2026-03-05 Council Special PacketEdmonds City Council Agenda
March 05, 2026
Page 1
Agenda
Edmonds City Council
Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
121 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261
MARCH 05, 2026, 5:00 PM
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.PRESENTATION
1.Presentation of The Mountlake Terrace Fiscal Sustainability Taskforce Results
ADJOURNMENT
For disability accommodations, materials in alternate formats, accessibility information, or language interpretation/ translation needs, please
contact the City Clerk at 425-775-2525 at your earliest opportunity. Providing at least 72-hour notice will help ensure availability.
City Council Agenda Item 2.1
March 5, 2026 - Special Meeting
TITLE:Presentation of The Mountlake Terrace Fiscal Sustainability Taskforce
Results (First Reading)
DEPARTMENT:City Council Office
PRESENTER:Teresa Simanton
NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational
RECOMMENDATION:N/A
BUDGET:
Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget
Fund(s):N/A ☐ Budget Reallocation Required
☒ No Budget Impact
PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT:
Mountlake Terrace recently partnered with Baker Tilly, a global financial advisory firm, to work with
their Fiscal Sustainability Taskforce made up of local residents, to analyze the city’s current financial
situation and create a vision on how to generate a plan for overcoming their current challenges and
build a long-term financial stability.
CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES:
Mountlake Terrace, similar to most cities in Snohomish County, was facing financial challenges. They
formed a Fiscal Sustainability Taskforce with local resident volunteers and then hired Baker Tilly to assist
in analyzing the decisions and factors that resulted in their fiscal situation. Baker Tilly worked with the
Fiscal Sustainability Task Force to identify changes such as cutting services and new revenue sources, to
help Mountlake Terrace create short and long-term plans to move the city out of fiscal crisis mode and
into long term sustainability.
My Edmonds News (February 7, 2026) featured a story on Mountlake Terrace’s Fiscal Sustainability
Taskforce and their process, partnered with Baker Tilly to identify and plan for fiscal correction and
sustainability. The article was met with wide ranging positive interest by local Edmonds residents and
some city councilmembers.
This special meeting is a chance for councilmembers to hear from the Baker Tilly Project Consultants and
find out more about the process that they managed with the Mountlake Terrace Fiscal Sustainability
Taskforce.
There will be a 20 minute presentation, followed by question and answer period.
Bios of the Baker Tilly Consultants:
Andy Belknap has more than 20 years of local government experience, including service as a city
manager, public works director, and in various interim management positions, as well as a consultant to
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 2/85
numerous municipalities and special districts. He specializes in local government financial management
and has led numerous projects to address structural fiscal deficits. Andy has served as an expert witness
and project manager for several bankruptcy proceedings for municipalities, including the City of San
Bernardino, CA, which led to fundamental changes in its governance and operations. As a result this
work and his other experience, he is an expert at identifying alternative service delivery arrangements
and developing revenues over a broad array of municipal services. Andy is a trained economist with
expertise in fiscal analysis and public finance issues. His blend of quantitative skills and a practitioner’s
understanding of public services and management systems adds value to all organizational and policy
analyses.
Matt Bubness brings 20 plus years of experience serving and working for a number of entities across the
public sector. At Baker Tilly, Matt specializes in budgeting, financial forecasting, staffing analysis and
organizational assessments. Matt has worked with a number of large, complex organizations in
managing significant financial pressures. In addition, Matt is a registered municipal advisor. Prior to
Baker Tilly, Matt worked at the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) leading outreach,
engagement and development efforts related to budgeting and strategic planning process
improvements. In addition, Matt led the development of best practice guidelines for all types of local
governments related to budget monitoring, performance measures and long-term financial planning.
Matt also led consulting engagements for local governments primarily related to organizational
assessments and process improvements particularly those related to budgeting. Before GFOA, Matt
worked for Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and the City Colleges of Chicago. Matt served as the operations
and finance director for all special education programming and previously held roles in operating and
capital budgeting for CPS. At the start of his career, Matt worked in the municipal bond field – including
structuring debt issuances and also as a credit rating analyst.
And a sampling of some past clients:
Kenmore, WA
Loomis, CA
Oak Park, IL
Oakdale, MN
Pleasanton, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Winchester, VA
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 3/85
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ITEM HISTORY:
Some city council and local residents have read the My Edmonds News article about the Mountlake
Terrace Fiscal Townhall presentation and wanted to learn more about it.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Fiscal Townhall Presentation
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 4/85
Presentation
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 5/85
Agenda
•Introduction
•Background
•Problem
•Description of city budget
•Long Range Fiscal Sustainability
Plan
•Description of budget strategies
•Overview of FST’s recommended
budget packages
•Breakout groups
•Individual feedback on draft
recommendations
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 6/85
Project Team Introductions
Carolyn Hope
Deputy City Manager
Sirke Salminen
Finance Director
Sienna Spencer-Markles
Communications &
Engagement Manager
Steve Toler
Director
Michael Perkins
Senior Manager
Jeff Niten
City Manager
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 7/85
Fiscal Sustainability Taskforce
15 community members who represent diverse perspectives:
•They have a widespread tenure in the city (2 to >25 years)
•Some work within the city
•Most own and some rent their homes
•Their income levels range from <$50K to >$200K per year
•Their ages range from Boomers to Millennials
•They are diverse in cultural and ethnic backgrounds
•They have a variety of experiences, a few have finance backgrounds,
some have a strong volunteer history with the city, and all care deeply
about their community.
FST Members: Brent Meyer | Charla Vaughan | Clark Morgan | Daniel Luoma | Ellen Lavoie | Eric Nodtvedt
Gina Ruelas | Ian Tucker | Jaimee English | Jeannie Kee | Jodie Gunderson | Kendehl Rojanasthien
Kerem Onat | Thesvy Cashen | Tshilaba Verite | Councilmember Laura Sonmore
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 8/85
Budget Priorities
Strategic Plan Goal:
Responsible Governance to Ensure Desired Level of Service
Strive for cost efficiency and effectiveness by leveraging city assets to their fullest potential,
maintaining transparency and responsiveness in decision-making, and balancing infrastructure
maintenance and expansion to support economic development and anticipated population
growth.
A.Ensure sufficient resources are dedicated to meet desired levels of service in each
department.
B.Invest in systems and technology to enhance efficiency and minimize risk, ensuring cost
effective service delivery.
C.Engage the community in evaluating short and long-term options to resolve the operating
and capital budget gaps and confirm the desired level of service, while balancing essential
services with preparing for growth and private investments.
D.Identify efficiencies and opportunities to reduce the cost of government.
E.Increase partnerships to leverage city resources, embrace opportunities to collaborate, and
improve the city more holistically.
F.Maintain public health and safety through police, fire, and emergency preparedness
services.
G.Continually evaluate ways to improve equitable service delivery to community members
with challenges to accessing services or where resources have not been invested recently.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 9/85
2025 Fiscal Sustainability Plan Report
•Provides a clear long-range financial forecast for Mountlake Terrace
•Benchmarks the City against peer communities for context
•Outlines the structural challenges driving the budget gap
•Presents a framework for fiscal sustainability planning
•Offers categories of budget strategies to guide discussion
•Identifies 22 budget strategies for consideration (without limiting the FST’s imagination!)
•Provides sample budget package scenarios
Purpose: Support informed decisions about Mountlake
Terrace’s financial future
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 10/85
Research for the Plan & FST Discussions
BAKER TILLY
INTERVIEWS SENIOR STAFF EMPLOYEE
SURVEY
FISCAL
SUSTAINABILITY
TASKFORCE
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 11/85
FST & Community Engagement Process
FST Prepared
Budget Packages
Community
Engagement
FST Learned about City
Services & Finances
Project Team & FST
Present to Council
More Community Engagement
Prior to Budget Development
Sept-Oct
2025
Nov
2025
Dec
2025
Jan
2026
Feb
2026
Spring
2026
FST Developed
Strategies
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 12/85
BACKGROUND
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 13/85
We have an annual gap in GENERAL FUND, between the revenues and expenditures
that averages $4.2 million per year through 2030, and $5.4 million through 2035.
Problem #1
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 14/85
Reserves (savings) will fall below minimum reserve goal in 2026 (20%), and will fall
below minimum reserve threshold in 2027 (5%), without corrective action.
Problem #2
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 15/85
Trends In Revenues & Expenses
GENERAL FUND
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
GF Revenues Expenditures
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 16/85
CITY BUDGET
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 17/85
How is the budget organized?
General Fund
Administration Police/ Public Safety
Parks and
Facilities Management
Community
Development/ Planning
Engineering, Street maintenance
Debt Service & Strategic Reserve Funds
Special Revenue Fund
Street Operations
Recreation
Other
Capital Improvement Funds
Parks
Streets
Facilities
Enterprise Funds
Stormwater
Water
Wastewater
Internal Service Funds
Fleet (vehicles, equipment)
Information Technology
The general fund does transfer some money to special revenue funds, internal service funds, and capital improvement funds.
The general fund and enterprise funds do not exchange money.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 18/85
What is the General Fund?
Administration,
$4,851,248
Safety, $8,854,611
Comm/Econ
Develop &
Engineering, $3,030,175
Property
Management,
$1,861,191
Parks, $1,504,809
Transfers Out, $3,847,798
Reimbursements
from Utilities,
$(3,462,411)
Property Tax,
$3,953,943
Sales Tax, $4,977,760
Utility Taxes, $4,210,606
Gambling Taxes,
$1,135,515
Licenses & Permits,
$2,985,699
Intergovernmental, $595,952 Charges for Services, $310,121
Miscellaneous,
$508,460
Total FY 2025 Revenues: $18.7 million Total FY 2025 Expenditures: $21.3 million
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 19/85
Where can the money come from for Cities in Washington State?
MLT
Uses Revenue Category Examples/Notes Restricted
Property Taxes General levy, lid lifts, voter-approved special levies Sometimes
Sales & Use Taxes Basic/optional, housing, public safety, etc.Sometimes
Business & Occupation Tax On gross receipts, regulated by ordinance/rate caps
Utility Taxes & Fees Taxes on utilities, some subject to state limits Yes
Lodging Taxes Tourism promotion, housing near transit Yes
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)Property transfer excise taxes for specific
capital/affordable housing uses Yes
Impact Fees Paid at time of development for streets, parks Yes
State-Shared Revenues Liquor, cannabis, transportation, criminal justice Sometimes
Fees/Permits/Charges Development, business licenses, regulatory fees No
Other Revenues Fines, investment income, donations, grants Yes
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 20/85
What are our revenue challenges?
MLT
Uses Revenue Category Structural issues
Property Taxes City Council is limited to 1% annual increase by state law
Sales & Use Taxes MLT already second highest in state (10.5%)
B&O Taxes MLT is working to attract business to increase sales tax
revenues, only have one large business
Utility Taxes & Fees Subject to state limits, and MLT is on the high end.
Lodging Taxes We only have one hotel
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)Unpredictable, used for parks and transportation
Impact Fees Unpredictable, used for parks and transportation
State-Shared Revenues Predictable but limited (~$500K/yr)
Fees/Permits/Charges Unpredictable with economic conditions
Other Revenues Not consistent forms of revenue – typically used for one-time
projects. Lower revenue amounts.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 21/85
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 22/85
How Did We Get Here?
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 23/85
The Problem is Systemic
We are not alone, according to AWC here are statewide trends:
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 24/85
Taxes are limited to 1% Increases without a Vote
In 2025, the actual property tax levy was $3,324,507 (this is what
the city collected)
In 2026, the city can only increase property tax by 1% with a vote
of the City Council, which they did.
$3,324,507 x 1% = $33,235
The total increased revenues for the city in 2026 is $33,235, which
is distributed proportionally across all taxed properties in the city
(homes, businesses, etc..).
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 25/85
How your property tax payment is distributed
Based on average tax assessed value of homes in MLT - $591,000, total tax bill is $4,707/year
$374/ yr + $81 bond for city hall
$293
$455
$28
$186
$685
$97
$1,572
$1,390
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
County
City
Hospital
Library
Fire
Transit
School District
State Schools
Dollars
Ta
x
i
n
g
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
Summary of 2025 Tax Distribution by Taxing Jurisdiction
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 26/85
The Problem is Statewide
Association of Washington Cities 2025 Survey
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 27/85
0.5%
9.9%
-7.0%
1.7%
-7.0%
3.2%4.0%
-49.8%
-60.0%
-50.0%
-40.0%
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Property Tax Increase, including levy lid lift, new construction, and use of banked capacity CPI Inflation Rate
The levy rate has decreased from $1.78 in 2017 to $0.61 in 2023 (or 35%),
prior to the RFA annexation.
Inflation
Property Tax Rate compared to CPI Inflation Rate for Region
$1.7M in revenues since 2024
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 28/85
Liability Insurance Costs
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
$2,000,000
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Liability Insurance Premium
$1,232,621 since 2021
$200K-300K per year
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 29/85
Infrastructure Costs
Some general funds support capital projects and street maintenance
•Nationally, the Mortenson Cost
Index went up 1.2% in the third
quarter of 2025 and is up 6.6%
compared to a year ago.
•In Seattle, costs rose 0.9% this
quarter and 6.6% over the last
twelve months.
•COVID created supply chain
problems that added to costs.
•Additionally, tariffs are causing
turmoil in the bidding process for
construction projects.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 30/85
Infrastructure Costs
Some general funds support capital projects and street maintenance
•The general fund often provides
some funding to capital programs
and the street operations fund to
support major maintenance and
capital projects.
•These costs have increased with
higher construction costs and
supply chain issues.
$450K since 2020
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Interfund Transfers
Street Operations (includes major maintenance)Parks and Facilities CIP Streets CIP
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 31/85
Salary Costs
Most job positions were 15+ years overdue for a market rate study
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Comparison of Inflation to COLAs for MLT Workforce
Inflation per CPI-U COLA for Police Guild COLA for Teamsters COLA for Non-Reps
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 32/85
Salary Costs
Most job positions were 15+ years overdue for a market rate study
$2,000,000 since 2024
% from Market Average # Job
Types
At Market 1
Within 5% market 8
5-9.9% below market 1
10-19.9% below market 10
20-29.9% below market 20
30-39.9% below market 4
40-59.9% below market 3
60% or more below market 2
NON-REPRESENTED STAFF
MARKET STUDY RESULTSThe market study showed:
•81%of non-represented positions were more than
5% from market
•Prior to the market study, the city was seeing high
turn-over (18 to 32%) and very long times to fill
vacancies. The competition from other agencies
and the private sector was difficult.
•138 non-represented staff were employed at the
time of the study, working in 49 job types
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 33/85
The COVID Pandemic
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 (Est)
Recreation Revenues
COVID-19 Pandemic
$550,000 to $850,000/year since 2020
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Recreation Revenues
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 34/85
Costs of Safety
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2022 2023 2024 2025
Police Court & Jail Services
2023: Reduced OT Budget
Police Guild & Teamsters salary increases
in 2024
Public defense costs increase $522,000
$522,000/year since 2024
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 35/85
2025 Budget Amendment
•In 2025, the city administration
caught up on a backlog of annual
financial reporting, audits, and
developed a new long-range financial
forecast.
•This revealed that the beginning fund
balance for the general fund in 2025 is
$8.2M vs the adopted $12.5M.
•This depletes the reserves faster than
originally anticipated.
$4,300,000/year BFB
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 36/85
Summary
Annual Changes in the General Fund
Year Item Revenue Change Expenditure Change
2024 - present Property Tax -$1,700,000
2021 - 2023 Fire Contract -$3,200,000
2023 - present Liability Insurance $300,000
2020 - present Infrastructure Contributions $450,000
2024 – present Personnel Costs – Non-Represented Staff $2,000,000
2020 - present COVID Impacts on Recreation Subsidy from
GF
$700,000
2025 - present Safety Costs $522,000
2025 - present Corrected 2025 Beginning Fund Balance -$4,300,000
Total -$6,000,000 $772,000
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 37/85
Fiscal Sustainability Plan
Key Points
EXPENSES ARE
EXCEEDING REVENUES
CITY NEEDS
A LARGER RESERVE THIS IS SOLVABLE!
•Between 2026-2029,
the gap is $4M a year.
•Post 2030, another $2M
per year will be needed.
•Reserves could be
depleted by 2027.
•The current Reserve
Fund is 5% of the
general fund, but best
practice is 20%.
•Beyond bridging the
gap in the budget,
building the reserve is
also crucial.
•In partnership with the
community, the City can
make changes.
•Requires
communication,
education, and an
understanding of what
services the community
values.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 38/85
BUDGET STRATEGIES
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 39/85
Budget Strategy Types
REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS
•Primary focus on
revenue strategies
to solve the fiscal
gap
SERVICE DELIVERY CHANGES
•Focus on revenue
enhancements with
a goal of providing
additional
resources for
capital
improvements
EXPENDITURE CONTROLS
•Blend of revenue
enhancements and
expenditure
reductions to solve
the gap attempting
to mitigate service
level reductions
SERVICE REDUCTIONS
•Reliant primarily on
expenditure
reductions with
significant cuts to
service levels
Revenue Enhancements Expenditure Reductions
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 40/85
Evaluating Budget Strategies
Factors to Consider
Equity
Community expectations for services
Technical and operational
Disruptive impact on service delivery
Impact on City organizationEVALUATING
STRATEGIES
FISCAL IMPACT
DIFFICULTY OF
IMPLEMENTATION
TIMING
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 41/85
Baker Tilly Proposed Budget Strategies
Type Title Fiscal impact
Expenditures controls Freeze compensation/ benefits for 2 years $400,000Expenditures controls Revise Cost allocation plan $50,000Expenditures controls Elminate Police Command Services Commander $250,000
Expenditures controls Eliminate ERP Redundant Software subscriptions $50,000
Expenditures controls Remove historical budgetary savings areas $150,000
Revenue - Councilmanic Use property tax banked capacity $2,400,000Revenue - Councilmanic Increase TBD License fee to $40 $315,000Revenue - Councilmanic Increase Utility Taxes for solid waste, sewer, stormwater, wastewater $1,200,000
Revenue - Councilmanic Adjust aquatics cost recovery to 100%$350,000
Revenue - Councilmanic Shoreline equipment maintenance revenue $30,000Revenue - Voters General property tax levy lid lift $1,200,000Revenue - Voters Transportation benefit district (TBD) sales tax $835,000Revenue - Voters MPD for recreation programming $2,150,000
Revenue - Voters Utility tax to 8% (electric, gas, telephone, cable)$505,000
Service delivery changes Law enforcement services model TBDService delivery changes Recreation programming to 3rd party $1,000,000Service delivery changes Domestic violence coordinator $100,000
Service delivery changes MPD for parks and recreation services $2,150,000
Service delivery changes MPD for parks and Pavilion facilities $800,000-$1,200,000
Service reductions Reduce GF expenditures by 10%$2,100,000Service reductions City sponsorships/ special events $130,000Service reductions Recreation fund subsidy $450,000
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 42/85
FST Budget Strategy Recommendations
No.Description Type Annual Amount
FST1 Placemaking and Branding MLT Revenue - Councilmanic $ 2,000,000
FST2 Increase housing density Revenue - Councilmanic $ 2,000,000
FST3 Increased sponsorship/events revenue Revenue - Councilmanic $ 500,000
FST4 Automate Permit & License Processing via AI/Workflow Tool Expenditures controls NA
FST5 Expand Events Sponsorship Program Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST6 Citywide Subscription Audit (All Departments)Expenditures controls NA
FST7 Update Economic Development Plan Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST8 Sales tax recovery Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST9 Senior Center Building rent Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST10 Code violation fines Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST11 Right of way vegetation maintenance Expenditures controls $ 100,000
FST12 Impose higher tax on empty commercial properties Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST13 Fleet Management Fund efficiency evaluation Expenditures controls $ 125,000
FST14 Proposal #1: Strategic Workforce Realignment & Retention Incentive Expenditures controls NA
FST15 Proposal #2: Repurpose Former Casino Sites into Mixed-Use Revenue Engines Revenue - Councilmanic NA
FST16 Proposal #3: Explore MLT Church as a Community Arts Anchor Expenditures controls NA
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 43/85
Recommendations Legend/Labels
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 44/85
FST Recommended Budget Packages
Budget Strategy Description Type Fiscal Impact Timing
CORE STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED
2 Cost allocation plan Expenditure Control $50,000 2026 (1 year)
4 ERP software subscriptions Expenditure Control $50,000 2026 (1 year)
5 Historical budgetary savings areas Expenditure Control $150,000 2026 (1 year)
11 Reduce GF expenditures by 5%Service Reductions $1,000,000 2026 (2 years)
15 TBD sales tax Revenue - Voters $835,000 2028 (1 year)
16 MPD for recreation (city controlled,
open to adding others)Revenue - Voters $2,150,000 2030 (2 years)
22 Shoreline equipment maintenance
revenue Revenue - Councilmanic $30,000 2027 (2 years)
PREFERRED PACKAGE
18 Property tax banked capacity
(100%)Revenue - Councilmanic $2,400,000 2027 (2 years)
ALTERNATE (SECONDARY) PACKAGE
3 Police Command Services
Commander Expenditure Control $250,000 2028 (1 year)
18 Property tax banked capacity (75%)Revenue - Councilmanic $1,800,000 2027 (2 years)
19 TBD license fee increase from $20
to $40 Revenue - Councilmanic $315,000 2027 (1 year)
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 45/85
Recreation Pavilion Costs
Background The city owns and operates the
Recreation Pavilion, which is 33,000 square feet. Built in
1968 and 4 major additions and remodels. Visits per year
on average - 400,000 (pre-pandemic) to 270,000
(2024).Key services: Pool, Dance, Fitness, Childcare,
Racquetball, Indoor Playground
•The life of the Recreation Pavilion is coming to an end. It
is not financially reasonable to renovate the building for
a variety of structural and code related reasons. This
was decided in 2009 with the Civic Facilities Advisory
Taskforce and reinforced with a recent facility
assessment by a third party.
•The cost to replace the Pavilion with similar amenities
may be ~$100M by the time we are able to build.
•The city cannot afford to pay for a facility like this on
our own.
•Over 70% of our users are from other cities.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 46/85
Recreation Pavilion Replacement Financing Options
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Metropolitan Parks District
Bond, typical or 63-20 Tax Exempt Bond
Partnerships
Donations
Grants
Other special district
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 47/85
Metropolitan Parks Districts
What is a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD)?
•An MPD is a junior taxing authority, relying on property
taxes.
•Approval requires a simple majority vote.
•The maximum amount any MPD can levy is
$0.75/$1,000 assessed value.
•These funds can be used for operations and capital
projects.
•For more information: mrsc.org/explore-
topics/parks/financing/metropolitan-park-districts
Geography:
•One facility or multiple
•One City or multiple
jurisdictions
Functions:
•All parks and recreation areas and services
•Just recreation facilities and services
•Just parks
•Just operations or capital
•Both operations and capital
Governance:
•One city can be the City Council, all elected board
members, or a combination
•Multiple jurisdictions can be representatives of each
governing body, all elected, or a combination.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 48/85
Metropolitan Parks District Types Considered1
1. City Only
•All Recreation & Parks
facilities
•All programs
•All staff
•City controlled
•Only $24M available for
capital projects at same tax
rate as partnerships.
Impact on General Fund:
$2.15M
Impact on Residents: $254 -
$444
2. Multi-Jurisdiction
•All Recreation & Parks facilities
•All programs
•All staff (could be third party
operated)
•City can have representation,
but not sole control.
•Tax to build a new
aquatics/recreation facility is
spread across sub-region.
Impact on General Fund: $2.15M
Impact on Residents: $432
3. Multi-Jurisdiction
•Aquatics & Recreation Facility
•All recreation programs
•All recreation staff (could be
third party operated)
•City can have representation,
but not sole control.
•Tax to build a new
aquatics/recreation facility is
spread across sub-region.
Impact on General Fund: $800,000
- $1,200,000. Impact on Residents:
$200-$432
FST thoughts: This is the FST’s favored option 1 for a City Only MPD; however, they understand that it is not financially
viable for rebuilding a recreation pavilion. Open to idea of a multi-jurisdiction MPD if the Recreation Pavilion is located
in MLT. Can start smaller and expand MPD over time. This topic will come back to the community for further
consideration. Staff generally wanted to understand from the FST, if an MPD is a possibility by 2030.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 49/85
Recreation Programs
HOW ARE RECREATION PROGRAMS OPERATED?
•Like a business with a subsidy from the
city’s general fund for youth programs.
•The city needs to invest in staff, supplies,
equipment, facilities and maintenance.
•The programs have fees and the fees are
expected to cover 80% of the costs. This is
referred to as the cost recovery rate.
•Sometimes the fees don’t meet the goal
and the subsidy is larger. This has been
the case since 2020 COVID-19 pandemic;
however, we are very close to meeting the
80% goal now.
WHY DO WE SUBSIDIZE RECREATION?
•Intended to serve those most in need.
•To provide introductory programs
to encourage people to live healthy lifestyles.
•To provide life safety programs, like learn
to swim.
•To provide affordable childcare programs.
•To build community and provide a safe place
for our community to congregate.
•Recreation fees are approved by
City Council annually. To date, there has been
a willingness to subsidize key programs to
ensure basic needs of our community are met.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 50/85
Recreation Programs Finance Model
Revenues Expenses
Program fees
Rentals
Concessions
General fund subsidy
Administrative staff
Facility operations
Instructors
Supplies
Administrative expense:
marketing, technology, software,
insurance
$2.6M
$750K
Estimated Total $3.4M Estimated Total $3.4M
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 51/85
Third Party Operator for Recreation
Service Delivery Alternative
Impact on General Fund $800,000/ yr Impact on Residents $TBD – May increase fees
PROS CONS
•Eventual cost savings to the
general fund is significant.
•Best to evaluate this when
a new facility is in place, as
we don’t know the lifespan
of the current facility.
•Requires competition and
negotiations with outside
contractors.
•Fees for programs could
increase, pending contract
terms.
•The city would still be
responsible for capital
costs.
•Loss of control.
FST thoughts: In favor of evaluating this model when/if a new
facility is constructed.
Cost savings could come in the form of:
•Personnel
•Administrative overhead (training, day to say supplies)
Examples of third-party operators:
•Swim clubs (Yost Pool)
•YMCA (Sammamish, Snoqualmie, etc)
•Recreation instructors hired as contractors rather than
employees (many cities)
•Boys & Girls Club (partially in some Bellevue locations
and other cities)
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 52/85
Reduce Subsidy for Recreation
Service Level Reductions
Impact on General Fund $450,000/ yr Impact on Residents TBD (rec fees potentially)
PROS CONS
•Improves the general fund
balance.
•Staff are continually
evaluating ways to meet or
exceed the cost recovery
goal.
•New Recreation, Parks and
Open Space Plan will be
prepared in 2026 and
evaluate programs and
revenues.
•This would require a
restructuring of the cost
recovery model and
approval of Council to
adjust programs and fees
significantly.
•May reduce some
programs and/or increase
fees.
•Council has supported
keeping fees affordable and
programs available to all.
FST thoughts: This will be something to consider further
with a new facility and operating model.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 53/85
Increase Cost Recovery for Aquatics to 100%
Revenue Enhancements – Council Approval Required
Impact on General Fund $350,000/ yr Impact on Residents $TBD *Fees or Different
ProgramsPROSCONS
•Improves the general fund
balance.
•Staff are continually
evaluating ways to meet or
exceed the cost recovery
goal.
•New Recreation, Parks and
Open Space Plan will be
prepared in 2026 and
evaluate programs and
revenues.
•This would require a
restructuring of the cost
recovery model and
approval of Council.
•Would need to increase
fees.
•Council has supported
keeping fees affordable and
programs available to all
especially swim lessons,
since it is a life safety skill.
•Difficult to meet 100% with
facility maintenance costs.
FST thoughts: This will be something to consider further
with a new facility and operating model.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 54/85
Eliminate most City Events & Position
Service Level Reductions
Impact on General Fund $130,000-190,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Help achieve budget goals •Events are strongly desired
by the community
•Events are part of the City
Council’s Economic
Development Strategy
FST thoughts: Did not favor this option, building up
citywide events is important to the community, builds
community, creates a sense of safety.
Current Events Budget
•General Fund Events Logistics Budget - $60,000
•Events Coordinator - $130,000
Events Coordinator Responsibilities:
•Earn sponsorship revenues to enhance budget for city run
events (currently at $48,500 per year). Active in business
community to build relationships.
•Develop partnerships with other event producers and
encourage them to host events in city.
•Plan for and produce all city events, often alone or with
some support from maintenance and police staff.
•Supports parks and DEI Commission events.
•Supports internal staff large meetings and wellness events.
•Since 2022, this position added >15 events.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 55/85
Freeze Compensation & Benefits
Time to fill Positions – 2022-23, prior to market study
Expenditure Control
Impact on General Fund $400,000 for two years Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Could be a short-term
solution until a longer term
or more technically difficult
budget strategy can be
implemented.
•Short-term solution
•Defers compensation for
employees who just met
market conditions after 15+
years.
•Typically use this strategy
during short term
economic downturns
rather than long-term
structural imbalances.
•This would be difficult to
leverage with collective
bargaining units. If so, the
full savings may not be
possible.
City staff are paid the average of the market, using a sound
analysis involving ten comparable cities that offer comparable
services in our region.
Position Days to Fill
Public Works Director 150
Public Works Operations Mgr 150+
Civil Engineer I 84
Civil Engineer II 300
Permit Specialist 70
Maintenance Aides 222+
Aquatics Coordinator 365+
Clerk I (Rec)258
Lifeguard 365+
Swim Instructor 365+
Permit Specialist 70
FST thoughts: MLT staff already lean, and these actions make it
more difficult to attract and retain employees.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 56/85
Update Internal Cost Allocation Plan
The current internal cost allocation plan results in $3.5M
general fund reimbursements for items such as:
•City Manager’s Office staff
•Human Resources
•Information Technology Services
•Finance staff
•Facilities maintenance staff
•Building costs
Expenditure Control
Impact on General Fund $50,000 Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Potentially more cost
recovery for the general
fund.
•It is possible that the
revised methodology
doesn’t increase revenues
to the general fund.
FST thoughts: this is something staff plan on evaluating
and FST would like to look at the possibility of increased
reimbursements to the general fund.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 57/85
Reduce Software Subscriptions
Expenditure Control
Impact on General Fund $50,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Cost savings could be
within the first year or two,
pending contracts.
•Eliminate waste if there are
un-used licenses or more
efficient software or other
means of completing the
work.
•Since the adoption of the
2024 IT Strategic Plan, staff
have been evaluating
licenses, software
platforms and making
reductions as needed, so
there may not be $50,000
in savings.
•Related, staff are
implementing the new IT
Strategic Plan to add
software platforms and
create efficiencies for staff.
FST thoughts: this is something staff plan on evaluating
and FST would like to look at the possibility of increased
reimbursements to the general fund.
RECENT PROGRESS IN EVALUATING SOFTWARE PLATFORMS
Platform Action
Tyler Technologies HR Module
cost included in ERP system
Training occurred, launching in
2026
Tyler Technologies launched
Employee Access Module
Increased efficiencies for staff
and workflow.
Replaced e-signature software Evaluating who has duplicate
licenses and the needs of the
users and eliminating one.
Replaced agenda software
(Council, Planning
Commission)
Reduced costs, more efficient
for staff and community access
to meeting materials
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 58/85
Eliminate Historical Budgetary Savings
Expenditure Control
Impact on General Fund $150,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Reduce budget without
disruption to service
provision.
•Considerable immediate
savings.
•There are some areas, like
maintenance, where this
conservative budget
estimating allows staff to
respond quickly to issues
without having to take
weeks to seek council
approval for a budget
amendment.
FST thoughts: This is a reasonable expenditure control to
take.
Key areas to evaluate for historical budgetary savings include:
•Supplies
•Contract services
•Training
•Maintenance
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 59/85
Reduce Expenditures by 5%
Service Level Reductions
Impact on General Fund $525,000/ yr for two yrs Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Helps achieve budget goals
•Removes budgeted, vacant
positions from books
•Potentially reducing a full-
time position in 2027 that
will create a gap in service.
•The recreation subsidy is
hard to predict and is
based on use of the
programs. May require
adjust to fees or programs.
•Reduction in professional
and contract services puts
more work on staff and
often eliminates specialized
services.
FST thoughts: Reduce expenditures by 5% understanding
that the city will prioritize core public services.
This proposal will reduce the general fund by $525,000
in two phases, which will add up to $1,050,000
annually starting in 2027.
Options for service reductions will be vetted with the
community during public meetings this Spring, before
the 2027-2028 budget process.
Initial savings will be made with vacant positions and
reductions in contracts and removing the general fund
contribution to the Street Construction Fund.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 60/85
Evaluate Markup for Fleet Maintenance Services with Shoreline
Revenue Enhancements – Council Approval Required
Impact on General Fund $30,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Contributes to revenues in
general fund to cover
staffing and overhead
costs.
•Need to come to an
agreement with Shoreline
on the proposed change.
FST thoughts: this is something staff plan on evaluating
and FST would like to look at the possibility of increased
reimbursements to the general fund.
Partnership with City of Shoreline
•MLT provides fleet and equipment maintenance
services to the City of Shoreline. The goals is to
recover our costs and provide the partner with a
much needed, specialized service at a discount
compared to the private market.
•In 2024, MLT raised the rates to account for
significant wage increases and lowered our net
revenue to ease Shoreline into the rate increases
with the understanding that we would revisit the
rates in 2026.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 61/85
Eliminate a Police Commander
Expenditure Control
Impact on General Fund $225,000-250,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Cost savings supports the
gap and it would be long
term.
•Eliminating this position
would occur when a
commander retires, that
date is not definite.
•Eliminating this position
creates a broader span of
control for the Chief and
remaining Commander to
manage 32 staff, and to
alternate for on-call
emergencies.
•Challenges for continuing
accreditation with WASPC.
FST thoughts: this was a difficult decision and not the favored
reduction especially considering the growth of the city and the
considerable increase in the span of control.
Organizational Chart of Police Department
In 2020, one command staff position was eliminated, leaving
three – the chief and two commanders. The department has
not grown in more than a decade, despite population growth
and the urbanization of the city.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 62/85
Seek New Service Delivery Model for Police
Expenditure Control
Impact on General Fund $TBD/ yr Impact on Residents $TBD
PROS CONS
•Potential for cost savings.•No guarantee of cost
savings without significant
negotiations and analysis.
•If contract with others, less
focus on our cities law
enforcement goals, loss of
control, potential reduction
in service levels,
community feeling
disconnected from law
enforcement decisions.
•Would be a significant issue
to bargain with the Police
Guild.
FST thoughts: Not in favor of this model without knowing more
about possible savings. MLT police department is key to feeling
safe in our city and an asset to our community.
Options to continue evaluating:
•Outsourcing law enforcement services to another agency
•Providing law enforcement services to other cities
•Regional consolidation with other law enforcement
agencies
Financial benefits of partnerships can be achieved by sharing
key services such as shared:
•Command staff
•Training resources
•Specialty services such as evidence, records management,
and specialized investigations
•Potential for staff to promote easier in a larger organization.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 63/85
Eliminate Domestic Violence Coordinator
Service Delivery Alternative
Impact on General Fund $100,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0
PROS CONS
•Cost savings supports the
gap and it would be long
term.
•Not a required service.
•This is a well used and
valued service provided by
our police department that
directly impacts people’s
lives.
•While there are non-profit
services available, they
don’t provide the same
types and level of service
as this position.
FST thoughts: Not in favor of eliminating this critical
service.
What does the Domestic Violence Coordinator do?
•Coordinate cases between the victim, the Police
Department, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and courts.
•Assist in obtaining evidence of alleged crime.
•Assess victim’s immediate needs (i.e. safe housing, income,
etc.); help victim develop a safety plan; provide information
and referral to community resources; and provide
information on filing for and obtaining civil protection
orders
•Make recommendations in court and to the prosecuting
attorney regarding no-contact orders
•Make charging and sentencing recommendations to the
prosecuting attorney and court on behalf of victim.
•Community outreach and education on crime-related
issues, prevention and training of department personnel
relative to crime victim issues or concerns.
•Caseload: 365/year, 218 were criminal in nature
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 64/85
Use Banked Capacity for Property Tax Increase
Revenue Enhancements – Council Approval Required
WHAT IS BANKED CAPACITY?
•The county tax assessor determines the
total assessed value of all properties in
each city and allocates the
maximum allowable levy amount
(revenues the city can tax for).
•If the city doesn’t levy the whole
amount, it can be “banked” or saved for
future use.
•However, this is not how cities
typically save money; that is through
financial reserves that cities can invest.
WHY DO WE HAVE IT?
•When the city voted to annex into the fire district, the city stopped collecting the EMS levy (~$1.2M/year) and decided to lower the general levy rate by $1.6M, due to the new fire district tax.
•For more information:dor.wa.gov/forms-publications/publications-subject/tax-topics/banked-capacity-qa
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 65/85
Banked Capacity of Property Tax
1% increases per year, then reduction in 2024
$-
$1,000,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Regular Levy – Total Property Tax Revenues for City/Year
Returned
banked
capacity
Lowered levy,
creating banked
capacity
Levied
banked
capacity
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 66/85
Use Banked Capacity for Property Tax Increase
Revenue Enhancements – Council Approval Required
Impact on General Fund Up to +$2,400,000/ yr Impact on Residents Preferred Option – 100%:
~$130 in 2027 and in 2028
Alternate Option – 75%:
~$97 in 2027 and 2028
Per average assessed value home
PROS CONS
•Major contribution to the
general fund.
•Does not require a ballot
measure.
•The general levy rate is low
for a full-service city.
•Use of banked capacity
should be used prior to
adding another levy like a
levy lid lift or bond
measure in the future.
•Will raise property taxes.
FST thoughts: In favor of using all the banked capacity, as
it is less regressive than other taxes and fees. The
preferred alternative would phase the increase, 50% per
year in 2027 and 2028. The secondary option is to use
only 75% of the banked capacity, also phased over two
years.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 67/85
Enact a General Levy Lid Lift
Revenue Enhancements – Voter Approval Required
Impact on General Fund +$1,200,000/ yr Impact on Residents ~$130 year
PROS CONS
•This could be an option if
an MPD is not viable.
•Simple majority needed to
pass.
•Can be dedicated to
maintain key services or
general in nature.
•Ballot measures are
difficult to gain support
from voters.
•Need to have clear
messaging about the
rationale and use of the
funds.
FST thoughts: We can meet the goals with use of the
banked capacity and an MPD.
LEVY LID LIFTS
•This is an increase in property tax (lifting the
rate)
•Simple majority required of voters
•Can be short term or long term or permanent
•This option would not be used until all the
banked capacity is used
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 68/85
Transportation Benefit District Sales Tax
Revenue Enhancements – Voter Approval Required
Impact on General Fund +$1,400,000/ yr Impact on Residents $0.03 for every $1 spent
PROS CONS
•Would remove the $690,000
transfer to the Street
Operations Fund from the
General Fund.
•Adds funds to the Street
Operations for additional
maintenance activities or
capital projects.
•This is a new revenue option
made available by the state
for local jurisdictions.
•Sales tax is paid by residents
and non-residents.
•The City already has the
second highest sales tax
rate in the state.
•This tax expires in 10
years, but could be
renewed for capital
project use only.
FST thoughts: felt this was a better option than other
types of fees because both residents and non-residents
pay and there is no sales tax on food. Clear how money is
used.
TBD Sales Tax
•The city already formed a TBD. The voters would
need to approve the sales tax by a simple majority
vote.
•A TBD can add up to 0.3% to the local rate; however,
the city only receives 0.85% and the county receives
0.15%.
•The current sales tax rate is .105%
Background
•City’s General Fund is currently funding road
maintenance of $690,000 per year, plus an
additional $145,000 for street construction projects
– a total of $835,000
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 69/85
Increase Transportation BenefitDistrict License Fee from $20 to $40
Revenue Enhancements – Council Approval Required
Impact on General Fund Up to $470,000/ yr Impact on Residents +$20 for 2 yrs, then $30/yr
PROS CONS
•This is a councilmanic
action. The council can
approve an increase up to
$40 one year and after two
years can raise it to $50.
•This would reduce the
general fund subsidy to
street operations.
•Community members are
generally not in favor of
TBD license fees.
•The revenues are restricted
to transportation uses.
FST thoughts: The FST understands preferred the TBD
sales tax over license fees because it generates more
money and is less regressive in their minds. However,
this is a recommendation in the alternative proposal as
there are few revenue sources available to cities.
Most cities have kept their TBD license fee lower
due to the unpopularity of these fees post
Initiative 976 and they are deemed regressive for
lower income people who must have vehicles to
get to work.
However, this is one of few revenue sources for
local municipalities. 54 cities implemented a TBD
license fee. Most fees are at $20, but some raised
the rates to $40-50. Both Lynnwood and Shoreline
have TBD license fees of $40. Shoreline also has a
TBD sales tax.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 70/85
Raise Utility Taxes (Electric, Gas, Telephone, Cable)
Revenue Enhancements – Voter Approval Required
Impact on General Fund +$505,000/ yr Impact on Residents ~$120/yr
PROS CONS
•Benefits the general fund
with steady ongoing
revenue
•Requires voter approve for
taxes above 6%
•City already has high utility
taxes
•Administrative cost of
implementation is high
FST thoughts: Not in favor of increases utility taxes, as
these are essential services, our current tax rates are
some of the highest of peer cities.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 71/85
Increase Utility Taxes (Stormwater, Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste)
Revenue Enhancements – Council Approval Required
Impact on General Fund Up to +$1,200,000/ yr Impact on Residents $75 to 100/year
PROS CONS
•Benefits the general fund
with steady ongoing
revenue
•This is a councilmanic
decision.
•City already has high utility
taxes
•Administrative cost of
implementation is high
FST thoughts: Not in favor of increases utility taxes, as
these are essential services, our current tax rates are
some of the highest of peer cities.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 72/85
FST RECOMMENDATIONS
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 73/85
FST Preferred Budget Package
Budget
Strategy Description Type Fiscal Impact Timing
2 Cost allocation plan Expenditure Control $50,000 2026 (1 year)
4 ERP software subscriptions Expenditure Control $50,000 2026 (1 year)
5 Historical budgetary savings
areas Expenditure Control $150,000 2026 (1 year)
11 Reduce GF expenditures by 5%Service Reductions $1,000,000 2026 (2 years)
15 TBD sales tax Revenue - Voters $835,000 2028 (1 year)
9
MPD for recreation (city
controlled, open to adding
others)
Revenue - Voters $2,150,000 2030 (2 years)
22 Shoreline equipment
maintenance revenue
Revenue -
Councilmanic $30,000 2027 (2 years)
18 Property tax banked capacity
(100%)
Revenue -
Councilmanic $2,400,000 2027 (2 years)
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 74/85
Preferred Option Impact on Reserves
$13.4
$8.2
$5.1
$2.5
$0.4 $0.3 $0.3
$2.1
$3.7
$5.1
$6.2 $6.0 $6.1
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Updated Year-End Reserves Minimum reserve policy Reserve goal
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 75/85
Preferred Option Impact on Fund Balance
$0.8
($2.7)
($3.1)
($2.5)
($2.2)
($0.1)
$0.0
$1.8 $1.6 $1.4 $1.1
($0.2)
$0.0
($4.0)
($3.0)
($2.0)
($1.0)
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
$3.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 76/85
FST Alternative Budget Package
Budget
Strategy Description Type Fiscal Impact Timing
2 Cost allocation plan Expenditure Control $50,000 2026 (1 year)
4 ERP software subscriptions Expenditure Control $50,000 2026 (1 year)
5 Historical budgetary savings areas Expenditure Control $150,000 2026 (1 year)
11 Reduce GF expenditures by 5%Service Reductions $1,000,000 2026 (2 years)
15 TBD sales tax Revenue - Voters $835,000 2028 (1 year)
9
MPD for recreation (city
controlled, open to adding
others)
Revenue - Voters $2,150,000 2030 (2 years)
22 Shoreline equipment
maintenance revenue Revenue - Councilmanic $30,000 2027 (2 years)
3 Police Command Services
Commander Expenditure Control $250,000 2028 (1 year)
18 Property tax banked capacity
(75%)Revenue - Councilmanic $1,800,000 2027 (2 years)
19 TBD license fee increase from
$20 to $40 Revenue - Councilmanic $315,000 2027 (1 year)
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 77/85
Alternative Option: Impact on Reserves
$13.4
$8.2
$5.1
$2.6
$1.3 $1.2 $1.2
$2.0
$3.5
$4.8
$5.9 $5.6 $5.6
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Updated Year-End Reserves Minimum reserve policy Reserve goal
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 78/85
Alternative Option: Impact on Fund Balance
$0.8
($2.7)
($3.1)
($2.5)
($1.3)
($0.1)($0.0)
$0.8
$1.5
$1.3
$1.0
($0.2)
($0.0)
($4.0)
($3.0)
($2.0)
($1.0)
$0.0
$1.0
$2.0
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 79/85
Pros and Cons of Packages
PREFERRED PACKAGE
Less regressive due to leaning more on property taxes,
which don’t affect renters proportionally to homeowners.
There is support for a Metropolitan Parks District, which has
a big benefit for the general fund.
The FST is not in favor of reducing the general fund by 10%,
this is considered too drastic for our lean staff and the
community members expectations for services. The FST
recommended 5% reductions instead.
The FST preferers the city-only MPD, which will not cover
the cost of replacing the recreation pavilion. The FST is
open to partnering with other jurisdictions, with conditions.
MLT already has the second highest sales tax in the state,
but the TBD sales tax option was considered a better
alternative for lower income families, as it comes in smaller
increments, both residents and non-residents pay it, and
essentials like food are not taxed.
ALTERNATIVE PACKAGE
Does not use all of the banked capacity (only 75%),
which impacts property taxes. Some feel this would
be good to save for emerging budget issues in the
future.
Eliminating the Police Commander position is not an
easy choice, many feel we need to maintain police
services as we grow in population and with opening
of light rail. It also may impact accreditation.
More regressive, as it relies more of fees, the TBD
license fee.
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 80/85
QUESTIONS?
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 81/85
PROVIDE FEEDBACK &RATE THE PACKAGES
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 82/85
Small Group Discussions
•Questions about how we got here?
•Questions about the strategies?
•Which budget strategies do you favor?
•Which budget strategies are you most concerned about?
•Which budget package resonates with you the most and why?
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 83/85
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 84/85
THANK YOU!
Item 2.1
Packet pg. 85/85