The URL can be used to link to this page

2026-05-13 Council Study Session Packet Edmonds City Council Agenda May 13, 2026 Posted: 5/8/2026 10:39 AM Page 1 Agenda Edmonds City Council Study Session CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 121 - 5TH AVENUE N, EDMONDS, WA 98020 ZOOM: HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261 PHONE: +1 253 215 8782 MEETING ID: 957 9848 4261 MAY 13, 2026, 3:00 PM STAFF AND COUNCILMEMBERS ATTEND STUDY SESSIONS VIRTUALLY, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THE SAME WAY. IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CANNOT ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING WITH THEIR PERSONAL DEVICES, A MONITOR IS PROVIDED AT THE CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM AT 121 5TH AVE N, EDMONDS WA. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. STUDY SESSION ITEMS 1. Presentation on the Results of the Community Survey First Reading – Community Services and Economic Development (40 minutes) 2. Administration Recommendations for Revisions to the Use and Structure of Boards and Commissions. First Reading – Mayor's Office (45 minutes) 3. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSENT 1. Authorization to purchase (1) 2026 Bobcat PA185V Air Compressor First Reading – Public Works and Utilities (0 minutes) 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 May 13, 2026 - Study Session TITLE:Presentation on the Results of the Community Survey (First Reading) DEPARTMENT:Community Services and Economic Development PRESENTER:EMC Research and Todd Tatum NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Informational RECOMMENDATION:City Council receive the results brief and ask questions about the data and future processes that it will feed. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:0 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):0 ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☒ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: In 2024, the City committed to biennial community surveys in order to gauge trends, assess the public’s desire for services, and measure their satisfaction with the level of service received. CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: The City chose EMC Research to conduct its first community survey in 2024 and again for 2026’s iteration. EMC worked with city officials to ensure the survey addressed any changes from 2024’s iteration and began surveying residents through a mix of online and telephonic formats in late March. Survey results will be presented to City Council by EMC Research at the study session. Both City staff and EMC staff will be present to answer questions about the process, data, and the integration of data into City processes. RECOMMENDATION: City Council receive the results brief and ask questions about the data and future processes that it will feed. BUDGET IMPACTS: None. ITEM HISTORY: This is the first reading in front of City Council ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: The presentation will be attached to this agenda item prior to May 13th’s meeting. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 2/80 City of Edmonds Community Survey March 2026 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 3/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 2 Project Purpose and Methodology Survey of residents in Edmonds, WA to measure residents’ priorities for future planning and improvements, as well as general satisfaction with city government. Multimodal live telephone/online survey of adult residents 18+ in the City of Edmonds. •Respondents were randomly selected to participate from a proportional sample of residents. •Phone interviews were conducted by professional interviewers; landlines and mobile phones included. Respondents also invited to participate via email/text invitations to a web survey. •Response data weighted to be representative of residents aged 18+ in Edmonds, WA, including by age, gender, ethnicity, and geographic demographics as estimated by the US Census. 350 total interviews conducted March 25-April 2, 2026 •Overall margin of error ±5.2 percentage points Please note that due to rounding, some percentages may not add up to exactly 100%. Methodology Dates Universe Sample Size Margin of Error EMC # Multimodal July 17-23, 2024 Residents 18+400 +4.9 percentage points 24-9366 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 4/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 3Survey population demographics are consistent with general population estimates within Edmonds, WA (U.S. Census) Respondent Profile 75% 25% White Other Ethnicity/ Unknown 42% 26%32% 18-49 50-64 65+ 54%46% Gender Age Ethnicity Income 33% 52% 15% Less than $120,000 $120,000 or above PNR 45%55% West/98020 East/98026 Zip Code 75% 25% Homeowner Renter/Other Homeownership Item 2.1 Packet pg. 5/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 4 Key Findings and Conclusions Overall, the mood among Edmonds residents remains positive. While some ratings have softened since 2024, residents still rate the quality of life in Edmonds very positively. Addressing the City’s budget issues is a top priority for residents. Pocketbook issues such as cost of living/taxes and housing affordability are also top-of-mind priorities to address. Residents continue to rate maintaining streets and fixing potholes as the most important city service. •Services focused on providing for the homeless and traffic safety and enforcement are areas where resident satisfaction is higher than it has been in the past, relative to importance. •The importance of some services, like preparing for natural disasters, and attracting new businesses and jobs, have increased in importance since 2024, while satisfaction with the City’s efforts here has decreased. After thinking in detail about personal importance/satisfaction related to City services, residents showed a preference for maintaining or enhancing the levels and offerings of service, but a reluctance to increase property taxes – preferring reductions and cuts to underutilized and lower-priority services. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 6/80 Quality of Life and Priorities Item 2.1 Packet pg. 7/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 6 Excellent 39% Good 54% Only Fair 6% Positive 93% Negative 7% Positive Negative Overall Mood and Optimism Over Time Edmonds Residents continue to rate the quality of life in the city highly, with very few residents expressing negative opinions. Q2 Excellent 44% Good 50% Only Fair 5% Positive 94% Negative 5% Positive Negative How would you rate the quality of life in Edmonds? 2024 2026 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 8/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 7 Direction of Edmonds Over Time While residents continue to think things in Edmonds are headed in the right direction, this sentiment has softened, indicating some heightened dissatisfaction with where things are headed locally. Q5. Do you feel that things in Edmonds are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track? Right Direction 74%Right Direction 60% Wrong Track 25% Wrong Track 40% 2024 2026 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 9/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 8 60% 53%66% 63%49%65% 57%68% 60%60% 61%56% 68%63% 40% 47%33% 37%51%34% 42%32% 39%40% 39%43% 32%36% Overall Male (46%)Female (54%) 18-49 (42%)50-64 (26%)65+ (32%) White (75%)Other Eth./Unknown (25%) 98020/West (45%)98026/East (55%) Homeowner (75%)Non-Homeowner (25%) Less than $120K (33%)$120K or above (52%) Right direction (Don't know)Wrong track Direction of Edmonds by Demographics Q5. Do you feel that things in Edmonds are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track? Women are more likely to believe Edmonds is headed in the right direction, as are residents of other ethnicities and reporting household incomes under $120k. Residents 50-64 also appear more pessimistic about the direction of Edmonds than others. RD Change From 2024 -14 -22 -6 -10 -27 -9 -19 +9 -18 -10 -11 -21 -6* -13* *2024 HH Income break at $110k Item 2.1 Packet pg. 10/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 9 Top -of-Mind Positives – Open Ended Q3. Residents specifically enjoy life in Edmonds for the close access to water and nature, the small-town feel, and their neighbors. Thinking about life in Edmonds, what do you like best about living here? (Select verbatim responses are displayed*) The proximity to the water My neighbors, the community of great people The natural beauty and the small town feel Access to nature and safe, secure small town feeling Being next to the Puget Sound. The views of the Sound and Olympics Accessibility to nature as well as city life Access to beach, ferry, bike rides, freeway Relatively clean, downtown core stores and small-town feel *Due to survey length constraints, this question asked among online respondents only, n=246 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 11/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 10 27% 14% 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 5% Budget/Fiscal responsibility Cost of living/Taxes Housing affordability Road/Transportation infrastructure Overdevelopment/Growth Crime/Public safety Parking Parks/Recreation Homelessness Traffic safety/enforcement Maintaining city aesthetic Climate change/Environment Schools/Education Bike/Pedestrian lanes Other Top Priorities for Edmonds – Open Ended Q4. It is clear that there is moderate awareness of the City’s budget issues, with more than one-quarter identifying this as the top priority for the City to address. Pocketbook issues like cost of living and housing affordability are also notable priorities. (Open-ended question; Verbatim responses coded into categories below) If you could only pick one issue, what do you think should be the top priority for the City of Edmonds government to address over the next two years? 2024 Top Priorities Housing affordability 14% Crime/Public safety 10% Overdevelopment/Growth 9% Budget/Fiscal responsibility 7% Item 2.1 Packet pg. 12/80 City Ratings and Priorities Item 2.1 Packet pg. 13/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 12 5% 7% 7% 10% 4% 6% 53% 65% 61% 68% 44% 56% 1% 1% 29% 23% 25% 17% 37% 30% 12% 5% 7% 4% 14% 8% 58% 71% 68% 78% 48% 61% 42% 28% 32% 21% 52% 38% 2026 2024 2026 2024 2026 2024 Excellent Good (Don’t know/Refused)Only fair Poor Edmonds Job Ratings Over Time Q6.-Q8. Using a scale of excellent, good, only fair, or poor, please rate each of the following. A majority of residents continue to give the City positive ratings overall, but negative ratings have increased marginally since 2024. More than 2-in-3 residents still rate the City’s delivery of services positively, but half are critical of service priorities. Total Pos. Total Neg. The job Edmonds city government does overall The job the City of Edmonds does delivering services effectively The job the City does focusing on the priorities that matter most to community members Item 2.1 Packet pg. 14/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 13 17% 14% 57% 44% 4% 5% 13% 21% 9% 17% 74% 58% 22% 37% +53 +20 I am satisfied with the types and quality of services provided by the City of Edmonds. The City does a good job of engaging residents to inform important decisions. Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Don't know/ Not sure Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Perceptions of City Services Q9.-Q10. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Nearly 3-in-4 residents feel satisfied with the types and quality of city services, but fewer residents agree that the City does a good job of engaging residents on important decisions. Total Agree Total Disagree Net Agree Item 2.1 Packet pg. 15/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 14 17% 13% 57% 60% 4% 5% 13% 16% 9% 6% 74% 73% 22% 22% +53 +51 2026 2024 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Don't know/ Not sure Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Perceptions of City Services Over Time Q9. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Satisfaction with the type and quality of services remains strong and is essentially unchanged from 2024. Total Agree Total Disagree Net Agree I am satisfied with the types and quality of services provided by the City of Edmonds. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 16/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 15 74% 64%83% 80%60%78% 74%76% 74%74% 75%72% 82%73% 4% 4%4% 6%3%3% 6%1% 3%5% 2%10% 6%4% 22% 31%13% 14%36%19% 21%23% 23%21% 23%18% 13%23% Overall Male (46%)Female (54%) 18-49 (42%)50-64 (26%)65+ (32%) White (75%)Other Eth./Unknown (25%) 98020/West (45%)98026/East (55%) Homeowner (75%)Non-Homeowner (25%) Less than $120K (33%)$120K or above (52%) Agree Don't know Disagree Service Satisfaction by Demographics Q9. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. Satisfaction with services is high across most demographic groups, but is is notably higher among women than men, and a bit suppressed among 50–64-year-olds. I am satisfied with the types and quality of services provided by the City of Edmonds. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 17/80 City Services Ratings Item 2.1 Packet pg. 18/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 17 Top City Services by Importance Rating Q11-Q27. 42% 46% 48% 34% 46% 31% 35% 20% 29% 52% 40% 34% 46% 32% 44% 38% 49% 40% 94% (+3) 86% (-4) 82% (-4) 80% (+7) 78% (+2) 75% (+1) 73% (+3) 69% (+8) 69% (-7) Maintaining streets and fixing potholes Maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces Reducing petty crime and burglary Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and major storms Cracking down on illegal drug use and sales Investing in and expanding parks, trails, and open spaces Stewarding the environment Attracting new businesses and jobs Planning for population growth 7 - Extremely important 5-6 Total Importance (Net Change From 2024) Next you will read a list of city services and functions provided by the City of Edmonds. After each one, please rate how important that city service is to you. Maintaining streets and fixing potholes Maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces Reducing petty crime and burglary Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and major storms Cracking down on illegal drug use and sales Investing in and expanding parks, trails, and open spaces Stewarding the environment Attracting new businesses and jobs Planning for population growth Item 2.1 Packet pg. 19/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 18 Additional Services by Importance Rating Q11-Q27. 23% 23% 24% 23% 21% 27% 15% 5% 44% 43% 40% 35% 36% 29% 28% 24% 67% (-4) 66% (-4) 64% (+0) 58% (-8) 57% (-5) 56% (-7) 42% (-6) 29% (-9) Improving and expanding sidewalks Supporting the arts and cultural events Improving traffic safety and enforcement Strictly enforcing building and development codes Providing services to help the homeless and people in need Preparing for the impacts of climate change Incentivizing the development of diverse housing types Improving and expanding bike paths 7 - Extremely important 5-6 Total Importance (Net Change From 2024) Next you will read a list of city services and functions provided by the City of Edmonds. After each one, please rate how important that city service is to you. Improving and expanding sidewalks Supporting the arts and cultural events Improving traffic safety and enforcement Strictly enforcing building and development codes Providing services to help the homeless and people in need Preparing for the impacts of climate change Incentivizing the development of diverse housing types Improving and expanding bike paths Item 2.1 Packet pg. 20/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 19 Top City Services by Satisfaction Rating Q28-Q44. 24% 13% 7% 3% 6% 7% 6% 5% 2% 51% 55% 45% 48% 43% 42% 40% 35% 37% 75% (-2) 68% (-3) 53% (+1) 51% (+7) 49% (-4) 49% (+2) 46% (+6) 40% (+4) 39% (-2) Supporting the arts and cultural events Maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces Improving traffic safety and enforcement Maintaining streets and fixing potholes Investing in and expanding parks, trails, and open spaces Stewarding the environment Reducing petty crime and burglary Cracking down on illegal drug use and sales Improving and expanding sidewalks 7 - Very satisfied 5-6 Total Satisfied (Net Change From 2024) Next you will read the same list of city services or functions provided by the City of Edmonds. After each, please rate how satisfied you are with each aspect of city service. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 21/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 20 Additional Services by Satisfaction Rating Q28-Q44. 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 4% 5% 2% 27% 27% 27% 25% 22% 23% 21% 23% 35% (-9) 34% (-13) 34% (+3) 31% (+2) 28% (-4) 27% (+1) 26% (-10) 25% (-6) Improving and expanding bike paths Attracting new businesses and jobs Strictly enforcing building and development codes Providing services to help the homeless and people in need Preparing for the impacts of climate change Incentivizing the development of diverse housing types Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and major storms Planning for population growth 7 - Very satisfied 5-6 Total Satisfied (Net Change From 2024) Next you will read the same list of city services or functions provided by the City of Edmonds. After each, please rate how satisfied you are with each aspect of city service. Item 2.1 Packet pg. 22/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 21 Gap Analysis: Satisfaction Vs. Importance 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Improving and expanding bike paths Supporting the arts and cultural events Incentivizing the development of diverse housing types Preparing for the impacts of climate change Providing services to help the homeless and people in need Stewarding the environment Strictly enforcing building and development codes Improving traffic safety and enforcement Investing in and expanding parks, trails and open spaces Attracting new businesses and jobs Maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces Improving and expanding sidewalks Cracking down on illegal drug use and sales Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and major… Reducing petty crime and burglary Planning for population growth Maintaining streets and fixing potholes Satisfaction Importance On services like cracking down on crime/drugs, reducing petty crime and planning for growth, the City is underperforming relative to perceived service importance, but the gap here is narrower compared to 2024. -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 Satisfaction exceeds importance Satisfaction is comparable to importance Satisfaction underperforms importance Mean Score (1 – 7)Satisfaction Gap 2024 Gap Improving and expanding bike paths Supporting the arts and cultural events Incentivizing the development of diverse housing types Preparing for the impacts of climate change Providing services to help the homeless and people in need Stewarding the environment Strictly enforcing building and development codes Improving traffic safety and enforcement Investing in and expanding parks, trails and open spaces Attracting new businesses and jobs Maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces Improving and expanding sidewalks Cracking down on illegal drug use and sales Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and major storms Reducing petty crime and burglary Planning for population growth Maintaining streets and fixing potholes 0.81 0.44 -0.24 -0.33 -0.78 -0.71 -0.96 -0.34 -0.53 -0.12 -0.73 -1.14 -1.46 -0.56 -1.94 -1.40 -1.84 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 23/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 22 Gap Analysis: Satisfaction vs. Importance by Demographics Overall Men Women 18-49 50-64 65+White Other Eth./Unk. 98020/ West 98026/ East Home- owner Non- Home- owner <$120k $120K+ Improving and expanding bike paths 1.32 1.04 1.60 1.51 1.08 1.26 1.34 1.27 1.59 1.11 1.38 1.15 1.45 1.34 Supporting the arts and cultural events 0.61 0.77 0.48 0.74 0.47 0.56 0.69 0.38 0.62 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.68 0.62 Incentivizing the development of diverse housing types 0.14 0.32 -0.01 -0.09 0.25 0.37 0.06 0.38 0.64 -0.26 0.47 -0.84 -0.10 0.25 Preparing for the impacts of climate change 0.03 0.18 -0.05 -0.19 0.53 -0.09 0.11 -0.22 -0.07 0.10 0.07 -0.11 -0.21 0.12 Providing services to help the homeless and people in need -0.11 0.29 -0.45 -0.24 0.10 -0.12 -0.05 -0.28 0.25 -0.41 0.27 -1.24 -0.48 0.04 Stewarding the environment -0.41 -0.05 -0.71 -0.42 -0.36 -0.43 -0.29 -0.75 -0.04 -0.71 -0.37 -0.55 -0.71 -0.38 Strictly enforcing building and development codes -0.44 -0.31 -0.45 0.15 -0.73 -0.95 -0.39 -0.60 -0.61 -0.29 -0.38 -0.62 -0.52 -0.24 Improving traffic safety and enforcement -0.52 -0.42 -0.58 -0.13 -0.92 -0.72 -0.47 -0.69 -0.32 -0.69 -0.49 -0.63 -0.32 -0.65 Investing in and expanding parks, trails, and open spaces -0.56 -0.56 -0.55 -0.72 -0.62 -0.27 -0.52 -0.69 -0.39 -0.70 -0.60 -0.45 -0.37 -0.74 Attracting new businesses and jobs -0.70 -0.99 -0.42 -0.43 -1.12 -0.61 -0.62 -0.93 -0.48 -0.88 -0.86 -0.23 -0.15 -0.98 Maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces -0.81 -0.63 -0.96 -0.81 -0.94 -0.68 -0.81 -0.81 -0.77 -0.84 -0.74 -1.03 -0.77 -0.79 Improving and expanding sidewalks -0.99 -1.09 -0.89 -0.68 -1.10 -1.30 -1.11 -0.62 -0.75 -1.18 -1.23 -0.23 -0.68 -1.25 Cracking down on illegal drug use and sales -1.12 -1.13 -1.10 -0.44 -1.75 -1.50 -1.11 -1.15 -0.77 -1.39 -1.33 -0.46 -0.99 -0.93 Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, and major storms -1.14 -1.15 -1.14 -0.99 -1.23 -1.25 -1.03 -1.47 -1.28 -1.06 -1.06 -1.37 -1.17 -0.95 Reducing petty crime and burglary -1.22 -1.32 -1.12 -0.91 -1.65 -1.25 -1.18 -1.35 -0.91 -1.48 -1.30 -0.97 -1.26 -1.02 Planning for population growth -1.29 -1.25 -1.31 -1.53 -1.34 -0.91 -1.37 -1.05 -1.07 -1.45 -1.12 -1.80 -1.58 -1.19 Maintaining streets and fixing potholes -1.75 -1.97 -1.56 -1.47 -1.89 -1.99 -1.87 -1.40 -1.72 -1.77 -1.95 -1.12 -1.67 -1.65 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 24/80 Future Service Adjustments Item 2.1 Packet pg. 25/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 24 Preferred Approach for City Services 11% 30% 37% 6% 7% 10% Adding services that are not currently offered Enhancing existing service offerings Maintaining existing service offerings at current levels Reducing the level of existing services Cutting services more significantly (Refused) After thinking in detail about the importance of, and satisfaction with, a robust list of City services, residents showed a preference for either maintaining or enhancing the levels and offerings of service. Q45. Now, thinking about the services provided to residents, which of the following approaches would you like to see the City take going forward? Item 2.1 Packet pg. 26/80 26-9889 Edmonds Community Survey | 25 Preferred Approach for Funding City Services 18% 37% 29% 9% 7% Exploring additional and new revenue streams like a property tax levy Making reductions to underutilized or lower-priority services Cutting underutilized or lower-priority services Reducing services broadly to offset rising expenses (Refused) And when faced with the reality of the need for additional funding, most residents believe that focusing reductions or cuts on underutilized or lower-priority services are preferred to increasing taxes. Broad cuts, though, are not a desirable outcome. Q46. Acknowledging that adding services, or even maintaining services at current levels, would require additional funding, which of the following approaches would you support? Item 2.1 Packet pg. 27/80 Brendan Kara brendan@emcresearch.com 202.686.5902 Kailyn Robert kailyn@emcresearch.com 720.826.8664 Item 2.1 Packet pg. 28/80 City Council Agenda Item 2.2 May 13, 2026 - Study Session TITLE:Administration Recommendations for Revisions to the Use and Structure of Boards and Commissions. (First Reading) DEPARTMENT:Mayor's Office PRESENTER:Mayor Rosen NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Input RECOMMENDATION:Discussion and feedback on the proposed revisions to the use and sturcture of boards and commissions. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:$☒ Approved in Budget Fund(s):General Fund ☐ Budget Reallocation Required ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: How should boards and commissions function in a way that leverages community member wisdom, provides boots-on-the-ground work, helps inform Council and administration decisions, is sustainable, effective, and aligned with the City’s priorities moving forward? CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: Mayor Rosen formed the Boards and Commissions Task Force in 2024 to conduct a comprehensive review of our existing structure, gathered input from stakeholders, and evaluated how other cities approach this work. This work from the task force comprised of councilmembers, staff, current and former board members, and community representatives,informed the recommended changes to the City’s Boards and Commissions. These recommended changes are designed to modernize, not diminish, community participation. They focus on preserving the strengths of our current system while creating a consistent framework, flexible and accessible work groups, and clearly aligned with City priorities. These changes directly support the number one community member priority of fiscal responsibility and the four key Council priorities: 1. Financial Stability: By aligning boards and commissions with clear purposes and right-sized scopes, we reduce staff burden, eliminate duplication, and ensure that public resources are used efficiently and responsibly. 2. Strategic Clarity and Direction: We are establishing clearer roles, consistent structures, and defined expectations so that each advisory body understands its purpose and how it contributes to Council or Mayor decision making. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 29/80 3. Prioritization, Trade-offs, and Capacity: With limited capacity, we must focus where we can have the greatest impact. Moving toward more flexible models, such as task forces for time-limited work which also allows us to respond to current priorities or unanticipated needs without overextending staff or volunteers. 4. Economic Development: By streamlining processes and improving clarity, we reduce unnecessary complexity and barriers, making it easier for residents, businesses, and partners to engage with the City and invest in our community. RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and feedback on the proposed revisions to the use and structure of boards and commissions. BUDGET IMPACTS: The anticipated impact of these revisions: •Cost savings for boards/commissions that transition to advisory boards (less frequent meetings, more flexible format) and those that remain paused. •Cost savings for boards/commissions that transition to non-profit/ 501(c)(3) •Maintained costs of those groups who have continued to meet. •Eventual cost increase to creation of one recommended board. ITEM HISTORY: Ordinance 4376 was adopted by Council in December of 2024. This ordinance suspended for two years (2025 and 2026) the regular meetings of city boards and commissions not required to operate under state law. This ordinance will sunset and have no further force or effect on January 1, 2027. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Administration Recommendations for Revisions to the Use and Structure of Board and Commission May 2026 Spreadsheet of Mayor’s Boards and Commissions Restructure Recommendations FAQ Boards and Commissions Recommendations Presentation Slides Item 2.2 Packet pg. 30/80 Administration Recommendations For Revisions To The Use And Structure of Boards and Commissions May 2026 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 31/80 DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THIS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Access to expertise: Access individuals with professional or lived experience. 2. Resident influence: Residents have more direct influence beyond voting. 3. Improve decision quality: Access to an additional layer of analysis. 4. Access diverse perspectives: Inform decisions by those with different backgrounds and viewpoints 5. Leadership development: Provides direct relevant experience. 6. Distribute workload: Provide additional capacity. 7. Access new voices: Ability for those who might not have the same level of available time to participate. 8. Access to more voices: Provides more opportunity for more people to participate. 9. Increase trust: Demonstrates decisions involved more than politicians. 10. Minimize costs: Create only for the size and duration required. 11. Ensure relevance: Invest no more than is required for the task. 12. Consistency: Create consistency in names, recruitment, appointment, terms etc. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 32/80 TASK FORCE MEMBERS - 2024 Elected Participants Mike Rosen, Mayor Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Council President Staff Angie Feser, Director PRHS Scott Passey, City Clerk Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant to the Mayor Board & Commission Members Patti Narvaez-Wheeler (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Commission) Kevin Harris (Economic Development Commission) Jeremy Mitchel (Planning Board) Alan Townsend (Economic Development Commission) Joelle Walworth (Youth Commission) Community Members Teashia French, Community member Theresa Hollis, Community member Others Invited Ken Reidy had been invited to join and co-chair this Task Force but declined Meetings Dates 9/6/24 10/21/24 12/16/24 1/13/25 2/10/25 4/14/25 4/27/26 Director Review of Mayor’s Recommendations 4/13/2026 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 33/80 RECOMMENDATIONS (See 11 X 17 spreadsheet) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 34/80 Administration Recommendations For Use and Structure of Boards and Commissions ITEMS REVIEWED 1. Thought starter questions posed to the Task Force by the Mayor 2. Current Boards and Commissions, including member composition, terms and appointment process, meeting frequency, work goals) 3. A summary of current board and commission membership 4. MRSC list of Statutorily required Boards ad Commissions 5. MRSC list of Optional Boards and Commission 6. MRSC publication on Boards and Commissions 7. OPMA Definition WORK PRODUCTS 1. A Draft Work Plan 2. Survey to Council members and Directors / staff liaisons 3. A brief summary survey report generated by Theresa Hollis 4. Survey, what if none-currently existed 5. A review of three other cities Created by Theresa Hollis 6. Mayor Draft Recommendation Item 2.2 Packet pg. 35/80 THOUGHT STARTER QUESTIONS POSED TO THE TASK FORCE BY THE MAYOR 1. What I the problem we are trying to solve? 2. What does success look like? 3. Is the structure the same for each need? 4. What structure should be used when there are differences? 5. Who is authorized to recruit members? 6. Is the recruitment process the same for each? 7. Do we create qualifications? 8. Are they required to live or work in Edmonds? 9. Do others get to veto recruited members? 10.Who do they serve? 11.Are there term limits? 12.Do they have sunset durations? 13.Are, or should some be legally required? 14.Can some be structured differently such as could the Sister City Commission become a 501 c3 15.What do we call them and what are the differences? a) Board b) Commission c) Task Force d) Work Group e) Committee f) Kitchen Cabinet g) Advisory Board / Panel 16.Are they provided staff support? 17.Should there be liaisons? a) With each other b) Youth c) Council And what would their role be? 18.How does the rest of the public engage Item 2.2 Packet pg. 36/80 Mayor's Draft Boards and Commissions Restructure MANDATORY CODE REVISED NAME NOTES Civil Service Commission Ch. 41.08 RCW N/A Disability Board CH.41.26 N/A Lodging Tax Advisory Committee RCW 67.28.1817 N/A Planning Board Ch. 35.63 RCW N/A Expand to 9 regular members and one alternate - Three positions would be profession specific: 1) Architect, 2) Builder, 3) Landscape architect Architectural Design Board Codified N/A Combined with Planning Board as described above RECOMMEND KEEP NOTES Salary Commission Codified N/A Assemble and meet as required (Every Two Years) Transportation Committee Not Codified Transportation Work Group Rename to Work Group - Assemble as needed to support development of the Transportation Plan 4 to 5 years from the last update Tree Board Remove from Code Tree Panel Transition to "panel"; recruit for special needs (e.g. advise Tree Code) Economic Development Commision Remove from Code Citizens Economic Development Advisory Board Maintain Continuity of Chair and Co-Chair. Transition to "advisory board". Recruit for specific tasks (e.g. 99 focus and Port collaboration) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accesibility Remove from Code Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accesibility Advisory Board Recharacterize "Commission" to "Advisory Board". Reduce frequency to quarterly with option of on-call as needed Historic Preservation Commission Codified Historic Preservation Advisory Board Recharacterize "Commission" to "Advisory Board". Meet quarterly and create sub task forces for special projects (e.g. Designations and Native American historic walking tour) Civic Arts Commission Codified N/A In future years consider an independent Cultural Arts organization should secure funding be realized through mechanisms such a cultural access tax RECOMMEND CREATE NOTES Parks Advisory Group 2027 Not Codified N/A Phase 1 - initiate in 2027 Parks (TBD: Advisory Board) Begin 3 year process to create a Parks Board to review & recommend capital program, park policy updates, PROS Plan updates, master planning projects. RECOMMEND TRANSITION NOTES Cemetery Board Remove from Code Cemetery Advisory Board Transition ownership to a nonprofit - coordinate events as a partner Sister City Commission Remove from Code (Eventually)Sister City Advisory Board Unpause now to allow for 2027 and 2028 planning - little to no staff support - Begin transition to a 501 (c) (3) RECOMMEND PAUSE UNTIL SUCH TIME RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE NOTES Youth Advisory Panel When resumed: Broaden age, use as a roster that can be leveraged as a panel or as participants on boards/commissions and task forces - assemble twice a year. Mayor's Climate Protection Committee Mayor's Climate Protection Task Force When resumed: Transition to Task Force for specific needs (e.g. Comp plan climate element, Revise climate action plan, technical advice on specific initiatives) RECOMMEND ELIMINATE NOTES Municipal Defense Commission established in 1941 N/A COUNCIL NOTES Liaisons To ensure the autonomy of the advisory board, recommend discontinuing Council Liaison role except with external organizations. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO HELP GUIDE WHO APPOINTS, TERMS ETC. Consider relocating hearing examiner code from ECC Chapter 10 to a different section. Ch. 2.24, Advisory Bodies – General Provisions | Lynnwood Municipal Code Ch. 2.06 Uniform Policies for Committees | Snohomish Municipal Code Restructure ECC Chapter 10 - Boards and Commissions to create uniform, general provisions (such as appointments, confirmations, terms) which will apply to all advisory bodies. When bodies are identified that require more detailed processes, individual sections may be added to build off (or divert from) the city's existing general advisory body code. Examples: Item 2.2 Packet pg. 37/80 Advisory Boards (structure and purpose) should be revisited every two years to ensure alignment with strategic direction of the city and budget feasibiliities. Interview panels (Judge, Police Chief, Finance & Planning and Development Directors)) revised 5.4.2026 Budget by Priorities Community Panel Board and Commission Task Force Neighborhood Engagement Task Force USE OF NAMES ROLE AUTHORITY DURATION USE EXAMPLE Board Policy-focused and Quasi-Judicial Can make binding decisions Ongoing Make binding decisions/Ensure compliance Hear disputes Task Force Solve a specific problem Advisory only Temporary (sunset when completed) Clear issue w/defined endpoint Board and Comm Task Force Committee Subgroup of a larger group Advisory Can be ongoing or temporary Break work into manageable pieces Council Committees Work Group Hands on support Advisory and support Temporary - tied to a project Analysis or plan or implementation Edmonds Serves Advisory Board Provide expertise & Community perspective Advisory Ongoing Guidance without formal government process Economic Development Panel Small group evaluate or discuss Limited-scope or recommend Short term Focused review / expert judgement Director interview panels Commission Recommend not using this term. Typically in Government they are governing authority "Port Commission" Cabinet Recommend not using this term. Liaison Individual to bridge between organizations Share information Ongoing Convey information of mutual interests Council Liason to the Port Blue Ribbon Panel CONTINUE TO CREATE AS NEEDED (EXAMPLES) 99 Citizen Advisory Group Chapter 2.95 - AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEES | Code of Ordinances | Black Diamond, WA | Municode Library Item 2.2 Packet pg. 38/80 F A Q Administration Recommendations For Revisions To The Use And Structure of Boards and Commissions 1. Why were boards and commissions paused in the first place? The City faced, and continues to face, a significant financial crisis that required reducing staff workload and focusing on core services. Supporting boards and commissions requires staff time and resources, which were not sustainable at that level during the crisis. 2. Is this just about cutting costs? No. And if it sounds like that, it should not. The pause did allow us the opportunity to rethink our system. The current structure evolved over time without consistency. The proposed model ensures that every advisory body has: A clear purpose A defined role A connection to Council priorities A structure that matches the work being done Cost and staff capacity are part of the reality, but not the sole driver. 3. Does this change reduce the community voice? Actually, the goal is the opposite. The current model limits participation to a small number of long-term appointments. The new approach: Creates more flexible ways to participate Allows people to engage on specific topics or projects Opens the door to more voices, including those with limited time availability 4. Why are some boards being changed or not returning in their current form? Not all work requires a permanent, standing body. Some boards were: Underutilized Not clearly aligned with current priorities Focused on work that is better handled as a time-limited effort Item 2.2 Packet pg. 39/80 Shifting to task forces allows the City to bring in the right expertise when it’s needed most. 5. What happens to the work these boards were doing? The work does not disappear, it is restructured: Some functions move to advisory boards Some become targeted task forces Some shift to partnerships or external organizations The goal is to ensure the work continues in a more effective and sustainable way. 6. Why transition some groups to nonprofits? In some cases (like Sister City or Cemetery-related work), the activities are well suited to community-led organizations. This approach: Reduces burden on tax payers and City staff Allows greater flexibility and independence Keeps the work active through partnership rather than direct management 7. Will boards come back once finances improve? Some may, but not necessarily in the same form. This proposal is not just temporary it’s a long-term structural improvement. However, the model is intentionally flexible so the City can add capacity when resources allow. It is also recommended that the board and commission structure be formally reviewed every two years to ensure that city needs are being met and that community resources can be accessed in a way that best meets both the needs of the city and the interest and availability of community members. 8. How will members be selected going forward? This will be addresssed in an update to ECC Chapter 10. However, a key improvement must be greater consistency and transparency: Clear expectations and roles Standardized appointment processes Focus on relevant expertise and lived experience 9. How can I stay involved? There will be multiple ways to participate: Advisory boards (ongoing roles) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 40/80 Task forces (short-term, focused work) Panels and community engagement opportunities More flexible options mean more people can participate in meaningful ways. 10. Why discontinue Council liaisons to city boards and commissions? The goal is to: Strengthen the independence of advisory bodies Clarify roles between Council and advisory groups Ensure communication happens through defined, transparent channels 11. What if I disagree with these changes? That input is important. These recommendations will be presented to the City Council, and there will be opportunities for feedback. Community perspectives including those of current and former board members will help inform the final decisions. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 41/80 5.13.26 Study Session Item 2.2 Packet pg. 42/80 A More Effective Model for Community Engagement Aligning Structure with Priorities, Capacity, and Outcomes Improving how we engage the community. Not stepping away from it. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 43/80 Why We’re Here We are operating in a different reality today •Financial constraints required difficult decisions •Boards & Commissions paused to help stabilize operations •Staff capacity is limited •Expectations for accountability and results are higher than ever Item 2.2 Packet pg. 44/80 An Opportunity The pause created a chance to rethink the system •What is the purpose of boards and commissions? •Where do they add the most value? •How do they align with today’s priorities and future needs? Item 2.2 Packet pg. 45/80 What We Learned Strong input, but inconsistent structure •Value of boards varies widely across Council and staff •Roles and expectations are not always clear •Some boards are underutilized or duplicative •Significant staff time required for support Item 2.2 Packet pg. 46/80 What We Want to Achieve Clear outcomes and a better system •Access to expertise and lived experience •Stronger, more direct community voice •Better decision-making •More diverse participation •Efficient use of time and resources Item 2.2 Packet pg. 47/80 The Recommendations Item 2.2 Packet pg. 48/80 Guiding Principles Right structure for the right purpose •Not all work requires a permanent board •Match structure to the task •Be flexible and adaptable •Focus on impact, not tradition Right people, right structure, right time Item 2.2 Packet pg. 49/80 Item 2.2 Packet pg. 50/80 What’s Not Changing Mandatory •Civil Service Commission •Disability Board •Lodging Tax Advisory Committee •Planning Board (expanded expertise) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 51/80 What’s Changing Moving to a more flexible model From: •One-size-fits-all boards To: •Right structure for the right function Item 2.2 Packet pg. 52/80 What’s Changing Moving to a more flexible model Board Policy-focused and Quasi-Judicial Task Force Solve a specific problem Work Group Hands on support Committee Subgroup of a larger group Advisory Board Provide expertise & Community perspective Panel Small group evaluate or discuss Liaison Individual to bridge between organizations Do not use Cabinet or Commission Item 2.2 Packet pg. 53/80 Combine Planning Board & Architectural Design Board •Expand from 7 to 9 regular members and one alternate. •Three required positions: •Architect •Builder •Landscape Architect Item 2.2 Packet pg. 54/80 Salary Commission •Retain Codification •Assemble and meet as require (Every two years) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 55/80 Transportation Commission •Maintain non-codification •Change name to Transportation Work Group •Assemble as needed to support development of the Transportation Plan - 4 to 5 years from the previous update Item 2.2 Packet pg. 56/80 Tree Board •Remove from code •Transition to “panel” •Recruit for specific tasks such as advising on tree code Item 2.2 Packet pg. 57/80 Economic Development Commission •Remove from code •Transition to “Advisory Panel” •Recruit for specific tasks (e.g. 99, parking, Port collaboration) •Maintain continuity through chair and co-chair Item 2.2 Packet pg. 58/80 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Commission •Remove from code •Transition to “Advisory Panel” •Change meeting frequency to quarterly •Option to assemble more frequently as needed Item 2.2 Packet pg. 59/80 Historic Preservation Commission •Retain codification •Transition to “Advisory Board” •Meet quarterly •Create committees for special projects (e.g. Designations and Native American historic walking tour) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 60/80 Arts Commission •Retain codification •Future (3-5 years) should secure funding be realized through mechanisms such a cultural access tax, explore independent Cultural Arts organization for Edmonds Item 2.2 Packet pg. 61/80 Parks •Create a Parks Advisory Board •Keep it uncodified •Explore process to create a Parks Board to review and advise. (e.g. capital projects program, park policy updates, PROS plan updates, master planning) outside of the Planning Board Item 2.2 Packet pg. 62/80 Cemetery Board •Remove from code •Explore feasibility of ownership transition to a non-profit •Require ongoing even partnerships (e.g. Memorial day and Walk Back in Time) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 63/80 Sister City Commission •Remove from code (Eventually) •Transition to “Work Group” •Unfreeze through 2028 •Begin immediate exploration of transitioning to a non-profit Item 2.2 Packet pg. 64/80 Youth Commission •Remove from code •Transition to “Advisory Board” •Continue suspension •Broaden age •Use as a roster and leveraged as a panel or as participants on boards/commissions and task forces •Assemble twice a year. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 65/80 Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee •Maintain non-codification •Transition to “Task Force” •Continue suspension •Recruit for specific needs (e.g Comp plan climate element, revise climate action plan, technical advice on specific initiatives) Item 2.2 Packet pg. 66/80 Municipal Defense Commission (Established 1941) •Eliminate Item 2.2 Packet pg. 67/80 Liaisons •Continue with external organizations such as the Port •To ensure the autonomy of community member engagement, discontinue Council Liaisons for previously discussed groups Item 2.2 Packet pg. 68/80 Hearing Examiner •Relocate hearing examiner code from ECC Chapter 10 to a different section. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 69/80 Edmonds City Code (ECC) •Restructure ECC Chapter 10 – Boardsand Commissions •Create uniform general provision(such as appointments, confirmations, terms) •When bodies are identified thatrequire more detailed processes, individual sections may be added to build off (or divert from) the city's existing general advisory body code. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 70/80 Effectiveness •Structure and purpose should be revisited every two years to ensure alignment with strategic direction of the city and budget feasibility Item 2.2 Packet pg. 71/80 What’s Next •Study session discussion •Refinement •Council deliberation and decision •Implementation plan and schedule •Notify Board and Commission Members •Implementation Item 2.2 Packet pg. 72/80 A More Focused, Flexible and Effective System This is about strengthening not reducing community voice. Item 2.2 Packet pg. 73/80 Questions Item 2.2 Packet pg. 74/80 City Council Agenda Item 3.1 May 13, 2026 - Study Session TITLE:Authorization to purchase (1) 2026 Bobcat PA185V Air Compressor (First Reading) DEPARTMENT:Public Works and Utilities PRESENTER:Andy Rheaume NEEDED FROM COUNCIL:Action RECOMMENDATION:Forward item to the consent agenda for approval. BUDGET: Total Dollar Amount:$35,620.25 ☐ Approved in Budget Fund(s):511 B-Fund ☒ Budget Reallocation Required ☐ No Budget Impact PROBLEM/ISSUE STATEMENT: Unit 124 is a 2002 Comp-Air air compressor that belongs to the Water Division of Public Works and is scheduled for replacement in the 2027/2028 biennium budget. This unit is no longer functional and requires replacement this year (2026). CONTEXT, ANALYSIS, & ALTERNATIVES: Unit 124 had an original life expectancy of 11 years and was scheduled to be replaced in 2013. We successfully extended the service life of this unit by 13 additional years. This unit is a critical asset for our Water Division of Public Works that can’t be delayed until the scheduled replacement in 2027. RECOMMENDATION: Forward item to the consent agenda for approval. BUDGET IMPACTS: This unit is $35,620.25 and is fully funded in the 511 B-Fund. ITEM HISTORY: N/A ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Quote Item 3.1 Packet pg. 75/80 Item 3.1 Packet pg. 76/80 Item 3.1 Packet pg. 77/80 Item 3.1 Packet pg. 78/80 Item 3.1 Packet pg. 79/80 Item 3.1 Packet pg. 80/80