximum. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 28 Councilmember Eck recalled the reason the council made a decision to install red light cameras was safety. To operationalize the process, adequate staffing is required. After the earlier discussions, it makes sense to increase the per infraction amount to pay for staff who are operationalizing this. It is not always low income or working class residents receiving infractions; people across all income levels receive infractions. The amount is not out of line with what other cities charge. Councilmember Nand emphasized Edmonds is not Seattle or Lynnwood and does not have major regional draws and businesses that can withstand people getting upset about receiving a $145 ticket. A lot of people do not drive in Seattle or Lynnwood after getting those tickets. She feared Edmonds would rapidly lose its reputation for being the friendliest town on the Puget Sound, that small business community would suffer once these tickets begin to be issued and Edmonds is known as a jurisdiction that raises revenue in this way. She apologized to the small business community for the impact this will have on them at the same time the City is trying to increase the amount of sales tax they generate. MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, DOTSCH AND NAND VOTING NO. Council President Olson asked if a motion was needed to have the city attorney draft an ordinance for approval on consent or was it implied by passing a budget amendment that requires an ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he sometimes drafts ordinance without an express direction. Councilmember Paine said an ordinance landed in her inbox today and she offered to forward it to Mr. Taraday. Assistant Chief Sniffen said he worked on a draft of the new ordinance with Sharon Cates at Lighthouse. It is a change to the camera enforcement ordinance, so all camera enforcement tickets will increase to $145, not just red light cameras tickets, but also school zone camera tickets. Fund Only One Assistant Police Chief Position A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK AND SECONDED, TO REDUCE THE POLICE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET BY ONE ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF (SALARY AND BENEFITS) EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2025 AND THROUGH 2O26. Councilmember Eck commented the council has been talking about the two assistant police chief positions. As staff has been reduced in that department and other changes are made, it makes sense to make this decision. It is a potential savings of up to $232,500 in 2025 prorated beginning April 1 and up to $319,300 in 2026, not an insubstantial amount. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO AMEND TO ASK THE ENTIRE POLICE CHIEF COMMAND STRUCTURE TO ABSORB A REDUCTION OF $551,800 THROUGH THE 2025 AND 2026 BIENNIAL BUDGET AND TO RECOMMEND A STRUCTURE AND POSSIBLY NEGOTIATE A DIFFERENT COMPENSATION PACKAGE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IN THE WAY THEY MOST SEE FIT. Councilmember Nand asked Chief Bennett to comment. Chief Bennett relayed her understanding there was a certain dollar amount the council wanted to decrease the budget by and the department is being asked to decide how to do that in their organizational command structure; instead of cutting a position, looking at the entire command structure with the CPMS audit and decide the best way to cut that amount. There were a lot of suggestions and recommendations from the CPMS audit that the department followed. As the City finds itself in a budget crisis, there definitely are areas of the police department that are very specialized and require certain supervision. There are sections related to operations, administrative accreditation, internal affairs, patrol, etc. It would behoove the department to look at what council is asking and figure out the best way organizationally to make that reduction versus cutting a particular position. Assistant Chief Sniffen agreed with Chief Bennett about looking at the command structure and determining what's best for the agency as there is a need to provide supervision in certain areas that are highly critical. By adjusting some positions at the top, the same goal may be achieved without identifying specific positions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 29 to cut. Chief Bennett said that may include compensation; some of that will require union negotiation for the command staff who are covered by Teamsters. She asked if there was an amount the council wanted to achieve, and if so, there are different ways to reach that number. Councilmember Chen asked how Councilmember Nand came up with the amount of $551,800. Councilmember Nand answered that is the amount of savings accomplished by eliminating one assistant police chief in 2025 and 2026. Using a dollar amount instead would allow the department to determine which positions, compensation, command structure, etc. would need to be changed. Councilmember Chen said he originally thought about this amendment, but did not bring it forward because he wanted the mayor to work with the police department to determine the best structure. He did not support the amendment. Council President Olson commented council has the authority to fund or not fund positions. It is the mayor's job to make organizational changes in consultation with the police department command staff. In conversations with the community about the budget, she has heard concern about having two assistant police chiefs and that it is an area where the City could be leaner. She applauded Councilmember Dotsch for including the April timeframe as there is some movement/flux and it provides time to figure things out. The City has two amazing assistant chiefs and an amazing chief. She will support the amendment. Councilmember Paine liked this motion because the April 1, 2025 effective date provides some time and offers some stability. With other decisions, the council will get close to $1M, the number talked about earlier. She preferred Councilmember Eck's motion rather than the amendment. The council can continue to look at other budget changes between now and the end of the first quarter. Councilmember Eck expressed appreciation for Councilmember Nand's amendment and understood the intent. She was supportive of departments making their own decision with regard to cuts, but would like to put this to bed. She was open to supporting the amendment if it was that exact dollar amount, reducing by $232,500 in 2025 and an additional $319,300 in 2026. Councilmember Nand explained she came up with the dollar amount based on Councilmember Eck's amendment. In a conversation with Chief Bennett today, she suggested various structures based on the CPMS audit. As a layperson, she has not been through the police academy and did not even know what CPMS stands for, but Chief Bennett said it could end up instead of funding six bodies in the command structure, there could be four bodies with a police chief, patrol assistant chief, and administrative assistant chief and just one watch commander. The police department has a level of expertise and understanding of the work they do and she would rather put the structure in their hands with the mayor's approval and just ask them to target a certain amount of savings. Chief Bennett agreed with Council President Olson and Mayor Rosen that is ultimately the mayor's decision. She was trying to gain an understanding if the intent was to reduce the structure by one assistant chief, to her knowledge, the department has had two assistant chiefs for 15+ years and commanders were added more recently. She asked if the direction was to reduce the budget by a certain amount in two years or eliminate one assistant chief position because some feel the department is top heavy and needs to cut one of those positions. She wanted to leave the department in the best way organizational which can be done through working with the mayor on restructuring the department based on what is needed to address legislative mandates, risk, etc. Councilmember Nand this is why she selected this dollar amount. Councilmember Dotsch asked if the amount was for the command structure or just in general. Mayor Rosen relayed the council was indicating it would be within the command structure. Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for the amendment, commenting eliminating the assistant chief position could still be an option to achieve the reduction cited in the amendment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 30 Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the amendment, finding it a clever way to allow the police department and the mayor work out the best arrangement. He appreciated the creativity and sensitivity to the dollar amount. Councilmember Paine asked if the motions were competing, noting the council has never had friendly amendments. Mr. Taraday clarified the motion on the floor is Councilmember Nand's amendment to Councilmember Eck's motion. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Chen asked if the amendment and the motion resulted in two budget reductions, noting the amendment was the same dollar amount as the motion. Mayor Rosen relayed his understanding it was a total of $551,800 which is $232,500 in 2025 and $319,300 in 2026. Mr. Taraday explained what changed wasn't the amount, but the flexibility to determine how to implement that amount in terms of command staff overall costs. Ms. Dunscombe said with amendments like this along with the earlier motion to align the FTE chart, org chart, and positions that are funded along with the FTE ordinance, staff will do their best to be clear what positions are funded. Allowing this amount of flexibility is great, but it makes that process more complicated. Mr. Taraday clarified this would be in addition to any other cuts the council previously approved. Council President Olson asked if anyone on the prevailing side wanted to reconsider their vote and make the motion simpler. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT, EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 42.30.090, THE DECEMBER 3, 2024, REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN ADJOURNED UNTIL 6 PM ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2024, AT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nand said she knew Council President Olson was prepared for this and planned how to make this motion, but when the council is discussing matters like the budget, she preferred to provide more public notice than one day. She suggested scheduling another meeting next week or later this week to give the public more notice that there will be another budget meeting in the event they want to comment. Council President Olson appreciated the sentiment, relaying every meeting can be adjourned to the next day, that is standard Roberts Rules. Councilmember Dotsch preferred to continue tonight because staff is here. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, DOTSCH AND NAND VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND TO 11:30. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 31 Move Homelessness Response Funds (018) to General Fund COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO TRANSFER $50,000 FROM THE EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND (018) TO THE GENERAL FUND. Councilmember Tibbott commented if the council moved $50,000, $3,000 would still remain in the Homelessness Response Fund. His rationale was there are a lot of city services that support people in unsheltered conditions and also preventing people from becoming unsheltered. This is a good way to supplement the General Fund with funds in the Homelessness Response Fund. Councilmember Nand asked if this would jeopardize funding for the imbedded social worker in 2025 or 2026. Ms. Dunscombe answered funding for that position, $130,000, is in 2025 from the Edmonds Homelessness Fund. That position is not funded in 2026. She assumed the City would seek grant funding for 2026 and there are other options for funding that position. It is difficult to say that this $50,000 puts that in jeopardy, but it reduces the City's ability to fill in funding required for that position. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding there was originally $200,000 in Fund 018; the administration proposed using $130,000 of that in 2025 to fund the police department's embedded social worker. If there was $70,000 remaining, she asked how Councilmember Tibbott's amendment to move $50,000 to the General Fund jeopardized funding the embedded social worker in 2025. Ms. Dunscombe said she would need to check if there were expenditures in 2024 that reduced the beginning fund balance for that fund. She knew $130,000 was appropriated in 2025 to fund the social worker position. Mayor Rosen relayed his understanding there was a grant and the funds were filling the gap. Chief Bennett relayed the department plans to seek a grant at the beginning of 2025 that would come to fruition in June so in theory half of the $130,000 could be spent if the department was successful in obtaining the grant. Ms. Dunscombe reminded the department does not have the grant in hand now. There is $51,000 in 2024 for the social worker which takes the position slightly into 2025. The $130,000 was to ensure there was funding available for that position for the entire year. Other funding options are being explored that could change that amount which is why it is difficult to say whether this $50,000 transfer puts that position into jeopardy because other opportunities to fund that position are still being researched. Councilmember Nand recalled a mid -year budget amendment to apply $51,000 toward that position in 2024. Ms. Dunscombe agreed, advising it extends slightly into 2025. She recalled an amendment to extend it past December 11 to fully utilize the $51,000 grant. Councilmember Nand said based on that information, she will not support the motion as she would like to use the Edmonds Homelessness Fund to retain the imbedded social worker and provide direct services to the homeless population. She expressed appreciation for the sentiment that resulted in Councilmember Tibbott proposing this amendment. Councilmember Paine spoke in support of the motion and asked if the human services program manager and the work done by that program could be supported by these funds. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Angie Feser advised the human services manager and program would not be impacted by Councilmember Tibbott's proposal. The current proposal is to fund that position using $50,000 in opioid funds and another $20,000 in grants. Councilmember Paine recalled the council has asked the administration to make additional cuts and wondered if this $50,000 would be helpful for human services programs. Ms. Feser answered the program is okay with the funding proposed in 2025 and 2026 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO. Remove Spending Authority for Police Crime Analyst COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE SPENDING AUTHORITY FOR SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR THE POLICE CRIME ANALYST POSITION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 32 Councilmember Tibbott said he learned this week that the person currently in this position will be leaving at the beginning of next year. Instead of filling the position, it may be wise to step back and look at other ways of providing that data; he has already heard two different novel approaches. Eliminating the position for now is a prudent budget move. Council President Olson commented that staff member did an awesome job and has been successful in obtaining grants. She asked staff to wish her the best, and to tell her that she will be missed and that her efforts were appreciated. Chief Bennett agreed she had been absolutely phenomenal. Council President Olson hoped the City could get 2-3 cities to support that program so Edmonds does not have to pay for all of it. Councilmember Dotsch expressed support for the motion, finding it fiscally responsible as well as from what she understands it is a nice to have and there could be opportunities to share costs in the future. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion. This crime analyst was also great at grant writing so there was a revenue aspect to the position, but that may have been a personal talent and not part of the job description. She expressed appreciation for her work, noting when she asked for numbers, they were provided within two hours. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Pause All Non -Mandatory Boards and Commissions COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO PAUSE ALL NON -MANDATORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FOR 2025 AND 2026 AND REDUCE THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT BUDGETS MOST NON -STAFF EXPENSES FOR THESE BOARDS. Council President Olson commented this may look like a small financial impact, but she has been told in terms of staff time, it is a huge impact, to the tune of $500,000. The budget includes furlough and cutting staff positions so it is critical not to have staff doing anything they don't have to do so the core things can get done. She apologized in advance to boards and commission members who may be hearing this for the first time. She thought about sending an email to boards and commissions but didn't do it because an ordinance will be required to pause boards and commissions because they are authorized in the code. She provided a description of the proposed amendment: Except for the mandatory boards, planning board, civil service board, disability board, lodging tax advisory board and cemetery board, all other boards and commission are proposed to be place on a standby status for budget years 2025 and 2026. This is due to prioritization of resources and staff time due to the fiscal emergency. In addition, a task force is underway to evaluate and possibly recommend reorganization of the City's boards and commissions or the City's overall approach to seeking community engagement, an effort already underway with the completion anticipated in 2025. Standby status is defined as special meetings of the boards and commissions could be called by the mayor or the council majority but there would be no regular meetings. The duration of board member or commissioner term will not include any of the time in standby status. The impact of $8,750 General Fund and $4,000 in Tree Fund 143 is the tip of the iceberg because this will impact how staff spends their time in the next two years. Playing devil's advocate, Councilmember Nand said this seems like a very easy thing to jettison. The tree board had already proposed meeting only four times next year in an effort to save staff time. She suggested asking the administration, who is already engaged in a task force, to reduce expenditures and staff time related to boards and commissions. Some boards may only need to meet 1-2 times next year, but would still be able to meet. She would rather put that to the administration instead of a hard, fast stop on all boards and commissions, especially ones like the DEIA and youth commission who reach vulnerable segments of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 33 population at a time when social isolation is very much affecting the mental health of young people and people from underrepresented communities. She wanted to stand up for the City's boards, commissions and committees, although she recognized the City was facing a fiscal emergency. Councilmember Dotsch asked about the architectural design board (ADB) with regard to the comprehensive plan and multifamily design standards. She suggested adding ADB to the list of exceptions. As some boards and commissions have already started, pausing them mid -year 2025 would allow them to finish what they started. Council President Olson said she didn't take all the ADB's budget away because she agreed the council will count on them for developing multifamily design standards and other things. She said $1000 of their minute taking budget remains. The ADB could still be paused and the mayor could ask them to meet. Councilmember Paine recognized staff time was a huge burden, but some of the boards provide a lot of information and support for the community like the DEIA commission, the economic development commission has done a lot of great work on the comprehensive plan, the climate protection committee has been doing a lot of community engagement, etc. She asked when the task force will make a recommendation and can that timeline be accelerated. She noted the boards and commissions each have different charter and asked if there had been any analysis of that. Council President Olson responded all the boards and commissions were originated by council so council has the authority to pause them; the intent is not to get rid of any of the boards or commissions. Councilmember Paine asked when the task force will make a recommendation. Council President Olson answered before the end of 2025. Councilmember Eck said some of the boards and commissioners are specifically mentioned in the printed amendment, but some non -mandatory boards and commissions are not mentioned such as the arts commission and youth commission. She asked if the proposed motion was to pause every non -mandated boards or only the ones listed under fiscal details. Council President Olson pointed out the list continued onto the second page. Councilmember Eck advised the arts commission was not listed. Council President Olson said the arts commission did not include any funding so it was not included on the list. She reiterated the intent was not for the boards and commissions to meet, just that they would not follow their standard schedule and the non -staff dollars on the form would be reduced. She left some funds for the ADB minutes. Councilmember Eck clarified the motion is to pause all non -mandated boards and commissions including those not listed; the ones not listed did not have dollar amounts associated with them. Council President Olson agreed. Councilmember Eck acknowledged in particular the DEIA commissioners, many of who are professionals in the field, speak for more community members than may be realized, whether they are LGBTQIA community members or supporters, it is not just accessibility, it's culture and everything. While unfortunate, she understands why the council is having this conversation. A case could be made for all the boards and commissions as they are all important in different ways. Unfortunately the City is dealing with a budget crisis and this pause makes sense while the overall shape of boards and commissions is being considered. Although painful, she supports the motion. Council President Olson asked Ms. Feser or Mr. Tatum whether they saw value in pausing boards and commissions. Mr. Tatum responded staff spends a considerable amount of time staffing and responding to boards and commissions so pausing them would gain a fair amount of staff time. He appreciated the ability for the mayor to allow special meetings. One of the things that would be challenging to implement is a complete pause is the arts commission which generates revenue, approximately $57,000 between sponsorships, Write on the Sound, and they do a lot of work. Having the ability to convene them to continue those revenue generating activities would be helpful. Ms. Feser concurred with Mr. Tatum's comments, relaying staff s availability to do other work will be important in upcoming years especially with staff reductions. She appreciated the flexibility to convene boards and commissions if necessary. Working with the task force will provide direction long term. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 34 Councilmember Nand commented Edmonds uses boards, committees and commissions more than other cities, but other cities use consultant to fulfill that same role in seeking community input and engagement. For example, some tree board members are licensed arborists. When updating the tree code, the City could hire a consultant or utilize the tree board. She hoped during this pause when there was a need for community engagement or input, instead of hiring consultant, the administration would reconvene the board, committee or commission so the passionate volunteers could do that work much less expensively than a consultant. Councilmember Chen commented as staff levels are reduced through budget cuts, it will be important for volunteer boards and commissions to step forward when they are needed. He appreciated the way Council President Olson structured this amendment, providing the flexibility to call on volunteers when there is a need, but freeing up staff time to support them. He expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Dotsch relayed she also liked the flexibility of this amendment. She agreed with Councilmember Nand that Edmonds has a very active and engaged public and people are very invested in the community which is one of the reasons it is such a great community. As positions are eliminated, programs cut, and efforts made to manage staff's bandwidth, this opportunity to pause boards and commissions will be very helpful. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND TO 11:40. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, DOTSCH AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDANCE WITH RCW 42.30.090, THE DECEMBER 3, 2024, REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN ADJOURNED UNTIL 6 PM ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2024, AT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Council President Olson anticipated the council could complete the budget amendments in an hour at an adjourned meeting starting at 6 pm. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO. ADJOURNMENT At 11:28 pm, the meeting was continued to December 4, 2024 at 6 pm. so-z"O' SCOTT PASSEY, CiIf CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 3, 2024 Page 35