City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah. I

call this hybrid regular council meeting of 04/14/2026 to order at 07:00PM. Will you please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic from which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Mayor Olsen. Here. Deputy mayor Creeley.

Here.

Council member Pesaruski. Here. Council member Ramirez.

Here.

Council member Keith. Here. Council member Rasmus?

Here.

Council member Edwards? Here. Council member Sothard?

Here.

Rule is complete.

Okay. Council, before I ask if anyone has any items to add to tonight's agenda, I wanna point out that I was approached before the meeting by council member Keith with a request to remove the final two items, item f and g. And assuming nobody has any strong objections to that, we'll just move it to a future study session when we have more time to discuss this. Deputy mayor Creeley was the second on this, and I see him off mic. I don't know if he wanted to if he agrees. Are you are you good with moving this to a future study session?

Yes. I was just gonna go ahead and agree to that.

Yeah. Okay. No. Just just need to know if if anybody has any strong objections to removing these two items to a future study session. Okay. We're good with that, so we will do that. We will move to a future study session on those two items. So with that said, now does anyone have any items they would like to add to tonight's agenda? We usually don't have any. Oh, Jennifer.

Since we're on the topic of removing items, would I be able to use this time to make a motion to postpone an item?

When that item comes up

Okay.

Would be the appropriate time.

Okay.

So now we're just basically setting tonight's agenda, asking if anyone has any items that they would like to add. Not seeing any? Okay. I think we can move on. So we are next at audience comment.

We have talked about extending public comment time from three minutes to five minutes. It's kind of penciled in for future action. So the last couple of meetings, we took a a motion from the council to suspend our council rules of procedure to increase audience comment time from three minutes to five minutes. It's a nondebatable motion, and it needs a second, and it needs a super majority. But I'll entertain at this time if someone would like to make a motion to suspend our council rules of procedure to add five minutes of audience comment. Make a motion. Think I

heard council member Ramirez and council member Erasmus. So we have a motion,

and we have a second. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. And the opposed, say nay. Okay. Motion carries. So audience, that means you now get five minutes up at the podium. And we had three people signed up, but more can speak than just these that signed up. So don't think you missed your chance. But first up, we have Karen Coates, and she listed her topic of discussion, the rezoning of a rezoning area near Sumner Heights Drive. Jeremy will go up and turn the microphone on. Main IT guy is not here tonight, but I think Jeremy oh, he's already got five minutes up there.

So you don't have to take all five minutes, but you're welcome to. Okay. So fire away, Karen.

Okay. Thanks. My name is actually Karen. It just felt like Karen, though. Oh. It's spelled like Karen. I'm here with my parents, Jim and Esther Coats, and they live with me, and they own the property just adjacent to mine. So we wanted to express that we strongly oppose the rezoning of 5626 And 5628 Summer Heights Drive East from residential to industrial. And we did send in a letter, and I did talk last night. So apologies to those who heard this before.

But I think it's good to see the person behind the notes. So I have been living in the home that I'm in now since 1967 before I went to kindergarten. I've lived there most of my life. Our family did vote to become part of Edgewood, and the main reason was because the goal then was to keep it rural. I looked in our city's policy of vision for 2050, and one area of vision was economic development policies that support a distinctive built and natural character and high quality of life.

And I believe this rezone is inconsistent with that. And some of the reasons are, first is traffic and safety. The infrastructure for Seminar Heights Drive East isn't designed for a high volume industrial vehicles, so that poses a risk to local pedestrians and bikers. Second, there is not adequate buffer for the proposed industrial zone with our home. So we have had vibrations in our home so strong that when my sister visited, the bed shook her and woke her up in the middle of the night.

Now we were suing at the time wondering is that ever getting casting down the hill? We don't know. But I come to find out from our neighbor Mariah, who lives directly across the street from the property asking for rezoning, that her house shakes and she'll see the 18 wheelers, industrial vehicles, driving into that property because they are have been operating illegally as industrial. So she sees them, feels her home shake, so I'm kind of assuming that is what's causing the new shaking that we're having in our home. But again, bad enough to wake somebody up at night because the bed's shaken.

We've also had increased issues with landslides that make our property unsafe. And it's reasonable to assume that this is exacerbated by the vibrations caused by this illegal use of that land. Now if you make that legal for industrial, that's only going to increase the vibrations, therefore increasing the negative impact on the surrounding area. So we're also concerned about the impacts to neighborhood character. We're concerned about the property values.

So I put significant amount of money into my home, not for resale, but so that my parents can remain living with me. And so this can be my forever home. So all the upgrades I'm doing for them with railing helps me too, helps all of us. I don't want to have to sell because the industry is getting too close and hurting my quality of life. And I don't want to sell at a loss because the property value went down. Again, don't want to sell at all. So finally, the environmental impact. As I stated, we're concerned about the vibrations. So the property in question has a steep bank as part of that property. Now our lots, there is a steep bank down to the road across from that another steep bank that goes directly to the valley.

That bank is adjacent to the property that is asking for the reason. So to me that is a wide area that it's going to cause concern for. In addition, we see bald eagles every once in while flying above those trees, red hawks a lot of times. So we're not only concerned about the land, we're concerned about the habitat as well. So with that, I respectfully urge, along with my parents, that the city deny the rezone request and uphold the current residential zoning that protects the integrity of our neighborhood. And I wanna thank you all for the time and consideration. Thanks.

Thank you, Karn. K. Next up, we have Eric Page, former council member. His picture's probably on a photo board in the back closet somewhere, but good to see you.

So much for for remembering. That was a long time ago, the nineteen hundreds.

So Yeah. Yeah. And you're also apparently speaking on the same results.

Yeah. Okay. First of all, thanks so much for working with us on this, and thanks so much, Jeremy, for your comments, during the planning, mission meeting. It was really helpful to get that context. We understand that this proposed rezone is not something that was initiated by the city, but it's an application.

And we really feel like it's helpful to let you know how strongly the neighbors feel in the area about this because it's something that has kind of united us in a fun way, but, we're really concerned about it. And what I'd like to do maybe is capture just some of the highlights of what was spoken about just recently. Serious concerns about the environmental impact, serious concerns about just a lack of transition that would be available between the proposed industrial area and the residential area. And, of course, it's just so so contrary to the kind of character that we envisioned for the city back in the nineteen hundreds and I think still today, One that really provides for quality residential, residential homes, places that people can be comfortable, and a community character that's really consistent with drawing people to Edgewood for both good economic activity, but also people love to live here. The thing that I'd really like to highlight, if I could, is just three things that I anticipate you're probably going to hear in support of this amendment that I think we just wanna address from the very beginning.

The first is that there may be an attempt to shift the burden of proof on this. In other words, the burden of proof for whether or not this amendment should be approved really lies upon the people who are proposing the amendment. Those who've lived in the area for a long time and purchased their homes for the intended purpose, I don't think we should have to generate the argument for why this shouldn't happen. The second thing that I really wanna emphasize is that it's really important to remember, yes, the owner of this property that would like to rezone, they should enjoy all of their property rights. It's very it's important, but they should enjoy those property rights for which they purpose purchased the property.

And it's also equally important that we remember the property rights of all the other residents who live nearby. In addition to Karin's observations, Moriah, who was here last night, describes quite passionately kind of the impact of what this increased use, which I think is not consistent with the actual approved, zoning right now, but what the kind of impact this has had on their life. It's really serious. And, you know, that is something that I think we need to consider is the property rights of those who live in the city and have lived here for a long time. And then the final one that I think is so important is you're probably gonna hear arguments about, well, there's adjacent industrial properties in the area that they can point to that, you know, if you'd look on Valley Avenue, there's some industrial activity there.

But as I'm sure you've encountered with all these land use questions, there's always some kind of a border, and there's always going to be a question about, do you move more on one side of the border or more on the other? And in this case, I think it's really important to just look at if you move further into this residential area for this particular proposal, it's just really going to be completely incompatible with the other uses that are in that area. And I think we can just look at it this way. Are we really trying to say, how can we bring the spirit of Valley Avenue into Edgewood? I don't think that's what we're looking for.

I think we're trying to maintain what we have in Edgewood. And I really appreciate all the work that you guys do. I know that there's a lot of it, and thanks so much for your consideration on this question.

Thank you, Eric. Next up, we have Christie Kildare. I don't see any little double things over, like No. Karen's a, so hopefully I pronounced

You you got it

right. Christy Kildare correctly.

Yes. Christy Kildare. I've lived in Edgewood for over thirty years since my youngest son here was two. And we love fireworks. We believe that everybody should have that right to have them.

And this ban, I don't know how you could could even police, you know, have enough force to to police all of this this these fireworks because people are going to, you know, do it. And are you going to use all of your budget just for that one day? Are you going to stress the the system? I think your money would be much better spent on education and safety than to try and, you know, say, no. You can't have them, and and then try and police that.

And, you know, it's gonna be a stress on on everybody, especially the city, because because of your budget and the police to try and to go out and and stop it. So education and safety is the way to go, in my in my opinion. If you're gonna spend money, that's where you should spend it. And that's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Christie. Okay. Anyone in the audience that didn't get a chance to sign up that would like to step forward and use their five minutes for any items on the agenda or off the agenda. And I don't oh, we do have someone in the virtual audience. Someone named Caitlin. She's coming on there, and we do need to see your face, Caitlin. I think our oh, we don't need to see their face? Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But I'm thinking of other meetings and boards I'm on where you do. So, Caitlin, does she have to come off mute herself? Mhmm.

And when we see that little microphone slash go away, then Caitlin can start speaking for up to five minutes. So we're waiting on you, Kate. There she found it. So okay. Caitlin, you've got five five minutes. And and maybe state your last name and where you're from.

Awesome. Okay. Alright. Good evening. My name is Caitlin Boss.

I am speaking on behalf of the Master Builders Association of Pierce County. I don't reside in Edgewood, but many of our members do business in the community and live there as well. And I'm speaking tonight in regards to the city administrative fee update, particularly the building and development fee increases. I just wanted to start off by saying that I've kind of been listening in, ended hear the study session on April 7 and the discussion surrounding who should pay for development and growth and did wanna say that I do understand the argument that growth should pay for growth or development should pay for development. However, in, like, the modern context, I do think that there are some other factors that you should take into consideration as well.

Particularly, when we look at the current cost landscape, people are paying really a much higher proportion or share of their income on housing than they were in the past. To demonstrate this, I sort of brought, some stats with me. Right now in Edgewood, as of 2026, the median home cost for a single family home is now sitting at above $800,000. By comparison, when we look at 2016, the median home cost was sitting between 350 and $400,000. And by 2021, it had only increased to about $430,000.

So this means that in the past five years, we've seen basically a doubling of home costs for single family homes. Then when we look at people's incomes, incomes have only risen by really a few thousand dollars. I think the median household income is at about $1.14. So, really, where I'm going with this is that I don't think it's as unreasonable in today's current cost landscape to say that if people are really expected to pay such a high share of their income on housing, that they shouldn't necessarily then be expected to shoulder the full burden of funding the building and development and impact fee costs that are leveraged by public institutions as well. That being said, shifting the cost burden is not the only way to lower housing costs.

And I think that Jason mentioned this as well, but there are also sort of service improvements that can be made and, ways to accelerate permitting timelines that can lower costs, by effectively lowering carrying costs and bringing more homes to market faster that can help lower costs. Another thing that we also advocate for is phasing in fee increases, especially when we're looking at increases in excess of 20%. This can really make sure that any small projects, or projects that are still in the feasibility phase, can move forward without seeing really a shock, in their, input costs, in a short amount of time. But, really, the overall message that I'm trying to send is that when we see fee increases on the table, it's also important to consider, ways or being open to discussion about ways to lower the cost of housing as well because, really, 800,000 is just a lot, to ask for most families. But other than that, I think that's all I had to say.

Thank you so much for, listening to what I have to say and taking my points into consideration.

Okay. Thank you, Caitlin. Any further audience comment either in the virtual audience or in our live audience? Well, I guess virtual people are live too, but you know what I mean. Okay.

So I think I'm safe to assume that we are concluded with audience comment, which takes us to next up on our agenda is the mayor's report. So wanna share that site preparation is underway on the windmill relocation and refurbishment. You can see that right out behind me there. We are underway. And this project was primarily funded through a local community project grant out of Olympia of a 114,000.

So there will be a minimum expense to the city of Edgewood by that project, and we're we're underway. And hopefully, knock on wood, sometime this spring or summer, we'll move that windmill and we'll let you all know so you can bring your your phones with your cameras and record it. And, hopefully, it doesn't tip over on the trip over from across the street. Wanna also acknowledge that we had a council retreat on the final Tuesday of the month of March. And the next time we have a fifth Tuesday in a month, it will be on June 30.

So we are scheduled to have a budget retreat on that day, kind of the same thing, a probably penciled out to be a five to nine budget retreat right here in council chambers. So we're looking forward to that, and we're underway with planning and preparation for that. We also hosted since the last time we had a regular council meeting, we hosted a charter review commission listening session on April 1. You're not familiar, the charter review commission is a committee basically elected every ten years, and this is that year. So there's about 24 members of that, and they're trying to make changes and take a look at Pierce County rules and regulations and laws and stuff like that.

So they're underway doing their due diligence. I attend the East Pierce Fire and Rescue Easter egg hunt on April 4, couple of Saturdays ago, there were probably they estimated 250 kids out in the fields with Easter baskets, probably over 600 people with parents and grandparents. They put out over 6,000 eggs with over 400 pounds of candy. So we we appreciate the work that the East Pierce Fire and Rescue. They just do a great job every year, and I think that thing's been going on for fifty or sixty years by the fire department.

Back in the day, they used to boil hundreds of eggs, and so they were they were real eggs fifty years ago. So, anyway and finally, I wanna mention that senator Phil Fortunato will also be using our council chambers next Wednesday to host a town hall. So next Wednesday, the twenty second, which is a week from tomorrow, from six to 08:00. If you have any questions for our senator in the 31st District, then that will be your opportunity. And that concludes my mayor's report, which moves us on to the consent agenda.

Council, are there any items to be amended or pulled from the consent agenda? Seeing none, may I entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Second. Is there any Second. Okay. It's been moved by council member Pazaruski and seconded by deputy mayor Creeley to approve the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor, aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed, say no. K. Motion carries. Takes us to our first item of business. Item a, this is agenda bill 26 dash o seven zero one, an ordinance for the second reading and adoption franchise agreement for Zipline Fiber. And mister Chuck Hendrickson, our public works director, is joining us online. So this is the second reading. So we've already heard about Zipline Fiber a little bit. But, Chuck, would you like to please brief the council on this item?

Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council. This is yeah. Like the mayor said, this is our second reading of the Ziply Fiber franchise agreement. This is not an agreement for construction. It is agreement for rights to use the right of way. We've spoken on it twice, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Yeah. And I'll just remind everyone, Chuck, what you have reminded us, and, Rachel has reminded us that this is just the franchise agreement. The permits and regulations on how they're gonna do their work is kind of a a separate, process. So so I know that, fiber installations have been pretty hot, in the news lately. So any questions for Chuck on this item? Yes. Corbin or council member Edwards.

Really quickly, is Zipline the same as NFC? Because I know we had one that was a subsidiary. Is that the one?

Yes. They are, the same company. Network, Fiber Company, and Ziply Fiber. They're all subsidiaries of Bell.

Okay. Thank you.

But yet we need to do separate franchise agreements for them. Correct, Chuck?

Yes. That's what they would prefer.

Okay. Yes. Council member Keith. Question for Chuck.

Hi, Chuck. Thanks. I've gotten questions from the public. I think I know the answer, but I would like to to hear it from you. So we are granting permits for these fiber companies to work on city land and city easements. However, the city doesn't have the authority to allow the fiber companies to work on private property without the homeowner's permission. Do I have that right?

Yes. The we we do not grant rights to work on private property ever. We don't have that ability.

Right. There's some nervousness about that on on the part of homeowner homeowners, but all of what we're talking about here is about city controlled property or city controlled utility easements. Right?

Correct. I will Okay. There many homeowners think their property goes out to the edge of the pavement. So there is that's what sometimes causes confusion. The right of way is wider than the asphalt.

K.

Okay. Any further questions for mister Hendrickson? Seeing none, will entertain a motion on this item to approve the second reading and adoption of the franchise agreement for Zipline Fiber.

Motion to approve, Keith.

And do I have a second? Second, Edwards. Okay. I have a motion by council member Keith and seconded by council member Edwards to approve the second reading per Zipline fiber. Council member Keith, you have the floor.

I think that, the city is aware of all of the public's concern about fiber and will be paying very good attention as this install happens. But this part of it is just normal business, signing the contract.

Okay. Councilmember Edwards, you now have the floor.

I'm echoing what councilmember Keith is saying. I am apprehensive about these fiber companies, especially what's been going on with our neighbors, but as is it is standard business. But let's just keep an eye on it and make sure they don't do anything.

Any other council comment on this item? Not seeing any? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. Motion carries. Next up, item b. Sounds familiar. Agenda bill 26 dash o seven zero two, an ordinance for the first reading of NFC franchise agreement. Mister Hendrickson, anything further to share about this particular fiber franchise agreement?

This agreement's identical to the one that was just approved. It's, for all intents and purposes, the same exact agreement. It's just this company has two legs, and so they wanted two agreements.

Okay. And I think I

can answer any further questions.

Any questions for Chuck on this item? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion on this item.

I make a motion, Southard.

And do I have a second? Second, Erasmus. Okay. It has been moved by council member Suthard and seconded by council member Erasmus. Council member Suthard, do you have the floor?

Nothing at this time.

Council member Erasmus, you now have the floor. Nothing at this time. Any further counsel comment on this item? K. All those in favor, aye.

Aye. Any

opposed, say nay. K. Motion carries. Moving right along. Agenda bill 26 dash o seven zero three. This is an ordinance repealing ordinance number 23 dash o four six nine and chapter 8.1 fireworks. This was originally brought forward by deputy mayor Creeley and council member Ramirez. Would one of you like to recap, or would you like to defer to me to recap, or what would you prefer? I'll start with deputy mayor Creeley.

No. I'll defer.

Council member Ramirez, you wanna sum this up? Or I'll defer to you. Okay. Thanks. No.

No. That's okay. So my way of thinking about fireworks is there's either a full ban or there's no ban, and the no ban means you follow the state guidelines, or there's something called a modified ban. And we've been talking about this, and the initial intent of the council, I believe, was to try to go with the modified ban, which is what we used to have here in Edgewood for many years. But we've been advised by our legal staff that going to a modified ban is still more restrictive than the state guidelines.

So therefore, it takes one year to to go into effect. And so, therefore, we almost have if we want fireworks this year in 2026 for the two hundred and fiftieth, we have to go two steps back to the no ban. And then I believe the council's intent was to to move to a modified ban for count or for years 2027 and beyond. Now three weeks ago or so, we had a public hearing. We had a bunch of people here speaking on it, so we've satisfied that request to have the public hearing.

We've talked about fireworks quite a bit at at study sessions, and I think we're to the point where it's kind of showtime. It's let's take a vote and see where where the vote sorts out. So did

I

miss anything? And I'll defer to deputy mayor Creeley, council member Ramirez because this is their motion or their agenda bill item. So was did I capture was that sufficient?

Yeah. And I think that what we heard from the public is great information, and we have discussed in great detail a modified version that fits Edgewood. For me, it this is not a binary type of thing based off of all of the public comment that we heard in chambers and via email. I'm not keeping score, just listening to voices. And I think as I reflected on that, it was how can we make something that is accessible to all and is safe and also takes into account concerns of people that expressed those concerns.

So the intent, at least I won't speak for anybody, I'll speak for myself, my intent is to take all of that information and have a modified thing to fit our city. Past councils put this put multiple things in place without allowing sufficient time for each iteration to run its course to see what worked and what didn't work. And a lot of decisions are binary decisions, and there are other decisions that aren't as binary, and this happens to be one of those based off of public input. Appreciated the public input. There were some decisions last year that this council made that didn't have as much public input that I think affects a lot of our citizens.

So it was nice to have that component, and I appreciate it. Okay.

Deputy mayor Creeley, did you have anything to add? And, again, this is kind of you know, make sure to keep it to the process and the review of kinda where we are as opposed to lobbying for one side or the other because we don't have a motion on the floor yet. But just before I entertain a motion, I just wanna make sure that you two have the opportunity to sum up how this process has gone up to this point. You're good with that?

Yep. Yep. I think you summarized it really well. Thank you.

Okay. So with all that said, and again, to be clear, this ordinance will repeal the total ban that we have right now and move it back to the state guidelines, which is kind of referred to as no ban, but yet there are still state guidelines. So I'll entertain a motion on this item.

Mayor, I'd I'd like to make a motion to postpone ordinance twenty six zero seven zero three, pending either a public vote or an advisory vote

Okay.

Next next year in 2027.

Hang hang on just a second. Just, okay. That was probably good enough. I just remember motions can't have arguments for the motion No. In the motion. So but you would like to move to postpone

I just wanna give a timeline. I I Right. Because, you know, we've we've had really good discussion with this topic. So to postpone ordinance '20 six dash o seven zero three, pending advisory vote or public vote next year in 2027.

Okay. Thank you. I think we're clear on that. However, we need a second. So would anyone like to to second council member Pazaruski's motion to postpone?

I'll second.

Okay. So we have a motion to postpone on the floor. This is debatable, and it takes a simple majority to pass. So council member Pazaruski, you have the floor on why you feel this should be postponed.

Yeah. While staying on the topic of public input, I I value public input. I I don't believe that I feel comfortable voting on this topic for the majority of our community. You know, we've had we've had quite a few people for repealing the ban and quite a few people, that want to keep the ban in place. And I respect I respect both sides.

And I advocate for people to have a voice in our community. And I feel like a topic like fireworks, I would like to piggyback off of our neighboring city, Milton, and what they did last year with having an advisory vote on the fireworks topic that they had last, last year in 2025. And then once those votes came in, the council members of Milton voted accordingly.

Okay. Council member Keith, you now have the floor.

Sorry. I'm not comfortable. I don't think that, for me, anyway. My concern is about risk management. Know, local governments identify risks and put guardrails in place.

And what we're considering tonight removes a known safety guardrail and doing that without the same level of analysis or or or public engagement that created. I mean, the fireworks ban took years and years and years to pass. It was discussed multiple times over multiple councils. And there's there's clear law where a city, a municipality recognizes a risk, puts a puts a safety guardrail, and that's a broad term. I don't I don't mean just guardrails on the road.

I mean, puts a safety mechanism in place to to to mitigate the risk and then removes that guardrail, increases liability. It's a risk management issue. So Big B versus PacBell in California was an example, and there was a huge payout on that case. Keller v. City of Spokane, Owen v.

Burlington Northern. Basically, the body of the law says that when a city has is aware of a known hazard, it has a duty to address it. This is a a risk management concern and and not theoretical. I mean, we had three homes burned, and the ban was a direct response to that risk. And it took years of outreach and public discussion to get to that point.

What's in front of us now is two steps backwards, and it just feels rushed to me. I don't think that, you know, we we've had enough time to consider it, and I don't think that I feel like I have enough information. And so I think that we should spend more time. I understand the urgency around the anniversary, the two hundred and fifty anniversary, but I will always, always fall on the side of public transparency and risk management, and that's the standard I'm gonna hold. So I agree with councilmember Pazaruski that we should put this to more discussion.

Okay. Thank you, council member Keith. Any further council comment on this motion to postpone? Deputy mayor Creeley, you have the floor.

Thank you. Yep. Well, we had the we brought this forward, and I think we could've if we wanted to have this discussion about having a a survey or whatever go out, we could have made that beforehand because we knew there's a kind of a deadline coming up. We have to pass this at a certain time to actually have it apply, you know, lifting the band to apply to this fourth of July so we could celebrate the two fiftieth. So it's kinda late in the game now.

We're gonna try to postpone it again after we've already made a concession to have the public hearing on it. So I just I think it's kinda late in the game for this. We can definitely have, you know, a survey, you know, for the next time we change, you know, if we wanna, you know, change the from the RCW to a limited or, you know, total ban again. It can be up for discussion for that, but I think it's a little late in game right now. I mean, we took the time to listen.

I I gave my stats. One of the reasons was to to, you know, take a temperature of the, residents. And, again, I gave this data to to study session, but I counted only the citizens of Edgewood in my account. Nice. I've got my list here. And as if they told me they weren't a citizen, scratched them off. So I've got 26 for and this is both emails and public hearing speaking at the public hearing. And I if they sent, you know, more than one of those, I I didn't count them twice. I only counted them once. If they had sent two emails, they only got counted once.

If they were speaking at the public hearing and sent an email, they only got counted once. So as as, you know, the numbers I have, and I've I thought that was part of the reason for having a public hearing is to kinda get a feel on the sides. I you know, with that, I had 26 so far that were for lifting the ban and 21 for keeping the ban. So I think we've we've done the outreach that you know, PT's people had plenty of opportunity to email, word-of-mouth. They They were at the public hearing, came to meetings. So, you know, we we got a sample, and I think we're ready for the vote. Thank

Okay. Thank you, deputy mayor Creedley. Any further council comment on the motion to postpone? Yes. Council member Edwards.

I would just say I don't feel comfortable pushing off the vote to an undisclosed time because we have talked about doing an advisory vote, but we don't have the funds right now for the advisory vote. I think it was $20,000, which we don't have. So I would just like to get it done here and now. We have people here tonight who were at the public hearing. And what was the point of doing the public hearing and doing all of this if we were just gonna push it out even more?

Okay. Thank you, council member Edwards. Any let me give everyone a chance to speak first before we all speak for a second time, but not seeing anyone, so go right ahead. Thank you.

Yeah. If I can just clarify that advisory vote comment, Corbin. So because it is an expensive process to put advisory vote on the ballot, as you mentioned, $20.30 grand. My my recommendation to put it on the ballot for 2027 is based upon, the reasoning, that the city of Edgewood will have items on the ballot next year, which would be three open council seats. And councilmember Creeley, you know, I I, you know, I I your point's valid of, you know, you know, we had a public hearing to bring in the community.

This was a good way to open it up for advertising it and getting people to come. But from what I've said from the very beginning of when I came into this discussion back in early March, I I I want to I wanted to get the community more involved. Getting the word out for the public hearing did not hit everyone's inboxes. It's it's impossible, with our limited ways of communicating within the city. So I I didn't keep it I didn't personally keep a tally of all the people that came and spoke.

I I wrote down everyone's names and what whatever they had to say. I appreciate, and I listened to every voice. But I'm I'm not basing anything off of, oh, 26 people wanna repeal it, 21 don't. With this with this going, hopefully, to a vote for, vote to the public, we're gonna we're gonna reach a a larger group. And I think that will give us a better idea of who is for and against fireworks.

And I'm also I'm also, advocating for the safety of our community with fireworks. Just to let you all know too, you know, I get it. We've got a big holiday coming up. I'm patriotic. This year is my twenty fifth year as an officer in the Navy Reserves. You know, I'm I'm patriotic. You know, I it's but when it but when it comes to a topic of patriotism, I there's other ways to celebrate our patriotism rather than lighting off something that goes boom. So that's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Ramirez.

Now just stop me if I'm beyond the scope of the motion. So what I struggle or what I'm struggling with is what constitutes an advisory vote vote. We were elected by the public. The public has shared concerns. We had some stuff last year that the entire state had voted against in the past, car tab fees.

We had minimal discussion on that. That would have been also I think a good place for an advisory vote advisory vote. So new to this, like, what constitutes advisory vote or on a ballot as opposed to what comes in front of us and we just decide to vote upon? I suppose that's what I'm struggling with. So if someone could help me out, that'd be great.

Well, if your fellow council members want to, it was just maybe going

on out into the ether.

Yeah. Okay.

I think you use those terms probably interchangeably. An advisory vote, technically, we could probably pull one off as early as August in the primaries. But, again, that that's that's too late for the February. So but anytime August, November, if there's a school bond coming up in February next year, those would be options for an advisory vote. And you're right. It might be the the cheapest to go with next November, but then we kinda miss two different fourth of July's, and there might be some pushback on that. So

No. I was just asking that question because it's I struggle with a lot of votes we make that could potentially go down that pathway, but they don't. And I do agree with council member Edwards that we asked the public. We had a really deep conversation about how to ask the public. There were daily, maybe one or two every day on the Facebook feed of, here, we have a public hearing on fireworks.

There are claims made that social media is where to go, so we went to social media. The mayor put out on a Friday mayor a fireworks thing. My wife said the Edgewood water cooler was blowing up with fireworks things. I don't follow social media. But how else do we get the word out, and how else do we take the input that the citizens gave and took time away from their family to come speak and then just kick the can down the road as former members of council would say.

So I would support council member Edwards.

Okay. Any kind of most people have had a chance to opportunity to speak twice, but haven't had a chance to speak once, go ahead. Or if you'd like to speak a third time, go ahead. Wanna make sure everyone gets a chance. Again, we're still at just the motion to postpone. So okay. Seeing no further comments, let's take a vote on the motion to postpone. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay.

Nay. Nay. Okay. So motion to postpone, fails. So that brings us back to the original motion to repeal the ordinance, and this would be creating a new ordinance 26 dash o seven zero three. So I think we know what this is, so I'll entertain a motion to adopt this new ordinance, which repeals the old ordinance. Would anyone like to make the motion?

So I'll make the motion to adopt

a b

26 dash zero seven zero three.

Second, Creeley.

Then I heard okay. It has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by deputy mayor Creeley to adopt ordinance 26 dash o seven zero three, which repeals ordinance number 23 dash o four six nine and chapter 8.1, regarding fireworks. Council member Ramirez, you have

the floor. I think I've said what

I had to say and would like a roll call vote. K. We can do that. Deputy mayor Creeley, you now have the floor.

Yep. Just wanna reiterate that, lifting the ban and going to the RCW still does ban unregulated fireworks, and unregulated fireworks have been the problem all along. So the ones that can go up and blow up, the higher powered things that you would see at professional shows are actually banned under the RCW. And that's one of the reasons I'm requesting to actually lift the ban because the problem children, if you will, the fireworks have always been, the illegal ones that you they are unregulated. And that's about it. Thank you.

K. Thank you, deputy mayor Creeley. Any further council comment? Council member Southern.

Can I ask a question? I kinda missed the ball there. But K. How quickly could we put in a new ordinance for that year long counter to start. We almost do it like today, theoretically?

Well, theoretically, I would say that wouldn't be a good idea because we've not held a public hearing on that, and we've got a lot of work to do on that. So I think we're best to stick with this this motion on the floor right now.

Okay. But I mean, like, in general though, it's we don't have to wait, like, a month or two or anything specifically. Okay.

We we depending upon the outcome of this, we we could, if we need to, explore other options at that time.

Okay. Thank you, mister mayor.

Okay. Any yes. Council member Edwards.

Just to kinda echo what Jeff was saying, we're not done with fireworks if the ban is lifted. We still have work to do and work that I would really like to get done before July 4. So that way, not this year, but the following year, we have a safe and sane modified ban in place, which no more skyrockets, bottle rockets, mortars, the Roman candles that explode, things like that, making sure that we do have the illegal fireworks from other places. Those are covered by state law, but making sure that we also just cover all our bases and making sure that nothing can go up or blow up in Edgewood just to kinda it would make me feel better, but a lot of citizens feel better too because a lot of the comments I heard was about things that were going up and blowing up. And so I would really like to get a if the fireworks is the repeal banned, the repeal lifted, then getting a safe and sane ban in place that does just those go up, blow up kind of things.

K. Thank you. Any further yes. Councilmember Suthard. Nope. You're okay.

This is probably the hardest issue I've

had to deal with since I've been on council. The what? The 50 livestock people was we were kind of on their side. The, I'm having a hard time with there's been a ban, obviously, and my base in Iraq was quieter when I was getting attacked by a rocket than on the July 4 in my neighborhood. So I'm kind of have a have to put a lot of thought in this one. But I appreciate everybody that came to the town hall. I appreciate all the emails. Gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.

Yes. Councilmember Rasmus. And it was that a hand raise? Yeah. And then councilmember Keith. So councilmember Rasmus.

Yeah. I would echo what what Jeff said, and I'd I also wanna just thank everybody who did comment and and send emails whether we got back to you or not. You guys you guys were heard. I think that there was a lot of opportunities to be heard. I also do think that we do owe it to the people who have put in that effort to to put this to a vote.

Yeah. I've been an Edgewood resident for ten, eleven years with the ban and without the ban. It all depends on who your neighbors are, and you you can't legislate who your neighbors are and and what they do. You can't restrict the liberties of everyone to to accommodate the few. And that that I know it's it's it's fifty fifty. Right? There's gonna be people who who hate you one way or the other, however you vote. So, I'm just gonna vote my conscience because it I'd I look at the facts. I I try to take the emotions out of, you know, out of the the issue and look at it from factual basis. You know, in the last couple years, we have not had houses burned down.

We haven't had major incidents. This is this is one of the hardest things for our police force to enforce. And even if they do catch someone, getting them into, you know, into court and and fighting legal battles, it's all expensive, and it's just a big deal. And for me, why are we why are we piling onto a state law that already bans, the illegal fireworks that are the complaint? We've had this ban going for a year now.

Last year, we still had and and at every Seahawks game, we still have somebody blowing up an illegal firework. It's you know, it again, it's difficult. I'd I respect everybody from from both sides of this. I'd I would like to some part of the work that council member Edwards, was mentioning is, you know, how can we how can we accommodate those who do struggle? You know, how can we accommodate those who, who have PTSD and and struggle with with the loud noises?

How do we how do we accommodate those with with horses that that bolt, you know, when a loud noise goes off? And, I think there's ways that we can do that, you know, and work together as a as a council, to be able to both keep the liberties of those who enjoy legal fireworks, at the same time accommodating those who struggle with the ones that are getting blown off anyways regardless of what our ban says. So, I I stand I also, I'm gonna vote yes to repeal this ban. Thank you.

Okay. Councilmember Keith, you now have the floor.

I this is a hard issue, and I I agree with that. And it's been a hard issue for hundreds of years. I mean, council member Corbin, mentioned safe and sane. Well, that was the name of the original ban, the fireworks movement two hundred and fifty years ago. I will point out for the record that they were blowing up anvils into the air with dynamite, and and we're not talking about that now. The technology is different. Our fire systems are different. Our housing structures are different. I mean, entire towns burned down back then because people were, you know, doing crazy stuff with fireworks. So this has always been an issue, and I understand that.

Personally, I'm not a fan of fireworks because I grew up in farm country where there's wheat. And, like, the last thing in the world you would wanna do when it's a 110 degrees is set off fireworks because all the wheat gets burned. But I would prefer a go up, blow up policy. You know, that wasn't on the table when when this full ban was voted in. But like I say, this conversation has been going on for years and years and years.

That all having been said at this red hot moment, you know, I think that if we remove the ban and homes burn, I think that those homeowners will have a strong strong argument in court that the city weakened a safety measure that was working, and that could carry consequences. And and then until we get some advice on that and and get get more comfortable on risk management, I'm a no.

Okay. Any further yes. Councilmember Pazaruski.

Well, since my motion to postpone this to make it a the people's choice was passed down, I'm gonna put on my council hat, and just repeat the same things that I've been saying the last few months. I do wanna echo council member Keith regarding the, you know, the safety measures. And, if this ban does get repealed tonight, I'm gonna feel nervous going into this next season or seasons where we are going to be reverting, if it does get reverted back to state RCW. I advocate for the livestock community in Edgewood. I'm also part of the livestock community.

I just had two baby calves born the last few days. You know, I I also advocate for small animal owners or not small animal owners of dogs and cats and, any type of animal that doesn't do well with the fireworks. I'm a huge advocate for our veterans and first responders that battle PTSD. You know, I know if we repeal the ban, the things that go, go up in the air and blow up, those are obviously illegal. But I feel like it's gonna be hard with the education part of what is safe and, you know, what is what is banned for our community.

But I am going into this very hesitant if this ban gets repealed. And, I mean, I I I hope, you know, with all this discussion that the council members have had, that we can vote on our conscience and, vote in the best interests of our community.

K. Thank you, council member Pesaruski. Got a follow-up by council member Rasmus. I think everyone's had a chance to speak once, so we're we're good.

Yeah. Just last thing, and then we can move on. I'd I'd I'd like to respectfully disagree with council member Keith. I'd I don't believe that the ban has worked at all. The evidence was July 4 year.

The the evidence is every single seahawks game. So the the ban has not prevented the people who are going to shoot off illegal fireworks from shooting off illegal fireworks. And the the ban, it it it feels to me like it's it's just there to make people feel comfortable as if we are doing something when we are actually not doing anything of significance. And and I guess that's where I'm getting hung up is, again, we're taking away liberties from people to have a safety measure in place that's a perceived safety measure that really has no teeth in in actually preventing people from shooting off illegal fireworks. So thank you.

K. Any further council comment?

Seeing none. Okay. We will go to a vote. And just to reiterate, it has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by deputy mayor Creeley to repeal the fireworks ban. So all those in favor of Yeah. Roll call. Roll call vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Jill, please roll call vote. Sorry. Sorry. I forgot.

Please respond with aye or nay when your name is called. Council member Pesaruski? Nay. Council member Ramirez?

Yea.

Council member Keith? Nay. Council member Creeley?

Yes. Yea.

Council member Erasmus?

Yea.

Council member Edwards?

Yea.

Council member Sothard?

Yea. Okay.

Motion carries. So the fireworks ban is now repealed, and we are now under the state RCW for fireworks here in the city of Edgewood effective, pretty soon. So before the July 4. So okay. Thank you, council. Next up, item d. This is agenda bill 26 dash o seven zero four, an ordinance for transportation impact administrative fees. Mister Jeremy Metzler, community development director, would you please brief the council on this item?

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council. This is item that was discussed at last week's study session regarding the transportation impact fee administrative fee that has been in effect in the code since 2007, currently at a 5%. What's proposed is a code change to direct people to the fee schedule, and the ordinance gives direction to update the fee schedule to include a $250 flat rate per unit for the administrative fee. Happy to take any questions you may

have at this time. Okay, counsel. Questions for mister Metzler on this item? K. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion on this item.

I move to approve a B26Dash0704.

Okay. And do we have a second?

A second.

Okay. It has been moved by council member Southern and seconded by council member Ramirez to approve ordinance 26 dash o seven zero four. Council member Southern, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister mayor. Thank you, Jeremy. I learned so much about TIFFs,

and I appreciate all staff's work on that. And that this seems like a reasonable, easy to do thing for the city to help others.

And now council member Ramirez, you

have the floor. Just wanted to say thanks to staff. I know it took a lot of time and do appreciate the various scenarios that were provided. And I just would like to also thank my fellow council members for having this type of conversation. It's it's a good conversation.

Yes. I see. Council member Keith.

On this kind of item where we're not allowed to make money on fees, I noticed that this hasn't been updated in a very long time. And I think that we would be smart to look at this data pretty often and and make sure it's it's as close to whatever word you wanna use from new new cost. It's as close to cost as possible. So I I appreciate you guys looking at this, and I would like to do it often on on all these fees that we need to keep at absolute threshold. So thank you.

K. Thank you, council member Keith. Any further council comment on this item? Seeing no further comment, all those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay. Okay. Thank you, counsel. Next up, item e. This is agenda bill twenty six dash o seven nine two, a resolution for the fee schedule update. Once again, mister Jeremy Metzler, would you please brief the council?

Thank you, mayor. Again, this is an item that's been, discussed for several meetings. I see the item history there on your screen. Staff's goal is to revisit the fees periodically. Last time that they were looked at comprehensively was late twenty twenty three.

There is a approximately 20% increase proposed for our staff billable rate to recover actual costs. But I will also note that early on in the conversations when it hasn't been talked about with council lately, that when staff looked at all of the proposed fees in the fee schedule compared to other agencies nearby such as Pierce County, City Of Puyallup, City Of Federal Way, the hourly rate that's proposed of a $160 is at the low end of those agencies. And as far as the rest of the fees and the fee schedule, if we're not at the low end, we're in the middle, but we're not at the high end. I just wanted to reiterate that. But happy to take any questions you might have at this time.

As discussed last week, this fee schedule has included in it the $250 flat rate for the TIFF administrative fee as well as other things that we've talked about over the last several study sessions.

K. Thank you, Jeremy. Questions for mister Metzler, council member Pazaruski.

Yeah. Jeremy, I just had a question regarding, the last time you mentioned the fee schedule hasn't hasn't been reviewed, was back in 2023. Moving forward, are we going to be looking at maybe looking at the fee schedule annually or every couple years? Or, do we have do we have any plans for that?

Yeah. I've had some conversations with our finance director, Hardeep, and we're looking to try to do this closer to an annual basis. But, again, sometimes other things come up and we're not able to get focused on it like we'd like to. So but, yeah, we we are going to try to do that more intentionally going forward.

Great. Thank you.

Any further questions for mister Metzler? Yes. Council member Erasmus.

If if this passes or or sorry. If this fails or gets postponed in any way, does does that change what we just voted on with the flat fee, 250? So say this fails. Does that take away what we just did with the $250 flat fee?

So my quick take would be that it does not change the direction from the ordinance that you just authorized. However, if the fee schedule is not updated with that information, then there is no b set to implement.

K. Any further questions for Jeremy? Okay. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion on resolution twenty six dash o seven nine two, the fee schedule update. Do I have a motion?

Motion, Keith. And do I have a second?

Second, Edwards.

K. It has been moved by council member Keith and seconded by council member Edwards. Council member Keith, you have the floor.

Again, appreciate you guys, all of you working on this and keeping on top of these numbers as as much as you can. It's you know, loo losing control of your costing system is is not something that is a great idea. So this, you know, annually would be great. We don't want to puff these numbers up, and we certainly don't want them to be too low. So right in there.

K. Thank you, council member Keith. Council member Edwards, you now have the floor.

Just important to keep those peace schedules updated. That's all.

K. Any further council member Rasmus?

I got a few comments. I've commented on this a few times in the last couple of study sessions, and I also thank Jeremy for all the the work that he's done. I I got a lot of respect for for his sheer amounts of data that he he can he can pump out. So without really, refuting any of that data, because I I totally I've I've seen it. We met, and I and I I agree that it's there.

What I what I don't necessarily agree on is the urgency of it. And so you you just heard my friend Caitlin give public statement earlier. Full disclosure, I am a a member of Master Builders, and I am a a local builder and remodeler. So we're we're on the front lines of what is a a very real housing crisis. Shortage of housing in our state and nationwide.

You saw the the numbers that she gave were real numbers in the inflation of the cost of housing in our state and especially in the city of Edgewood. So we we have to be the ones that that talk to our clients and form budgets around, you know, again, a single family home is upwards of $36,000 in fees for a single family home. And what that's doing, you guys, is that's pricing young middle class families out from being able to own a home. So you can understand why I'm a little bit passionate about even the small fee. You know, we're looking at something that's not big here, but even something that's small, it it it adds up.

And the idea of development, paying for development, the the only rub I have with that is it's still a bucket in a project. You might be putting the fee in a different bucket, but it's still a a fee that builders don't pay for. Who pays for it? The people who are buying the home or the people that are renting the apartment. There's always this concern that that low income people are gonna move into the apartments in Edgewood.

That's not the case. Our apartment rents are are as high as anywhere else in the state. So when we make these decisions to raise fees in any shape or form, we have to take this into consideration or we're never going to reverse this upward trend of of housing costs and pricing people out of homes. And it's not just building homes. I'm a remodeler primarily, building ADUs.

The we TIFFs are definitely in this conversation. So we we have TIFFs that are also out of control. So when I look at this from the perspective of a of a builder and somebody who has who has watched projects get canceled because they realize how much the fees are, You know, I'm I'm passionate about it. I want I want to see those I wanna see fees go down. I do understand that there's a real gap there.

And I and, again, I don't want to to argue that. So what what I would like to do as a council and I'd and I'd I don't wanna postpone it till kingdom come, Jeremy, but I I feel like we should have a a full review and full consideration of all the fees that our city is applying to building and remodeling and ADUs. And, you know, if we're if we're that passionate about fireworks and and making sure that the public has comment on these things and that we've thought it through really well, then this definitely should be something being again, it's a crisis that we're having, in housing. We should really think twice about it, and we should work together as a team. Meeting with Jeremy, he said he's open to other ideas.

So this is not the only idea here in front of us that that we can present to staff to say, hey. Maybe we do a phased in approach. You know? Maybe we all allow a little bit now and and readdress it at the at our budget retreat. This is a budget question, and I I would love to postpone it until the the the budget retreat, or until we've had enough data to see that this perceived gap or this predicted gap is actually going to come into reality.

Is it six months from now? Is it a year from now? I don't I don't really know those those answers myself on what the effect the department will be if we if we don't pass this now. So I don't know if, my question for Jeremy again. I don't know if he can respond to that as well at this point, but, yeah, I'm passionate about it, guys. Like, people wanna buy homes. People wanna live in homes. The the cost of living is outrageous, and every little penny makes a difference. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any further council comment on this item? Yes. Councilmember Pazariewski.

I I appreciate council member Erasmus' comments there. You definitely know a lot more about building than than I do. I do see that these fees are a small portion that it takes to build a home. Now all those other areas of what goes into a cost of building a home, you that's your forte that I would if you this is something that you want to postpone and where we could have more discussion of, new home builds or the fees for ADUs. You know, we also have to take into consideration, we live in such a costly part of the country.

I grew up in a township in Ohio with, we didn't even have a stoplight. We had a stop sign. You know? And to this day, homes are so affordable. Now that's not even based off of income here. That's based off of the income in Ohio. Same with Texas. But where we live here, it has become very much unaffordable. But this piece with city fees and permits is just a small piece, and I don't think that it should be to blame why homes are unaffordable to build. There's a lot of other pieces to put in there.

So I I I do, I would piggyback off of your idea to gather some more information and have more discussion. But we have to take the high cost of living and the unaffordability of the state into consideration too. We, you know, we work on such a tight budget with our city as it is. So I I I don't think this is something that we should just solely focus on cutting the corners here.

Did you just make a motion to postpone?

Well, hang on.

No. I I was gonna I was gonna piggyback. If you if you were going to I'm not gonna yeah. I'm not gonna

I'll let the mayor

Yeah. I I'm I'm going to, default to, Jennifer here. Jennifer, as our parliamentarian, could you, advise counsel if somebody would like to make a motion to postpone? We're we already have a motion on the on the floor to pass this resolution. And in the middle of the debate, now we have a motion to postpone. Is that fine? Would a motion to postpone supersede the motion on the floor?

No. The motion to postpone would need to either be offered as a substitute motion, or

you need

to vote on the underlying motion first and then take up the motion to postpone.

Okay. So it kinda sounds like we should proceed with the motion unless is that what you're saying, Jennifer? Unless could they ask councilor Keith? And

So yeah. So someone could someone, councilmember Keith, could make a motion to substitute the mo the a lot of councils don't do this, but it is an order. You can bring a motion to substitute, and then that motion would replace the motion that is on the floor. However, absent a substitute motion, you would need to vote on the underlying motion first. Then if that does not pass, a motion to postpone would be in order.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

And I'm I'm not sure I'm sensing from council member Keith willingness for a substitute motion to postpone.

It's complicated. That's a complicated motion.

Yeah. Okay. So I think that answer is we proceed with debate on the motion on the floor, which is to approve resolution 26 DashO792. So any further comment on this motion to approve this fee schedule update? Okay. Seeing no further comment, we will vote on this. All those in favor of passing resolution 26DashO792 to update our fee schedule, aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed, say nay. Nay. Okay. Motion carries. Alright. Takes us to we're skipping f. We're skipping g because those that were pulled. We are up to council comment. I see council member Edwards. Hand go up there first, then Ramirez, then Keith. So council member Edwards.

I'm just wondering if we can get on a study session next week or soon and update on what's going on with easy fiber with our neighbors in Milton. I just I'm wondering since we do have a contract with them, we can update of what they hit, why they hit it, and anything else that's going on with Milton just because I I'm kinda apprehensive about Easy Fiber right now with everything going on.

K. Sounds good. Counsel well, I I will answer and say I'm meeting with the mayor of Algona tomorrow. And he's a step ahead of us, and he's had them come through, and he shut them down, so I'm gonna kinda pick his brain a little bit. And so we we we agree. We're aware. We we want to make sure we we handle this as best as possible and what we can legally do. So we'll we're certainly aware of it. So Yes. Council member Ramirez was next and then council member Keith.

I just want to invite everybody in the community to the movie Friday. This Friday, April 17, Edgewood and Mountain View Community Center are joining in a partnership to show a Minecraft movie. I'll be there. We got some snacks. Unfortunately, the Minecraft snacks I ordered came with things that I don't think are edible within them. So I had a pivot and I tried to do my best with, the Internet and what are some Minecraft based snacks. But anyway, it's 07:00. Doors open at 06:30. Would love to see you all there. And I know we go back and forth, but this is our turn. No. This one will be at Mountain View Community Center. The next movie that we show in a few months will be back here at City Hall.

Okay. So don't show up here on Friday. Show up at Mountain View Community Center. So thank you, council member Ramirez. Council member Keith, you now have the floor.

I had two quick things. On the easy fiber topic, I I know more about this than than normal people should because my husband works for King County and does locator lagging or digs for light rail. And my cousin was a fiber installer. So with the volume of directional drilling that they will be doing, I think it's likely we will have strikes. Other towns have had the same problem.

The problem is that the gas lines are plastic. They're small. And over time, the depth settles and changes. It can go wrong at the drilling. It for you know, the driller can do it wrong.

The locator service that the utility uses can mark it wrong, not show up. Cities almost never do this, but the locator service could be given a bad map. But but strikes happen, and strikes are very common. And I have anxiety because the public has anxiety, and and and I believe we're gonna be in a in a similar situation having to do public outreach meetings and and PowerPoints to explain how this works to the public. And I just wanted to recommend that we get started on that now because I suspect it's inevitable.

I mean, it's you know, if it's not water, it's gonna it's gonna be gas. So I I think strikes are probably conversations in our future, and all everybody at the city is paying attention very closely, making sure that everything's done as slowly and carefully as possible. But I I think it's almost the nature of the beast that this is a topic we have to deal with. The other thought I had was we just repealed fireworks without an announcement of when that will be implemented so that there's not a where the public isn't sure whether they're legal or not legal. I would propose we you pick a date as soon as possible and make the announcement so that there's not a long period of time between the time that we banned them and announced that we banned them.

That's in the ordinance.

Is it in there?

Next

Wednesday. See, you said soon. Yeah. We have we have a time certain next Wednesday. Alright. Good. That makes me feel better.

Assuming I don't veto the ordinance.

Oh, okay. Well, that is possible.

Just

It's a joke.

Just A joke. Just a joke. Just a joke. So so next Wednesday. So k. Any further council comment? Okay. Seeing no further council comment, we are adjourned at 08:27.

Good night, everybody. Take care. And