Loading...
2024-12-04 Council Adjourned MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 3, 2024 Adjourned until December 4, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING STAFF PRESENT Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council adjourned meeting was called to order at 6 pm by Mayor Rosen. COUNCIL 2025-26 BUDGET DELIBERATIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE VOTING ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNCILMEMBERS DURING MEETING (Continued) Councilmember Dotsch withdrew her three amendments, advising she would speak to it during council comments. Parking Fees Increase Residential and Employee COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO INCREASE BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYEE PARKING FEES FROM $25/YEAR AND $50/YEAR TO $75/YEAR AND $120/YEAR RESPECTIVELY. Councilmember Paine explained the residential and employee street parking fees have not changed since 2024. The value of downtown street parking is not associated with what the private sector would charge nor is it valued according to the adjacent property. If approved, an ordinance amending ECC 8.52 would be in order. This increase will bring the permit fees to more closely reflect the value of on street parking and more closely reflect the rate of inflation over the past 10 years, discourage the purchase of excess parking passes, free up street parking for visitors and tourists, and the change would be a start for the valuation of the right-of-way parking lane. In 2024, parking permits brought in approximately $13,000 this year and residential permits brought in $10,000. Increasing parking permit fees bring will be closer to parity to what is charged in the private sector and may free up parking spaces. She clarified the motion was to increase the residential parking permit to $75/year and the employee parking permit to $120/year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 1 Councilmember Nand asked the rationale for inverting the higher and lower cost for residential and employee permits. Councilmember Paine answered employers typically purchase parking passes for their employees which she confirmed with City Clerk Scott Passey. It may be a business write off and part of the employee benefit packet. The proposed increase equates to $10/month for an employee parking permit. Councilmember Nand said she would be okay with increasing fees but preferred employees be charged less than residents because while it may be claimed on taxes or be part of an employee benefit packet, some of the employees are working retail or restaurant earning minimum wage, whereas most residents who would be seeking parking passes tend to be in the downtown area and she associated them with being more affluent. Council President Olson liked the idea of the employee parking permit being less, thinking the employees were paying for it themselves and in the downtown core are mostly minimum wage workers. She was not sure she felt differently about that even if the employer was paying for the parking permit. The City wants businesses to be successful and remain in business. The current rates are surprising low, but she would prefer $60 for the employee permit and $120 for residential permits. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO $60 FOR AN EMPLOYEE PERMIT AND $120 FOR RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL PARKING PASSES. Councilmember Dotsch asked if a residential parking pass and a guest pass was the same. Councilmember Paine advised a guest (visitor) parking pass is $10/year. Councilmember Dotsch commented $10 is a pretty good deal; she asked if the guest passes were linked to a license plate or residence. She agreed the cost of the employee parking permit adds to the cost of doing business so it is reasonable to have the employee parking permit be less than the residential permit. She noted parking in Seattle is much more expensive, recognizing Edmonds is not Seattle, and wondered if any comparables were considered. Councilmember Chen asked about parking fees in other cities. Councilmember Paine responded she had not done that level of research as this was a decision the council could make for the community. Councilmember Chen commented some employees are working at lower wage positions and he preferred the employee permit be lower than the residential permit. Councilmember Paine responded as it was explained to her by Mr. Passey, the employer purchases the employee passes. How that is negotiated between the employee and employer would be anecdotal and she was not sure what that looks like. Councilmember Eck said she was sensitive to increasing the cost for anyone working in the city, however, the City should be looking at fees annually. The parking permit fees have not been raised for a while and many community members would probably expect the City to reasonably increase these rates. She was unsure the increase needed to be scientific, what has been proposed is modest on a monthly basis. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson asked if a visitor parking pass was issued for one day or annually. Mr. Passey answered a visitor permit purchased with a residential parking permit is $10. A visitor permit purchased without a residential parking permit is $25. Ms. Dunscombe explained due to how those funds are receipted, it is an annual pass. A resident can purchase an annual residential pass and if they choose to, also purchase an annual visitor pass at that time. Council President Olson asked if the visitor pass was tied to a license plate. Mr. Passey explained a residential parking can be issued up to two visitor parking permits per residential address. Proof of residency is required and a visitor is defined as the guest of a person who resides within the permit zone, provided that the guest is not a resident of the residential address for which Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 2 the permit was issued. Council President Olson commented an annual visitor pass should be more than the residential parking permit. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL VISITOR PASS TO $150. Councilmember Nand found that amount punitive, fearing it would disincentivize people from purchasing a visitor pass at all because they could just have guests utilize street parking. She preferred a lower amount such as $30-$50. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO LOWER THE RESIDENTIAL VISITOR PERMIT TO $30. Councilmember Paine commented her rationale and thinking is the permits are used for people coming in from out of town for events like parades, Oktoberfest, the Arts Festival, etc. Parking is at a premium in the busy, active downtown zone. She would like to support a lower cost visitor permit because that is friendly, but this zone is highly utilized and she wanted the parking spaces to be valued in a meaningful way. She did not support the amendment. Councilmember Chen asked for clarification whether the original motion was $150/guest parking permit/year and the amendment was to $30/ guest permit/year. Councilmember Paine agreed those were the motions. Councilmember Chen said he could support $30, but not $150. Guests come infrequently for special occasions and $150 would be really punitive. Council President Olson asked if someone who owned a house in this parking zone purchased a visitor permit, could they give it to anyone coming to visit them. Mr. Passey answered the visitor permit is tied to a specific vehicle and is not transferable; it would be used for a frequent visitor, etc. Council President Olson asked what stopped someone from purchasing a visitor parking permit instead of a residential permit. Mr. Passey answered the person cannot live within the residential zone, they must have an address outside the zone to be considered a visitor. Council President Olson joked she was sure no one would figure out how to get around that which was all the more reason to make the visitor permit the same $120 as the residential parking permit. She summarized $30 is too low due to it being subject to abuse, but if it was attached to one person and that person was the only one using it and they did not live at the residence, she could support $30. She did not anticipate that was how it would be used so she did not support the lower amount. Councilmember Dotsch clarified this only affects areas where parking passes can be used; people can park in other areas for free without a permit. Mr. Passey agreed there are designated residential zones. Councilmember Dotsch recalled speaking to a resident who purchased a visitor permit for her son away at college who visits during breaks. She asked if a vehicle with a parking permit could be parked as long as someone wanted. Mr. Passey answered the City's parking limit is 72 hours. Councilmember Dotsch did not support the amendment, finding $30 too low. Councilmember Nand reminded councilmembers that the budget defunds the parking enforcement officer. The likelihood of people respecting the law and paying a significant higher amount without parking enforcement and just depending on law enforcement officers to enforce parking makes it more likely that people faced with sticker shock of $120 or $150 for a visitor permit will just bypass purchasing a visitor permit and the City won't collect any or significant less revenue. She encouraged councilmember to increase the cost of a visitor parking permit from $10 to $30 rather than increasing it to $120 or $150. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 3 Councilmember Eck asked for confirmation that the cost is currently $10 per license place to park 72 hours at a time. Mayor Rosen agreed. Councilmember Eck commented that is a really good deal and she did not see any benefit to increasing the cost from $10 to $30. She did not support the amendment. Councilmember Paine asked if someone can purchase more than one visitor permit. Mr. Passey answered the cost is $10/visitor permit for someone with a valid residential permit and $25 without a valid residential parking permit. There are no limits on the number of permits. Councilmember Chen pointed out the $150 in the original motion exceeded the $120 cost of the resident permit. An increase from $10 to $30 is a 200% increase. Council President Olson did not support the amendment. Nobody expects when go to visit someone that they will be handed a parking permit. This is a total luxury and only people who can afford to buy guests a parking pass would do so. Visitors can be dropped off and have someone park the car. There are exceptions for disabled parking that do not require permits. The lower fee is problematic due to the ability for someone living at the residence to easily abuse it. She relayed her intent to offer an amendment to make the visitor permit the same $120 as a residential permit. Councilmember Nand said if she were a resident in the downtown residential BD1 and 2 zones that are subj ect to parking permits and had been paying $ 1 0/year/visitor permit and was suddenly asked to pay $120 or $150, she would forego that purchase. She envisioned increasing the cost would be a deterrent to the City collecting additional revenue. The parking enforcement officer brought in over $60,000 in revenue in 2024, revenue the City will not have due to not funding that position in 2025. She encouraged councilmembers when looking at fees to not engage in revenue deterrent moves from the dais. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND NAND VOTING YES. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO MAKE THE VISITOR PASS $120. Councilmember Paine relayed the code states no more than three permits shall be issued to any one residence, but she was unsure she was looking at the right code. She found $120 acceptable as it would be $10/month. Councilmember Dotsch commented Councilmember Nand made a valid point about the budget not funding a parking enforcement officer which she envisioned would create some issues. As housing increases and less parking is required, parking will become an issue. There are a lot of seniors who live downtown who may be on fixed incomes, recalling the comprehensive plan showed people living with less means downtown. She did not support the amendment, but could support $60 to match the employee parking permit. Councilmember Tibbott commented the council is shooting in the dark and doesn't have a great idea how the permits are used. He did not support $120 for a visitor permit. AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND ECK VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO MAKE THE VISITOR PASS $60. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 4 Councilmember Chen commented this would be the same as the employee parking permit. It is still affordable and half of the cost of the residential parking permit. This is a compromise and no scientific method was used to arrive at that amount. Councilmember Dotsch hoped a more in-depth analysis could be done next year. She agreed with the proposed increase. Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmember Paine for bringing this forward and beginning this discussion. Councilmember Chen's compromise of $60 is more palatable and she will support it. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the proposed $60 visitor parking permit. It was her understanding in email correspondence with staff that some of the money in Fund 121 supported the parking enforcement officer. She was hopeful with the police department reorganization that that position could be restored. She asked for confirmation that there is still has one parking enforcement office and the second one will be laid off. Ms. Dunscombe explained the police department has two ordinance officers, one is animal control and one is parking enforcement. The animal control position is vacant and proposed to remain vacant and the parking enforcement officer is in the proposed budget as a layoff so both positions will be vacant in 2025. Councilmember Paine acknowledged that will be a challenge. She expressed support for the amendment. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2026 Lew Lid Lift - Staff Recommendation #19 Ms. Dunscombe explained this recommendation is to remove the $5M interfund loan in 2026 and replace it with a $6M levy lid lift. Even with last night's motions to reduce spending, in looking at the numbers, she did not feel there had been enough change to lower the levy lid lift from $6M. Her recommendation is a levy lid lift of $6M. Council President Olson asked the benefit of this approach versus a loan. Ms. Dunscombe explained one of the reason for changing it to an ongoing revenue is to be able to pay back the loan and the reserves. Without a substantial and ongoing revenue source, paying back the loan and fulfilling the reserve requirement cannot be done. Replacing the loan with an ongoing revenue source will fulfill the motion council made earlier in the process to restore the reserves. In addition, the proposed budget does not abide by the state auditor's office request to pay back the interfund loans within a three year timeframe. That cannot be done with the current revenues and expenses, but changing the loan to an ongoing revenue source will allow it. Council President Olson said there was only one assumption in the budget as originally proposed which she did not think was outlandish. She found it scary for the budget to rely on both passing, but she recognized the need for a levy of some size. If the levy was not approved, she asked if the fallback would be borrowing or making more cuts. Mayor Rosen said there would be more cuts. Ms. Dunscombe relayed the loan in 2026 isn't an option; expenses would have to be reduced further. Mayor Rosen added expenses would have to be reduced to match revenue as well as repay the loan. Ms. Dunscombe agreed, commenting that was another reason the administration felt another round of reductions needed to be made because the $7.5M loan was too much. Given there was so much relying on the passage of a levy lid lift, the risk needed to be lessened by reducing the loan in 2025. All those pieces needed to move together, reducing the loan in 2025 which reduces the risk of a levy not passing. It took several years get into this position, it will take several years to get out. She agreed relying on a levy passing at the end of 2025 and making adjustments to the mid -biennium budget was scary, but having a loan in 2026 isn't an option for financial stability going forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 5 Councilmember Nand said she has more comfort with this change due to the structural budget gap and extremely painful cuts being made to staff. She did not see how, unless affirmative steps were taken to try to bridge the structural budget gap, that there could be a functional city government going forward. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF THE $5 MILLION INTERFUND LOAN IN THE 2026 PROPOSED BUDGET AND REPLACE IT WITH A $6 MILLION LEVY LID LIFT. Councilmember Nand referred to the barrage of hate the council has received from the public about raising taxes. However, the council is not looking at cutting into essential services including revenue generating opportunities as the council just discussed, the parking enforcement officer. She was very concerned if the council doesn't aggressively pursue ways to raise revenue in addition to cutting expenses, Edmonds may not have a functional city government in a few years. It is appropriate and responsible to signal to the taxpayers that the council will be proposing a levy lid lift in 2025 in this amount and this is the impact it would have on the 2026 budget. It makes the finance department's job easier and inserts some certainty into the process. This is a very uncertain time for the City, with the fiscal emergency, the City's first biennial budget, the first time budgeting by priorities (BBP) was used; the less variables of uncertainty there can be in the assumptions, the more intelligently the council can go forward in their jobs as city legislators in planning how city government will function going forward. Councilmember Chen appreciated the thought behind this, but it was difficult for him to support at this point. Regardless of whether there is a levy lid lift or internal borrowing, there is uncertainty all around. In the end it all depends on voters' approval of the levy as well as RFA annexation. For example, if the City ends up contracting for fire/EMS services for another year in 2026, the City will need to come up with another $11 M net of transport fees. That is also part of this discussion. He anticipated the state legislature would take action on the 1% property tax restriction during this session which will be another factor. There are so many factors to consider, but right now the council is just trying to balance the budget either with a levy lid lift or internal borrowing. Mayor Rosen commented it is likely course corrections will need to be made. It is the intent for the administration and council to look for additional cuts beyond the targets to reduce the loan amount and interest and hopefully demonstrate to the community that the levy is a reasonable ask and for all the reasons the City is asking, is valid and justified. Regardless of the council's decision, if the council puts a levy on the ballot and it fails, there will need to be a course correction. To underscore what Ms. Dunscombe shared, an interfand loan in 2026 is not an option. It would seem the council would want to tell the public they have a plan and the plan is a levy and then have the conversation about the reasons. This proposal also complies with decisions the council made earlier in the process which are now out of alignment. Ms. Dunscombe relayed Mike Bailey and the Blue Ribbon Panel's original recommendation was to borrow in 2025 and have a levy lid lift in 2026. There is also technical language in the RCWs regarding exactly what a balanced budget is; it is quite possible that having a loan in 2026 does not technically make it a balanced budget although 2026 would end with a fund balance above zero. There is verbiage in the RCW regarding revenues and fund balance therein which also means revenue and fund balance within the General Fund, meaning a loan to balance the budget isn't not considered therein, thereby not necessarily making it a balanced budget. She has never been through a situation where that has been interpreted in a different way or has been called out, but she felt having the loan in the second year makes the City vulnerable to not proposing a balance budget. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO CALL THE QUESTION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 6 In response to Mayor Rosen's inquiry, City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised there is no debate on a motion to call the question and a super majority is required for approval. CALL THE QUESTION FAILED (4-3). Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Dunscombe for bringing this to council last night and allowing time to think about it. This is the right decision and council will end up figuring things out after the vote at the end of next year. She wished it wasn't necessary, but this is super responsible. Councilmember Eck commented this isn't a surprise, the council has been discussing it. While it isn't pleasant for the council or community to hear, the council has been cutting a lot, but it is not possible for the council to cut their way out of this. That doesn't mean the council and administration couldn't and shouldn't continue looking for efficiencies and other things to cut moving forward. To pass a balanced budget, it is important to have revenue to offset expenses. She expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Dotsch asked if the ending fund balance in 2025 and 2026 was better or worse than what was in the mayor's proposed budget. Ms. Dunscombe answered with all the fluctuations, she was sure it would be better, but not by much. What looks better is the strategic outlook in the years going forward. She chose the $6M levy lid lift to keep the biennium at almost the same ending fund balance in 2026. It is definitely the way the fund balance grows and allows replenishing reserves and pay back the 2025 loan in 2 years that makes this levy lid lift imperative to make that math work. It doesn't change the ending fund balance in 2026 by much. Councilmember Dotsch asked if expenses in 2025 are greater than 2024. Ms. Duncombe answered not recurring expenses. Expenses in 2025 will be better; she included a $3M repayment in 2026 for the 2025 interfund loan which makes expenses in 2026 higher than 2025. Councilmember Dotsch asked about without the loan. Ms. Dunscombe answered with the $1.5M reduction in 2025 and $2M in 2026, recurring expenses are definitely going in the right direction, but she could not say for certain if recurring expenses in 2026 would be more or less than expenses in 2025. Councilmember Dotsch commented there are so many unknowns and she felt more could be done. She worried about putting this burden on the taxpayers because in addition to the assumption that the RFA annexation passes, that will be close to a 135% tax increase. She acknowledged difficult cuts have been made but 2019 is quite different regardless of inflation; a lot of things were done, structural issues, that haven't been balanced. She worried if the council asks for money and doesn't fix those and continues to grow, there will be future asks of the taxpayers. She did not support the motion. Mayor Rosen commented even if council stayed at 2019 and tried to keep par with inflation, it is still a slow death because revenues do not keep up. When the council unbanked four years of property tax increases, it was a total of $700,000. Everything possible needs to be done in every area including finding new revenue streams, being as lean as possible and being honest with the public that things cost more and until there are other options, this is how the City gets revenue. Councilmember Chen commented the reality is City's revenues are not keeping up with expenses. Going out to the taxpayers who are also burdened with county and state tax increases is a big ask. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO USE THE $2 MILLION CONTINGENCY RESERVE AND REDUCE THE LEVY LID LIFT TO $4 MILLION. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 7 Mayor Rosen asked for clarification. Councilmember Chen explained using the $2M contingency reserve for operations was the original intent, it would reduce the levy lid lift and the council should also consider the other option of selling assets to generate cash. Ms. Dunscombe asked if Councilmember Chen would be open to using the $2M contingency fund to reduce the loan in 2025 which would also reduce the levy lid lift in 2026 although likely not dollar for dollar because funds would need to be allocated to replenishing the contingency reserve. While that gives some time in 2025 to consider the revenue options presented at the November 2 meeting or other one-time things that can be sold, it would buy some time. She felt that would be a better use of the contingency. It would require passing a resolution, amending the budget with budget authority, and replenishing the contingency reserve at some point in time. Councilmember Chen agreed with that line of thinking, reducing the internal borrowing in 2025 which would also reduce the interest as well. Councilmember Chen restated the amendment with the agreement of the second: USE $2 MILLION OF THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE TO REDUCE INTERNAL BORROWING IN 2025 THEREBY REDUCING THE LEVY LID LIFT IN 2026. Councilmember Chen explained using the $2M contingency reserve to further reduce internal borrowing from the utility fund in 2025 would allow the levy lid lift in 2026 to be reduced to $4M. For Councilmember Nand, Ms. Dunscombe clarified the request is to use $2M in the contingency fund 012. She would make a transfer from the contingency fund at the beginning of the year into the General Fund. It has never been her intent to do a loan for the full amount, but borrow as needed. This is would buy some time to think about revenue options and likely change the amount that needs to be borrowed. From an adopted budget standpoint, she was unsure it would reduce the levy lid lift in 2026 dollar for dollar, but it would play out closely. Councilmember Nand commented this would be zeroing out the 4% cushion that had been preserved. Ms. Dunscombe advised there would be about $200,000 left. Councilmember Nand said the 16% reserve has already been spent and she was uncomfortable with going to zero on the remaining 4% because those funds may be necessary if there is an emergency. If Councilmember Chen and Ms. Dunscombe support this, she will maintain her second for discussion. Councilmember Paine said she had the same concerns as Councilmember Nand. She was very uncomfortable with doing this quite yet since there will be tinkering occurring throughout next year. The council hasn't made many steps toward recurring revenue options; there may be some one time options. She preferred to build confidence that the council was looking for sustainable revenue options. She want the council to actively participate in searching for revenue options before she could support this. Councilmember Dotsch agreed with Councilmember Paine, there are so many unknowns and moving pieces, the public just heard about this last night and there was no opportunity for public comments at this meeting. She preferred to see where the City is in the first quarter next year, rather than blindly running forward on this option when there are other options for the council to pursue next year. She did not support the amendment or the main motion. Councilmember Eck asked under the scenario of using the contingency fund, what would the City do in the event of an unexpected emergency. Ms. Dunscombe said she was unsure how far $2M would go in a natural catastrophe, but it definitely increases the risk of the City being unable to respond which is why the contingency fund has remained in place. In the event of an emergency, there is the option of an interfund loan from the utilities or, depending on the emergency, seek outside help such as FEMA which is usually reimbursement or other state or federal grants. If there were no contingency funds available, her initial go - to would be an interfund loan. She did not feel comfortable using contingency money, but $2M is definitely not enough depending on the emergency that occurred. Mayor Rosen assumed Councilmember Chen's interest was finding the cheapest money; instead of borrowing from the utility funds that requires paying Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 8 interest, use the contingency which does not require paying interest. As Ms. Dunscombe said, if something happened, the City could still borrow from the utility fund. Council President Olson said using the cheapest money that the City does not have to pay interest on makes the most sense. The only caveat is how quickly the City could borrow money. This would just swapping out the loan for the contingency fund; if it is just as easy to access funds via a loan as the contingency fund when/if there was an emergency, she didn't see any difference other than a resolution is required to use the contingency funds. Ms. Dunscombe responded this is creating a lot of what ifs; depending on the emergency, the utilities will also need funds. What ifs are why cities have contingency funds in the first place. This is another reason for solid ongoing revenue, building the contingency and reserves back up which a loan in 2026 does not allow. Even in the thought process that this is the cheapest money, it provides more time to work through 2025 with more reductions if that is council's choice, exercising other revenue ideas and making changes to 2026. Barring nothing happening, that is risk of not having a contingency to fall back on. Council President Olson expressed support for the amendment, assuring the council is highly committed to working on revenue streams and not just relying solely on property taxes. The council and administration is scrambling to do the due diligence to get other revenue options up and running. Councilmember Chen commented if the $2M contingency fund is used to balance the budget for now, when 2025 comes around, all options can be considered including selling city assets to replenish the contingency fund when such revenues are identified. He concluded this is a wise move and it also reduces interfund utility borrowing and interest payments. Councilmember Eck commented this is a very important conversation to have and she appreciated Councilmember Chen's amendment. What sticks with her is Ms. Dunscombe's remark that staff recommendation is intended to achieve long-term sustainable revenue. She assured she and other councilmembers take this very seriously, but the fact is the budget hasn't been balanced with regard to revenue. Not taking this action risks kicking the can down the road and continuing to have these conversations and moving money around without fixing the long term problem. With regard to selling assets, the City doesn't have a lot of big ticket items to sell tomorrow; even if one of the buildings is sold, that may take a year or longer. The City needs revenue more quickly than that so she will support the original motion, but not the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBER CHEN VOTING YES. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DOTSCH AND CHEN VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine advised the next step is the budget ordinance which will be presented on December 17. Mr. Taraday agreed there will need to be budget ordinance, but he has not verified the date with Ms. Dunscombe. Mayor Rosen asked if a motion was required to direct Mr. Taraday to prepare the budget ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered no, it's obvious it has to happen; he will work on it with Ms. Dunscombe. 10. Councilmember Chen wanted the public to know that the council, mayor, the administration, and staff are all working toward the same goal which is to deliver a balanced budget and find ways to correct the ship, but that will take time. He asked the public to be patient and work with them because we're all in it together and one way or another, will get over it. Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmember Chen's comments. He was confident as the council continues to work on the financial situation over the course of the year, there will be opportunities to reorganize departments, raise revenues in ways that make sense for the City in light of the changing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 9 economy of the state and nation, and some really big changes will occur in the coming year that will inform decisions that need to be made before the end 2025 and the conclusion of the biennium. He encouraged everyone to roll up their sleeves and be ready for 2025, anticipating it would be a really great year in which a lot of positive things would happen. Council President Olson concurred with Councilmembers Chen and Tibbott's comments. She harkened back to the fact this is a brand new administration and the Blue Ribbon Panel dug into the City's finances during the first six months, providing a report in June. She was amazed by what the administration, mayor and Ms. Dunscombe had been able to accomplish. This was the first budget that used BBP process and the first biennial budget. She recalled Mr. Bailey saying BBP would be a bumpy road and there would need to be grace. Nobody here could have worked any harder than they did, including Council Legislative Assistant Beckie Peterson. It has been a labor of love and she assured the City will be saved. It has been a lot of work and she was proud of everyone, especially the council. She thanked Mayor Rosen and Ms. Dunscombe. She promised the council will work just as hard on revenues, aware that there are things already underway. Council President Olson announced the Edmonds Civic Roundtable will be hosting an event for electeds at the Point Edwards Clubhouse on December 5 at 5:30 pm. Councilmember Dotsch thanked those who attended and those who spoke at yesterday's meeting, assuring the council values their input. Decisions are still being made and the council wants to continue hearing from the public. There were 53 revenue opportunities identified, selling assets was not the only one. Increasing parking permits was another example of things that can be done. Fresh minds/faces have been able to stir things up and say business as usual is not the way to go. She appreciated all the hard work everyone has done, recognizing it had been very emotional. With regard to her three budget amendments, she did not present them based on Councilmember Nand's amendment related to the police; she wanted to wait and see what happens in the first quarter and give the administration time to present what they have been able to do. The council did not discuss the Police Command Staff Comps that were on last night's agenda and she suggested bringing that back to council. The comps indicate the Edmonds police chiefs salary is almost 44% above the median of comparator cities on the low end and 17% above the median on the high end. Councilmember Paine commented there are a few bright spots with this budget such as a grant writer to help support programs and to look for revenue opportunities. She looked forward to seeing what comes from that. There are a lot of talented people with great ideas. The next two years will be interesting, including pausing boards and commissions, something the City needs to provide communication about. This budget has been a hard process with a lot of information. She appreciated the representatives from the RFA attending yesterday's meeting. She recalled a member of the public asking when they will have an opportunity to talk to the RFA; there will be opportunities in the future once the council approves the pre - annexation agreement. She wished everyone a restful rest of the week. Councilmember Nand made a statement of grief and sorrow for the hardworking members of City staff who will be losing their jobs in the new year, who dedicated a good portion of careers to serving the community and the city. She had some contingent amendments that she would have made if more savings could have been identified by the end of the year, but council decided to push that out to April 1. She acknowledged Parking Enforcement Officer Missy, HR Analysis Emily Waegner, and Camera Operator Jerrie Bevington, real human beings for whom this is not a day of celebration, joy or relief. They did absolutely nothing wrong and are now losing their jobs due to financial mismanagement and dysfunction in city government. She summarized for her this is a day of sorrow and a grievous process. Councilmember Eck commented for businesses, particularly nonprofits, the last thing they want to do is layoff staff, but that doesn't mean hard decisions aren't made, that cuts aren't made and that cuts are never made to staff. To the previous councilmember's point, it is a hard decision and anything that effects service Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 10 levels to the community is also a hard decision. The council had to make some tough choices; when councilmembers are elected, they accept responsibility for doing that. She thanked the public for their comments, ideas and valuable input. She thanked the directors and staff, particularly those who are directly impacted by the decisions the council has made. Obviously councilmembers are not homogonous and that makes them better. Councilmembers all have different views, backgrounds, careers and strengths they bring to the role of councilmember. Having councilmembers all feel the same way would not be good for the community because community members do not all feel the same. When councilmembers have different opinions and they listen to each other to solve these hard issues, they are adequately representing everyone in the community and throughout each neighborhood. These same strategies can be used moving forward to solve other hard issues in the coming year. The public's feedback and ideas contributed to the success of budget decisions. She invited the public to encourage friends and family who do not live in Edmonds to visit Edmonds' cafes, restaurants and stores where there is a lot of holiday fare and they will find Edmonds a remarkable places to visit. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen commented as the year began, it was clear everyone in Edmonds would be touched by decisions that were made and anytime the City is not in a position where they have all the money and time they need, nobody will be happy and at some point things effect everybody and everyone shares in the pain. Throughout the year and especially during the last couple weeks, he has seen the community, staff and councilmembers bring their best to the table every day because this City is worth bringing your best. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the adjourned council meeting was adjourned at 7:19 pm. sx---e� SCOTT PASSEY, C CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 4, 2024 Page 11