City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening residents of Everett, Washington. I would like to call to order the Everett City Council meeting of July 1st, 2026. For information on council meetings and how to participate, please visit everettwa.gov slash city council. Please note that we do not allow comments of any kind of campaigning, whether for or against ballot measures or candidates running for office. We also do not accept comments focused on personal matters that are unrelated to city business. We ask the audience refrain from clapping, cheering, or booing, and no signage of any kind are allowed in the chambers. Clerk, will you please take the roll?

Mayor Franklin. Here. Council Member Bader.

Excuse.

Vice President Ryan. Here. Council Member Bravano.

Here.

Council Member Toohey. Here. Council Member Weir. Here. Council Member Zarlinko.

Here.

President Schwab.

Here. At this time, I'd like to ask Vice President Ryan to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand if you're able.

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

And at this time, I'd like to ask Council Member Zarlingo to read the land acknowledgment.

This council acknowledges the original inhabitants of this place, the Stohops people and their successors, the Tulalip tribes. Since time immemorial, they've hunted, fished, gathered on, and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We will strive to be honest about our past mistakes and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, and voices to form a more just and equitable society. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor.

Good evening, council and community. I have quite a few comments this evening. First, it's with heavy heart that I share the passing of our former council member Paul Roberts. Paul deeply believed in public service and the power of local government to improve people's lives. He served on our city council for 16 years and on the Everett School Board. Plus, he represented our community on regional boards, including Sound Transit and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. He spent more than 15 years leading the city's planning and community development department. He worked for the city of Marysville, served as chief of staff for Representative Norm Dix, and worked for Representative Larson to support the implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act. He also played a crucial role in bringing Naval Station Everett to Everett. He supported Boeing's expansion and later championed our city's very first climate action plan. One thing about Paul is he would always do his homework. He had the experience and wisdom to know the right questions to ask as we shaped policy, and he helped make everyone around him better because of it. Beyond his accomplishments, Paul genuinely loved Everett. He was very much a Renaissance man, a musician, a supporter of the arts, a devoted husband and father. He never stopped thinking about how to make our community stronger and better prepared for the future. In recent years, Paul had a regular column in the Everett Herald sharing his thoughts on climate change. His final column, his 51st, was published just this week. In a past interview with the Herald, Paul shared a Greek proverb that beautifully reflects the way he lived his life. A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never set. Paul planted countless trees in Everett. You see them in the community he helped shape, in Naval Station Everett, which he helped secure, in the progress we've made to get light rail here, and in the countless decisions he influenced through decades of very thoughtful public service. He left his mark on our city, and future generations will continue to benefit from his vision and work. We will be honoring Paul's legacy in a couple of ways. First, we'll be dedicating this summer's Street Tunes program to him, including rolling out a new piano in his honor, decorated by the dance school. And this fall, we will plant a few trees in his honor, and those trees will be planted at Legion Park, and we'll let you know the date of those plantings. On behalf of the city of Everett, I extend our deepest condolences to Marianne, their children, and everyone who had the privilege of knowing and working with Paul. Paul believed that public service was about leaving your community better than you found it, and he certainly did that. By that measure, we few have given more to Everett than Councilmember Paul Roberts, and we will miss him. Cool. As shared at one of our last meetings, moving on, City Attorney David Hall has retired. The position will be officially vacant in about six weeks, at which point I will bring forward a new appointment for council approval. And I'm excited that I will be bringing forward the appointment of Deputy City Attorney David Ramsey Ramerman to this important leadership role. In the interim, he's still serving as deputy city attorney and acting as city attorney, but in a few weeks when David Hall's retirement is official, I will be bringing that appointment to you for your confirmation. It's also summer intern time here at the city. Last week, we officially welcomed 33 student interns from Everett Public Schools to the city. They're working across almost every city department. So if you see a young person in the fire department, the police department, the planning department, the mayor's office, just welcome them. They're typically juniors and seniors, and they're doing all kinds of great work for us, and they're getting school credit. It's a great partnership, and I really want to thank Superintendent Ian Saltzman and his team for this ongoing partnership. We're not the only agency that's hosting interns. There's interns all around the city, but we have the most. So very exciting. And then lastly, it's a 4th of July weekend coming up. I want to share a reminder that personal fireworks are prohibited in Everett. We are in the midst of wildfire season, and fireworks can and do spark fires that put our community and our first responders and your neighbors at risk. They can cause injuries, property damage, and a lot of distress for our pets and people sensitive to loud noises. Please report fireworks-related concerns to the non-emergency line. But if there's a fire, of course, or another emergency, please call 911. To help our Everett Police Department have designated officers patrolling and responding to fireworks calls on the 4th. And we are one of the only agencies in the county that does this, that has designated officers that only respond to fireworks calls. So we definitely are responding to those calls. We also have three portable message boards deployed across the city with reminders that fireworks are illegal and to please respect that ban. And we're pleased encouraging our community to join us at the Colors of Freedom Festival at Legion Park and Thunder on the Bay Fireworks Show. You can enjoy that at Legion Park. You can enjoy it down at the port or other places in the city. The festival starts at 3 p.m. at Legion Park. Fireworks begin around 10, 15 p.m. You can find out more at visiteverett.com. And we will continue to share reminders about fireworks and these upcoming events across all our channels throughout the weekend. And with that, I have no further comments this evening. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to old business. Do I hear a motion for approval of the minutes for June 24th, 2026?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion and seconds have been made. Clerk, please take the roll.

Vice President Ryan, abstain. Council Member Brano?

Yes.

Council Member Tuohy? Abstain. Council Member Weir? Yes. Council Member Zarlinko?

Yes.

President Schwab?

Yes. Okay, now it's time for public comments, which includes written comment acknowledgement. Under our rules, written comments shall be considered in the same manner as oral comments. Persons submitting comments must provide their name and city of residence. Written comments require this to be made part of the official council record. Good evening, Angie. Do we have any written comments or anyone signed up to speak?

Good evening, President Schwab. We did not receive any written comment, but we do have two individuals online to speak. So I will start with Dustin. If you could please unmute, turn your camera on. Okay. And when you see the timer, please state your full name, city residence, and you will have five minutes to speak.

My name is Dustin Graves from Lake Stevens. Just want to say good evening, Mayor Franklin and Everett City Council. I'm here again regarding the Everett Public Facilities District and OVG mismanagement of Everett Community Ice Rink and the continued impact on Everett Figure Skating Club, our coaches, skaters, families, and youth sports programming. I do not wish to rehash everything I've already raised in our prior comments. Tonight, I want to focus on current policy and oversight issues that remain unresolved. The first issue is authority. We have repeatedly asked EPFD and OVG, Oakview Group, to identify where Oakview Group has the delegated authority to take actions that is taken regarding figure skating programming, coach access, club operations, and longstanding user group relationships at Everett Community Ice Rink. Based on the contracts and documents we reviewed, OVG has not been shown to have a level of delegated authority. Instead of addressing that core governance question, EPFT has stated that its role is financial oversight. Respectfully, the answer does not resolve the problem. If a private operator is acting beyond the authority delegated by a public facilities board, that is not just an operational issue, it is a board oversight issue. It is also a financial issue because unauthorized or improperly approved actions can create liability, damage established programs, disrupt revenue, and destabilize youth sports at a public facility. The question is simple. If OVG has this authority, where was it delegated, where was it approved, and where is it documented? The second issue is the continuing failure to finalize a contract. Everett Figure Skating Club is still trying to get OVG to approve a facility use contract so our club coaches, skaters, families, and programs can operate with stability. To date, OVG has continually provided reasons why it cannot move the contract forward, while at the same time continuing to make or pursue operational changes that prioritize their own programming over the club's. That puts a longstanding nonprofit youth sports organization in an impossible position. We're being asked to operate under uncertainty while the operator delays contract approval and continues asserting authority that has not been clearly shown. The third issue is equal treatment of contractor coaches. This part is simple. At Everett Community Ice Rink, figure skating coaches teach private lessons. Hockey coaches also teach private lessons. Both are using the same public facility. Both are providing private coaching. Both involve youth sports. Both involve coaches working directly with families and athletes. But the policy changes being discussed appear to target figure skating contractor coaches, while hockey coaches providing private lessons are not being treated the same way. This was not changed, or this has not been addressed, and this was something that we brought forward as improper contractor utilization. And they are making some changes, but the changes are still only applied to figure skating coaches. Because of this, we've had at least three L&I filings, and we've gone to the Washington State Attorney General's office as well to file a complaint. We're not here to criticize hockey. Hockey families and hockey coaches deserve fair treatment too, but figure skating should not be singled out for restrictions, employment changes, access limits, or new requirements if the same standards are not being applied to similarly situated hockey coaches. If OVG or EPFD believes there needs to be new policy for private coaching at the rink, then that policy should be clear, written, legally reviewed, board approved, and applied evenly across the facility. It should not be one rule for figure skating and another rule for hockey. The fourth issue is the EPFD board's response when asked to exercise oversight. For approximately 18 months, our club has tried to raise concerns about rink operations, management authority, contract delays, and the effect on established youth sports programming. We've asked to be heard. We've asked for clarification. We've asked for documentation showing where OVG received the authority as claimed. Instead of meaningfully addressing the substance of those concerns, at least one board member, Sherry Jennings, responded by saying our emails were too long and that she was tired of the issue taking up so much time. This has also been expressed by Ryan Crowther, the board chairman. That response is concerning because the length of an email is not the issue. The issue is whether a public board is addressing serious questions about delegated authority, contract obligations, public facility fairness, and youth sports access. I do want to acknowledge one positive step. At the last board meeting, Scott Pattison chaired in Ryan Crowther's absence. And for the first time, we were at least given a meaningful opportunity to speak during the meeting. We appreciate that. That is the direction public boards should move. but the larger issue remains unresolved. The rest of the board did not appear to take issue with OVG's actions. Even when we identified that those actions appear to contradict existing contractual obligations, and even when the delegated authority questions remain unanswered. So tonight we are asking council to look at the current oversight issue. We are not asking council to manage the ring schedule. We're asking council to provide oversight and help us answer the questions that we're looking to answer. If we're asking the city council to consider whether it's appointed public facilities board is providing the oversight Everett families deserve. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And next, if Roya can unmute and turn camera on. Okay, and once you see the timer, if you could please state your full name, city residence, and you have three minutes to speak.

Hi, my name is Roya Fergani. I'm living in Snohomish County, Mill Creek. I'm a minority woman owned business owner who serves Snohomish County for over 10 years. I'm also a mother of a five and a half year old competitive figure skater, and I'm here to speak about the Everett Community Ice Rink. My family has called this rink home since late 2023. We came because of the community, coaching quality, and figure skating expertise built over many years. My daughter trained there multiple times a week. We taught coaches. We purchased ice time, attended events, volunteered, donated, and brought many families from our community to this rink. From the beginning, basic operations were a problem. The pro shop was often closed. The front desk was sometimes unstaffed or would not take payments. Bathrooms were not maintained. Food sat out for days. Members reported mice and water pulled on the floor. There were, these are, were not minor issues. They were operational health and safety failures. When they ringtied the payment enforcement that happened to be reasonable, but communication was very unclear. The process was inconsistent and enforcement felt very selective. I want to be clear. Uh, when they approached me, I was not avoiding any payment. My daughter's membership were current supporting her training was my priority. As a single parent of a young child, my routine was to help her to get ready, then return to the front desk and pay. Instead, I was confronted aggressively by the rink manager in front of other parents, coaches, and children. Then the rink general manager accused me of sneaking past the desk, false and deeply offensive. When I raised my concerns to Chairman Crowther via email, there were no apologies or any concerns. What followed was the suspensions two weeks prior my daughter's most important competition of the season. I was questioned in ways that others were not. And as a woman of color, I noticed who was being questioned, who was not. That matter of public facility. I again brought my concerns to PFD and ring leadership. They were dismissed without meaningful review. This reflects a broader pattern The skating community has raced for over a year. Concerns are minimized and those who speak up are ignored. Today, I drive to Linwood, Mountlake Terrace and Crickland because they offer reliable ice time and treat families with respect. I didn't leave because of choice. I left because management made it clear families like mine would not be treated fairly. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for clear policies, consistent enforcement, clean facilities, safe conditions, accountability. And I chose everywhere because of the community and quality instructions builder. I don't believe current management can recreate that while dismissing the people who built it. I also ask council to examine the accountability structure around this. If rules are applied unevenly, operations are failing, the public deserve to know who is responsible. Thank you.

Thank you.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Angie. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Is can we cut the music. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I unless you change it to disco or something.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, i'll work on that. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Okay, next time. PB, Lupita D Montoya, Okay, so there's individuals in chambers. So we'll start with PB, Lupita D Montoya, Carese And if you could please click the button on the base of the mic. And then state your full name and city of residence and you have three minutes to speak.

Carissa Arneson, Lake Forest Park, Washington. So I'm here to talk about the ice rink and the situation over there. safety concerns and whatnot. Now, growing up in Washington, I always wanted to be like my coaches, wanted to drive Zamboni. And in 1998, they became Olympic dreams. I've always chased those dreams. In 2023, you can imagine that I'm excited because I get to finally coach. But it kind of turned into a nightmare after the management change. I was being bullied, harassed. Rules were changed on me on the fly, and they were subject to change at any given time. I was told I cannot coach kids on kids sessions or, uh, you know, on certain on other, uh, freestyle sessions, stuff like that. I also raised concern about ice conditions. Again, I am a Zamboni driver. I know how the equipment works. Uh, and they had changed how long they actually cut the ice, which led to serious safety issues. And I am a product of the safety issues. I ended up falling on, uh, September 15th, 2025, where I blew out my knee, cartilage on both sides out. And I've also lost all the cartilage in the front of my, behind my patella. There's a question if I can ever skate again. And this is somebody that I grew up skating. I tried out for the US women's team. Hockey is my life and it's kind of been taken away. I've tried to get a job since, and I ended up losing my job because I can't function. I couldn't walk around. I was falling behind at work. So of course the right coaching decision would be to cut the person that can't, you know, that's falling behind, that can't keep up. So I don't hold it against them. So right now I, and since my injury, I've been relying mainly on GoFundMe and my family, my father, who's on a, fixed income at 81 years old he had to cash out some investments and in order to get me my injection I needed that we could only pay out of pocket for so right now I pretty much I got nothing left and I'm extremely frustrated with this situation because you know I can't coach I can't work every time I try and get a job it's you know I'm getting I can't keep a job right now and you know and Again, it's hard, and I wanted to actually come up and address you guys so you can actually see me walk up here, hobble up here. And I feel the passion, feel the pain, because since September 15th, I've been unable to function, unable to walk, unable to drive myself in some cases. I had other situations where injections went kind of sideways, and I ended up in the ED over that. uh so i you know i really like you know along with my fellow coaches you know i'd really like you guys to take a look at this stuff and uh what's going on at the rink because we're being treated unfairly and bullied and harassed regularly i think that's about an amount of time thank you thank you dotty if you could please come the podium

If you say your full name and city residence, you have three minutes to speak.

My name is Donnie Medalia, Arlington, Washington. Good evening, mayor and council members. We are here again because 20-year community institution at Everett Public Rink is being pushed out and clearly. without clear justifications. And the oversight body responsibility continues to disregard our request to be heard. I'm speaking as the president of Everett Figure Skating Club and former director of Everett Learn to Skate. For more than 18 months, our club has raised concerns of retaliation, discrimination, inconsistent treatment, unsafe ice conditions, front desk failures, poor oversight by Everett Community Ice Rink under Oak View management. We brought those concerns to the rink leadership and every public facilities district each time our concerns were delayed dismissed or treated as inconvenience. No one asked how to support the skating community or hear how instead we were just told our concerns were not valid once the club began speaking to the pfd board and general manager. they said all we were doing was pissing them off and that they did not want to hear from us. That was reinforced last week as the PFD board member said that our emails are too long and needed to end. In October, our club asked PFD for fair ice allocation policy, especially as only figure skating clubs, we're the only figure skating club sharing the ice with more than seven hockey clubs. Instead of the collaboration, management moved to remove Everett Figure Skating Club and replace it with a rink run program. That decision was made without a clear plan, community input, and an understanding of how figure skating development even works. Management presented unsafe skater capacity recently with numbers, misrepresented what our programs contribute, and show little interest in our events, competitions, or community programs. The damage is already happening. Coaches and skaters are leaving. Families are moving to other rinks. Programs like our Aspire Excellence in Theater on Ice is at risk. We are being removed after identifying problems rink leadership did not want to address. Rink management is trying to remove us for speaking up and how this public facility is being managed. These examples are just samples. Many families, coaches, volunteers, are afraid to speak up publicly because they fear retaliation and losing access to the ICE. That fear should be a concern to every public official in this room. If the PFD board does not hold its operations operators accountable when community programs are being harmed the public deserves to who will we are asking the city to examine the accountability structure around the rink before ever it loses the community asset that cannot easily be rebuilt thank you thank you next if anna could come to the podium you set your full name and city of residence you have three minutes to speak

Hi, my name is Anna Porterfield. I live in Stanwood, but we always joke that I live in Stanwood, or we sleep in Stanwood, but we live in Everett because both my kids go to school down here. And my husband and I both work down in Everett as well. And so we've been here since 2012 working. And my kids started both learning to skate with Dottie in the Learn to Skate program that Everett Figure Skating offered. Um, and they are now eight and 12 and my eight-year-old does figure skating, um, and a bunch of different programs. And then my son does hockey and he's the 12 U rep team and he's on goalie and he loves it. Um, But I offer a little bit of a unique perspective because I do have kids both involved. I think combined, we spend about 18 hours at the rink a week. So we're there a lot. And so we've seen we're very excited for the new management that was coming in. And it's been not so smooth. I'm sure you've heard a lot of things. So I thought maybe the best thing I could do would be to provide some examples of how we've been doing. inconvenienced or been disappointed. What happened last week, my son had a hockey lesson. He takes figure, he takes hockey skating lessons with a figure skating coach during their freestyle. And the coaches during that freestyle time, Carissa has mentioned, they're allowed to have hockey students, but they're not allowed to have more than two at a time. There was a group from Portland that had come in and they said, oh, please. And they took their money and they let them have the whole ice. And there were groups of six or seven kids per coach out on the... I think there were probably 40 to 50 people on the ice trying to do... a skating program and my coach who is leaving and moving to OVA because they have been so frustrated with how things are going. She came out and she was like, we can't, there's not even room for us to do a lesson. And so our last lesson with our coach who was leaving because the management was ruined because management wasn't acting consistently with the rules they have. Another thing is my son plays 12-year rep for Everett, but he also is on the Washington Wolverines, which is a AAA program that buys ice. And so this is related because Everett Figure Skating Club and Washington Wolverines, they both are purchasing ice from Everett management. And they do this through the Washington Wolverines in the fall, and then they do the spring select program in the spring. And Everett figure skating goes all year round. And they are being put on hold for almost two months. I know spring select, they just, they were trying to get a scrimmage in with the Everett rep team and the select spring team. And they were put on hold for two months until they could get ice time when management decided, I guess we don't need it. And so we'll give it back. So it seems to be this very, anyway, so thank you so much.

Go ahead and finish up.

I just said, it just seems to be, if it's not helping the management personally, then it doesn't really matter. It's put off.

Okay, thank you.

Anyway, I'm happy to answer more questions if you have.

Thank you. Is there anyone here that wants to speak on this issue? Or we have, okay.

I have more that are speaking.

On this particular one?

On Everett's rank, yeah. Okay, thank you. So June, if you could please come to the podium and please state your full name and city of residence and you have three minutes to speak. Oh, I turned it off.

Good evening, Council. My name is June Schober and I am a resident of District 3. I ask this Council to please consider setting a specific goal of getting the transit consolidation draft to interlocal agreement published by early September for consideration by this Council. As you may or may not be aware, TriMet, Portland, Oregon's public transit agency, is undergoing deep layoffs in late August. 170 people will be losing their jobs, 70 of which are represented drivers and mechanics. Timing your consideration close to what's going on in Portland would open the opportunity for the Consolidated Transit Agency to hire these people on an accelerated basis should consolidation be approved. Not only would this speed up growing the number of drivers with an effort from the roughly 71 full-time employees that we have today to the anticipated near double under consolidation, this would also open up the opportunity to promote good regional stewardship by providing many of these affected TriMed employees with a clear path forward for their careers. Understandably, this could add crunch time. It may even be wishful thinking to assume that such program would exist or that many would take the offer. But Everett is a city that goes the extra mile, even when it's uncertain. And it's just what we do. It's what we expect. And if there's a way to make that possible here, we should do that. Thank you. Thank you.

Mayor, I was wondering if you want to share kind of some progress on the issue with our stadium, our hockey stadium, and the coaching and the association that represents us.

I wish I had progress to share. I appreciate all the families that spoke and your experiences with the... With ICE and the management, I think you have heard this before, but I just kind of want to share publicly. You know, the city's role in Angel of the Winds Arena is very limited. It is a public facilities district, but it has a board. Our only role here in the city is to appoint that board. We don't have oversight authority. The board is the oversight authority. But I would like to work with council leadership to, I will submit a formal request to the board on all our behalf, if that's all right, requesting an official response from the public facilities district board to us the Everett city council and, and the, and the mayor's office, uh, addressing the concerns that, um, that Everett ice skating club has, has brought to our attention and all the concerns that the families have brought to our attention, um, so that we have that on the record and, and hopefully that will start a dialogue between us and the public facilities board. Again, that acts, um, honestly, independently of the city. It's kind of a strange relationship. It's called a public facilities district, but it is not ours to oversee it as that board. But I think that we can use our position to try to nudge them to get a little bit more information and action and hopefully We'll get more feedback, and then I can follow up with the Council on any response that we receive.

Thank you for addressing that. Okay, let's moving on to the rest of our speakers.

Okay, so next would be Annie, if you could please come to the podium. Annie. Oh. And if you could please press the button on the bottom of the mic and state your full name and city residence, you have three minutes to speak.

Good evening, Council and Mayor. My name is Annie Rich, and I live in Lake Stevens. But I am here with concern about the annexation of Everett Transit with Community Transit. And I've been following... the proposal. My husband is a driver with Everett Transit, and I'm concerned. I'm a retired nurse and an advocate for seniors, disabled and low-income folks that I've worked with in my nursing career. My understanding of the proposal, I don't see specific plans that would maintain the same quality of access to public transit would an annexation. uh, be moved on. And so I'm here to express, uh, my opposition to the proposal and thank you. Thank you.

And next, if Colden could please come to the podium.

Good evening. And thank you for allowing me to speak mayor and city council.

We're on. Okay. Good deal. My name is Mr. Brown, Colton Brown. I'm a public affairs specialist with the United States Small Business Administration Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience. Originally from Seattle, but I'm in Houston, Texas. I'm here to make sure that the constituency and also the council is aware that, number one, the state is still open here as far as with the FEMA resources for the presidential declaration that occurred from the storms in December. We still have just one particular office open. It's actually in Whatcom County right now. However, there are still opportunities through July 10th for individual assistance for the federal services, and that's individual assistance for those that are businesses, also individuals that were affected. In addition to that is our segment of it, which is the Small Business Administration Office of Disaster Recovery. These are long-term disaster recovery loans. As of right now, we've actually funded over $12 million as far as on our end, and that's for all of the affected areas. FEMA is right now up to $13 million. As far as for the Snohomish County, we're looking at it because of part of being a part of the cascade loop that we're looking at. And also because what's going on in FEMA, not a lot of money's really coming in from Canada as it has in the past because they also have FEMA or excuse me, FIFA as well. So these are the types of opportunities that are available to businesses, which are going to be the economic injury disaster loans. They will have until the 7th. of January, 2027, to be able to apply. That's up to $2 million, 0% interest, zero payments, no prepayment penalty for the first year. In addition to that, on the Individual assistance side, homeowners, including renters, so somebody that owns a property, they actually were affected, and they're renting, say, a mobile home or something on the backyard for their family. They're a renter, so they do also have the opportunity to be able to utilize the individual assistance as well. Individual assistance right now is going to be open until the grace period ends the 8th of August. So I just want to make sure that we gave an update to you directly. I know you've been getting my emails, but I just want to make sure that and also that the public heard as well. We're still here. We're still working with the public to try to make sure everybody gets home. That's all that I have this evening. And thank you.

Thank you. And there's one more individual, but they wish to wait till we get to number 10.

OK, number 10. OK, thank you very much. All right, so now we'll go to council comments and we'll begin with council member Babers.

New spot. Thanks, Council President. Real quick, like two others, I went to Association of Washington Cities meeting in Spokane last week. I'll have a future report to share with council. Don't have that ready mostly because I'm going to put in a shameless plug for the Everett 4th of July parade coming up this weekend on Saturday. And so I would encourage all our constituents if they're looking for a great way to celebrate the 4th. Obviously, I know the city has other things planned as well. Um, I might miss the mayor's comments about those, uh, uh, certainly for the, for the parade that we have, uh, to commemorate Everest two 50th, we have a, uh, uh, a display on what more theater plaza moments that made us about America's history as something we got from the national and state 250th committee. Uh, we'll have a public greeting of the declaration of independence at 10 30 at California and Colby done by some of our young people. And, uh, so that'll be great. We also are, uh, uh, privileged to have the Lieutenant governor with us, uh, for these activities and the beginning of the parade. The Lieutenant governor is ahead of the state's 250th anniversary celebration. And he chose Everett to join at least the morning of the, of the 4th of July. And so he'll, he'll be joining us as well. And so would encourage that and also would make a shameless plug. If there are any people who would like to volunteer to help support the parade, it's a group of volunteers with support from great support from the city, from some, from sponsors as well. that are putting this on. And we could still use some more volunteers, both for staffing barricades, as well as for marshalling. And if you're interested in that, just Google ever 4th of July parade, and you can find a way to sign up. So thanks for letting me put in that shameless plug. Hope to see many of you for the 4th of July. And for those that I don't, hope you enjoy. A pleasant fourth, and thanks also for the efforts the mayor's put in place for the city to enforce the fireworks regulations to the best of our abilities. Thanks for that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you, everybody who came tonight and shared public comment. For the Everett Figure Skating Club, I know it isn't easy to speak publicly, particularly when you express concerns about what clearly sounds like retaliation. Hearing that these fears are proving to be well-founded is deeply troubling. Members of the community should be able to raise concerns without fear of adverse consequences. I heard the public comments from the last two council meetings as well, and I'm concerned that we have reached a point where members of our community are feeling so unheard that they have come here to seek relief. Because they don't believe that their concerns are being addressed locally. And that's not where we should be as a community. Members of the figure skating club are well aware that we are not the oversight body, but they are out of options to ask for help, which is why they're here today in the last few weeks and why we've been receiving the emails as well. Angel of the Winds is a city-owned public facility, and while the city does not manage the day-to-day operations, which we're all clear about, or provide oversight of those operations, we do have a responsibility to ensure that our public's assets are being managed in a way that reflects our community's expectations. I mean, it's called the community ice rink. I believe Council is overdue anyways to receive an annual report from Oak View Management Group, so I would go further than a request for a written response from Oak View and the PFD and am requesting a visit from Oak View and the PFD soon so that Council can receive an update verbally and also have the opportunity to ask questions about the concerns that have been raised tonight, to have an open dialogue, and to hear directly from Oak View Group on how they intend to address these matters. In the same vein, there have been a number of situations like this that have come across our inboxes over the last few years, which demonstrates to me a need for an independent person at the city who constituents and community members can turn to when they have complex issues. that needs to be solved or if they feel like they've exhausted all other channels of communication. I am requesting that in our next budget cycle, consideration is given to a new position with the city that's the equivalent of an independent public advocate or an ombudsman type role. I know we're strapped for money and new positions are practically unheard of, but with how thin our city is stretched, it may be helpful to have one person be the point person for constituent concerns. I too attended the AWC conference last week. I had a great time meeting with other electives from across the state. I noticed a theme and a general thread through the conference about the importance of involving youth in our city government and that elevating youth voices and including youth voices when we make decisions is really important. So I just wanted to share that reminder and also that as we move into the boards and commission vacancy season, I'd love to see a push for more youth recruitment for our various boards and commissions when applicable. I recently attended the ribbon cutting for two amazing businesses who have been in Everett for a while, but are just moving to new locations. The Grand Leader Mercantile, which was on Hewitt and has moved to Colby next to Flying Lemonfish, and the Attic Vintage Clothing, which was upstairs above the antique store on Hewitt, has moved to the 2900 block of Rucker just around the corner to be on the street level. Both stores are really amazing. I hope you visit soon. And I'm also really encouraged that both of these businesses continue to choose to make Everett their small business home, which to me goes to show the good work of the Downtown Everett Association and the city to cultivate the culture that retains these fantastic small businesses. So please support local. Uh, I recently did a pair of transit ride along and have been hearing and fielding comments and concerns from the community. Uh, so about, uh, Uncertainty regarding the merger. And I know there's been a couple of news articles that have been helpful, but I did want to reiterate some suggestions that I had at the April 29th, uh, council meeting, uh, suggesting a reconvening of the CTE T exploratory committee to provide input. I would also suggest a community listening session to give the public an opportunity to weigh in in a more formal way on which priorities they would like to see elevated during discussions. Additionally, I've requested that if a merger is proposed, our Transportation Advisory Committee and our Youth Advisory Board and or any other relevant city boards or commissions has the opportunity to provide a recommendation to council on the proposal. More public engagement will go a long way to ensure that concerns are heard and the public's priorities are adequately captured in conversations. Last, I wanted to share my condolences to the friends and family of Paul Roberts. His indelible mark, almost made it, his indelible mark, not just on Everett, but the region and really the whole world because of his amazing work to curb global warming will never be forgotten. He will definitely be missed and we are grateful for his service. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Brabano.

Let's start with a happy note. We just defeated Bosnia and Herzegovina 2-0. So we are moving on to the next round. USA! USA! Among other things, today the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in aerospace, SPIA, started to negotiate its new contract with Boeing. This is quite important because of the impact that Boeing has to our community and the economy of the city of Everett. Regardless of that, just remember that no nerds, no birds. Thank you.

Council Member Tewi.

Yeah, I want to thank the mayor for your words on Paul and Councilmember Ryan. I had the honor of working closely with Paul on many issues before and during my time on council. He was an avid arts supporter for years, including the Village Theater, Kids Stage, the Shack, and the Children's Museum. I was always able to count on his support and guidance on many issues that face the city. You could count on him for deep discussions on any topic. He was a great democratic leader. He understood protocol, legislation, policy, and Robert's rules of order more than us. As others have spoken of him, he'll be remembered for a lifetime of service to make our community a better place. He loved climate issues, land use, policymaking. I will always remember him as being upbeat, and he always had a smile on his face and always eager to talk about important issues. I do miss him as a colleague and a dear friend. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Weir.

These are hard to follow. Yeah, to start to echo that, I can't, you've all said it so well. Paul is really an amazing, unique individual and such a great asset to our community and our city, as well as being an amazing mentor to me and others, you know, and a dear friend, so he will be dearly missed. So thank you all for your kind words as well. so, uh, onto other, other things. Um, the free music at the Marina series kicks off tomorrow at the beautiful port of Everett. So, um, it gets crowded, get there early, bring your chairs and hopefully the sun sticks around, but it's, those are going to be amazing with the new, um, dock rebuild that they've done down there too. So, and, uh, as Council Member Ryan said, the attic. We were over there this morning and man, I think we got hipper just like walking in there. It is so cool. It is such a cool place. So check them out. And congratulations to Bodega on Broadway. They had their one year anniversary gathering. They took a really former problematic corner in North Broadway on Everett and really have created a vibrant community gathering space for families and you know, adults and it's really something to see. So thank you. And that's all for me.

Thank you. Council Member Sarlingo.

Well, I guess as kind of testimony to the extent of Paul Roberts' influence, so many of us have interacted with him over so many years, but I'm just struck because I sat next to him at the Sound Transit town hall meeting in just in mid-April. I talked with him for a few minutes then. He was planning director when our neighborhood organization was getting pulled together and dealing with big changes after the city annexed the area in the late 1980s. And a lot of the development picked up dramatically. Things like a number of large multifamily developments and converting a house and mainly open fields to what is now a Costco. Big influence on the neighborhood. And one other memory, my first long conversation with him was before a neighborhood meeting. where he came by as a council liaison in the evening on his way back from a full day of work in Olympia. He was involved in so many different things and devoting such a large amount of his time to his community and the region. And I wanted to understand when I talked with him then about what pushed him in these directions, when he also clearly had other family and had family and other commitments. And I guess, like so many others, his answers gave me some insight about how one could actually be that committed to public service. And that gave me some clear form and motivation for me to run for office when the opportunity came to represent my district and city in 2021. So I'm, like so many others, grateful that he took the time and was so forthcoming. One other item, I represent Everett in the Snohomish County Tomorrow group that meets once a month. It's a two-hour meeting, so they cover lots of ground. The main recent item was establishing a housing committee and designating the participants of that because housing is just such a big persistent issue involving so many different departments. And the steering committee that I was also on recommended a representation of creating a committee and representatives from profit and nonprofit housing development and building communities. housing authorities, elected officials, city managers and administrators, planners, tribes, and human services to serve on this committee. So the full committee approved that. We got a briefing from the commanding officer of Naval Station Everett, Stacey Withier, discussing all their regional roles and responsibilities. There are a really large number of them, and it's not just Naval Station Everett. That's the whole region, actually multi-states in some parts. Also got a briefing that had a familiar ring to it, the county's budget challenges and potential actions from the Snohomish County Chief Budget Officer, Carol Mayne Hester, and their report from their Fiscal Sustainability Task Force. I guess one note from that was that 76% of their general fund is public safety, law enforcement, and justice. And as a member of the Regional Law and Justice Commission, I know the implications of that. And then one more report from Sound Transit, the decision to move ahead with the Everett Link extension, which is great news. Credit to our mayor and the rest of the Sound Transit board. Importantly for us, the things that we'll see is the draft environmental impact statement that covers the Everett Link extension, 16 miles from Alderwood to downtown Everett. that covers the track alignments, the station location, the potential ones, and the operations and maintenance facility. So that's been delayed some, but it's coming out in the next several months. That's a big thing. That'll be our first chance to really dig into the specifics of what the Sound Transit light rail extension is going to be doing from Linwood up into Everett. And then finally, a report on our two local housing authorities, the Everett Housing Authority and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. So Lots going on with those committees, but I wanted to give a quick summary today and that's all for me.

Okay, thank you. And for my report, myself, Councilman Ryan and Councilman Bader, we attended the AWC, which stands for Association of Washington Cities. And it is an opportunity for representatives, mostly council members and mayors and city managers from all over the state. They had a large list of in-depth classes that the council members or participants could sign up for. And I think for the most part, we all got different ones, although I saw Councilman Ryan in a couple. I'll just report on a few things. One, I went to a bond and finance seminar and just hats off to our city. We talk about bond issuance and the finance stability in our practices. I think our staff probably could have taught the class. One of the things I thought was very interesting is this idea of alternative to increasing the gas tax. Maybe some of you may be aware that because of the efficiencies of vehicles and electronic vehicles, the actual gas tax revenues forecasts are down. And so most of us, including myself, have probably heard about the idea of having sensors on our vehicles and paying at a rate that we use our vehicles per mile fee per year. There was another alternative that was discussed that was new to me, and that was basically a tax on our tabs. based on the gas mileage of the vehicle. So believe it or not, the better the gas mileage on our vehicle, the higher the rate would be. So that was something new and interesting. Then we're assuming that those will be in the legislative session coming up here in the fall. There was a lot of discussion about leveraging sports tourism. Cities are becoming more dependent on sales tax. And so there has been a big trend. Matter of fact, there was even there was like an educational opportunity. And Councilman Ren and I went in. And I was thinking that although Spokane Valley, they built a, believe it or not, an NCAA cross-country track. I was thinking about some of the great parks that we have and for future conversations about how we can improve them and make them leverage some more tourism through our wonderful parks. Overall, I would say that the continuous theme was the cost of providing service. We are not alone as a city. We are probably doing better than most. um i know we talk a lot about uh raising taxes obviously we had a levy lid lift that we put on and the voters said no to but i think really the conversation is about the cost providing service it's just not keeping up and it is universal it's just not everett um okay and then um i think that's pretty much for that i look forward to council members beta's report I too, when I think of Paul Roberts, you know, first impressions also implant in, um, my mind. When I first met Paul, I was, um, representing the firefighters and their, and their local. And, uh, I remember that there was three of us intense young people full of energy. I'm sure Scott and, and Judy could remember what some of that looked like. Um, all full of facts and figures. And Paul was a brand new council member. Probably wasn't something he studied up every day about what was going on in the fire department. But during that initial meeting, Paul demonstrated qualities that defined his service to Everett. He asked thoughtful, well-guided questions, never for show, but to understand the operational realities and the long-term implications of public safety. And I know that he implemented those types of qualities in everything he did in the city. So today and in the future, may we honor Paul's memory through our continued service to the community he cared for so deeply. And may his family find comfort in knowing his legacy lives on in the city he helped shape. Okay, on to administrative report. Mike.

Good evening, Council President. No report from administration.

Okay. How about from our city attorney?

No executive session today. I just wanted to thank the mayor and looking forward to working with you all coming in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. So we'll move to our consent items. We have eight items. Do I have a motion and a second?

Councilor Ryan, some moves.

I second.

Motion and seconds from me. Clerk, please take the roll.

Council Member Bader.

Yes.

Vice President Ryan. Yes. Council Member Brabant. Yes. Council Member Tuohy. Yes. Council Member Weir. Yes. Council Member Zarlingo. Yes. President Schwab.

Yes. Okay, moving on to our proposed action items. Item number nine, Council Bill 2606-34, first reading adoptor ordinance creating a new chapter in Title 26 for electric assisted bicycles. and amending the areas of city code of motorized foot scooters and electric assisted bicycles in the parks to be consistent with the new chapter. We have our third reading will be July 22nd. So does council have, is there a report at this time? Oh, yes, we do. Here it is.

Good evening, Council. Mayor Hill came in from the legal department. Also tasked with this because I am a biker. Bike to work and everybody knows that about me. So when this came along, they looked to me. So why are we looking at this? Well, one of the main reasons is there has been a huge increase in access to electric bikes and other motorized electric devices, a fourfold increase in sales on e-bikes in 2018 and 2022. 2.2 million e-bikes were imported last year. And youth biking has remained steady for about a decade, but it has increased by 15%, largely caused by electric bikes. Motorized scooters are the same. We don't really have statistics on private ownership, but there has been a huge increase in fleet scooters, line scooters and things like that. But now private ownership, 50% of sales of scooters are now private owners, not just the fleet scooters. So many more people have these devices than I've ever had them before. And with that has come an increased safety concern. So the number of injuries and the severity of the injuries have increased exponentially. You can see by this chart that comes from the State Department of Health that in 2020, there were no e-bike related trauma injuries. So these come from hospitalizations across the state and it jumped to 160 in 2025. There are risks where bikes collide with pedestrians on sidewalks and trails. And one interesting fact that I discovered in this is that helmet use in electric bikes is significantly lower than regular biking. So in e-bike and e-scooter hospitalizations, helmets were worn only 30% of the time. So there's a real need for us to inform the community and increase awareness about the risks of these devices due to their weight and their speed. There has also been a state law change. I'm sure many people have seen about this. There's been a lot of information about electric motorcycles and how they differ from electric bikes. This bill went into effect June 11th. Basically what it did was say that anything that is not an electric bike is a motorcycle. So it didn't define what an electric motorcycle was. It created a work group to do that, but it limited what is an electric bike to vehicles capable, or sort of excluded vehicles capable of exceeding 20 miles per hour solely on their electric motor from the definition of an e-bike. And then it created this work group to develop a regulatory framework and it leaves open the possibility for local regulation of e-bikes. When we started this process, we did quite a bit of outreach. So we put together an internal city team that had representatives from legal, parks, admin, streets, planning, and police. We also presented to the Parks and Built Environment Subcommittee of Council. We went twice to the Transportation Advisory Committee. We went once and received feedback in help drafting the ordinance. And then last week, two weeks ago, we brought back our proposed ordinance and received their unanimous support for the ordinance. Also presented twice at the Target Zero Traffic Coalition once to receive their feedback and then again to present them with the ordinance and receive additional feedback. And then had conversations with other cities, bike community, residents, parents, the parent of two teenagers. I learned a lot about electric motorcycles from them and how their friends are using them and why they want them. So all of that went together, came together to put forth these policy recommendations based on the work of all of those groups and all those different staff at the city. The ordinance itself is a little bit wonky. What it does is it creates a new chapter for electric assisted bicycles and other devices that are not otherwise regulated. We already have a chapter for motorized foot scooters and our parks code also has a chapter for electric bikes and electric scooters. We had to go back and amend those, or the proposal is to amend those to make them consistent with the new chapter that we're proposing for electric assisted bicycles. That's why when you look at it, it has a whole bunch, when you look at the ordinance, there's a whole bunch of different amendments because we were going back to all those codes to make them consistent. It also cleans up some outdated definitions in the traffic code for central business district. The traffic code title 46 had four different definitions of the central business district. And not a single one of them matched with what the planning department said was the central business district. So we go in, clean that up, create a new definition that only applies to the traffic code. A lot of what this ordinance does and what the state has done is try and define what we're talking about when we talk about electric assisted bicycles. These definitions, this three-class system comes directly from state law. So class one is pedal assist only. We're talking about e-bikes right now, where the motor provides assistance only when you're pedaling, and then the motor cuts off when the bike reaches 20 miles per hour. Class 2 is throttle assist, so the motor can propel the bike on its own without pedaling using the throttle, and it cuts off assistance at 20 miles per hour. That's class 2. Class 3 bike is pedal assist, but in a combination of pedaling and motor, it can use the motor up to 28 miles per hour. Under state law, they are restricted from sidewalks and you have to be 16 years old. They're also prohibited from multi-use paths that cross multiple jurisdictions. So the interurban trail by state law does not allow class three bicycles already. Only way to change that is if every jurisdiction along the way were to agree to change the rules about that. We then created two separate categories for all the other devices you might see. The reason we did this is because we don't know what devices are out there, what devices might come along. We wanted to make something that was easy for us to enforce and easy for the public to understand. So we make a distinction between devices that go 20 miles per hour or less and devices that go 20 miles per hour or more solely on their motor. The under 20 we call micro mobility devices. It includes motorized scooters, scooters, these scooters you see that have a seated platform. They're basically a scooter, but you can sit down on them. Segways, other balancing devices, and similar electric devices. And then a second category called powered personal transporters. These are devices that can go 20 miles per hour or more using only their electric motor. So electric skateboards, and some of these, some of them are designed to go less, some of them designed more, but if it can go more, it would fall into this category. One wheels, sit down devices that don't have pedals that are not a motorcycle or a moped. And then there are no electric rollerblades. I just invented that because I was trying to think, what else could they come up with? We don't know. There will be other things, especially more than 20 miles per hour. There will be other things. I can guarantee somebody is going to come up with something that we haven't thought of yet. We don't want to have to change our ordinance. Electric motorcycles. So these are devices that have a motor greater than 750 watts. They can do a motor only speed over 20 miles per hour, throttle over 20 miles per hour, have no operable pedals, and they require registration, license, and helmet. I recently saw some teenagers when I was out in Monroe, it was a whole group of them. They had removed, they had class three e-bikes and removed the chain from the pedal so the pedals weren't operable. I don't think they realized that they turned their bikes into motorcycles that now required a license. So the rules that we're proposing, as I said, they're split into the two categories. If it can go under 20 miles per hour, you can ride that device anywhere bicycles can go. You can ride in the roadways, ride in the bike lanes. In sidewalks, you would be limited to 15 miles per hour. Shared use paths, 15 miles per hour. And you would be allowed in parks where it is permitted and signed indicating that you can use a bike in that location. If the device can go over 20 miles per hour, you are limited to the roadway, the roadways and parks and the parking lots and private property where people can ride their bikes however they wish. We're proposing some age and helmet requirements with these. Under 16 allowed only on class one and two e-bikes and other devices under 20 miles per hour. Under 11, under direct adult supervision. And all riders under 16 must wear a helmet. For 16 and over, basically, if you can get a driver's license, we're going to treat you in this like you are an adult. Helmets would only be required for class three bicycles or any device that is in that powered personal transporter over 20 miles per hour. And then... This is just something that already exists. Operators who are 16 and 17 are treated as adults for traffic offenses. So we could issue them tickets into our own municipal court. The other regulations that we are proposing is no sidewalk riding in the central business district according to the new definition, which is David Price- Pacific to everett avenue West marine view to broadway. David Price- But allowing not including the sidewalks on those main thoroughfare so that you could ride your bike down Pacific or everett avenue it's just within that box, you would have to walk your bike. David Price- You be allowed to walk you'd be allowed to start and stop from the curb so that's the safest way we've learned through this process for some feedback. The safest place to start is from the curb, so you would be allowed to get on your bike there and then enter the roadway. You'd have to yield to pedestrians anywhere, sidewalk or trails. No charging on city property without permission. There is an exceptions for police. A lot of the bikes that the police are looking at have the ability to go faster than 20 miles per hour. When they're in the course of their duties, they would have an exception for that. And then a requirement to provide your name when stopped. The potential violations would be civil infractions for age, helmet, speed, location, equipment, and negligent operation. We're proposing a criminal violation for reckless endangerment with a bike, e-mobility device, or powered personal transporter. Proposed liability for parents who knowingly permit violations and create an ability for law enforcement to impound the device for violations. If this is passed, we have a plan to do some public outreach. I will say right now that this ordinance is predominantly an information ordinance and not an enforcement ordinance. The police, everyone knows their limited resources. They're not going to be out doing proactive enforcement, but they will be trying to inform the community about the risk of these devices, whatever regulations there are, and then have the ability through this ordinance to enforce against egregious violators for behavior that is offensive, dangerous, puts people at risk. We are working with the Target Zero Coalition. They have some additional dollars available this year. And then in the spring, again, to do public outreach, advertisements, posters, things to get into the schools. helmet events, working with city comms and police department to also push out information about the risks of these devices. We've also created a model ordinance with the policies in here. Other cities in Snohomish County have requested a copy of the work. And so based on this, created a model ordinance so that if there are regulations, they could be uniform across the county. And then we can anticipate that there may be some action on electric motorcycles in the next session based upon the recommendations of that work group that was created with the recent legislation. That's the end of the presentation. It's my wife and kid out on one of Everett's trails on a e-bike. And thank you.

Questions. I'll start off. I saw some regarding helmet requirements. When is it not unlawful to wear a helmet? When can I not wear a helmet? At any time?

As an adult, under the proposal, you would not be required to wear a helmet on a bicycle, on a class one or two, on anything that goes under 20 miles per hour. So if you want to borrow a Lime scooter, it would only be required on a class three bike or a device that goes more than 20 miles per hour.

So can you tell me the decision on that? Someone under 16 that's going 15 miles an hour, they don't need to wear a helmet?

Under 16 would be required for all devices. Yeah. So under 16, all devices. For over 16, only the fast devices.

OK, thank you. And then how under the rules, how easy or difficult would it be to impound electric bike? I'm thinking that might be one of the best motivators and the easiest to apply. So.

I think it would be an effective tool when someone is operating a device in violation of these rules. Our police department, they have to impound all sorts of things. Electric bike is more complicated than a lot of stuff, but I do believe it would be an important tool in enforcing this.

Thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Zarlingo.

Well, I'll follow up right away. I had a couple of other questions or comments, but with respect to impounding, I assume that if a young person is riding around on one of these improperly, that you can contact the parents and the parents can come and get the vehicle instead of an impound, at least at the first parts of this, because the...

I actually think that is in the proposed ordinance that the officer has discretion to release the device to the parent in lieu of impounding it or in lieu of issuing a citation for violation.

And like we mentioned, uh, chief guts, thank you, counsel. Uh, part of, uh, our approach will obviously be education and, um, not just educating the young people that are writing, um, the scooters or e-bikes, it's educating parents about the dangers and safety associated with that. Our goal is always to make sure that kids and adults are safe to the best of our ability. So to your point, we don't want to punish, but we do want to educate. So if that requires us or allows us to be able to provide transportation of that scooter to a parent and educate, that's what we're going to do.

Great, great. Well, that does weave in one of the things I'm thinking about my guiding principles, because I've read through this, but I want to read through it in more detail and satisfy my curiosity on some of this. But years and years ago, I built a recumbent bike, and I was part of the International Human Powered Vehicle Association. And so I had some sense of power, what human power can do in a lot of different areas. And I just got a couple of days ago an ad on my phone from Timu where you can order direct from China a bike with a four kilowatt, a 4,000 watt motor. That's about 10 times what the power a human can have. So it gave me a sense of what I think I'm understanding as a parent and a lot of parents don't yet understand is the power, the quickness, because it isn't just the top speed, it's the speed with which these things can accelerate to those kinds of speeds and cause problems with young and inexperienced riders. Um, and so I think certainly the key is I'm not certainly against these vehicles because they're going to do some nice things for us in terms of transport and expanding the walk sheds for our, uh, for our transit facilities and things like that. Um, but I am also particularly concerned, uh, because the, the injuries can be, um, They can be traumatic brain injuries. They can be lifelong impairments, especially for young people. It just meant so many years of danger that way. So I do very much agree with the idea of the outreach to parents. And it gives me a sense of, well, how much I appreciate the work that you've been doing, the appearance before our committee a couple of months ago on this, because it's really needing a lot of what is, I think, often unusual in cities in keeping up with the technology changes. And then I guess for me, the main thing is going to be educating parents of what these things really are capable of. So thank you for that.

Council Member Bader.

Thanks. One quick question. Hill, thanks for the great work on this and a lot of hard work. I really appreciate that. And the fact that we now at least have or will have hopefully a structure for better enforcement as well, but kind of keep the, we've heard a lot of complaints about these devices, but to keep people's expectations in check, I just want to make sure I understand that. For example, under state law, I believe, that if Chief Goetz sees Hill Kamen riding his bicycle on the sidewalk in downtown, he can cite you. But if I get a video of you doing it, if Scott Bader gets a video of you doing it, even if I give that video to Chief Goetz, he can't enforce it just because that's the way state law is written, correct?

That's correct. There's the officer presence rule. requires certain low level offenses to be witnessed by an officer before they can be enforced. And then the law has a bunch of exceptions for assaults and more serious crimes, but these would all the violations that would need to be witnessed by an officer with the exception of the reckless endangerment with one of these devices. That is something that somebody could have a video of or could be put together from testimony of witnesses that observed it.

Yeah, and I appreciate the structure, the great work we've done. Obviously, as you mentioned, Hill, the limited resources our police department has so i just wanted to keep people's our constituents expectations uh in check there in terms of what we will be able to do even with a very well-written law here so thank you anyone else oh counselor ryan i was hoping you could expand a little bit more about uh the vision for like which parks were uh would allow for the under 20 miles an hour motor um

bikes and also like what the signage would look like, or I'm trying to envision or think through which parks those would be and how folks would know.

So right now, as you heard last week, Parks Director Kimberly Moore came forward and shared the changes that we're implementing on a pilot basis at Thornton Sullivan Park because of the increased activity we've seen there with e-bikes. at moving very quickly through the park. We've got that Silver Lake Trail that goes around. We want people to walk and enjoy that trail, but then they're flying through the park and that can cause some harm with pedestrians and kids playing. So we're diverting them and we'll have good signage. And so that means that we won't allow any bicycling through that park. And so we'll see how that goes. There's other parks. It's like parks are made to be used by bicycles and stuff. So we don't want to discourage you. It's just more of a test case this summer with that particular park. And then as we see more and more of this, I think it'll be on a needs basis as determined by the parks team and our parks board recommendations for other changes in parks that might be uh change bicycle usage regulations right now bikes are allowed to kind of cruise through the parks and do their thing but if they start to interfere with other park activity then that's when we would make these changes um so right now it's just thornton sullivan park i mean obviously you don't we don't allow bikes to cruise through the playgrounds um but we don't also don't have signage everywhere it's kind of more just the way those parks are used that makes sense yep

We have a lot more leeway to decide how we want access to be done in parks than we do on the streets because the state controls so much of the regulation for streets. We really have control over the sidewalks. But in parks, we can decide with the parks director and input from the community where it's safe to use the bikes. Great. Thanks.

Councilman Weir.

Can you expand a little bit on the no bikes in the Central Business District? Sure.

they're not allowed on the sidewalk oh they're allowed in absolutely they're allowed on the roads it's just a it's a it's a mistake on the slide think of it as no bikes on the sidewalks because you can ride your bike outside of the downtown area on certain sidewalks but you cannot that makes total sense i was just like did i should have one more word in it okay yes sidewalk sidewalk

And then it'll be true. It's already the case for skateboards and motorized foot scooters. We're just including the rest of the devices.

Yeah, I had a comment on that too. I'm thinking parts of North Broadway, Evergreen Way, Everett Mall Way, some of the same challenges that we have as far as pedestrian traffic and conflicts there. So something we maybe look at down the road.

Yeah, and I think that it's something to consider in some areas of the city, there aren't good alternatives because it's a main thoroughfare. There isn't a good alternative route than to use the sidewalk.

Correct.

And so downtown, there are ways in which you can, you know, unless you're patronizing a business there or going someplace in downtown, you can get around it using other bike location, but it gets a little harder in other parts.

I'm assuming the speeds have a lot to do that. Normally downtown speeds are a little slower and

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And that's where we have a concentration of pedestrians on the sidewalks. And so we want to reduce the potential interaction between wield device and a pedestrian.

Right. Any other questions. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Consumers are lingo.

Just a quick comment with respect to Thornton Sullivan Park. There is already a sign there that says no motorized vehicles in the park, but it's widely ignored. And we've got the Silver Lake Loop Trail piercing that with a lot of people coming and going. So I think it is, as the mayor said, it's a good test case. And I think that will inform what we can do elsewhere.

Council Member Ryan.

Thanks. Just to mention too, I would like to see an expansion of the helmet requirements for folks over 16 for both the Class 1 and Class 2 e-assisted bikes as well.

Thanks. Two quick comments. 16 and 17 are just treated as adults for traffic fences. So that's why we made that distinction at that cut off there. And then the last comment I wanted to make is Councilmember Burbano provided some feedback earlier on the ordinance. There are a couple of small suggestions that he made. I think we are going to incorporate, but I will work that into a draft before the next reading there. essentially allowing 10-year-olds to ride non-motorized scooters without supervision. I think it's a good suggestion that we can bring forth. And then an exception for the ability to ride in the roadway PB, Harmon Zuckerman, When you when you absolutely can when there's no sidewalk there and you are using a device to get where you need to go adding an exception for that. So thank you for those that input and we'll work that into the ordinance as it comes forth.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay. And then back to Councilman Ryan's. Could you clarify a little bit what you were requesting

Yeah. On a slide 14, it mentions that anybody over the age of 16 helmets are only required for the class three e-bikes. I'd like to see that expanded to class one and two. So any motorized assisted bike would require a helmet regardless of age, especially for one of the identified concerns is that 30% of the writers haven't been wearing a helmet. Then we should be encouraging more people to wear helmets.

I'll just ask a question on that. When we implemented the Lime scooters several years ago, it was a question on whether to require helmets or not. When we gave away free helmets, we did this big push for encouraging helmet use. But with rentable Lime scooters in the community, they become useless when we require helmets because no one carries a helmet with them on their person. And so then I think you bring up a really solid point, but then we really have to consider these devices in our city because then the rent-a-scooters and rent-a-bikes don't work for adults. So.

Council Member Buonaventura.

Usually, and this is something that has been discussed in the past, and I think Seattle doesn't require helmets to be worn by adults. And it came back to that helmets, the use of helmets sometimes discourages some people from riding a bicycle because the hair, sometimes, you know, they have to go to the office or something and they need to be pretty and, you know, all of that. So, yeah, the study realized that, yeah, that actually discourages people from. I ride in bicycles.

Council Member Zarlingo with the pretty hair.

And less of it every day. I think the Lime scooters are limited to 15 miles per hour. So it might be possible to consider for things that are 15 miles an hour and lower. Maybe we don't have the helmet requirement.

Okay. Thank you. No more questions. We have a request to take a five-minute break. So I've got 7.56, so 8.01, we'll begin. Hey, thank you very much. We're back. Thanks for your patience. Okay, so we're going to move on to our second reading, item number 10, Council Bill 2606-33. And this is regarding our city charter to be considered. And so what I'd like to do is just address um, each, um, proposition one at a time. So we'll have eight of them. So I'd like to, uh, just for procedure, um, ask our city attorney to report any other changes or any differences or any new language on each proposition, have counsel, um, then ask questions or possible motions or changes. So we'll begin with, um, Proposition 1, which is 2.2, eligibility to hold elective office. I'll refer to our city attorney. Can I clarify one thing, Council President?

So our third and final reading is next, or two weeks. So even if we make motions or anything today, nothing officially would get passed until...

Yeah, I think that I mean, I think that simply, you know, I don't think that you all need to vote on anything today. But I just, you know, want to get a sense of the direction of what you want to see in the final today. And, you know, from there.

Yeah, and I'd like to at least get a second on a direction of changes. So yeah, so we'll do the final emotions and amendments in two weeks. So, okay, we'll start with proposition one.

So this is affecting the eligibility for office. Here, the recommendation was to address the ambiguities in what were the requirements for residency and voter registration. And so the recommendation was to make it a one-year requirement for registration and residency in the city and then for the district positions in the particular district. and then adds a definition of residency reciting state law. I think that the proposal that you had in your packet doesn't quite do that, and it maintains the ambiguity that we are trying to address. So I gave you all a memo that has Councilmember Ryan proposed one fix that, again, eliminates any ambiguity but just addresses the one-year residency requirement and then requires that you be registered to vote. I mean, at the time you file, you'd be registered to vote in the city, but doesn't have a one-year requirement with that. That would be parallel what's in state law. But I think the recommendation of the charter committee was to have also the one-year residency requirement. And so I put a second option there, although... If you look at the memo, I left out the word year after one in both times. So we'll need to tweak it a little bit more there. So those are kind of to get a sense of where we want to go on that. Just to be on this issue, we know that because we did litigate this question last year on it, and we looked at it pretty closely, I know that the one-year residency requirement has been upheld by the courts. There isn't guidance on the one-year voter registration requirements. If you want to be more conservative, we would just do the residency requirement and then register to vote at the time of filing. But the charter committee's recommendation was both.

Thanks, yeah, I'd like to speak to it. Yeah, I agree with interim city attorney Rammerman that yeah, the clarity for the eligibility to run for office came up during the last election cycle and reading through what's proposed to us, it still reads really murky to me. So it was important to me to like really have it be crystal clear moving forward. So I drafted the proposed amendment version one on your sheet here. to do two purposes. First is to really clarify the language that has already proven to be confusing by clearly separating the residency requirement from the registered voter requirement. But then I went a little further to establish the timeline for starting points for both. It was felt a little unclear of like, which election are we starting our timer on? You know, is it the primary election? Is it the general election? And it also is drafted to separately establish that a candidate needs to be a registered voter at the time they file to run for office. So this amendment drops my version, version one, it drops the one-year requirement to be a registered voter because I see it as an arbitrary barrier for running for office. I listened to the conversation from last week and wanted to identify that being a registered voter is different than registering to vote. So a 16-year-old can apply to register to vote, but they're not a registered voter until the day that they turn 18. So I'm uncomfortable telling an almost 19-year-old adult that they can't run for office because of something they didn't do when they were a minor. Other barriers could be because someone moved to Everett and forgot to update their registration. They become a citizen and then are eligible to vote but would have to wait a whole other year. or maybe they weren't politically engaged until recently. And I don't see these folks as being less connected to Everett because of their voter status. So I see that requiring candidates to be registered when they file fully protects the integrity of the election by ensuring that they're qualified electors. But separately and congruently, the one-year residency requirement continues to ensure that they have meaningful connections to the community, which I believe to be the underlying intent from our review commission. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you on that. So any other comment? Councilor Bader.

I appreciate the comments. But I guess generally, I think as long as it, to me, the Charter Review Commission considered both aspects. And if there's a need to To clarify what they said, I would support that. But generally, if we're trying to change what they recommended to us, as long as it wasn't some kind of legal impediment, and maybe the issue of 18-year-olds might be, I think we should generally defer to what the Charter Review Commission brought to us if they thought this through, which it seems like they must have, because it sounds like there was some discussion around that.

Council Member Zarlingo.

Well, I appreciate Council Member Ryan's new and better language. We need that. It's amazing how these things can go and still have wrinkles in them. And, you know, I'm thinking about it again in terms of guiding principles that council members are elected to make really complex choices, complicated trade-offs, to have knowledge and commitment to their city. And I think registering to vote shows that knowledge and commitment to the electoral process itself. I don't think it's too much to ask that voters have clarity the voters themselves get clarity on the issue of whether the person asking to represent them as a council member lives in their city and, if appropriate, in their district. I mean, I certainly don't expect the 35 years that I have lived in my district before I started the campaign, but one year. A single year is a minimum commitment to the electoral process and to this community. I think it seems like a reasonable minimum to me. And registering to vote that single year in advance of the election is at least a basic attestation of where you live, which was a complicated thing in the legal actions that Attorney Ramsey Brammerman mentioned. And indeed, our Charter Review Commission suggested that one year. And I don't want to engender any more public skepticism on that. And to Council Member Ryan's comment about 16 years old, there is in the state a future voter provision. It says that, of course, you have to be at least 18 years old to be elected. But if you're at least 16, you can sign up to be a future voter, 16 years old, and actually a voter who turns 18 between the August primary and the November general election can vote in the primary. So 17-year-olds in some cases, 17- and three-quarter-year-olds can do that. So overall, I agree with our Charter Review Commission. And I don't think that the one that the being registered to vote one year before the general election, which is then nine months or so before the primary, I don't think that's too much to ask. That's my position on this. Thanks.

Any other Council? Council Member Pro Bono?

I will agree with the charter commission on this one as well. When we wait one year for the person after this person has registered to vote, that's a few things for us. It ensures local connection and makes sure that the person understands the local issues. And it also provides some civic engagement. we probably want people to be involved and engaged with voting and with the city, with the government for a period of time. And we don't want to have a situation where somebody just moves in has no idea what's going on, register for vote, and then they run for office the next day. I don't think that will be something appropriate. And something like that happened last time with one of the candidates. This person was apparently registered in Georgia and voted in Georgia on 2024. Then came here, registered right before elections. So I don't think this is a good thing for the city. I do believe that waiting one year after election registration is the right thing to do for us.

Council Member Weir.

So, hearing both points there, because I understand the note about that being a registered voter for a year or more in advance does show, demonstrates civic engagement, but it also does seem a bit arbitrary. And in this second version, where it says that they must be at the same residence for at least one year preceding, so... You know, maybe they're in the same district, but they were renting and then they purchased a home. I mean, that feels like it could get a little, we're getting into the weeds a little bit with the requirements on somebody that maybe it's. So that's okay.

Yeah, that is an interesting question. I didn't catch that the same residence Ramsey. I mean, it's, it seems like that probably is a difficult thing that I think we should. It was at the intent of the charter review commission or just that they've been living in that district.

That was a, a, a,

my drafting. And so, but the intent is to be also registered within the district or within the city. And I will revise the language if that's what we go with. Because yeah, same like same residence is not.

Councilor, I will go with Councilor Tui first.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for catching that. Yeah. And the only thing with lining up the registered voter along with living in the district for the same amount of time for the one year is that a lot of times you move, you don't quite get everything done. And so if it's not done exactly on the day you move, there could be some lag time for some people that just, so I think holding that to a year, I'm just not sure that that's necessary.

Is there any concern about if we do go with the registration requirement i'm not sure registration within the district for all the points you guys have made that in favor of the one year registration. would apply if they were registered to vote in the city, but not, I don't see why that would be necessary within the district as well. But I don't know if, I mean, this is your guys' story.

Thanks. The way I read that line in version two about at the same residence is that they're a registered voter of the city at the same residence as where they have registered from. So it shows continuity between uh a resident of the district and that they're registered at that same address so i would say it does get a little bit weedy of like if they did move around in the district but didn't update their voter registration to their new residence even though it's still in the same district then they could be disqualified even though you know it seems unnecessary so

That certainly isn't in the intent, and I will certainly take another attempt at trying to capture this. And, you know, we can still put Fort Brigham. I'll have two versions anyways for next week for you guys to consider it further, and I'll update this two weeks from now.

Yeah, sorry to ruin your fourth.

No, sorry.

So do you have enough direction at this point?

I think so, but I will bring the two versions so that, you know, if the, you know, you guys can make that ultimate decision when you do this, but I will update the version number two, but also bring version number one so that you know which way you guys want to go.

Just make one request to my colleagues, if it's appropriate, that when Ramsey does get us revised language, it might be helpful if we have it. input on that to suggest changes on that, to bring that to him before our meeting on the 15th. So we're not trying to draft language from the dais. I think that's a challenge for us to do. So just throwing that out there.

I agree. It's going to be difficult to actually prove something without prior feedback or input.

We'll be sure to get that to you enough head ahead of time. And as long as, if you do provide feedback, just provide it to me, don't CC the rest of you. So we don't have any issues. OPMA issues, but I'm happy to get any individual comments.

Okay. Any other questions on Proposition 1? Okay. Sorry to keep the one person waiting. I realize we had a speaker on Agenda 10, so we'll just kind of pause here.

Okay. So if John would like to come to the podium. And please press the button on the base of the mic and state your full name, city residence, and you have three minutes to speak.

John Peoples Everett, my apologies. I will never make this same mistake again. John Peoples Everett, good evening, City Council. I acknowledge this is God's land. It is his will and truly a blessing that we are here. The city of Everett, Snohomish County, the Republic of Washington, and our great American Republic are good things. It is also good that our Indian neighbors are here with us. It is not a mistake that we are here, and no one here has made a mistake that needs an apology. You can't even name any mistakes. Your dark, unjustly vague and unfair land acknowledgement defames and insults the people of Everett. It is an embarrassment. Contrast that weasely worded sacrament with the courageous acts of our founding fathers. We owe to them, along with our Father in Heaven, a debt of gratitude with fidelity and humility for the liberties and freedoms we enjoy as Americans. We must preserve our nation. 250 years ago today, July 1st, Caesar Rodney answered that call of duty from his Second Continental Congress colleague, Thomas McCain, and rode 80 miles overnight through a thunderstorm with skin cancer, suffering from skin cancer, from Dover to Philadelphia to break the tie vote for independence for Delaware. Eventually, George Reed joined them in signing the Declaration of Independence. All 56 brave men who signed, along with thousands of patriots of our founding generation and every American since, forged the path we enjoy today. I actually got to meet the Cesar Rodney re-enactor in Newcastle for the separation day parade. A lot of fun. Join me in enjoying the sights and sounds of the fireworks set off throughout the city in celebration on Saturday. Last month, we put away pride and honored God with fidelity, humility, gratitude, and celebrated fathers as good husbands to their wives and fathers to their children. This month, we give thanks to God in celebrating 250 years of independence for our beloved United States of America. As for the proposed park shelters discussed last week, to the extent that I understand Mr. Bervano's objections, I agree with him. Shelters should be permanent structures that protect park users from the sun and the rain. The city needs to step up to maintain them with either municipal employee or community volunteer maintenance and swift justice for antisocial vandals. As for the council term limits, I'd like to propose that councilmen should be allowed no more than two four-year terms, after which they may only serve two years at a time. And lastly, go Team USA in the World Cup, and hooray for immigration and customs enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay.

So there are two other parts. Yeah. Yeah.

Let's go back to, let's go back to proposition one. Okay.

Um, there's also a provision that prohibits simultaneous holding of, uh, city offices and other elected offices. And then finally there was a revision to the oath of office to make it clear that the oath is required for elected city officials. Um, the current language is just ambiguous. Um, no changes have been made from our prior presentation on those two changes. Um, but just wanted to be clear that those are also part of prop one.

Okay. All right, so we've completed Prop one, the right so Proposition to number of council meetings.

But yeah, so this is, unless you have more questions, this is again, they recommended lowering from 48 to 36, but we're requiring at least two a month and setting the schedule in January. Obviously there was some talk at the committee meeting of maybe that should be 40 or something different than 36. But right now... That's the current draft is the Charter Committee's recommendation of 36 meetings.

Council Member Ryan.

Thanks. I'm a little worried about the scheduled start time. No later than after 6.30 p.m. Sometimes we have 6.31, 6.32. Are we putting ourselves in trouble for unforeseen circumstances? Yes.

I think that currently it's been, they shall start at 6.30 and we've been okay despite whatever technical difficulties we are. So I don't think that this is going to, I don't think this is going to be read as a requirement where we've now violated the law if it's at 6.33. I think the intent of this is, The intent of the change is to allow us to start the meeting before 6.30, because right now it has to start at 6.30. And so if there was, for some reason, if the council wanted to have the full meeting start at 5.30, it couldn't. And so that's at least the intent behind what the charter committee was doing. I don't think there would be any grounds to say no one would enforce it if we started at 6.33.

Yes, the intent to make sure that we don't start at 6 or 530 and that someone in the public misses out, right? Well, that'd be more of a violation than starting at 630 in five seconds.

I think the intent here is to allow you to have different start times than 630. Again, the paragraph above requires you to publish the schedule at a time. The OPMA requires us to give sufficient notice so the public will have notice when you're going to start it. But if for some reason the council wanted on a particular week to have that meeting earlier than 630, they would now have that discretion, you know, with proper notice to the public and stuff. That's the intent behind what they're doing here.

Any other comments on there? Council Member Weir.

So I guess if because we're giving notice of the time start times in advance, I guess I'm a little confused why it's even necessary to set a specific time in the charter. Is there a reason for that?

I think it's because there has been a start time in the charter. And this is trying to loosen that up. I don't think that it necessarily needs to be in the charter. And it certainly has changed back and forth. There was a period of time where we were doing three daytime meetings and one evening meeting. And then we went back to the current state of three nighttime meetings and one daytime meeting. But as we can, under the Open Public Meetings Act, which is the one restriction, as long as we give proper notice, we can set that meeting at any time or any day. But I think this is in here just because that's kind of the legacy of what's been there. It doesn't need to have that in there. I think it's meant to stop, you know, council from doing meetings at weird times that the public, you know, it just is inconvenient for the public, but I'm not sure.

It just almost seems like it would make more sense to, you know, at the start of the fiscal year that the schedule is set and published and then any changes to that schedule are happen with whatever advanced notices needs to be given as opposed to having a specific time set because

Yeah. I think that would make a lot of sense with what the intent here was just to make it so that you weren't tied to the 6.30 time. And, but, you know, I think the council member Ryan has identified a potential ambiguity or problem with it. So it, you know, I think we could serve the intent of the charter committee by not having anything in here on the start time as well.

So. All right. Council Member Bravano, no midnight meetings.

No, not for me. No, I think having a start time is great because let's say somebody wants to come and issue a comment. If we have a 12 o'clock meeting, as we have at the end of each month, then the person will have to take a day off or take some time off from work and come over here and comment. So I think that 6.30 is great. It also helps people like... Like me, I have a morning job, so it allows me to be here in the afternoon serving my community. So I really like the idea of having a 6.30 start time. Council Member Ryan.

Yeah, I think the 630 is fine. This sentence here says, you know, that one of the meetings a month shall be held in the evening. The schedules are no later than 630. So maybe it just says no earlier than 630. So then it allows for the grace of those two minutes or whatnot. But the identified deferred start time of 630 for that one evening council meeting that we are required to hold each month.

So you're saying change your language to know earlier than 6.30 p.m.?

Yes, and we don't have the 5.30 or whatever meetings that we wanted to have more certainty on.

Angie, I apologize for the 6.31 meetings in advance.

Councilmember Zerlingo. Just a quick note, I guess I would second Councilmember Brabant's comment about this. If people know and they think 630, they're more likely to make the meetings because a lot of people just aren't clued in that much. And so they and they aren't reading all the notices. So if we have fairly consistent times that way, and there are always those evening opportunities, I think that encourages public participation.

Okay, so it sounds like we've got maybe some change of language to know earlier than 630.

And I would recommend we just leave the language as it was on this particular sentence, because that's what it says right now. It says in the evening after 630, which I think is okay.

This is just one meeting of mine. I mean, we have flexibility on the other four.

And special meetings too, of course. Yeah. All right, so we're talking about time. All right, so what's next here in this section? We're still in Proposition 2 for those watching.

That's the last change in Proposition 2. Proposition 3 is dealing with... Oh, sorry.

Sorry, in 3.2, we talked about... And that's in Proposition 2. Oh, sorry. I forgot.

Yes, we have the additional change. My apologies. Council Member Zarlingo pointed out something. This is not a recommendation of the Charter Committee, but he pointed out that in this provision, the Charter says that the meeting is run by the president. And if the president is not available, then the members of the council at that meeting would choose who's going to run it. That is not what our practice has been. Our practice has been for if the president is not available, the vice president runs it. If neither is available, then the president would identify who's going to run it. And so the language here is just meant to just make it kind of clear. sync it up with what your rules provide. So that's what the council comment on that.

We'll just like to move forward with that. Okay. All right. So we'll, we'll keep that change. Thank you. Okay. Now we're onto proposition three.

Proposition three is updating and modernizing our rules for civil service. Currently under state law, civil service requirements apply for police and firefighters. And that's it. Our current charter has the civil service rules for all of the unionized positions. Currently, and this recommendation from the charter committee is to just modernize the rules so that they parallel what's in state law. And allow the positions outside of firefighters and police to file normal hiring practices as opposed to the more strict civil service rules.

Any other questions or comments on that one? On the civil service laws? What happens, I question, if state law changes, then we just go with it, right? Or we'll have to do the same?

with our charter saying that we're following state law, then we would continue to follow state law.

There is some liability there, I guess. We could always change it later. Yes. If we don't like it, right? Okay. Great. Thanks. All right. Proposition four.

Proposition four is dealing with changes to the initiative and referendum process. And so the key things here is getting with, well, there's a bunch of changes throughout this, setting the dates for the timing requirements for when the, for the clerk to certify the signatures. Adopting the 10%, I think the biggest change here is dealing with right now under the charter, we have this weird system where we look at 15 or 5% and very low to get on it, but then different things happen. So with how much you get, this just standardizes it and follows what most cities do, which is a 10% signature requirement. And it makes it clear that it's key to the number of votes in the last mayoral election. So we know 10% of what. And then also for referendum, it puts it at 10%. under the same scale as the mayoral stuff. The charter committee also recommended that we prepare fiscal impact statements for proposed initiatives. And so you'll see that in 11.5 is where the current draft that you were given references that. But the Charter Committee had recommended that the fiscal impact statement be included in the voter's guide. And based on the comments at the last meeting, What we're recommending here is that the voter's guide just contain the web link to the fiscal analysis and then that fiscal analysis be on the city's website. There's a limited number of words that we have in the voter's guide and we think that it would be more useful and people are used to following links if they wanna go see that. In the memo that I provided to you, I felt like the only reference to the fiscal statement was in the form of the ballot explanatory statement, but there wasn't actually a directive to do the fiscal analysis. So the addition that I put in the memo would be to add in 11.2, a section just simply trying to state that there's going to do that fiscal analysis.

analysis okay so you we've basically kind of talked about proposition four five and six kind of all in one big shot my understanding right so um i just want to be clear just if council have questions um oath of office proposition four is there any comments or questions Okay, how about Proposition 5, the Civil Service? We kind of covered that a little bit. Let's talk about Proposition 6, the petition process. Is there any comments or questions? Council Member Bader.

Thanks, Council President. Ramsey, two meetings ago, David Hall raised an issue with a concern about the ability to file Excuse me. That an ordinance may be in effect and then with 60 days later, all of a sudden someone may turn in signatures and all. So the uncertainty issue, this is, I guess, the one thing the Charter Review Commission brought to us that I'm most concerned about may have some legal ramifications that we need to clean up later.

Yes. So the original proposal that we had two weeks ago at the committee meeting had additional language in 11.3 that gave 60 days to gather signatures for referendum. And based on the comments of that meeting, the draft here that Jennifer prepared took that out. So this does not contain the charter committee's recommendation of 60 days, and it maintains the current language of which is 15 days prior to the date when any ordinance takes effect, which is 15 days by the charter. So this is avoiding that concern that we had raised at the committee meeting.

Could you repeat that concern too?

Okay. So the original recommendation from the charter committee was to give 60 days to gather signatures for a referendum. Okay. The problem with that is that the law takes effect after 15 days. And so what you would get is a situation where a law goes into effect at 15 days. And then if they gather enough signatures after 60 days, then the law is suspended. And that creates potential reliance interest, just enforcement, what's going to do. And that's why when you see referendum petitions, They generally match the effective date of the bills. So you avoid that stop start concern. And so that's why we recommended this one recommendation, the charter committee that we are recommending you do not a follow and instead maintain the current language of, of, giving them the 15 days. It's obviously a short amount of time. Referendums are very hard to get enough signatures in. And I understand the concern on wanting to give 60 days, but the legal uncertainties that we'd be imposing and potential liability creating by reliance on it is something that we recommend we avoid.

Any comments on this particular item? Right now we have the 60 days in the written language, unless there's recommendations from the council.

Right now we've got, based on the comments of the last meeting, we retained the old language and did not include the 60 days. Okay.

You're recommending the 60.

I'm recommending stick it, stay with the 15. Okay. Recommend how it's written in this version and which is different from what the charter commission. Thanks for that. I just want to make clarification. Council Member Bader.

I generally want to respect the work of the Charter Review Commission, so I would ask that if any of the members of that commission think this reversion back is problematic, that if we could ask that they get a hold of us to share their reasoning. I'd be grateful for that because I want to respect their work, but this seems to create a challenge here for us if we go forward with what they propose. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments on this particular one?

I just on that note, just to reiterate, I think, you know, and obviously people can, the chart members can, the charter committee can reach out, but it is incredibly difficult to gain enough signatures in a 15 day period. And it's, you know, I don't know if we've ever actually had a referendum in Everett get sufficient signatures. So I think the 60 days is much more realistic to actually be able to do it. It just doesn't take into account this weird legal anomaly that, And so obviously they can speak up, but I do think that it's a very real problem they are trying to address. It just creates another unforeseen problem.

Okay, thank you. Any other thoughts or comments on this one? So far the proposal will have that removed. Okay, thank you. All right, so we'll go to Proposition 7. I don't know if you have any report

Yeah, this is just making the I think it's every five years to have the Charter Review Committee.

So I'll just step in here and I would ask that we remove this proposition from the proposal. I think charters are meant to be stable. A 10 year cycle reflects a long term nature of their city charter and avoids frequent structural changes driven by short term issues or political winds. I think it reduces workload and costs. It requires significant amount of staff time, legal work, and public engagement. Conducting it every decade keeps it more meaningful and without straining resources. I think it matches common practices. Most cities use a 10-year cycle. This ensures stability while allowing amendments through council action at any time. I also think keeping it 10 years allows time to measure results. I know there was a lot of discussion in the charter committee about districts and other items. I don't think five years cycle. I don't think it's, I think more timeline is needed to see if a reform or a change is gonna work. I also think keeping the 10-year committee instead of five creates and supports predictability. less frequent mandatory reviews. I think it adds more security to city and how it's governed and how the framing is consistent, reliable. I do think flexibility remains, even at the 10 year adjustment, council can still propose any amendments and put on the ballot at any time. Any other comments on this one? Number seven, Council Member Bader.

I appreciate the comments, Council President, and I agree with the sentiments and almost certainly would be voting against this if it does get placed on the ballot. But I think the Charter Review Commission considered those aspects, and I personally think we owe it to them to – they're considered judgment to put this on the ballot. I probably would recommend people vote against it, but because I think generally we should respect their work and move it forward. Thank you.

Council Member Zerlingo.

I just would say I agree with your logic. I think 10 years is often enough if I look at the Councillor John Gallo, discussions that have gone on so far, the scale and the nature and the breadth of them, but I think that the 10 years addresses that sufficiently sufficiently well but, as with Council Member better I am want to be respectful of all the work very carefully considered work that the Commission did.

Mayor Mrakas, Any other comments customer we're.

Yeah, and to Council Member Bader's note earlier about having those individuals come forward with maybe clarification or concerns they have, I too would be in favor of keeping it at 10 years. I feel like just in my short time on council. I've seen how slowly processes move just by the nature of all the steps that are required in governance. And five years is such a blip that it's hard to really see much change or effect happen in that period of time. And 10 years seems like from the staff requirements on this as well. in our time on this i mean it's a lot of energy that goes in to have every five years to have that come back around again so i but i would love to hear more of their reasoning behind why they thought a five-year change was needed but yeah okay any other council i guess you don't have any direction at this time and um i guess we'll just wait until um the final the third the third reading and counselor ryan

Thank you. Yeah, I echo Councilmember Weir's point about having the commission share a little bit more about their reasoning behind wanting it more often. Listening to the commission meetings, it sounded like they had a long list of things they wanted to consider, but they didn't quite get to the full list. They wanted to meet again sooner, but I agree with all of the comments that it is a drain on, it is a significant amount of staff time and council time and um to have that turnover so quickly so um I support what Councilmember Bader said earlier that yes I would be voting against it and I'd ask my neighbors to vote against it uh but if the commission would like to share more about um why they would like to see it happen more often I think that'd be helpful for the decision making thanks

And one, one quick note, just remember on timing, because we have to get this on to the Snohomish County to publish in the voter's guide. And then on the ballot, um, our July 15th date is really our true deadline to get this passed in time. So to the extent that we're looking for, um, input, we might want to think of how we can get that input, um, before the 15th, if you want it to influence you.

Yeah, Mike, maybe that's something that you and Jennifer could work on together and provide some more of the notes and the discussion topics on that would be fantastic.

Yeah, council members, we're taking notes here and we'll follow up with Jennifer and we'll be able to either... provide some written feedback on some of these issues or if there's a need to follow up with individual briefings, we can do that as well.

Because I think that some of that discussion's already been, at least it's been recorded.

Yeah, so we can.

And some of it's been part of notes. So I think we can get some more of that discussion. If that's good enough for council, would you like the board members to come here on the 22nd? I would probably like to process it beforehand, but what's your feedback on that? Yeah, Council Member Ryan.

Thanks. I would suggest, not directing of course, a summary of what the council discussion was today to be sent to the full slate to see if they would like to reply to us or at the very minimum just to link to the... to the YouTube recording so that they can watch it and then reply as they feel fit. So I think they should be aware that we would appreciate a response, but however you want to go about that, that'd be fine.

And we can also, I'm going to just put onus on a bit. We can watch the meetings too and listen to the discussion. So, and you can use fast forward and council member Bourbono.

Can you please elaborate a little bit more on the process? I'm a little confused because it was my understanding that the Charter Review Board, they will recommend the changes to us and then we will vote whether we send it to be printed in the ballots or not. Being said that, it feels to me like the decision will be on us to do that and we... We don't own anything today.

Well, we actually don't have to take any of the recommendations. Right, right. That's really what they are. I'm not suggesting that out of respect, of course, for the time commitment and the expertise that we have created in that board. But it's not like the county where that review board gets to decide what's on there on the ballot. Right. Okay. Yeah. Does that make sense? Is that what you're asking? Yeah. More or less, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

And I've watched some of the meetings and I do think that I'll just speak from my observations. They did run out of time. They had, of course, they had a lot of changes that they were looking at. And I would say that's concerning to me because I see the document as more of a longstanding, more of a foundational document and not necessarily a quick change constantly, but

My only concern is that I hear some of you saying, you know, I would like to have it on the ballot, but I'm going to tell people to vote against it. So, I mean, it's our duty to vote whether we send it or not. So why are we going to send something that we are opposing to? It just doesn't make much sense.

And I would say that group that we assigned were amazing. Absolutely amazing. And very thoughtful. Yeah. Good.

I would say that is a genuine conundrum. I think you've brought up council member Burpano. I think you brought up something that is the kind of complicated thing we face sometimes. We have this dual responsibility. It is up to us to choose those things. And yet we could responsibly say, we don't think it's a good idea, but we also think the public should vote on that one. I'm not sure where I'll land on that, but I think you bring that up very clearly. And I think we ought to make that clear to the committee. And I look forward to their feedback.

Yeah.

Council members, I'll just, just closing the loop on the discussion. I think you've asked some clarifying questions. We'll give the commission the opportunity to respond if they so, if they're so inclined and, and if not, then, then obviously they'll, they'll point back to their previous deliberations and, and the council will be left with that to deliberate on. But I, I think interim city attorney Ramsey and I can go back. We can reconstruct the dialogue here tonight and make sure that that gets conveyed to the commission. And then, and then we'll, we'll report back if there is follow-up that they want to share or if they are intended to just leave it, leave it where it's at. So.

Okay. Any more discussion? So at this point, we'll have to, it's pretty clear and dry. We won't need any extra wording. I don't think at this point on this particular one. So this should be one we could decide pretty easily on the, on the 22nd, right? 15th, yes. On the 15th, thank you, yeah. Okay, and then, okay, so that was Proposition 7. Then Proposition 8, which is several items.

Proposition 8 is, again, one of those modernization things. I think you could quickly summarize it in that um allows us to meet our notice requirements by posting things on our website whereas in certain times on other things we either had to have documents in paper the clerk's office or publish it in the newspapers or something this is recognizing that we can meet our obligations for doing that by publishing it on our website um and i think all that summarizes all of the changes in here. I can answer any particular one. But yeah, question is the term limits in Proposition eight, then the term, the term limits is not one of the I think it's she has this proposition. She has Proposition nine here.

Okay, I didn't show that on the agenda here.

Yeah, no, because it was not it was not recommended by the Charter Committee. They considered it, but they didn't actually recommend it. But because there's been interest, it was included, the language was included in here to see, you know, again, based on our prior conversations, we didn't have clear direction on it. There was obviously some interest in it. So that's why it's there.

Okay, so Proposition 9 is in, it's not on the, currently it's in our documents.

It is currently, yeah, the wording is in the documents. I also, in the memo, I also repeated that same language of the recommendation. So we'd be looking for guidance from you if what we are going to be proposing next week, if you want it to include that or not.

So there's a variation of Proposition 9 in our notes here. I see. It's the same language, but yeah.

Okay. Council Member Zerlingo. One specific question. I am informed by one of our former very active neighborhood persons whose husband passed away and he was the one who did email and web access for her. So she doesn't do that any longer. Is it possible if something is published on the website, if that person goes to the city clerk, can they then request a paper copy of any of this?

Mayor Mrakas, I think they can guess. Okay, thank you. Mayor Mrakas, Anything else on proposition eight. Mayor Mrakas, Okay, so proposition nine is our last one is that that's term limits and there's nothing else, except that subject is there any Council comments or questions. Mayor Mrakas, Councilman i'm doing.

Yeah, I recommended that we consider this to be put on the ballot for a couple of reasons. It was a top issue for the Charter Review Committee. It did pass the first time. It ended up with the majority on both times that it was voted on. There was one word change from the first two when they looked at them, and I asked for that one segment to be taken out. And so this reflects, I believe, the original one. And it's just an important issue for our voters. And I think it's important that they weigh in on it. And over my 12 years here, I've been asked several times why we don't have term limits. I think this mirrors what the county has and it's, I just think it's, for me, I think it would be a good thing to put on the ballot that the people need to decide whether they think it's important enough to move forward. And that's why I brought it forward.

Council President Bader. Thanks, Council President. I think it's a good idea. I would sign an initiative to the voters in a heartbeat for this exact same language. But having gone back and watched the Charter Review Commission meeting when they voted not to put it on the ballot, which I believe was mid-April, I mean, it seemed to me like they understood what they were doing. And I think for us now to – Second guess or judgment on this one would really, to me, not respect the work of the Charter Review Commission and basically say, thanks, but hey, we're substituting your judgment or our judgment on yours on this. So again, while I support the idea, support the concept, would sign an initiative for it, which I think is an appropriate way for it now to be brought to the ballot because the Charter Review Commission didn't advance it. I will be asking us not to include this language when we vote on the 15th. Thanks.

Any other comments from health members? Okay, yeah, I have some philosophical issues with term limits. I have no intention to go beyond third terms for the record. There are 281 municipalities here in the state of Washington and less than six in post-term limits. So it's not an overwhelming statewide practice. So it seems kind of arbitrarily for our city. I understand the anti-government issue. We do have term limits, and that's at the voter ballot. I think our city has a strong record of successful, long-serving council members. These members have demonstrated professionalism, stability, and commitment across multiple terms. That includes Stone Cipher, um recently passed roberts gibson overstreet campbell and anderson and i knew every each and every one of them and they were amazing people that contributed to our community um i think I think we have done one good change to add diversity to this council, and that's go to the districts. One of the arguments to do term limits to add some sort of diversity or change within the city, I think I would prefer to wait on something like this and see how the district system in our city progresses. I know we as a city are... This is a very rare concept as far as cities and that especially our size to have districts. This is a very rare concept as far as cities and that especially our size to have districts. Very, very rare. Like some of all the cities that district for bigger. So as far as adding diversity, I think I would like to wait and see how the district system works out. And also, I'm not asking the mayor to make a public comment on her political future, but I just think the optics of removing her ability to run for another term, I just think it is negative. And I hate to see that possibility. Also, I'd like to add, too, is we recently had a four-term council member that lost a race to a newcomer. And so the arguments I think for having term limits just in the city, our size and with districts, I just, I don't support. I suppose I would be, you know, more in favor, maybe, you know, four term, that's what Seattle does, right? I mean, what do you say? Get the bums out if we can't vote them out. I don't, you know, I don't understand the logic behind it. I think I have confidence in our residents that, that they are capable of making good decisions and having them putting the right people in the office. So, council members, let me go.

You know, one of the things that happens frequently about addressing your comment about anti-government sentiment is that people will be anti-government in general, but they will vote for the person that they like or that's been representing them for a long time. And so in that sense, I'm reluctant to take that out of the voters' hands. And also positive as Councilmember Bader said about about going with what our charter review Commission has has suggested here, and also, I think he makes a good point about something that we might want to put on the ballot, but. Something that we might want to have as an initiative, but not something we put on the ballot here.

Tom Preston- Any other comments because okay so. Tom Preston- No change from that one will will see you on the 15th and on that one. Tom Preston- And perhaps I would recommend Council members go back and review some of the meetings on this item and some of the other items to that we discussed that would be good to get their feedback. Dave Kuntz, Okay, so that's our nine propositions, so I think we'll move on to our next item boy I got my we've been here a while i've got my we started talking about Council times I kind of got lost in my paper shuffle here. Dave Kuntz, Okay, action item item number 11 council bill to 606 dash three to third and final reading adopted ordinance amending ordinance for 089 dash two five entitled edgewater park renovation project, are there any is there motion.

Council Member Bader-Summers. Seconded.

Motion seconded. Is there any questions? Clerk, please take the roll.

Council Member Bader. Yes. Vice President Ryan. Yes. Council Member Brabano. Yes. Council Member Tuohy. Yes. Council Member Weir. Yes. Council Member Zarlingo. Yes. President Schwab.

Yes. Okay, now we have a briefing. Thank you for being patient with our briefings. So we have... An annual transportation improvement project. Item 12, adopt a resolution adopting the annual transportation improvement program tip updated for 27, 2032. And we'll do action item. This will be an action item on the 15th.

Great, thank you. Thank you, President Schwab. Good evening, Council. Tom Hood, Public Works. I'm here tonight seeking a resolution from Council to adopt the six-year transportation improvement program or TIP for the 2027 to 2032 horizon. The TIP is simply a list of projects that support the transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan. Its primary function is to authorize staff to seek and accept external funding for our projects on the list. An annual adoption of a rolling six-year TIP is required for all cities in Washington State under the Growth Management Act. You'll see looking at the list that it is segregated into financially constrained and financially unconstrained segments. The first page shows the financially constrained projects. These are projects that either already have some level of external funding or can be reasonably expected to obtain funding in the next six years. They may be currently in design. They may even be in construction. These projects are on this portion of the TIP because of the combination of need and their competitiveness in the grant programs. I will point out that the last three projects on this constrained list are regional mobility projects being led by WSDOT. They're supported by the city due to the beneficial effect that they will have on the city's transportation network through reduced congestion. Excuse me. The remainder of this project list contains the financially unconstrained projects that are also necessary to meet the goals and policies of the transportation element over its 20-year horizon. Again, they reside on the TIP as an authorization for staff to pursue funding for these projects, including the transit projects on the last page. These projects are always on Public Works' radar, looking for funding opportunities as they come along. The Transportation Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission were briefed on this six-year TIP at their recent meetings, and both entities recommended adoption. TAC did have one question regarding status of one of the projects. one of the projects on the list. And then there was some discussion about the difference between projects identified on the TIP list and those more programmatic items that are listed in the transportation element itself, but not identified on the TIP. These programmatic elements are things like sidewalk fill-ins, pavement preservation, and other things that aren't considered necessarily capital projects. One last item, you'll see some of the projects are in bold type on the list. Anything in bold is new to this year's TIP. Many of those projects in bold you'll see are related to our safety action plan that we recently completed. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions? Okay. Thank you very much. If there's any more information or any other questions, we'll...

Certainly. You can reach out to me as well, and we'll have a public hearing as well on the 15th.

On the 15th? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. With no further action or business, the meeting is adjourned.