City Council - Regular Meeting

Let me hit record real quick.

It's going to get loud for a second.

Good evening.

We'll call to order the City Council meeting for July 14, 2026. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Excellent. Deputy City Clerk Lever, can we have a roll call of council members? Okay.

Council Member Dorstad? Present. Council Member Packard.

Present.

Council Member Edwards. Present. Council Member McManus.

Present.

Council Member Shipman. Present. Council Member Araya. And Council Member Donahue. He is working on getting online. His iPad forced to restart, so he is here.

Motion to excuse Council Member Araya from tonight's meeting.

Second. All those in favor of the motion?

Aye. Aye. Okay.

Just assuming there's no discussion. All right. We have a quorum. All right. We will do the approval of the agenda. Council President Jorstad.

Excellent. We have an agenda in front of us in a packet. I am looking for any questions or a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye.

Okay. Item number five, guest business. There is no guest business from organizations that I know of, so we will move to citizens' comments. We've got two this evening. We'll start with Robin Hanley.

You're writing for me, so I'm reading this. Okay, excellent.

So you have three minutes. Counsel generally and the mayor generally listen to your comments, but do not opine or usually respond back.

Good to go. Go ahead. Hi, everybody. I just wanted to talk about an issue regarding an event cancellation here at The Mill. We rented The Mill for August 15th, and we have some issues we had to cancel for issues of... It just isn't gonna happen anymore, but to propose some potential policy adjustments that I believe could benefit both event organizers and the city due to unforeseen changes to circumstances, we found ourselves in the difficult position of needing to cancel our event a few days past the 90 day cancellation window outlined in the policy. I understand completely that there is a very good reason this policy was originally drafted, protecting revenue within the city and appreciate the need for the clear guidelines. One issue that I would like to bring up is the policy payment window for the full amount. During our tour of the venue, there was some pressure to pay the full amount on the spot since it was mentioned several times that that would be the only way to secure our date. This created a pretty overwhelming feeling of being pushed into a corner, which we didn't really appreciate. A change to this policy where the full amount isn't required at the time of booking would create a more comfortable and less stressful experience for future renters. I do sincerely apologize for any inconveniences that this situation has caused. Believe me, if there was a way that we could rectify the issues with having this event and for still having it to continue, we would have. I assure you that this process has been very time consuming for me as well. I also wanted to emphasize that no extra time or expense was created or lost as far as the staff or resources since we did our initial booking during the open house process. I understand that policies are put in place to deter from situations like this, but sometimes life changes unexpectedly, leading to unavoidable cancellations. Again, this was not our intention at all. We are just as disappointed that we are not able to hold this event here. Hopefully there is something that can be done to rectify this issue. The $2,000 in question is a substantial amount of money for me, and I'm not in a position to really lose that. It would cause a financial burden on us at the moment also. um the facility we found out has already been re-rented for our original date which means the city will not be out of facility charge um i'm just asking you to consider changing the policy from 90 days to 60 days perhaps with the clause stating that the deposit would be returned but the facility amount would not be or the full amount would be required at the time of booking only to deposit only the deposit to secure the dates. I believe that by considering these proposed policy adjustments, the city can maintain its revenue protection while also offering a more understanding and flexible approach to event organizers facing these circumstances like ours. Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you, Robin, for coming in this evening.

Thank you. And number two, we have Jim Steinbrook.

Good evening council members. My name is Jim Steinrick and I live at 117 North Davies Road. My family and I have lived there for the last 34 years and we're back in Lake Stevens. My wife was born and raised in Lake Stevens and a lot of our kids have gone through the school system and now my grandkids. The comment that I have has to do with Aquafest, which we thoroughly enjoy every year, and many things at Aquafest we enjoy. Food, of course, pancake breakfast, the parades, and we love the boat parade. And we do live on the other side of the lake. So I have my grandkids and extended family. We get down there with our water balloons and our water guns. And the fire department comes first and hoses us down with their brand new fire extinguisher gun. And then the police department usually brings up the rear on that. And in the past, a few years ago, we had some problems with the situation. Haven't had it in the last couple of years, but we had it again this year. And everybody in the parade, 99% of the people there are very appropriate. We exchange candy and water balloons and stuff. There were a couple of boats out there again this year with pretty heavy duty slingshots with balloons. And this may sound like a fairly minor issue, but my nine-year-old granddaughter took one to the forehead. um fortunately it wasn't about an inch and a half two inches lower probably lost her eye now i i'm assuming there are some uh pre things that are told with the voters what the rules and regulations are and and and maybe that's one of them i don't know uh but um it was pretty much evident that there were a couple of guys out there that were slinging balloons that were in my estimation and certainly my granddaughter's estimation were pretty dangerous so Maybe next year in the pre-instructions to the voters, you know, that can be put out that slingshots are not allowed. And so I just wanted to bring that up to the attention of the council. I know the police department belongs to the council, but the Aqua Fest is a separate situation that you guys are jointly with. And my main issue here is just public safety. And And there could be a potential liability if someone gets injured in one of those. That's a concern, but my concern mainly are safety of our public having fun. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Jim. Are there any commenters online?

There's no one in the virtual audience.

Okey-doke. All right. Thank you to our citizens for their comments this evening. We'll move to number seven, the consent agenda.

Just really quick, can I just request that we, maybe when we're looking at the agenda setting, that we review the mill rental policy as brought up during citizen comment tonight? Thank you so much. We have a consent agenda in front of us open to questions or motion.

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

Councilmember Donahue has his hand raised. Oh, sorry.

Yeah, I was just curious. So with regard to it's, I believe, 7B, we'd had some discussion in the past about maybe asking some questions and doing a little more research. I don't want to go too into detail because it was brought up during the executive session, but I hadn't heard anything back on that. And now I see it's on consent. So I just wanted to check in on that.

Councilman Donahue, are you suggesting it be pulled from consent?

I guess that depends on what sort of position staff is in to answer that at this time.

What's not currently available for discussion because it's on the consent agenda.

If they're unable to respond, then yes, I would propose pulling it off of consent.

Okay. And moving it to action so that we can still move. If, if.

Yeah. Okay.

So the, so, and you're making a motion.

If I can unmute my iPad. Yes. So moved.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second.

So just to clarify, we're. The motion is to remove consent agenda item 7B to action item 8B. Is that correct? Correct. Just so Kaylin can follow along. Thank you.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor of that will. Do we approve the change or do we approve the consent agenda with that change?

Well. The motion is to make the change. Why don't you go ahead and finish that and then somebody can move to accept the consent. Excellent.

Thank you very much. All those in favor of that change, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Item 7B has been moved to action item 8B. With that change, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the change moving item B into an action item.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Consent 7A and 7C passes.

Okay. Thank you. The reason Angie and I are doing the way we're doing it tonight is because I do have a cold. And so she's kind of managing the council specific part of it while I'm moderating it. So thank you very much. I know that can be a little awkward. We'll move to action item 8A and Shannon.

Okay, just one moment. I'm going to pull up a PowerPoint. I requested to share.

Yeah, I ever did.

Chris is just on here.

Okay.

I don't know why it's there, I guess. Okay, good evening Council and Mayor. My name is Shannon Front. I'm the Environmental Programs Manager in Public Works. Tonight I'll be talking to you about the 36th Street Bridge. This is the bridge over Catherine Creek. This is a bridge that we've identified need for replacement for several years now and we have an opportunity to apply for some funding for this bridge that will need Council's authorization to do. So first i'm just going to give you kind of an overview of the bridge and why it needs to be replaced the proposed design that we've identified for the new bridge and then what this funding strategy looks like and then the timeline for the new construction. As some of you may know, this bridge here is located on 36th Street Northeast. That's the north end of town. This street runs parallel to Highway 92. This is next to the post office carrier annex station. This is about a 19-foot span timber bridge, and it spans over Catherine Creek. For about 10 years now, we've identified that this bridge has been deteriorating and is going to need replacement. Two years ago, as part of the routine bridge inspections, we identified that one of the caps on the bridge was deteriorating, and it was suggested that we close one lane just to prevent further deterioration. To this day, one lane is still closed over the bridge, which means that traffic must yield to the oncoming traffic to just utilize the one lane over the bridge. This bridge does get inspected every six months, and the last inspection does show that there's no further deterioration with this mitigation in place. But because of this, we did identify that It's in need of replacement. And last year or in 2024, we applied for a Public Works Trust Fund loan to fund the design of the replacement. And we're currently under design right now. We expect to have the 90% designs by the end of the summer. And we'll be submitting for permits hopefully by the end of this month in anticipation to construct it next year. It's kind of neat this new proposed bridge is actually going to be about 100 foot span and the reason for that is the alignment of the channel. Right now, if you can see in that bottom picture in the pink color is the existing alignment and in that top picture, you can kind of see where the span of the existing bridges. Because the alignment is kind of skewed, the stream is, as it's running under the bridge, there's a lot of scour on the side of the abutments. And so this new proposed design actually spans the entire channel migration zone. It allows room for the floodplain. And we also have this opportunity to realign the stream back to that natural flow path. This new bridge is really going to enhance the stream channel habitat. It's going to be a concrete bridge and it's something that'll last a long time. This also meets all of the water crossing design guidelines, which are state guidelines for how to construct bridges over waterways. So the strategy that we're proposing to fund this construction is another Public Works Trust Fund loan. We have an opportunity to apply for construction funds this year. The construction funds we'd be seeking about $3.6 million. The terms of the loan are 20 years, and the interest rate is only 2.31%. The benefit of doing this is it would allow us to construct the bridge next year and open up both lanes of travel. And I forgot to mention the other benefit of this new bridge is there's going to be an eight foot sidewalk on it. So we'll allow better pedestrian access across the bridge, which there is none now. Um, the loan. So as I said, it's a low interest loan. Uh, therefore it, it gives us that opportunity to get the money upfront, construct the bridge, and then, uh, pay it back over time. We would be able to include the repayment costs in the upcoming stormwater surface water utility rate study and factor in that repayment into the rates. If we don't submit for this loan and don't receive it, it could be several more years until we're able to identify enough funding to be able to do the construction. I stated a little bit earlier, but we're in design right now and we do anticipate being ready to construct it next year during the in water work window, which is starts in July. To be able to apply for the Public Works Trust Fund construction loan, we do need council's authorization. And so that's what I'm here tonight is to ask for council to authorize the mayor to sign the applicant certification to be able to apply for the loan.

And I'll take any questions if you have them.

I have a couple. Yeah, no, go ahead. So I drive across that bridge a lot. So I'm very familiar with what you're talking about. First of all, I just wanted to say to those that maybe don't drive across a lot, this is not the first time it's been reduced to one way. It's not the first time it's failed and the city has spent money propping it up and trying to extend the life. I didn't realize it had been two years already. have been down to one lane again that's a very long time and this is probably an obvious question but i'm assuming the sidewalk's going to be on the same side of the street as the current sidewalk that extends down so that will connect to the sidewalk that's already there.

So there are, there's actually sidewalks on both sides of the road, but in different portions, the sidewalk will be on the north side of the bridge. The same side is the post office. There is sidewalk in front of the post office. And then that would allow us to actually potentially look at the opportunities of mid block crossing to then connect with the sidewalk. That's a little bit further east on the road. to the south, because there's sidewalk on different sides of the road, but not continuous on both, if that makes sense.

Now, I'm glad that you took that into consideration, because now that you mention it, that with the newer neighborhoods, They've got there is a sidewalk on both sides.

Yeah.

And one of them continues. And the other one, I think, takes a break by the post office, doesn't it?

It does. Correct. That's not part of the scope of this project, but it is something that we've talked with our engineering department about when we were looking at the design and scoping for this project. So it is something that we'll take another look at to be able to make a connected path for pedestrians.

And just one other comment. The current bridge not only doesn't have any sort of a walking path, but it's even a narrow bridge to drive across. I just would just kind of like to express that as somebody who drives across it, if there's even before it was down to one lane, I mean, if you've got a truck coming at you the opposite direction, which you don't see a lot of trucks on it, so don't get me wrong there, but it's a pretty narrow bridge.

So I will note that the proposed bridge, the lane widths are still being proposed to be the same width. It may feel a little bit bigger because you're going to have the sidewalk. The benefit to having the narrow widths, though, is it does keep speeds down. So it may not feel as comfortable to fly across the bridge, but that's the intent, too, is so that

Will there be a shoulder, any sort of shoulder? Because the current one doesn't have, I mean, it's got a fog line, but no shoulders to speak of.

No, the proposed bridge will have, it'll have the guardrail and then there'll be maybe about a foot and then similar lane widths as that you see now. And then you'll have the sidewalk on the other side. So it'll still feel like a narrow bridge intended in a residential area with lower speeds. But you will have ample room for pedestrian access on it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Shannon. Just for the public's awareness, this is a 19-foot bridge. And in the last four years that we've gone to D.C., requesting federal funds to help replace this bridge, it is not eligible through the Department of Transportation or other funds because they start at 20 feet and longer. And so despite our pleas to Public Works to remeasure the bridge and try to make it 20 feet, they won't do that for us. I do think this is, looking at state funds, this is probably more likely than ever getting any federal funds for this bridge project. If we were to apply for the loan, when would the first payment be due?

The first payment, we would have to wait until we get the agreement to see the terms. But with our current public works loan that we have now, the first payment is due a year after you enter into the agreement. And then you start paying on the amount that you've drawn down. So with design, we've drawn down in increments. And then with construction, I suspect we'll draw down more in a lump sum.

That's helpful. Thank you.

And I do appreciate that comment. Comment. Council member Jorstad is this is this bridge does not meet the national bridge inventory regulatory requirements to be on that list. And that is like the key list to get funding. And so what it does is it falls under a culvert. And a lot of the money available for culvert replacements has to do with fish barriers. And this isn't a fish barrier. So it's not a bridge and it's not a fish barrier. And so it falls into this limbo of not being eligible for anything.

Thank you. Yes. But the new bridge is longer, so.

The new bridge meets all the requirements. Right, right.

Or they'll change the federal regulation. More likely.

I have a couple comments, questions.

So I think you may have said it, but I might've missed it. Why a hundred feet? Why does it need to be that much bigger? Why not just 50 feet or why a hundred?

Yeah, so the 100 feet has to do with the hydraulic modeling. And I don't have any images here of the hydraulic modeling. But what it does is it looks at the channel and it looks at the 100-year flow. And then in the water crossing design guidelines, there are certain requirements for how much freeboard you have to have, how much span you have to have to be able to accommodate the 100-year flow, the migration of the channel. And it's all through hydraulic modeling that we look at it. So that's how we determine the size. We don't just pick the biggest one that we want. You know, typically we try to look at cost and what is required. And this is what we came up with with this.

Okay. But it's based on estimated river patterns is how I'll simplify that. Not, yeah, anything else around the structural strength of the ground near there or anything like that? No. Okay. Okay. But we predict a hundred years, huh? That's interesting.

Yeah. All of it's based on a hundred year floods.

Yeah. Okay. A comment too, as I was campaigning last year up in the community down 36th, as I asked people, you know, if you could change one thing about the city, 95% of that community said fix that bridge. Like that was the number one thing in their world, at least that needed to be fixed in the city for what that's worth. And then I think as city council, we control the budget, but I'm uncomfortable, I guess this is a comment, maybe a question with a 20 year loan. I get that you take that loan and you take the lowest interest rate possible, but I wouldn't want the city to be paying interest for 20 years. I get we need to find the money to go do the project, but I would propose we look as soon as possible to find those funds and repay that loan and get it off our books so that we're not paying interest indefinitely.

Yeah, if I can make a comment on that. We're in a good position with this. The CPI consumer price index for June to June 25 to 26 just came at 4.5%. This is a loan for 2.5%. So this is a full 2% below inflation. That's just for one year. So yeah, I would love to not have this loan in 20 years as well. But as far as modeling finance, this is a good thing. And it solves a public safety need as well.

Councilmember Donahue has his hand raised.

Yeah, I guess. So this is a bit of a crystal ball question. I'm just curious how much weight or how much can we rely on the estimated costs? I see in the packet, you know, roughly how we arrived at this $3.6 million price tag. But if we haven't actually gone out to bid yet, I mean, how much variance could there be in that number?

Yeah, so it's a pretty conservative estimate. The 30% design has a 30% contingency built into it. And so it's a pretty conservative estimate. When we met with our engineering team and we asked them, we're going to apply for this loan. How comfortable do we feel with this estimate? They felt that it was conservative. And so the hope is that it actually comes in less than this estimate. In the event, though, that it comes in more, then we'll just have to look at some alternative funding, local funding, looking at the utility rates to be able to make up the difference. But we feel comfortable applying for the $3.6 million.

Did I understand you correctly earlier than, so say, for example, it does come in less than what we expect. We're only making repayment based on the amount we draw down, so we wouldn't necessarily be on the hook for the whole $3.6 million if it ends up being cheaper. Is that correct, or did I get that wrong?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Councilwoman Edwards has her hand raised.

Yeah, I just wanted to kind of put my two cents in a little bit since I'm not there to share. I also was on the DC trip and we were talking about this project and it really does have a big impact on the community, especially because of that funding. that mail service location, but not only that, just the walkability and accessibility. And I think, you know, with our community needs, we're kind of doing two things with one project here. And I do really feel confident after, you know, doing research and listening and learning about this bridge in particular, that the city has really exhausted all of those potential resources. And I think that, If this is an opportunity that we have, we should use it. And a question I do have is if this project is funded by this loan and something, a grant or a fund comes out later and are we able to still apply for those sort of things to maybe fill in some of that loan later?

That's a great question. I believe so, but that is something I'd have to double check and confirm.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think I'm on board to have the mayor sign this.

One more question. So Councilwoman Edwards, you talked about walkability. And I like the idea of that in theory. But can you help me? What's the plan for Grade Road to get a sidewalk? It's good if someone can walk across the bridge. But if they're going to Grade Road, they're not really walking anywhere.

Well, people do walk down grade road without a sidewalk. And I think we have to start somewhere. And there are people that walk up and down that road all the time. And so, you know, like I said, we have to start somewhere and it's definitely a need. And I think if the bridge is being replaced anyways, you know, it sounds like that's something that we should stick with it.

Yeah, I totally agree. And I apologize if it sounded like I was challenging. I wasn't. It was more of a question to Public Works or to the city. Like, where is Grade Road on the plan? Just so I have an idea of where that connects to a real walkability option. Does anyone have information on what that Grade Road plan is off the top of their head?

I don't have any information on when that's scheduled. We can bring that information back.

Yeah, that's fine. We can look at that later. It's not pertinent. You could probably find that. You could probably find it on the capital. Again, yeah, I can go look. I was just curious if anyone had it off the top of their head.

It is on our long-term capital plan to have sidewalks all the way out to the highway.

Great, yeah.

Kim, did you have?

Oh, no, I was just going to say, I was just going to add a couple of comments. I used to be a big runner on that road and grade road. And I had to change where I ran because it is not safe to walk on. There is no shoulder and it's a ditch and it definitely needs a sidewalk. But I do like the idea of an extending a sidewalk because sometimes that's how sidewalks come together is this piece and this piece and this piece and this piece instead of one. big project, but you make a very, very good point. Um, council member Packard, that is not a safe road to walk on currently at that section.

Any more conversation or questions for staff? All right. Is there a motion?

I'd like to move to authorize the mayor to sign the public works board applicant certification to apply for a $3.6 million construction loan for the replacement of the 36th street Northeast bridge.

I'll second. All right. Motion's been properly seconded. Was there someone online that I hear a voice? Okay. I heard a noise. All right. Any more conversation?

Yeah. I just want to touch back on the loan. Figured it was better for the discussion than questions. So yeah, are we deciding now that we're okay with a 20-year loan? Is that something we're in budget discussions later? I guess I understand what you're talking about, right? It's convenient right now for the sake of how we handle money. I don't want to sign up the city for 20 years worth of debt burden. I get that it could be valuable now, but there could be a time 8, 10, 12 years down the road where we don't have a lot of extra money. I would like to make a plan to pay that down as quickly as possible. Maybe that's 10, maybe that's 15, maybe it's five. I don't know. I'd like to figure out what that looks like so that we get it off our books in a reasonable time when we have the money and can make that work as opposed to down the road, we're feeling like we're getting burdened and we've got this tax, not tax and interest, a debt that we can no longer fund because we weren't prepared for it.

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that those are the terms of the loan that we're applying for, but that I would guess that when we do our budget work in budget discussion, we could talk about that specifically and look at strategies to pay that sooner as part of our work on the budget.

Thank you for that clarification. So today we are approving a 20-year loan.

We're approving, applying. We're applying for that loan.

And then I guess then, yeah, we would just need to talk later about when we build that into our plan and figure out what we think is the appropriate timeframe to pay that loan down. Yeah.

Can I just clarify? So this is just approval to apply for it. And then if we are awarded the loan, then we'll bring the contract terms back to council. We also have the opportunity to look at this and the repayment of this loan in the rate study. So we'll be bringing a surface water utility rate study back to council later this fall. And so we can look at what those rates look like and we can look at repayment and a repayment strategy with this loan through the rate study.

Thank you. Council Member Donahue has his hand raised.

Yeah, Council Member Packard raised a good point and it made me curious. So I guess with the whole drawdown setup, I'm almost thinking of this more like a line of credit. If we apply for this and we receive the loan, I mean, do you happen to know what this type of loan or is there usually any sort of minimum or, you know, could we just kind of sit on it for a set amount of time and see, you know, like Council Member Edwards mentioned, whether there's alternative funding available or anything like that? I guess I'm kind of curious at what point we start incurring interest.

This is Lindsay Vaughn, Finance Director, and so I'm just going to weigh in on my previous experience with Public Works Trust Fund loans. Not speaking specifically to this one, this contract, I'm going to be very clear on that. However... My experience is that when you apply for the loans, these are the things that you can work with Department of Commerce and negotiate within that or have a conversation about. But as far as debt goes, if a city is looking for a project in order to fund something being completed, These they're lucky to be awarded these loans because they do come in at the lowest interest possible for a city to complete a project that they're looking to complete with any with no other funding sources. So if the opportunity exists, I also can tell you from my previous city that I was at. what ended up being awarded and exceeded what we thought. And we were able to go back to the Public Works Trust Fund and have a conversation with them. And then we did an amendment to that. So they're very workable with cities when things go outside of the plan. However, when you draw that debt and it comes in, my understanding is you take You ask for it when you were to the point of awarding the project. Then the city is awarded that money in order to pay off the project. And then as was stated previously, it does, your debt starts within the year. And then yes, you do pay it back within a 20 year period. That being stated, I would have to review the contract and we internally would review the contract because there might be a clause in there that if the city was in a position to pay it off early, there would be no penalty for that payoff. That being said, that comes with some benefits and some consequences. And so all of that would have to be weighed out in a further discussion. And I'll probably stop there because I could continue.

Okay, so if I understood that the quote unquote drawdown would be the total cost of the project once we have that it wouldn't be that we pay the project in phases and draw it down that way. Is that correct?

That is my understanding of how public works trust funds work. It is not similar to a line of credit. When you ask for the project and you're asking for it to move forward, you take the full amount of that. And if within the contract, the Public Works Trust Fund, within that contract, if it's different, then we will report back.

Okay, and thank you for that. And I understand that you're speaking from past experience, not this particular contract. To Council Member Packard's point, though, it sounds like there will be a window there where we can assess the final costs and get our heads around that before we're saddling the city and any future generations with any type of repayment, correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I was just going to say that the certification that the mayor would be authorized to sign has some language in there. We're making a good faith representation that we intend to go ahead and proceed with the loan. But obviously, we don't have the loan agreement yet. We don't have the contract. And your questions about repayment and Is it you know it's like when you look at your home loan, you know people want to go to prepay what. What the terms of this will be we don't know you we're not going to see that until we get the actual agreement, so when that agreement comes in. we'll take a look at it and we'll obviously report that to you when emotion comes to have that the mayor do be the second agreement.

Any more discussion. All right, we have a motion. All in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? All right, motion passes. All right, we'll move on to action item 8B, and that is the surplus property on grade and then the one right, the little old garage right around the corner.

Okay, I'll go ahead and take this one. Because my understanding of the direction was just to prepare these two properties for surplus. This is the first step in that process. Council... would approve the resolution and that by doing that, that allows staff to go ahead and market the properties. We do have a proposed or tentative buyer for one of the properties, but that allows staff to move forward, finish the negotiations, put a purchase and sale agreement together, and then that comes back to council for the final decision on that. In addition, once those revenues are received, council has the ability to decide where those would go, right? We do have a plan that we've talked about in the past of where those monies could go. But at this point in time, that decision isn't something we would make tonight. Tonight is simply agreeing to surplus these properties so staff can prepare them for a purchase and sale agreement.

Councilmember Donahue has his hand raised.

Thank you, Jean. So yeah, I guess I'll jump on this since I'm the one that moved it over to action. I guess my question here is mainly just, and again, I'm being careful what I say because we discussed this during executive session, but the potential buyer on the one property, I know that there was some general discussion about community spaces and ways to potentially factor those types of considerations into a potential deal. And I believe the phrase that was used was, we could ask the question. And so I wasn't sure if that question had been asked yet, if we had an answer. If that's something we can kind of feel out before we sign off on surplusing these, if that has to be part of the negotiations you mentioned, just kind of what that looks like, because it seems like once we approve this, then it moves beyond council. And I didn't know what kind of updates or approval would be needed from us going forward after that.

Great question. And yes, that's the next step. We've got to do this step before we get to that step. And then the next step would come, third step would be back for you folks to review the purchase and sale agreement with any potential language that you're speaking of.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Any other council members?

Just wanted to make a comment just for the general public for their awareness, right? This is something we've talked about for a couple of weeks in executive session. I guess I'm concerned about the perception that community will say, hey, this is coming out of nowhere. We didn't get a way in. It's the first time I've done this, so I don't know how to say this has been done in the past, but we have talked about it carefully. We've reviewed, I'll just say, the potential value of these properties, several different ideas of what we could do with this property if we chose to keep it. the costs associated with keeping it, et cetera, et cetera. And we felt like this was the right thing to do in the best interest of the city. And so this isn't coming out of nowhere, but it's difficult to talk through in detail about all the reasons and logic and whatever for why this decision was made outside of the confidentiality that exists within the executive session. So just wanted the community to be aware of some of our thought processes. Anyone else?

I would just want to add one thing. John Potter, In regards to revenue staff is still looking to see how those properties were purchased so there may. John Potter, That being said, we need to understand where those monies came from so Council may or may not have the ability to decide where the revenue go depending on how those properties were purchased that makes sense right. John Potter, Much like to property on 20th street that was purchased and any proceeds from those sales needs to go to that corridor. Tom Preston- To make sense, so I want to rephrase what I said. Tom Preston- I understand.

Tom Preston- yeah I think the only other comment I have when we talked about this, we talked about one of the. Tom Preston- Buildings on campus here being saved for future Community space location, so I think that came up. Tom Preston- But just want to remind everybody that perfect.

Tom Preston- All right, action item B is our emotion. I will. You're there. Go ahead.

Move to approve resolution 2026-07. Second.

It sounds like Ryan wants to second it. All right. We'll give it to Ryan. Sorry, Kim. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. All right. We'll move to discussion items 9A and B. I'm going to throw those over to Kaylin, and you can just go in succession with both those.

Okay. And Jean, feel free to tag team in if you want. Good evening, council. I just wanted to bring up the first item, which was coffee with council, which we had discussed before. as an opportunity for you to connect with the community. It would sort of mirror what Mayor Gailey had done, Coffee with the Mayor. We've passed around some ideas around dates and attendance. And I think it was the will of the council to have the discussion as a group. If this is something that you would like to do, you'd like to ask staff to facilitate and how you would like that to happen. So I wanted to just bring it here for everyone to talk about. And Councilwoman Edwards has her hand raised.

Yeah, thank you, Caitlin. I appreciate you bringing this up. I just want to say that this is really exciting for me to hear that we're putting something like this together and hopefully other council members will agree that we need to be able to communicate with our constituents a little bit more. I spent this last weekend manning the city booth at Aqua Fest for a few hours and I talked to a lot of people and I had some really great conversations. But I think that... A lot of the issues that we have with misconceptions out in the community and the things that we see on Facebook and, you know, people misunderstanding or misinterpreting what is going on behind the scenes at the city. It's a lack of information.

That was a result of one of them. That is not what the presenter was saying.

I guess I would hope that our availability to listen to folks and address issues would actually decrease pressure on staff to have to be available to people coming into City Hall. But I think it would be great for staff to weigh in and maybe... provide that information back to us. My assumption was that we would be helping to lessen the burden. So that's an interesting perspective.

Council Member Donahue, did you still want to comment?

Sure. I guess just briefly, and it doesn't have to be tonight. At some point, I'd be interested in Mayor Hilt's thoughts on this too, given how this conversation has turned towards staff. I mean, it makes sense for the mayor to kind of be in between the citizens and the staff since that's his lane and how he interfaces with them and hands off issues. And I would at some point be curious about his feedback on council, maybe somewhat filling that role some of the time.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I won't give you an answer tonight. I'm in favor of the concept, and I don't sense that this would be as big of a burden for staff as we might think. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to guard staff, and if it does become one, that we wouldn't take action on it. But I think getting staff's input on what they feel that burden would be, if there is any at all, or the perception of that certainly is important.

Well, just comment there though, that I don't want this to come across the wrong way, but I don't see us as filling your role. Like we have the right as city council, I would argue to have that interaction with our constituents Again, I don't mean this the wrong way, but regardless of whether you like it or not, right? We want to work together. But we should have the opportunity to engage with the community. That's part of our job in that role. And so we want to find a nice balance matching what you are doing, what we want to do, what affects the staff. But we need to... We're looking for opportunities to engage our community, and this is an idea. Maybe there's other or better ideas open to those, but we should be able to pursue this if it gives us the opportunity to engage in that way, because we need that opportunity ourselves beyond your needs and the city staff needs. Yeah.

A hundred percent. You know, I, people will talk to the mayor and they won't talk to the mayor or people will talk to council members and they won't talk to council members. They all have their preferences and we have our own people that we attract and repel, right? That's just how it works. Um, we also might find that this just doesn't go over. I know mayor Gailey, when I talked to him, he, um, It was mixed for his coffee with the mayor. But for him, the importance was being available and the appearance of being available. And like I think you mentioned, sometimes you're just sitting there in Starbucks and someone, oh, I get to talk to an elected official. That's an opportunity that they probably would never seek out on their own. And there's value in that. So I'm willing to try. We did that with the Veterans Commission. We tried it for five years and it didn't work. And we pitched it. So I'm on board 100%, Nathan, with council getting out there and being interactive with – I don't feel slighted that you're imposing on the coffee with the mayor thing. No, no, no, no. That's coffee with the council. I think that's a great opportunity, and we should actually look at other ways too because not everyone drinks coffee.

To clarify, I wasn't implying that we need permission to interact with our constituents. It was more about that direct interfacing with staff. Traditionally, the pipeline has always been if we have issues, we route it to the mayor, to the city administrator, and then they delegate accordingly. So I was merely commenting on us saying, hey, here's the email for this director. Let me hand it off to you and just kind of making sure that we follow that chain. That was all I was talking about.

No, and I appreciate your concern for staff and your, what's the way I'm trying to say this, your recognition that staff works for the mayor and for Jean, not the council, and then trying to respect that. And we throw it right back at you. We want them to work for you too within those guidelines. But you can only work for one person. You can't work for nine. That just doesn't work. So I appreciate that.

Okay, well, what I'm hearing is we will develop a little bit more concrete guidelines and boundaries of what this might look like, and we'll bring it back to you. It may not come back before the summer break, but we will work on it in earnest. So thank you. Thanks, Caitlin.

You again. And I think I'm back for the next item. I gave you both all at once, yes.

Yep, it's been a long time. So the second item that we have for discussion that I wanted to bring forward was the council fall retreat. For those that have not been part of a fall retreat before, this is typically an all-day event that we utilize to really dig into budget. and to focus on budget and to prepare for the budget cycle that comes through the fall. I have put out feelers with both staff and council about appropriate dates within September, because again, this has to happen before that budget cycle, so we do have a window to do it. I'm getting mixed feedback. For some people, weekends are, yes, great. We can do it. For others, it's really a huge conflict for family, for personal reasons. For some people, obviously for staff weekdays, we are here and ready to serve, but it's challenging for your schedules. So I'm kind of at a little bit of a stalemate. One thing we did discuss was trying to break the budget conversation up over workshops, but I know staff may have some more thoughts on that behind me and feel free to jump in. you can kind of lose some of the momentum of the discussion. If you're having a discussion at the first week on, you know, capital projects, and then three weeks later, you pick it back up so that that can be a little bit disjointed. So we wanted to come to council and let you have a discussion about what you're wanting to do, just so we can facilitate this and make sure we get it on the books. I don't know if anyone else wants to add to that, or you just want to discuss.

No, I guess I'll just add that we're trying to put the budget calendar together. And so this is a critical piece to make a decision. And it could be workshops, right? Every Tuesday for a month, or it could be Tuesdays and Wednesdays. We just need a decision so we can get the calendar staff and start building the budget.

Is one day enough? Is it a one day workshop or does it need to be a two day or a day and a half?

We've done it in a day before.

A day meaning eight hours. Yeah.

And my sense is, my request would be to figure this out sooner than later, in particular because we have a new finance director. And so she is not only jumping in at the beginning of a budget cycle, she is also jumping into a new system and a new environment.

Council Member Edwards has her hand raised.

Yeah, I just wanted to say, I think I already mentioned to Caitlin in an email, but I kind of prefer the whole day thing. I think that for me, it's really helpful to have everything all at once. So that way I can see the whole picture. And then, you know, if one thing is connected to another, being able to have that previous information, you know, right there fresh on your mind. I guess I just want to make it clear that I'm pretty flexible. I don't mind using PTO for work if we have to do it during the workday. I just need to know ahead of time. But I guess I would probably, my preference would be a full day on the weekend or like a Friday. Okay.

I will say we had several key staff and counsel that were not available for weekends for the dates that we looked at in September. I don't know that I can push into October because, again, we have the budget timeline. And if we go earlier, it's that Labor Day time when no one's around. So we're kind of trapped in this middle section here. And I wanted to bring that challenge back to this group. I know it is really hard to use PTO, but. I'm not sure how you want me to go about it. So if Saturdays are just absolutely a yes, but it won't work for some, then we may have to go to breaking it up over workshops.

Really quick, just to be clear, like I said, I'm for the sake of getting this done as soon as possible. I'm totally open to whatever works best for everyone that needs to be there.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I hate using PTO, and that's what we signed up for. We signed up to be available to do the work that needs to be done for the city. And having been through budget workshops, I'm sure you can agree, I can't imagine how you would break that work up into chunks. It's so intertwined, and it's so dependent on the conversation you had two hours ago and makes a difference to what you're going to talk about three hours later. I'm really against doing it in a workshop format. And so I will very much use my PTO to do this because that's what I signed up to do, even though I don't like to do it. And I think, I don't think it's, I don't know. I don't think it's fair to ask staff to come in on a weekend. I think weekdays make the most sense. I think most of us are going to be available on weekdays. And I think I would like to leave tonight with a day, though, if we can.

Okay.

And if I could just have a suggestion, I like the all day as well. Um, I agree with council member George stat that trying to break this thing up into pieces, you lose your train of thought. And so I really like a full day as well. When we book a venue, um, just, uh, keep in mind kind of around Robin where we can see each other. Cause I know in the past it's you're kind of leaning and you're looking down and, and sometimes it's hard to see, and sometimes it's hard to hear. Um, so some venues have been a little bit better than others. Um, but just if we end up doing an all day, that's another thing too, is the way it's set up. We're all engaged all day long. Um, but if we go with an all day, um, when it comes to the venue, that would just be my suggestion. I appreciate that feedback. Uh, council member Donahue, you have your hand raised.

Yes. So I agree with much of what has been said. I also would prefer the one day. I think it's our job to show up and get it done. I guess the one wrench that I would throw into what's been said is for my particular schedule, a lot of it is interacting with federal government employees and their schedules. And that means that during business hours, my availability is somewhat unpredictable. So for me, a weekend date is much easier to plan around. I have much higher odds of being able to reliably attend. That said, I mean, I won't try to jam anything up, you know, just for my own sake, whatever is best for the group. But that is the one, I guess, piece of feedback or a request I would have is that a weekend date would be easier for me to block off.

Brian, do you have any weekdays that are typically less busy? Yeah.

Nope, it's a total roulette type arrangement depending on what exam I'm dealing with. And when they have availability, they can ask me to jump on a meeting pretty much any day during the week during East Coast business hours.

And my, I mean, I know this isn't ideal, but I've definitely had to step out of a retreat to take care of a work issue for half an hour and step back in. So I know that we don't want, we want to avoid that if possible, but.

Yeah, I don't. I don't think that would be workable for the types of conversations I'd be having. Yeah. So, I mean, I understand the scheduling conflict. I know in the past we have pulled off the one day weekend thing. So if there's any way to thread that needle, again, this is just what would be ideal for my schedule. If everybody else can make a weekday work and, you know, I'll try my best to be there. I just wanted to throw that out there.

I will say the challenge I'm seeing for September is that weekends are not really working for everyone. So I know that we can't plan a retreat for 22 people with one person or two people in mind, but it really is critical that council is there. So I'm trying the best I can to figure out how to make that happen. I mean, it would be great to get some direction if there's a preference tonight. And Council Member George said, I don't know if we can land on a date because I'd like to go back and look at the alternatives that I sent out. But I would be happy to follow up tomorrow with an email to council to get confirmation on an identified date.

Just two thoughts. I get the idea of doing a full day. Two Saturdays from 7 to 11 a.m. are more palatable to me than a full day. It's hard for me to lose a full Saturday, but if I'm just working 7 to 11 a.m., then it's fairly connected one week to the next. It's not drawn out, but it's also not sucking up my whole Saturday. Or how does the council feel about... three evenings in a row from 6 to 9 p.m. and you knock it out quickly, it is three evenings, but then it's, yeah, then it's just happening fast, but it's not one continuous day. There isn't PTO. Just two thoughts. So nobody's excited about those thoughts. So that's feedback. Thank you.

which makes a long day.

I get it.

There is the challenge with getting all of staff here, right? And ask, I'm trying to coordinate all of that as well. I don't know. I mean, again, we want to be creative. We want to solve the problem, but.

My other comment that I can make a weekday work too. So if I need to take PTO or flex, I can do that.

So council be good with Caitlin's suggestion that tomorrow she does a little more work. And then by the end of the day, she sends an email out with one or two potential dates. Does that work?

Yep. Okay. Good for me. Okay. She had her hand up.

Good for you too, Ryan. Yes. Okey-doke.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. We'll move on to a conversation about bad dogs and roosters.

Good evening.

Julia or Christy, who's leading this conversation?

So good evening. Thanks for having us tonight. I'm here with Christy and CSO Cooper to discuss some specific updates we'd like to make to chapter five of our municipal code covering animal regulations, specifically roosters and our animal licensing process. Our goal would be to get feedback from council with the hope of moving this forward onto the consent agenda next week, if possible. So starting with rooster, the rooster section in 518, we would like to prohibit roosters within our city limits. We have had... issues with community members continuing to experience disruptions from roosters, early morning crowing, things like that. And we're receiving repeated complaints from different areas of the city. Code enforcement with the planning department, they've received over 21 complaints within the last year. And the police have responded to over 19 non-emergent calls. Specifically, CSO Cooper has had a citizen who was making daily calls. The situation did resolve itself amicably, but it took several calls. And I believe city staff, as well as a couple of council members, have received emails from citizens just inquiring and trying to get some relief in this with what we can do. So we would like to add it and update in the code to prohibit roosters within our city limits. I'll speak in a little bit about an educational planning and process that we'd like to implement to educate our citizens once that if that were to take effect, but Our goal first and foremost is to have quality of life for our citizens in the city and improve that, reduce the noise disturbances that they're experiencing, as well as the workload on staff that it takes to deal with that. So for that section of the code, is there any feedback or direction from council?

I have some. Yeah. I've lived in the city limits for almost 30 years. I've been disturbed by many, many, many more dogs barking than roosters crowing. If I close my windows, I mean, I guess if I had one right in my backyard, I'd still hear it. But we've had dog issues in my neighborhood almost the entire time I've lived there. And these are your neighbors you go and you talk to them, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't typically if you call the non urgent line they don't answer the door so i've been through the whole dog part of the noise thing. And the number of people that have noisy barking dogs is significantly more than those that have roosters. And it sounds like, you know, from your example, that was an isolated incident where we were getting calls every day and it wasn't getting resolved. And I'm sure that wasn't fun for anybody. When I was reading through this, you're talking about rehoming somebody's possible pet. A lot of people have chickens and roosters as pets and the kids go out and they help take care of them. You know, it's part of, you know, we have some lots here in Lake Stevens that are teeny tiny and we have other lots that are quite large. And when I was reading through this code and perhaps I misunderstood it, you're talking about educating people on how to rehome their rooster that may be a family pet. And that brings concern to me. Because that doesn't happen with dogs that are keeping people awake all night. Did I understand the way that was written?

Yes.

Then I'm against it. Just on that alone needs to be changed. We can't be taking people's pets from them. or I don't feel comfortable doing that.

I mean, I will say that a lot of these complaints, when they're brought up to the people regarding the roosters, they make the decision to rehome the roosters because there is no way to keep a rooster quiet. Dogs, we do enforce barking complaints. Those people typically who get educated about those complaints they will make an effort. So there's collars, you know, that vibrate, or they squirt out a citronella smell that is not pleasing to dogs, or they will bring the dog inside the house. There's ways to keep dogs quiet. And if they don't do that, we get continued complaints. There is enforcement that takes place. There's tickets for noise ordinance issues that, and there's a process where if you get three in a year, that's a misdemeanor. And you have to go to court for that, for a barking dog. I've written those tickets. But with roosters, there's no way to keep them quiet. You can't bring them inside their house. So people... We'll typically make that decision because they don't want to get tickets to rehome that rooster. And there's the education portion of it. We'll be talking to them about tractor supply and the co-op who will take in roosters. Because if you breed chickens, you have a 50% chance of getting a rooster or a hen. And most people don't want roosters because of the noise issues. I live in Marysville where roosters are prohibited because we are literally one of the only cities in Snohomish County that allows them because of the noise issues. I have a rooster that crows all day long. In my neighborhood all day long, crowing nonstop. So this isn't just like people getting woken up in the morning because it's crowing. These roosters have no concept of time and they just crow all day long. So, I mean, it's a big issue. I understand I have a daughter who does 4-H. We have a horse. I understand that they can be somebody's pets, but most of these people that I've contacted will make the decision to rehome the rooster because they don't want the quality of life of their neighbors to be affected.

And if they make that choice, to me, that's very reasonable. Yeah. That's a very reasonable way to handle this. It's kind of like when you were explaining with the dogs. When I was having that problem, those codes must not have existed because I had to get air conditioning to be able to close my windows and sleep. So I think I'm glad to hear that that's being addressed. But as you were saying, with the dogs, you go back and you talk to people and these are the various things they can do. Now, if a rooster owner says, all I can do is rehome my rooster, Then, you know, that's all they can do is rehome their rooster. But for the city to say, we're going to come make you a rooster you've already had that maybe your child got as a chick from Bridges Pets, right, for Easter one year. And I know people that live in the country and have chickens and they're their pets. And so I just think this is written too harshly and there's already consequences if your rooster does disturb the peace over and over and over again. And to say we can't have any roosters anywhere in the city, I think it's overreaching. Because like I said, if it's one of the newer neighborhoods that have teeny tiny backyards and they're keeping all their neighbors awake all the time, then there needs to be a conversation in that neighborhood. Most of them have HOAs that could prohibit roosters. But for the city to come say, we're going to not allow you to keep your family pet, I couldn't agree with. I do see your point of view though. But I just can't agree with that.

And I believe our goal is always for compliance rather than enforcement. It's going to be much more effective. And so if someone were to unknowingly get a rooster, whether they purchase one or it hatches, we would always go out and educate and discuss options and things like that. um it it's not ever our goal to have to ticket anybody or force somebody um to to get rid of a pet so councilmember donahue has his hand raised as does councilmember edwards

Yeah, so I came at it from a slightly different angle, but I ended up in a similar place to Councilmember Shipman in that reading through this, what struck me is I guess I don't feel like I have enough context about the properties at issue here. I mean, if this is, you know, 20 tightly packed homes and someone moves in next door with five roosters, that's a problem. But if this is somebody who has had their property and this particular lifestyle with their animals for a long time and then you know, property around them has suddenly been developed. One of the things I hear over and over again is the pace of development in the city, how it's changing the character of the city. And I'm concerned in passing this that we're essentially telling people who potentially lived here for a while and maintain their property, their animals in a certain state that, well, guess what? You have to make way now for the new order. And so one, I feel like I would need more information on where these complaints are coming from, the properties that are the source of the complaints, maybe even some history of the property. Has it been that way for a long time? And like I said, the surrounding area has been developed. And then the other issue I have with this is if we were to move forward with it, the period of time between this first reading and then enforcement seemed incredibly short to me. I believe it was September this would be enforced. I mean, at the bare minimum, I would like to see enforcement start at the beginning of next year so that were people forced to rehome animals or make arrangements, they had plenty of time to do that. And, you know, it could be a smoother transition rather than after a month. It's like, OK, now now there's potentially a problem here. So those are my thoughts.

Yeah, so I guess I want to just clarify, there are no current guidelines for roosters in the city of Lake Stevens, is that correct?

Can you please repeat your question, Council Member?

Oh, there are no current guidelines for roosters in the city limit, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, and then, so I guess... I would be curious. It says that it's going to be taken to the planning commission. And I think that I'm really curious to see what the planning commission says, because just doing a little bit of research before the meeting about local cities nearby and their codes on roosters. It seems like there may be some variances that you can do as far as lot size and agriculture use on the lots. And so I think I would be curious to hear what the planning commission says. Maybe There is something that we can put into that code that would say, you know, this size lot, which, you know, is more designated for farming or zoning, different zoning areas, you know, might have different regulations. So I'm just I'm curious to see what the planning commission thinks about that and just kind of wanted to throw that out there. And I also would be on board with, like Councilmember Donahue said, waiting until the first of the year to give plenty of time to go over and make sure that people are aware of the changes.

Christy Smith planning manager did any other Council members have any comments, because if not, then I was going to say a few words just regarding a little background in history on how this came to be and why staff was coming for tonight to get input in some direction from the Council. What. Okay, thank you, Mayor. Christy Schmidt, Planning Manager. Just to give you some insights, this has been going on for quite a few years, probably about five years. Staff has been collecting data. It's actually ramped up, I think, because chickens have become so much more popular for people to have chickens and fowl on their roads. urban lots and so as you do know our lot sizes here in lake stevens they have dramatically decreased i would say over probably the past eight years just due to economics and affordability and accommodating our growth that we're required to accommodate from the growth management act with that said we currently have just to give you some idea the complaints outnumber what I'll call our legal pasture plans. Pasture plans are good. And if you do have fowl on your site, you are required to have a pasture plan because that deals with how do you dispose of your waste management and how your animals are treated, penned, and how they're maintained and how you protect your critical areas if you do have those on site. So there are a couple of factors given the comments that we've heard tonight that I do think staff, we can go back and take a look and sharpen our pencils, so to speak, and come back with some options that address the council members' concerns and perhaps some of the residents. The first being is that we currently have 10 active pasture plans in the city. And as noted, we currently already have over 21 cases in 2026 alone. So what that tells us, and as I do know personally, because I know people who have roosters and fowl who do not have a pasture plan in the city. So this is primarily dealing with a lot of people who are noncompliant with our city codes. And in addition, the noise complaints are outnumbering. people complying with just land use activities here in the city. So this was staff's attempt and a first take at it on how to address the noise complaints along with the land use actions. One thing I do think we can look at that the council member mentioned is one, increasing the education time for people to rehome their roosters, whether they're legal or illegal in the city. And particularly if they do not have a code case on them yet, they wouldn't have received this information, right? So part of the public outreach process, we do need to have It should be multifaceted with media. And then in addition, contact these people who currently have pasture plans. Let them know, but let people know more in general who don't have the pasture plans, who have the illegal roosters and haven't had code enforcement or support services out there to respond to that. In addition, I do think we can take a look at the lot size because lot size does make a difference. Sure, noise carries. A rooster, we can look at lots, maybe something to consider. They're allowed on lots an acre and over, an acre or plus. And I'm just throwing out things here. I'm not putting anything on paper, but these are just ideas for council to consider perhaps in direct staff if there's a preference among that. So with that, I will stop and hopefully counseling, maybe you'll have some more discussion and provide staff some direction.

Um, thank you for that additional information. That's super helpful. My opinion is a departure from my fellow council members. I'm a hundred percent in favor of moving forward with this, um, ordinance. I cannot imagine living in a neighborhood with a rooster. Um, dog barking is annoying too, but there are devices and ways to manage dogs. And I think, you know, if code enforcement gets involved or if neighbors talk to neighbors and you have, um, you have ways to manage dog barking, whether owners do that or not, you know, that's debatable. There's no way to manage the sound that a rooster makes. There's no way to contain it. There's no way to, they don't make bark collars for roosters. I was shocked to hear that this is legal in our city. So I did a little research. The only other cities it looks like in Stonemish County where this is legal is in Briar, where you have to, it's only legal if you have an acre of land. and in Everett where you have to have a small facility, small livestock facility license. I don't think loud-crowing roosters belong in cities and towns, and I get that maybe they're pets, and I feel for those folks. I feel more for the neighbors that are having to deal with it, and that's a much larger number, and so I'm 100% in favor moving forward.

Thanks. I'm in agreement with Councilmember George that I think... Our community's changed. We're not a rural community anymore, right? We're different now. And I think we have to look at that. And I would think that if we have a bunch of places that don't have farm plans, I think, I can't remember what you said. The pasture plans. I would look to start enforcing some of that if we can, if we have the bandwidth to do it, right? If we're contacting people about a loud rooster and they don't have a pasture plan, they should be getting a ticket spot for that, right? Not having a plan, at least have a 30-day window to get a plan, right? Anything like that. But I'm in favor of passing this ordinance, personally.

Councilmember Donahue has his hand raised.

Yeah, so while I still am not in favor of it, to Councilmember McManus' point and to what you said, Christy, you know, it I guess the plans, the pasture plans are part of the problem I have here, because for a long time, it sounds like we've told people, hey, as long as you abide by these guidelines, you can have your roosters and you can do this. And it sounds like some people have done that. So now for us to also come in and say, just kidding, we're changing the rules, get rid of your animals, that doesn't feel right to me. Now, I would be on board with, as Council Member McMahon said, some type of delineation there where we're enforcing on properties that do not have such a plan, have not made an effort to get such a plan, and are just homing these roosters in an area where it's not appropriate and they're not doing their due diligence. But the people that have been abiding by the rules thus far, I just don't feel right rug pulling them like that.

I would like to thank you for thinking outside the box and saying, okay, so council has some challenges with this. How can we maybe alter this? So it's, maybe making sense to those that do live on rural lots. As I mentioned, I've lived here for many, many, many years. You used to drive down the street and see horse pastures. You used to see goats. You used to see ducks. I mean, we still see ducks, but you know what I'm saying? We used to see those things. There's still a pasture that runs alongside the lake, not far from Sunset Beach, that used to have horses and they were grandfathered in. And once those horses passed, they weren't able to replace them with other horses. They didn't tell them you have to get rid of your horses because we no longer allow horses in the city. And I guess that's for me is this isn't the logical part of my brain as much as this is the representing our family's heart part of my brain. And I know there's also a lot of anger from people who are kept awake all night. I hear both. But I liked your idea of, you know, the other thing I was going to mention was the pasture plans because chicken coops also attract rats. And living with so many waterways, as Lake Stevens does with all of our streams and everything, rats are, they make their home here. And so without a pasture plan, I would assume rodents might be an issue for some of those neighbors. So I think, you know, maybe looking at what our current codes are, maybe limiting them to some of the larger, more rural lots that are still within our city limit. would be something I could get behind. Like I said, most of our neighborhoods, our newer neighborhoods have HOAs that could create their own rooster guidelines. But for the families that have been here for decades and have a decent piece of land to go in and tell them they can no longer have a rooster, is a hard one for me. Um, cause like I said, this is, this is their family life. Um, but I do appreciate you looking outside the box there and saying, okay, what guidelines could, could maybe we meet halfway that makes sense for those that are being driven crazy by the rooster that lives next door and those that have had, you know, acreage and that's one of the lifestyle they're still allowed to keep in town, you know, that hasn't been taken away. So I do appreciate you for looking at this from maybe a different perspective. Thank you.

So it can also be comfortable if staff reworked this with the input that was given and then bring it back after break.

I think I'd just make one more comment. You know, our goal is to, I mean, it's impossible to make everybody happy in the city, right? You're going to get a certain percentage are happy with it. If you told me you're giving them $10,000, half of them will be happy. Most of them may matter with some $15,000, right? So it trying to please everybody's almost impossible. What I would say is let's just take a swag and say, if we had a thousand roosters in the city, That's a thousand people who are for the roosters and 50,000 are probably against roosters in our current population, right? So when you look at what's best for the total city, I'm gonna agree with Councilman George that I think this is a no brainer to pass this personally.

I don't think basing legislation on minorities which is what you're saying. You're saying minority of people have roosters versus the people that are upset with roosters. I'm a little uncomfortable with that language that we're making this based on minorities when this may be a very important thing.

That's a misconstrued word, but I think what I'm saying is You have to do what's best for the majority of citizens, not just for a few.

Right. That's majority. Minority is the opposite. You're avoiding the word, but that's what the word is. And I'm uncomfortable. Like I said, I think there needs to be a happy medium where we aren't Taking rights away from our citizens. But I agree the same thing. I wouldn't want one living right next door to me either, keeping me awake. So there's got to be a happy balance. And it shouldn't be, well, we've got this many people who have roosters and this many people that don't like roosters. So we aren't going to have roosters. I'm uncomfortable with that. That's cool.

Well, thank you, Council, unless there's any other comments about the rooster proposal staff has enough to go back to work on to come back with another discussion section for further direction. And I don't know if it'll be next week or not. We can discuss that. And then in the meantime, I'm going to pass it back to Julie to talk about pet licensing.

Thank you. So the second section in chapter five that we would like to open for discussion and consideration would be section 515, which currently requires licensing through the city for your dogs and cats. So we would actually like to propose removing that section to license your animal within the city or with the city and change it, update it to language that says your dog or cat needs to have a collar affixed to it with a certain language. So that way we can reunite the animal with its owners in the event that it becomes loose. That and or microchipping your animal. Currently, the number of loose animals that we go out on, none of them have city tags on their collars. And so when that happens, they go to the shelter. And so that tells us that our current program is not meeting the needs in which it was originally created. And by requiring tags and doing education where we're We're distributing flyers and brochures to vets and to businesses that sell animals and sell animal food and things like that. Social media campaigns and getting the word out. The hope is that more pet owners will make sure that their dogs have at a minimum a collar so that way we can reunite them with their owners. And this also creates consistency with neighboring cities and communities who have followed similar practices. And currently looking since 2020 2020 the city on average issues 244 animal licenses. with an approximate average revenue of $1,800 a year. So by eliminating the animal licensing requirement, it would have a very minimal impact to the overall revenues that are brought into the city. And then in working with Kelly and Municipal Services, it would free up staff time to focus on other projects and priorities in that regards. What are your thoughts? Back on that section.

I like it. I think that it's a much more current, I mean, the license is kind of an outdated model. People tended to not license their animals unless they were being cornered to license. You know what I mean? Most, a lot, I mean, as you said, how many, 200 a year? just just over yeah and so we have a lot more pets than that but no encouraging people to chip and collar i mean preferably chips any rescued animal is going to come with a chip important part of that is to also educate on updating the chip for some reason i seem to be a lost animal magnet And so I always look for the chips and I always find space for them in my home so we don't take them over to the shelter. And every single time I'd be able to relocate their owner, but sometimes the chips and they're heavily protected, like the privacy protections sometimes are quite a challenge to find who actually owns that animal currently. So my suggestion would just be like the chips are awesome because collars can get tangled, especially in cats and all the trees and stuff. And then there's breakaway collars, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the collar But education on chips and updating chips, I think that is a great step forward for keeping our pets safe and making it easy for staff too. It's a few keystrokes.

Council Member Edwards has her hand raised.

Yeah, I just wanted to comment. I'm on board for this. I think that most, if not all responsible pet owners already, you know, we're taking our pets to the vet. We're getting, you know, them chipped. If we're adopting, they come chipped. I think that most people are doing that anyways. And so to have this extra procedure through the city is kind of repetitive and unnecessary, in my opinion. So as much as I don't like to lose revenue with the small amount that it is, I would feel okay moving forward with this.

I'm also supportive.

Same. Same.

Would council prefer we bring this section to the consent agenda next week? And then I don't necessarily think that we'll be prepared to move forward with the rooster section? Or would you want us to wait and bring them both back together? Something to say?

I was just going to say, I'm typically in favor of getting rid of government overreach. So I'm in favor as well.

And I think, I guess I think it makes sense to bring this back on consent and not hold this up because there's work to be done on the other section. So that's my two cents.

Okay, great.

So you're asking staff then to split up the animal regulation change, put one on consent and then one for more rework and conversation. Great. Okay.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. We will move on to Lori. Lori. And for those following along online that's. Discussion item nine D strategic plan review.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- supposed to help right.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The whole meeting that those were about over there.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- That was tricky.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- I thought, was there an open house at the mill that I missed.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- On this side.

Can I please go over to the left of the tab?

All right.

Oh, sorry. Not my left.

There we go.

That's a good question. Oh, no. Good job. I would help. Council, can you see that?

Yes.

OK. We'll crane our neck if we need to.

OK. So good evening, council and mayor. My name is Laurie Erickson. I am the human resources management analyst. And tonight, I'm coming back for part two of strategic planning, the projects and initiatives. So bear with me. I know this is not a traditional format, but what I was trying to create was an easy way for us to have a workshop style discussion during a council meeting. So I apologize that it's not super pretty, but I think this will get the job done. For our council members that are joining us virtually, Caitlin will be helping to monitor hands being raised. And I invite anyone, if you have questions throughout this, please feel free to jump in. I also want to thank Shannon for being Vanna for me. She'll be kind of guiding the virtual experience for us as best as she can. We have a goal to try to make this as transparent as possible, given the mixed media that we're using for this topic tonight. I also want to acknowledge that this topic is anticipated to be about 35 to 45 minutes. So I know we're approaching eight o'clock. Do we want to cover that Question now on if we want to continue past 8 o'clock.

Why don't we go ahead and have counsel make a motion to extend?

Before we do that, do we have a sense of how long executive session will last? Yeah. Oh, go ahead, Gene.

I was going to say 10 to 15 minutes max.

So I'd make a motion that we extend the meeting to 8.30 to start.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. So you also have the gov and citizen request portal update that's separate from your 35 minutes or inclusive is a separate topic.

To be fair, though, um, I don't actually have anything to present on that topic. So if you have any questions on the staff report or the department report, I can take those questions at that time. Um, otherwise it'll be sweet and fast.

Motions on the table? All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Great, thank you so much. Okay, so let's go ahead and jump to it. So I wanted to kind of first talk a little bit about the purpose of tonight's meeting. I know we talked about it last time, but in a nutshell tonight, we need your help in taking the many projects and initiatives that are currently on the citywide five-year strategic plan and help us to figure out what are the things that you really want us to focus on for the rest of 2026 and going into 2027. The outcome from tonight's discussion will very much help us to both be thoughtful when we're thinking about employee capacity for these projects and initiatives. And also it's almost like a mini kickoff to the budget season. So the outcome from tonight's A session is really going to help drive clarity for what we want to be thinking about in terms of budget. We want to align what's important to you all on the strategic plan and budget accordingly. On that note also, you might be thinking like, well, what if there's other things? Or what if we want to change the strategic plan? Given on where we're at, we're about to the midway point on this five-year strategic plan. The midway point will be in 2027. So what I would highly recommend for tonight's discussion is let's not add more things to this plan, but let's start thinking about if there's a way that we want to check and adjust this and perhaps get community input in 2027. I'd be happy to come back with recommendations for how we could approach that next year. Otherwise, Let's go ahead and start by looking at the handouts that I left for all of you who are here in person. And I emailed these documents as well to our council members that are virtual tonight. Sorry, it's a little awkward with the mic. Okay. So the first document that I just want to remind you all of is this one here. This is our citywide strategic plan review, July 2026 document. You all received this last week. It does have what our current city's vision, mission and values are at the top. And it has definitions for some key terms that are good to know for strategic planning on the left side, or sorry, on the right side. And the left side is just the plan that we're taking as we go through this topic. The second document is the 11 by 17 that I handed out last time as well. This is our strategic plan, including the current projects and initiatives on basically a front and back document. The way that this document reads, and thank you, Shannon, for having it up on the screen for us as well, At the very top, we have the five priorities, the strategic priorities, including community vitality, accessible and optimal infrastructure, financial stewardship and economic success, organizational innovation and excellence, and environmental stewardship. These are part of the balanced scorecard approach that the city adopted as our strategic planning methodology. And what it allows us to do is think about strategic planning in a holistic way. It considers both people and finances, processes and overall growth and care for the environment. As we go down vertically on these slides, In these rows you'll see that underneath each of these strategic priorities are the goals that are associated with that strategic priority and then below those we have each of the projects that then roll up. With the intention of us reaching those goals that tie to the strategic priority so it's a vertical layout is what we're looking at. um. And what you'll see is here on the posters, I've tried to lay it out the same way as well. What we'll see here on the posters in the room are we have the strategic priorities on the big orange stickers, and then below it, we have the projects. Simply because of space, I didn't include the goals on the flip charts, but you have it in front of you for reference. So we'll come back to this. This will be the primary tool that we use tonight in tonight's discussion. And then finally, Shannon, if you could go over to the PowerPoint, please. I'm bringing forward a new document for you all to also look at. In last week's discussion, I was asked that I come with at least a snapshot of what some of our projects and initiatives are on our project dashboard. Our project dashboard is something we use as a city to basically understand and have visibility to what all the projects are that are going on in the city. I'm not going to go over everything on here because this is like 24 pages long. We have a lot going on. But I do want to kind of walk us through what you will find in this packet. Shannon, could you please go to the next slide? Okay. So I did want to call out kind of how this dashboard was pulled and printed out for you tonight. It's an application we use in SharePoint. And unfortunately, it didn't print very well, which is why I had to take screenshots and put it in PowerPoint for you all. However, we do have lots of capabilities for filtering and sorting with this tool. So what I ended up doing for tonight's discussion is setting a filter on these projects so that we would only see the projects that are either currently going or that are on hold. I did not bring forward projects that have been canceled or completed or ones that are otherwise like stuck. But the ones that are for sure like they're on our queue, they're on our list and we talk about them regularly, those are the ones here in this packet. And each of these are also organized and you'll see it at the top of each section or each slide, which department is like the lead or the point department for each of these projects. Perfect. Thank you, Shannon. So on the left side, what you'll see is what the project name is followed by the project description. The project health is a visual. It's either a thumbs up. Things are awesome. It's a thumbs down. Things could be better or it's it's going and it's it's neutral and you'll see that with a flat face. We also have on here for reference the project size, the current status, project type, and whether or not it's tied to a regulation or a law. Something that you may want to consider tonight as we have this conversation is that we should be obviously prioritizing things that we have to do. And then we should be considering how to use the rest of our capacity based on things that we want to do and that we know are the ethical things to do. The final thing I'll call out, two things I'll call out on here, is the strategic priorities. We have taken the time to map each of the projects that are in the project dashboard to the strategic plan at the highest level. And things that weren't able to meet any of those, they simply didn't get prioritized as a project for us in the first place. And we also have the estimated cost, whether the project was funded and whether or not we are anticipating being awarded a grant. For sake of time, I was going to cover a few of these with you, but I think we'll go ahead and move forward, are there any questions about the document I just described before we move forward. Okay, so I do recommend you can have this handy. But again, for tonight's discussion, we're going to focus on that 11 by 17 handout instead. That's at the ideal level for us to have tonight's conversation. Okay, Shannon, can you go back to the Excel document, please? Okay, sorry, had to look at my facilitator notes for the agenda. Okay, so I did promise last week when I was here with you all that if there was any questions to please try to get me those questions ahead of tonight's session, whether that be by phone call or email or whatever. I did not receive any questions about the projects or initiatives that are on the current strategic plan. I would like to open the floor though, if there's any immediate burning questions and I can try my best to answer those ahead of actually starting the sorting exercise. Are there any questions online? None. Okay. Perfect. Let's go ahead and start this. I anticipate this being a little, it's going to be organic and we will have questions and discussion that come up, I think, throughout the exercise. But essentially what we have here, we have the projects and initiatives on the yellow stickies. And over here, we have our blank flip chart that we'll be using for actually moving the stickies that you prioritize from the posters to that poster over there. For what it's worth, I do recommend thinking about the numbers. So the numbers being that we have 32 projects total and initiatives on the strategic plan. What I would recommend is that we consider a quick and easy way to sort those. One way is for us to just not prioritize yet the projects that haven't been started or the projects that are paused. I believe if I remember correctly, there's eight that are either paused or they're on hold. or they're not started, sorry, they're either paused or they're not started. I would also recommend when we think about staff capacity to do this work and all of that, we should try to get to what I would say is four to six total projects and initiatives that you all prioritize for 26 and 27. Finally, the last thing I'll call out is there's a few projects on here, and you'll see them up here with little stars. These are ones that we have to do, whether it's for a regulatory requirement or some other requirement, we have to do those ones no matter what. So I would invite you to not worry about those ones. We're looking for four other projects. four to six other projects to get onto that list over there. For the audience, the ones that we have to do include PI 2.1-6, and this is our six-year CIP. It's our capital improvement plan. This is something that we have to do as part of our budgeting and planning processes. We're going to be doing this no matter what. And it's always like an ongoing yearly update to that plan. The second one I'll call out is PI 2.5. Sorry, PI 2.5. It is the ADA transition plan. Again, this is tied to federal requirements, and it's something we have to do. The next one I will call out is, oh, here we go. PI 2.4, the Transportation Benefit Program. This was a project that we also have to do. It was approved by council in recent history. I forget the exact year, but this is something that was also voter approved. So we collect funding to make safety enhancements to our infrastructure. Two left, PI 5.1 is regulatory protection. This is essentially our dedication to following legal requirements to help protect the natural environment. And then finally, PI 5.3, which is the NPDES and subbasin planning. We have to do this because we have our permit tied to it. Everything else, oh, sure, go ahead. Okay. So I would say, let's just assume we're going to continue with the ones that we have to do, but we need to figure out what are the other four to six that don't have the stars on them to prioritize for the period we're talking about. Council Member Jarstad.

Thank you. I have two questions. Yes. At the beginning, you said we're not going to consider those that are paused. Did you also say those that are not started?

Yes. And that's my recommendation. It's obviously up to you as council. Okay. But I would say, from a lean perspective and efficiency perspective, it's better for us to try to wrap up things that are already going than it is to add more to the plate. Okay.

And then my second question is, and maybe I'm wrong. It seems like we might have a few on our paper that aren't on there.

Is that accurate? Thank you for bringing that up. Sorry. Kind of put my plan down. So the ones that are either paused or not started. I actually have them on sticky notes in case if you want to bring them into the queue for us. But I figured, you know, if you went for the bait and you just agreed with my recommendation, we just won't even have them up there to worry about.

I'm looking specifically at PI 1.3, which is not up there, but is also not either a paused or not started PI. And I think there was one more that I saw, but that start there.

Is that the security cameras facilities? I apologize. I didn't put that one up here. Okay, great. Thanks. Do you just say there was one more or is that it?

I thought that, let me, I'll, I'll let you know. Okay. Okay.

So just want to start throwing things out there, things that we think could be important.

Yes. And I do have a backup plan. If that list gets too full, I do have something in my back pocket I can do to try to help facilitate you all. But please start the discussion.

I'll start. Two that came up to mind. Is that PI?

It is PI for projects and initiatives.

PI 3.5. 3.5. Facility management plans. Yes. Primary concern is... Do we have a long-term plan to replace infrastructure, buildings, et cetera? We talked about, I think, their beginning year retreats that they had, whatever that was, winter retreat, spring retreat. Yeah, I'm just concerned that we don't have budget in place so that we're prepared to address things when big capital improvements need to be made.

Great. Can I, I want to be sure I understand your question. Is your question asking, do we have like one place, like one plan for replacing those major pieces of infrastructure?

My understanding was that we don't even have a robust list of all of the facilities, and then with an identification of how much it would cost to replace them, and then subsequently a budget plan so that we have the money to replace them when we think they would need to be replaced.

Got it. So I can actually answer that. When I was still the public works analyst, I partnered with the department to on the facility's asset maintenance, the facility's asset replacement plan. There we go. It is substantially complete. It's near completion. So we do have a list of our buildings, what components need to be replaced, their replacement cycle, so on and so forth.

So that end process is almost complete.

For that one, correct. Got it. Okay.

That sounds good. And we have a plan to complete that.

Yes. Yes. On that note, we're about to implement OpenGov, and that's one of the final steps is to essentially take our spreadsheet and to formalize it in the system. Okay.

So, yes. The other one I had was permit workshop for community. It's something that I hear often around just how long it takes to get through things, even understanding what the steps are, right? I've got a friend who tried to do their doc and they didn't even, it took them forever even to just figure out what steps they needed to take, let alone the speed that that got processed. And so I think anything we can do to simplify permitting and everything else that's involved there, I think would make our community happier.

Great. I do know that that one is also from a project completion. It's, I don't know the exact percentage, but it is, they've done significant work in the planning and community development department to help make those things improved.

Okay. I can share my top four. That's great. Yeah. The first one is PI-12, traffic calming and cameras. We have put we being the city, I shouldn't say we council, although council spent quite a bit of time and effort alongside the city kind of diving into the data that came out with a kind of a feasibility study, looking at the speeds that are happening around our schools and how those types of programs save lives. And so I think that given all the information that we know and all the work the city's done to, bring us that information, I would really like to see that move forward. My second priority is PI 3.4, selling city properties. I think that prior discussions have illustrated that there are potentially multiple properties that are not being fully utilized and that could be sold to help the city have the revenue necessary to move forward on identified projects. So I think that's a priority. The third one is PI 4.1, artificial intelligence. AI is moving really fast and there are important guardrails, something that municipalities need to have, as well as just a good understanding of the resource that that could be. I think if we don't prioritize that, we're gonna get left behind really, really quickly. And so I think that needs to be prioritized. And then my fourth was PI 5.4, Lake Monitoring and Shoreline Erosion Monitoring. We've had some great presentations. um by our incredibly knowledgeable city staff about our lake quality and year after year and and by county staff um the biggest uh negative impact to our lake is shoreline improvements that need to be made shoreline erosion the the shoreline detriments i'm going to stop there um so i want to see that prioritized as well those are my four thanks great thank you does anyone want to go next

I think my five similar four. I think that three of my four might be the same. The PI 1.2, the traffic calming and cameras, I think those are critical to keep our kids safe going to and from school and There was an outstanding reminder to drivers who are often distracted because they're dropping their kids off and they're just starting their day. So sometimes I don't think it's intentional. But when you get that flash and that ticket, it gives you a really good reminder to slow down. Same thing with artificial intelligence, which is the PI-401. I don't know much about it, but I do know it's on the cutting edge. And that's something I think it's important for cities to stay on top of. I liked Councilmember Packer. I agree with him on permitting workshops for the community. I also get a lot of feedback from community members. They don't even know where step one is. Or to understand, do they fall under here? Do they fall under there? So I think that would be important. And then monitoring the lake and shoreline erosion. You know, monitoring our lake and make sure it stays up to the standards. And continuing to improve the standard, I think, is really important to our community. So those are my thoughts.

Wonderful. Thank you. Council Member Edwards has her hand raised.

Yeah. Thank you, Lori. I appreciate this. I have to say, first of all, it's really hard to pick a top three or four. Everything on here is so important. I will say that I do agree that the traffic calming and cameras is a high priority. I think that we have a lot of complaints about speed and other driver, you know, problems, especially in school zones. And so I definitely think that's important. That's the PI 1.2. And then PI 1.5, to simplify and reduce regulations, Oftentimes, as a citizen myself, going on and trying to find out the processes for doing things was pretty difficult. And I think that just being more efficient in that area is going to not only help our citizens, but also help our staff not have to field so many questions and then complaints from people getting frustrated and things like that. I also think that PI 5.1 regulatory protection is really important. Um, I think that being compliant with all the federal regulations, um, is important so that we don't, you know, get fines or anything like that. Um, just to kind of protect our, our citizens tax dollars and, um, and making sure that we are being good stewards. But, um, you know, I think being in, um, How do you say in compliance allows us to have more opportunity for funding and certain things, and so I think that should be a pretty high priority as well. I also. Think. PI 5.6, which is repair what we have. So I know that there's often there's been, you know, talk about budget stuff and replacing versus repairing and I think that, you know, we need to have a good inventory of what we have on on hand and making sure that everything is operational and worth having to just improve what we have and make sure we're sufficient before we have to worry about purchasing new stuff. And then, like I said, it's really hard to prioritize. So I'm sorry I have so many. But then The last one that I wanted to mention is PI 5.5, which is the property acquisition and gaps and amenities. So I know that we have some capital projects coming up that will address some of my concerns around this area. And I think I know that we're working on that. And so I think that, you know, with the feedback that we've gotten from our citizens, there are things that, you know, people want to see here. And I think that that should be a priority as well. Great.

Thank you.

So I think PI 1.1 emergency management, sir, we're fortunate we haven't had a mass event in our city yet. We haven't had a school shooting or a flood or a fire, but those are all things we've heard and seen in the news. And while we might be at low risk for a mass casualty incident or something in our city, our neighboring cities might not be. So being able to be prepared with a plan and a response during a mass casualty event or a natural disaster is critical. Interoperability between police departments, fire departments, all that stuff. So I think that's a big priority for me. I would agree with Council Member Packard on the public works. I think that's a good idea. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The other one, I would say, is ppi 3.1 zoning analysis for the industrial area, we really have to do, we can even despite our trestle woes to get businesses to come to like Stephen supply tax. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, To keep our taxes down on property taxes for citizens. To. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, PI 2.6 planning for maintaining and replacing infrastructure that should be at the top of our list. I think we have a lot of work to do there. And I think PI 5.6 was another one to repair what we have. I agree with council. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Right here. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Whoever said Edwards. Thank you. That's like PB, Harmon Zuckerman, On that one. So I think those are my priorities.

Wonderful. And just to help fill in the audience, since they probably can't see the poster very well, I'm going to read off what's on there. And then I know we still need to hear from Council Member Donahue as well. I'm going to stop you really quick.

Brian mentioned the one PI 2.6. Yes. No, that's 1.6. 2.6 is down. Down far. There you go.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Yeah, I looked at that one and I misread it. It's getting late. Thank you.

And I just want to clarify, you'd mentioned the emergency management and CERT. CERT stands for Community Emergency Response Team. So that's training for our citizens, just so everybody understands.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, so I'll quickly read what's on here and then I will ask Council Member Donahue to also weigh in. So as far as what we have on the seven, 14 prioritized projects and initiatives, so far we have PI 3.5, fleet and facilities management plans, PI 4.2, permit workshop for community, PI 1.2, traffic calming and cameras, PI 3.4, sell city properties, PI 4.1 artificial intelligence. PI 5.4, Lake Monitoring and Shoreline Erosion Monitoring. PI 1.5, Simplify and Reduce Regulations. PI 5.6, Repair What We Have. PI 5.5, Property Acquisition and Gaps and Amenities. PI 1.1, Emergency Management. PI 3.1, Zoning Analysis for Industrial Area. And PI 2.6, Plan for Maintaining and Replacing Infrastructure. um the only one i think i did not move over that was also mentioned was regulatory uh protection i believe it was um council member edwards that um mentioned this one and i think we're gonna assume if it's we have to do it we don't have to put it on the list to prioritize it um council member donahue would you like to weigh in absolutely

So my first question, I guess, is to clarify something. Can you help me understand the relationship or any overlap between 2.1 and 2.6? Because 2.6 to me almost seems like a subset of 2.1.

2.1 and 2.6, is that what you said?

Yes.

Okay, so there is a relationship with those two. So the six-year CIP is our capital improvement plan. It is a focused six-year plan. It does get updated yearly, but it's a major tool that we use for budgeting and just planning in general. The plan for maintaining and replacing infrastructure um, is related and give me just a moment to look at the definition of that one.

And while you're doing that, I'll just mention that those two are high on my list because if there is a significant degree of overlap and we can get a two for one, that's kind of where my mind is going.

Okay. Thank you for your patience. So 2.6 is related. Um, that is what I would say is an initiative. It's got a number of projects and smaller, um, tasks that roll into 2.6. Um, so things that go into that also include things like, um, maximizing our efforts for preventative maintenance plans and building those out into systems and our processes. Um, and it, um, How do I want to say this? There's, while the six-year CIP is really focused on capital improvements, 2.6, the plan for maintaining and replacing infrastructure is larger than that. It's got a much larger scope.

2.6 is larger than our six-year CIP?

I would say yes, as far as from a project delivery component. It's broader.

Okay. You're saying because it includes all of the existing infrastructure. The CIP is largely new projects, but the 2.6 is all of our existing infrastructure. And what is the plan for that?

For sure, 2.6 includes existing infrastructure. And how do we plan to care for that? But I would say, and maybe I'll look to Shannon, the six-year CIP is is for capital projects, not necessarily capital projects that are just new prod, like new infrastructure. Is that right, Shannon?

Yeah, maybe I can add some clarification. So 2.6 would be something like looking at our assets, looking at condition of assets. and then developing those replacement schedules for those assets, looking at ways to fund that. The six-year CIP would be of what we're looking at and where we might need to see replacements or new infrastructure, then we would prioritize on that six-year capital improvement plan. So as Laurie was stated, 2.6 is broader in the sense that it is really getting a handle on What assets do we have? What's the condition of them? How are we going to replace them? How are we going to maintain them? How do we track their condition over time? And then how do we plan for that in the future to make sure that we are keeping our assets maintained and up to date based on the service level that we have agreed on, where the six-year CIP is then taking those projects that come out of that within those six years and then potentially constructing it.

Does that provide some clarification? Infrastructure in 2.6 does not include facilities because that's where I was coming at from 3.5 is looking at the buildings. Sure. Right. Because so in theory, things from 3.5 could also be on your CIP. In terms of large buildings, you may not have a new vehicle on your CIP, but if you need to do City Hall, for example, that's in your CIP and other things like that.

Correct.

So yeah, 2.6, 3.5 per your comment, Brian. I'd say those are almost the same in my view. It's looking at all of the assets that the city has. So yeah, I wouldn't want to just isolate that to the things listed in 3.5. 2.6 is... complementary to that and I think has equivalent merit and priority. It's just different categories of asset classes, but it's all assessing the assets and what we're responsible for and making a plan for ensuring that we maintain those and keep them effective for the city in the long term.

Yeah, so I guess for me then, given how comprehensive it is, I would say 2.6% And then if we're going to do that work, it seems natural to me that we roll it into 2.1. See, the other ones I had here, I would also say, if I'm understanding it correctly, if we've done 2.6, 2.5 makes sense. The ADA transition plan, especially since we've been dinged for that before in the past. I would say that work would also complement, in theory, in my mind, 5.6, repair what we have once we've taken stock of everything. And then I think, because in my mind I was thinking of 2.1 and 2.6 as kind of together, so I have an extra one. I would agree with Councilmember Jorstad. I would throw in 1.2, just given all the work we've done up to this point about the traffic calming and cameras, and I would like to see that implemented.

And Council Member Donahue, maybe if I can add something. I think the intent here of having the six-year CIP on this project and initiatives is it's the six-year CIP that we have already adopted. So it's the projects that are included in that six-year CIP. It's are we prioritizing those projects or potentially is that something that may need to be adjusted? But I think that's the intent here and maybe Lori can speak to that.

Yeah, I think I do agree with you, Shannon. So because the six-year CIP is adopted, we know we're going to do it. And it's an exercise that we do regularly. We're going to do it.

Well, I guess the first thing that comes to my mind that is a bit of concern, because if 2.6 is on this list, I'm wary of what's on 2.1 if we haven't gotten through the trouble of doing 2.6.

So the projects that have been identified in 2.1, those have come through with new projects or new infrastructure. A lot of the projects on there, too, are the TPP program. So that's sidewalks. We have other infrastructure that we know just needs to be replaced. We talked about one of them earlier today, which was the 36th Street Bridge project. I think it's something that's somewhat done concurrently. We know that there's infrastructure out there that needs replacement. We know where we need new infrastructure. We know where there's opportunities to enhance our infrastructure. For example, there are some parks projects on that CIP list. I think 2.6 is that initiative to make sure that we're truly understanding the condition of all of our assets and infrastructure. And then really looking at that more as a long range plan of how we're going to replace it. How do we understand the condition? What's the level of service we want those to be at and so forth. I mean, right now the city has to operate by identifying where projects are, where we need new infrastructure and where those opportunities. So I think it's something that is somewhat done a little bit concurrently at this time.

Okay. I mean, I guess I would kick it back to you guys and defer to your judgment. If we feel confident that we have done enough planning for maintenance and replacing infrastructure that our six-year CIP is solid, let's focus on that. If we think there might be other stuff out there that we need to investigate and potentially add to or make revisions to the six-year CIP, then I would put 2.6 ahead of that.

TAB, We're at 825 if you guys want to look at a motion to extend.

TAB, All right, is there a motion to extend the meeting.

TAB, The motion to extend the meeting to 845.

TAB, Time for executive session, as well as Council business.

I think I'd like to propose that we forego council business and mayor business.

Yeah, I have nothing. Before we pick a time, can you clarify how much more time you think you need? What else are you looking for today? And what other conversation do we need to have?

Yep. I, it's a little bit hard to gauge and give you eight, but here's what I can say. We've we've narrowed it down from, I believe there was 18 things up here for you to consider looking at. We have narrowed it down to one, two, to 12 things. What I would recommend is we come back for a shorter session next time to narrow it from 12, ideally to six, four to six. Again, like in a perfect world, we would love to do all these things right now, but we simply, we have challenges with that. So we really do need your input to help us have that clarity going into budget season so we can budget according to what your priorities are.

Is it possible for you to send a survey out where we can go in and pick, like put all these 12 out and say, hey, please pick your top four in order of preference. And we can preload that information. And even then you send us those survey results in advance so we see all that. And then next week is more just a conversation about why we picked those priorities rather than trying to identify them and sort them real time in this meeting.

Sure. I think I'll look to Jean. That's okay. I'm very open to that.

I think that's a brilliant idea. Okay.

Great. Awesome. Then I think for tonight, I am done. Thank you for your thoughts and your input. And we'll finish this up next week. Thank you. Thanks, Lori.

Thank you. Yeah.

So Angie made a motion. Is there a second?

I didn't make the motion.

Oh, you made the motion. I'll second. And Council Member Packard seconds it. Any all in favor, say aye.

All in favor, say aye.

Any opposed? All right, great. Thank you. Okey-doke. So we're doing the open government update.

Sorry, that's me also for the department report surprise.

Nice to see you sat down. I thought, well, you're not done yet.

Drop the mic. I mean, I didn't quite do that, but, um, yes, so I don't have a presentation or anything for this department report. Um, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about the information and the department report for open gov and the, uh, new portal that we are implementing.

Any of the council members online?

There are no hands raised.

Okie doke. Well, thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Council business is not seeing any. Mayor has no business. Then we will adjourn to executive session for a confidential session of the council per RCW 4230110. Confidential session of the council to discuss property sale potential action to follow. And we need about 15 minutes.

so the time is 8 30 and so the approximate return time with 15 minutes potential action to follow would be 8 45 we are going to take just a minute to clear the room so spirit

Do we need to wait a minute since we announced?

Greg, are we okay to come back?

Okay, we will reconvene. There will be no action, so is there a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Any conversation? Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.