City Council - Regular Meeting

I call this hybrid regular council meeting of September 8th, 2026 to order at 7 o'clock p.m. Will you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

And will the clerk please call the roll?

Mayor Olson?

Here.

Deputy Mayor Creeley?

Here.

Council Member Pasarewski? Here. Ramirez?

Present.

Keith? Present. Rasmus? Here. Edwards? Here. Southard? Here. Roll is complete.

Okay. Thank you, Jill. Hey, Council. As you know, Council Rule 9.3 allows a Council Member to add or delete an item to tonight's agenda. Does anyone have an item that they would like to add or delete? Not seeing any. Okay, we will move on. We're going to kick things off tonight with a presentation from Pierce Transit. We have three fine gentlemen here. We have Silas Reed, who's a familiar face to many of you Edgewood people here. Adam Davis and Kurt Olds. Difficult name to, yeah. Anyway, Kurt. So, I don't know who's going to kick it off, but you know the routine. The podium there. Push the button. You should get a little green light instead of a red band there. And take it away.

All right. Thank you for having us here tonight. I'm Adam Davis, Chief Maintenance Officer. counterparts are already introduced we're happy to be here. We're excited to share with you the details of proposition one and our plans for enhanced service. In July our board unanimously voted to send a ballot measure package to the voters in an up and coming general election. If approved by voters Pierce transit would be able to serve more people more places more often for three-tenths of one percent sales tax. One more slide about that. Here's transit is currently funded at half the rate of our peer agencies. 80% of our funding comes from sales tax. This is the sole tax and authority granted to local transit agencies by the legislator. We do not collect car tabs or property tax. Our sales tax rate has not changed since 2002, nearly a quarter of a century. We are proud of what we have been able to provide for community despite funding constraints. This has taken deliberate effort and disciplined approach to managing cost, streamlining operations, and improving efficiency. The results of this work show, according to the FDA database on operating cost per passenger mile, we are the most efficient local transit agency in the Puget Sound region. But we are hitting the functional limit of how much can be accomplished doing more with less. Largely due to inflation, expenses are expected to exceed revenue as early as next year. Without additional funding Pierce transit will continue running the current level of service for as long as possible. But transit service would need to be reduced to match the funding available with service reductions beginning as early as 2031. Next slide. Pierce County is growing and growing quickly. Our local economy depends on how well people can access jobs and how reliably employers can access a workforce. 89% of our riders take trips that benefit the local economy and studies show that $1 invested in transit generates $5 in economic return. Looking ahead, Pierce County is expected to add a quarter of a million new residents and 117,000 new jobs by 2044. As the region evolves, transportation will continue to shape how efficiently people can connect to opportunity. Even if you don't use transit, workers in our community rely on transit. Whether it's your barber, your nurse, your mechanic, or your kid's teacher, transit gets them there. This is why you often hear us say that even if you don't take public transit, you benefit from it. You benefit from fewer cars on the road and more people keeping our economy moving. I often talk to people who tell me that they will never need transit and that they won't even ride it, but your transit system is here for you whether you ride it or not. Not only are we an engine for community vitality, we are the eyes and ears of the county. Safety is the number one priority at Pierce Transit, but not just on our buses. We work to keep all of us safe and healthy by providing updates to law enforcement, community mental health, and emergency response personnel to support an informed, coordinated response. Even if you don't plan on transit physically moving you, it connects and protects the community you're a part of. Next slide. We have a plan to address this need. A plan that will improve transit for the 21,000 daily trips our riders take and a plan to help make transit possible for those where our current system does not really accommodate. A plan for a 47% increase in service that spans across the 13 towns, cities, and unincorporated areas we serve. One question we hear a lot is whether this would bring new cities or communities into Pierce Transit service area. The proposal would only improve and expand service within our current boundaries. It would not add Sumner, Bonney Lake, Key Peninsula, or any other new areas to the Pierce Transit District. Changing our service boundaries requires a separate process involving elected officials and voters. We also provide runner microtransit service and operate the 12th largest rideshare program in the nation. But this evening, I'm going to focus on bus and paratransit service, as that is primarily where new funding would be directed. I will now pass to my counterpart, Silas, to share the details of the plan.

Thank you, Adam. Silas, good to see you.

Thanks, Adam. Thanks, everybody, for having me here. Next slide, please. All right, so as Adam mentioned, if approved by voters, this package would cost an additional three cents for every $10 spent on qualifying purchases in Pierce Transit service area. That means that if you spent $10 on a book, you might spend three extra pennies on sales tax or a pair of $80 headphones might cost an extra 24 cents. All that would fund a 47% increase in service. Next slide, please. So if approved by voters, we would also add four new routes. Port of Tacoma route would serve the Maritime 253 High School and connect workers with jobs in the port. The Central Tacoma route would travel primarily along Tyler Street and connect downtown Tacoma to Burkcrest, University Place, and Lakewood. The Northeast Tacoma route, some of you might recognize, will connect riders to future light rail stations and the King County Metro lines to the north. We'd also add a weekday route serving Puyallup and the Shaw Road area. And we'd make an adjustment to the Route 11 that you can see in the inset map. It would connect Ruston to allow year-round access to the waterfront. Next slide, please. If approved by voters, we would also add new seasonal trolley service and special event services. With this, we would recommit to our existing waterfront trolley that we have in Gig Harbor and provide a new trolley in Tacoma to serve the Ruston waterfront. Under this Proposition 1, we would also maintain a flexible pool of spending and funding to work with community partners and local agencies to design special event service that meets our community's needs. So this could provide service to things like the Washington State Fair, the Edgewood Picnic or Summerfest, Five Harvest Festival, and other events. And I wanted to note the special event service specifically because in the past, our special event service has carried some significant ridership. The State Fair Service, during our peak service, served over 100,000 boardings. Just on a single night for the Freedom Fair in the past, we've served 12,000 riders in a single day. Next slide, please. Another component of the plan would be three high-capacity routes that would serve Pacific Avenue, 19th and Bridgeport, and South Tacoma Way. These would operate similar to our current stream route. They would operate every 15 minutes on weekdays and every 20 minutes on weekends. But it's not just the frequency improvements that make this important. These routes would also get some improvements such as real-time information signage so that riders know when the next bus is going to show up. We'd also speed up travel through the corridor by optimizing stop spacing and implementing technology like transit signal priority. I wanted to highlight these routes because according to the 2020 census, more than 140,000 people lived within a 10 minute walk of these routes. There's approximately 100,000 jobs located within a half mile of these routes. So put simply, you know, improving these routes makes transit just that much easier for the people who live and work in this area to access. Next slide, please. Buses running more often has been our largest request from our riders. So under this plan, 86% of our routes would run more often. The plan also means that we would have no hourly waits on weekdays. Seven of our routes would run every 15 to 20 minutes, and most routes would operate every 15 to 30 minutes on weekdays. These seven routes were selected because they serve nearly one of every two rides that we provide. That means that nearly one in four Pierce County residents would live within a 10-minute walk of a bus route operating every 15 to 20 minutes. Our frequency improvements also include weekends. Where currently most our routes are serving hourly frequencies, this plan would upgrade 23 of our routes to 30 minutes or faster on weekends. Next slide, please. Another longstanding request from our riders is to have later service. We hear from our riders that our services don't operate late enough for them to do things like shift work or, you know, attend evening classes or even attend community meetings like this one. With this plan, 23 of our routes or more than 80% of our service would run longer and later hours. Most routes start between 5 and 6 a.m. and they would end at 10 p.m. or later. These changes just serve to make transit a more realistic option for the people who can't rely on it currently. Next slide, please. We also built this plan to align with our future regional plans and our agency partners. So you can see here that we're planning on connecting to regional transit hubs and future light rail connections as well. Each of our routes would connect to the new light rail stations in South Federal Way, Portland Avenue, Fife, and Tacoma Dome Station. Next slide, please. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention our paratransit service as well. Any changes to our fixed route will also necessarily have changes to our paratransit service. Paratransit is a service, Pierce Transit calls it shuttle, but basically it's for riders who live within three quarter miles of an existing route who have a disability that prevents them from riding the regular bus. So they can call and schedule an appointment to get picked up and taken somewhere. Most of our riders use this service for things like attending kidney dialysis treatments, going to grocery stores, and going to community centers with programming for adults with cognitive and physical disabilities. This is a really important service. Under this plan, we would be able to serve more people with disabilities, especially in the Puyallup area near the port and in Northeast Tacoma, as you can see on this map. But the important thing to take away, too, is that any changes to our service time would also affect these paratransit customers. So by running the bus later, we're able to serve these folks later as well. Next slide, please. And finally, the other big thing under this plan would be that seniors 65 and older would get to ride free on the bus. So they'd join the youth who currently ride free, and we'd also continue our existing fare reduction programs like ORCA Lift. And next slide, please. That was a lot of county-wide information, but I'm sure you guys want to know how this affects Edgewood, right? Route 402 and the 501 are the routes that specifically serve Edgewood. 402 runs right down Meridian here. Currently, both of those routes run hourly on weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Under this package, both of those routes would come twice as often. They'd come on weekdays and Saturdays. They'd come every 30 minutes. The plan also includes later service. Both routes would run until 10 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and 8 p.m. on Sundays. This just means that people in your community wouldn't have to worry about picking up another shift at work or maybe leaving a Seahawks game early if it's, you know, they're not going to be able to catch the bus. So ultimately, this package just improves access to services in the area. You can see on this map that it would improve access to sound transit services that your residents are already paying for. With these changes, it would... With these changes, Edgewood residents would have a bus every 30 minutes, seven days a week that connects them to regional services, light rail, express. And for seniors, the bus portion of that ride would be free. And I'd also want to note that the 402 and the 501, they don't just connect you to Federal Way and the light rail. They get you other places too. They can get you south into Puyallup, get you downtown. They can get you to South Hill Mall and the transit center over there. 501 can catch you over to Fife and over to Tacoma. And all this to say just that more frequent reliable transit is paired with the special event service just means that the community has more access to more opportunities, more places, and more of the things that they want to get to. So I'm going to hand it back to Adam to wrap things up.

Thank you, Silas. Adam?

Proposition 1 is about building a transit system that works for our region, a system that is there for us when we need it most, a system that connects us to what matters to us most. I have found that great, vibrant communities all have one thing in common, and that is a great transit system. A safe, clean, frequent, reliable transit system that connects employers to the workforce, connects students to school, connects shoppers to small business, connects youth, seniors, and people with disabilities to mobility, and connects families to memories. Prop one isn't just about more buses. It's about connecting our region to opportunity. We're happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Okay, Council Councilmember Keith.

Thanks, Adam. I did have One question with a part A. First of all, I want to clarify that I understand this correctly. And secondly, if I understand this correctly, I'd like to understand why it is the way it is. I mean, inflation is high. The economy gets worse. Fewer and fewer dollars are spent in... purchases that aren't absolutely required, thereby sales tax goes down. And you are funded completely by sales tax, correct? About 80%, yes. Which means when the economy's bad and inflation is high and people are losing their jobs, that would be when they need transit the most. I understand that correctly?

Yes.

So is there a political reason or a structural reason for funding transit this way?

I'm going to hand off to our government relations.

There's a political reason. There's the government relations guy. It really just comes down to that is the only tool we are given by the legislature for local transit. Sound Transit has property taxes, sales tax as well, and car tab fees and things like that. But it's really just sales tax in Washington for local agencies.

Sound Transit has a more stable funding stream that enables sustainability, but your agency does not.

Correct. And none of the, you know, transit bus, local transit agencies in Washington. All of them are fully reliant on sales tax.

I understand.

Okay. Council Member Edwards.

So just want to say thank you for your presentation. So my question is, as someone who used to ride a lot of those routes in the mid-2000s, so does this plan bring back service to those pre-2010 great recession levels? Because are we back there yet? Would this bring us back there?

I'll bring Silas up.

Yeah, I can't compare the exact numbers on that.

know that our ridership has generally been recovering and we're pushing in that direction i can't say for certain whether or not we're totally there we're gonna have some tools available to look at some of that information okay thank you just because i remember riding the 501 and it was every half hour back in the early 2000s and then i remember the one two and three were all 15 minutes so that's why i was wondering because it it's very reminiscent of what it used to be because i know we still haven't recovered so that's why i was wondering thank you

Any further questions, Council? I have one. So about 10 years ago, I was on a six-month driving restriction for health reasons. So I had to go out and get my Orca card. So 10 years later, I've still got my Orca card in my wallet. Do I still need that? Or is there an app nowadays? Has it gotten easier? Can I thin out my wallet? Or there's got to be something cool nowadays.

Oh, I'll hand it off to you. There's all kinds of stuff you can do. You can pay cash. We actually have an open payment system now, so you can scan. If you have your credit card on your phone digitally, you can tap your card to pay, and you can tap with a credit card, you can tap with a debit card. There's different ways to get an all-day pass. You get an all-day pass better if you use an Orca card, but it'll cap your fare if you use the credit card too.

All right, perfect. Thank you. All right, gentlemen, anything else? I don't see any further questions from council. Thank you very much. Keep up the good work. Oh, and audience, if you didn't, where was this? Was there a stack of these for the audience? They were passed out to council. So if you didn't see that, there's a stack on the table there at the back. So maybe grab that on your way out of here tonight. Okay, thank you. All right, next up, we have an executive session. The council will now meet in an executive session to discuss with legal counsel matters pursuant to RCW 42.30.1101IIII. The council will be in executive session until 7.50, which is 30 minutes, or 29 minutes, but until 7.50. and at which point the council will reconvene and we will proceed with the regular council meeting agenda. So if we finish after 20 minutes, we're still going to wait until 7.50. That's the way the rules work. So feel free to do whatever you want because we will not start back in here until at least 7.50. And if we have to extend, we'll come out and make an announcement. But we'll see you back here at 7.50 and council, head on back to the Rainier Room. And we are... adjourned or we're adjourned for now until 7.50.

The executive session has been extended by 10 minutes. We will now readjourn at 8 o'clock. They've extended the executive session by 10 more minutes.

Are you good? Okay. Okay. We're good. We are back in session. And thank you, audience, for being patient with us. We are now to audience comment point. And this is your opportunity to step up to... the microphone and you have five minutes to share your audience comment for anything on or off the agenda. We have one person signed up. Again, you don't need to have signed up, but this is the Reverend Andrew Conley Holcomb. Okay, and he wants to speak about the Mountain View Community Center support.

Thank you so much, council members. I appreciate you continuing to consider this issue. I actually come with a petition written by the undersigned members of the community center that says, Mayor Olson and council members, we the undersigned members of the senior community of Edgewood wish to express our thanks and gratitude for your past recognition and support for the Mountain View Community Center. MVCC is an important and valued asset which greatly enhances our quality of life. We therefore strongly request that you prioritize the continued funding of Mountain View Community Center in your budgetary deliberations. And then I have a signed petition just of 25 members of the community who wanted me to come and deliver this. Again, I just I want to continue to emphasize that the reason that people don't trust government and the reason that they don't trust religion is the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability. But if we say we're going to do something, we need to follow through and do it. And we need to be open and honest with folks about what we're doing and why we're doing it, especially when it involves religion. their finances, their resources, and their community. And so I continue to be concerned that it's not clear to me what the issues are that are being brought forward. It's not clear to me why we're having a challenge with signing this contract. The legal obligations to provide heating and cooling for our city seems really important, and it seems like it fits within the regional plan, especially if we're a city that's committed to growth and development, which we continue to say that we are. We're going to continue to have economic diversity within this community. And Mountain View Community Center is basically the only non-religious organization that's providing that kind of service within this community. So to me, if we're not going to hand this back to the religious communities, which often are not seen as trustworthy within the non-religious population that we serve. then I want to see the community center supported. I appreciate that there's a resolution before you to create an amendment to continue the contract that existed before so that you can work out the deliberation of how you need to reword this. And I fully support continuing that so that these services remain available to the community. Until such time, you can figure out what the issue is and resolve that issue. But again, my community is very concerned. I serve Mountain View Lutheran Church. My community is very concerned that the community center Is really one of the only I mean, the community center was built by the congregation and given away to be its own separate five one C3 nonprofit that's not religiously affiliated because we knew that as a religious organization, things like this, we're going to prevent people from seeking resources and services from us. We knew that people don't trust religion until they see that you put your money where your mouth is and you show up and actually care for the community. And the community center was one of the ways that Mountain View Lutheran Church committed to doing that, to showing that it was inclusive and relevant and connected to the community. They didn't care that they got credit for it. And they're happy that it's a separate nonprofit. And I am concerned that if the city doesn't support it, that it's going to just become yet another one of those resources that's underutilized. And ultimately, it goes back to the religious communities who just can't serve the broad swath of the population that can be served by communities religiously unaffiliated nonprofits. So again, I want to urge you to support the community center. I want to urge you to continue the contract that existed last year. And I want to urge you to be really transparent and clear about what the real issues are and what the impact on not resolving those issues is going to be long-term for the city of Edgewood. Because I think things like this, and continuing to keep Mountain View, and not Mountain View, but I mean Edgewood broadly, accessible, especially to folks that are experiencing different levels of economic inequality. I just want that to be a priority because that's the reason the community center was created in the first place. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Reverend Andrew. Is there anybody else that would like to step to the podium? And I don't see any hands raised. Are we looking to see if there's any audience members? We have some participants, but I don't see any hands raised, so I'm assuming no. Okay, so that concludes our audience comment. Takes us to tonight's consent agenda. Are there any items to be amended or pulled from tonight's consent agenda? Seeing none, may I entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented?

So moved. Second, Pasarewski.

Okay, it has been moved by Councilmember Edwards and seconded by Councilmember Pasarewski to approve the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay. Okay, motion carries. State Council takes us to our first item tonight, Agenda Bill 26-0798. This is a resolution amending Section 8.1010 of the City Council Rules of Procedure regarding virtual and or telephonic meetings. Councilmember Ramirez and Councilmember Pasarewski, this is your item as sponsor and co-sponsor. So would you like to start us off and brief the council on this item?

I think we've talked about this quite some time. I just wanted to highlight that this does not take away a hybrid option, still provides a hybrid option. It does not target anybody. I think some of us do believe that a presiding officer, no matter who that presiding officer is, should try their best to be in person. It has nothing to do with taking role or excused absences or unexcused absences. Section 14.1 already deals with that. And section one of our council rules and procedures, authority enforcement construction, 1.2 second sentence states, nothing in these rules shall be construed as creating any enforceable right. So in terms of being sued and all that, I don't think that's the intent of what we're doing. We just want presence when we have a full staff and it provides all options that still exist.

Okay. Before I entertain a motion, anything further Council Member Pasarewski to add as far as briefing the Council on this resolution?

Yeah, I'd just like to add, again, I've been taking notes since we first started talking about this item back earlier this spring. I echo everything that Councilmember Ramirez has said. Him and I have been working diligently on this section just to make it worded in a way that would... would hopefully work out for, for us. Um, when I, when I talked to citizens and Edgewood, I have, you know, brought up this topic since, uh, you know, I've been co-sponsor of this topic for a while. Um, you know, asking them how they feel with, uh, Zoom participation versus in person if it's by choice. Obviously, everyone I've talked to, they do say they value the in person. There's many reasons why in person should be preferred. It's You know, like for tonight, you know, I'm looking out in the audience. Last week, we had about 25 people in the audience. Today, we have three, four, five, six people. We had 15 or so at the beginning of the meeting. It's a great way for us to show our presence physically for our audience. members of the audience to see us, be able to give us a chance to talk with the members of the audience before, after the meeting, and also for us to talk with each other, our fellow council members. And here I just want to just read a few notes I have here. Local government is about people and relationships are much harder to build through a screen. Residents take the time to come to meetings like you all here tonight. to speak during public comment and participate in their local government. When council members are there with them, it reinforces that their voices matter. Remote participation should be the exception and not the expectation. When a council member shows up in person, they send a powerful message. This community matters enough for me to be here. And I just want to emphasize that. for the the council members that do attend for some of um you all that do attend uh via zoom um this is in no way to target anyone um you know we we value all the council members that are unable to attend in person due to uh medical reasons or personal reasons where they are not capable to come in so this is no way targeting this is more for council member in-person participation where you have a choice to come in or not come in. So I just want to emphasize my reasoning why I'm, this is something why I'm passionate of working to promote in-person participation for those that have the choice to come in or not. And that is, yeah, that is all I have.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Ramirez and Pazurowski for giving us the insight as to the derivation of this resolution coming before us. So with all that said, I will entertain a motion.

Would one of you like to make a motion to adopt AB 26-0798? Second, Pazurowski.

Okay. It's been moved by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Pasarewski to approve Resolution 26-0798. Council Member Ramirez, you have the floor.

No comment. I've made enough of those. Yeah. Just request a roll call vote. Okay.

Council Member Pasarewski, you now have the floor.

Same with me.

Okay. Any, while I see Mark's hand, or excuse me, Deputy Mayor Creeley's hand raised there, so we'll go to Deputy Mayor Creeley first on this motion before us.

Great. Thank you so much. First of all, I'd like to say that wording, the way we word things is important. The wording of council prefers in-person attendance could also be stated, council prefers that council members not attend meetings virtually often. The wording that could have unintended consequences of excluding individuals. We're working on including people, getting them involved in government. Our last election, we had one person for each of the openings and no competition for those positions. We want to get more people involved and include them in this process. And the phrase community means enough for me to participate uh is in something we should think about as well um but again the unintended consequences of is excluding individuals from running for council who otherwise might run if they could use zoom often for whatever reason you know something occurring in their life because they may have the perception that attending virtually is frowned upon And again, it's the subtle meaning of words. And I think that we need to be careful about those words and how people will interpret them. And like I say, I think people would say, oh, well, you know, I was going to run, but now they've passed this thing. It makes it sound like, you know, they really don't want us to use Zoom very often. So I won't be able to participate as a council member. Again, that same phrase in there, council prefers and values in-person attendance. You know, again, you're speaking on behalf of the entire council. We've talked about this before. We can't do that. We can't say that when communicating with the public. Our policies and procedures shouldn't say that either unless we're in unanimous agreement. And there's several of us. There's some that are strongly against the limitations of use of virtual attendance. There's some who are indifferent and say, I don't care either way. That doesn't mean that they're... they agree with it. Council prefers it. If they're not bought in all the way, then you can't really say that. And you didn't, I think Councilman Ramirez did mention about the one section does not mention any preferred for the mayor to be physically present, but it does say the deputy mayor and whoever fills in. So why even put that in there? It'd make it more generic, I guess. It does kind of, It doesn't hold the mayor accountable for doing that, whoever that may be. And again, the other thing is these are people's council members, personal standards and values. And that's great to have those. But, you know, to impose those on everybody else. Again, I think it goes to, again, those unintended consequences of excluding people. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Creeley. What's Council Member McKeith elbowing? And then Council Member Sutter. She was kind of...

Sorry. So I'm going to vote no. I think this language is unnecessary and has no real enforcement mechanism. So it's mostly... judgment and social pressure dressed up as policy. It's subjective, unsupported, and solves no real demonstrated problem. I think it's exclusionary and causes people to not participate or to run for council like they would. And it matters because the mayor has stated on the record that this language affects how easily council members can be removed from their lawfully elected positions. A vague, undefined definition such as good faith standards should never be tied to removal from office. It's not a workable policy. It doesn't say who decides whether a council member's vote will be counted, what process applies or what appeal exists if you don't agree with. being counted absent or being counted absent as not in good faith. I have equal concern about the technical language. If a council member is disconnected and misses a vote, that's obvious, they didn't vote. But if they are present and cast a vote, that vote should count. This draft creates vague authority to disregard votes without saying who decides, how it's decided, and how that decision could be challenged. If I'm removed or my vote is not counted because someone decides my reason for attending by Zoom was not good enough because it's not in good faith, which is a judgment, then I'll challenge that in court. If discovery shows animus, targeting, or pretext, then that creates serious liability and personal exposure. And I just don't think there's any reason to go there. This draft singles out the deputy mayor with an in-person preference that state law doesn't require. Our council rules in RCW 35A.12.110 already say that the deputy mayor presides when the mayor is absent, and there is no in-person requirement. So in calling out the deputy mayor in this text, It doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than to apply social pressure and codify this personal preference for the mayor, or for the deputy mayor. But the mayor is not held to the same standard. Apparently it's okay for the mayor to be out of town and on Zoom, but the deputy mayor should be physically present while performing the exact same function, chairing the meeting. It looks targeted.

um remote participation should be judged by performance can you hear can you be heard can you participate can you vote if yes you're doing your job so i'll vote no thank you councilmember keith uh councilmember edwards and then southard okay so i looked this up so i would like to make a secondary motion which is a motion to amend in section three to strike council prefers and values in-person attendance

Okay, we have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion to amend. Did you catch that all, Jill? We have a motion to amend to strike that phrase. And we have a second. So I believe it goes to Councilmember Edwards to argue for the motion. You have the floor.

So the reason I'd like to strike it is because these are going to be in our council rules, and I feel like it's kind of subjective. And since it is like our council rules, I feel like it should be more objective instead of subjective. So because that's really the only thing I have an issue with. So that's why I've made the motion to amend.

Okay. Council Member Southard, you now have the floor on this motion to amend by striking that phrase.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was thinking about voting no on this, but Councilmember Edwards thought better and thought maybe compromise by striking a language would be a better tone, and I agree.

Okay. Any other comments on this motion to amend? That is... before us. And Bailey, feel free to interrupt me at any time if you need to coach me. But I think Deputy Mayor Creeley has a comment about the motion to amend.

Well, it doesn't address all the other issues we have with it. So, I mean, if that's the only thing that you guys wanted to correct, I'm still not going to vote for it.

Okay. Any other comments on this motion? So we will vote on this motion to amend. And you want to rephrase so we're clear on what the phrase was.

So the specific phrase from what I got was the council prefers and values in-person attendance in Section 3.

You'd just like to strike that phrase. Strike that phrase. All right. And I think we've concluded council comments. So I think we can do a voice vote on this one. So all those in favor of that amendment say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed say nay.

Nay. Nay.

Okay. Okay, motion carries. So right now we have Councilmember Ramirez motion on the floor with an amendment to strike that phrase. And now it's back to Councilmember Southard and then Councilmember Rasmus has his hand raised next. So

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move to strike the word in Section 2 that says the city may, to change it to, will include a remote meeting component.

Section two, first sentence there. Okay. During non-emergency situations, the city will include a remote meeting component.

That's from the old.

Okay.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and we have a second to change the word may to will in paragraph two. Council Member Southerd, you have the floor on this amendment. Okay.

Thank you. I feel like we're a pretty cordial bunch for the most part, and we get along now, but when we all are voted out or termed out, I kind of want this to continue in some form, and future councils can amend it as needed, but I think it should be Will instead of May.

Okay. Now Councilmember Keith has the floor.

I agree. It just removes the option to remove Zoom capriciously and arbitrarily if we just firm it up here with will.

Okay. Any other council comment on this motion before the floor? Council Member Ramirez?

Just one comment. Number two was not changed. That was from the old council rules and procedures adopted by previous councils. The word may was always there.

Right. Okay. So duly noted, but you can still make the motion. So we're still good there.

Okay.

Any other comments on changing the word from may to will. Okay. Again, we'll go with the voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay, that motion carries. So we've made two adjustments here. And then we're now back to Councilmember Rasmus on the main motion before us. Councilmember Rasmus.

So just a point of clarification. So in light of Christy's concerns about, sorry, Council Member Keith's concerns about legal risk. So this has been reviewed by our city attorney. And can she confirm that there is or isn't risk involved in adding this?

So that's exactly what I was looking into right now. So I am concerned about legal risk with the may to will. I was trying to think of another option as maybe adding an exception for technical interference or some sort of technical problems. So the possible legal risk, which I can talk about in an open public meeting because this has to do with the OPMA, just for the record. If we make a rule that says we have to have a hybrid option, and it is a non-emergency and we can't do it for some sort of technical ability, perhaps Zoom is down and we don't have the ability to do Teams or something like that, then if we hold the public meeting, then we would violate our own laws and then thus possibly the OPMA. That is my only concern is that there could be a technical difficulty. If there is some sort of wind or power outage, then we can be put under the emergency portion, right? So I don't think that's the issue. I think it really comes down to technical ability. So do we want to avoid that risk by giving some sort of exception there? Or do we want to go back to May? It's something to consider. There is possible legal risk.

So if I read between the lines, I think we're now realizing maybe why the original draft did have May instead of Will. That wasn't just a Councilmember Ramirez and Pazarooski change. That was probably well scrubbed by a lawyer back in the day when... the rules of procedures were gone through several years ago. So what's your advice now, Maile, if someone wants to take what you just said to heart, did they just make another motion to say, nevermind or change that back?

We can just make a motion to amend back. That could be an option. We could go forward and add another amendment as an exception too.

Yeah. Well, I think council has gotten an answer from council member Rasmus' question. So if anyone wants to make a motion, I'll entertain a motion. But if nobody wants to, then we'll move on. But you've heard what Maile said. And so now it's on us to decide if we want to make a motion to change it back.

so in light of the new information and new advice from council i would motion to replace may or will with may second okay well that's no just well if that's what we're going to do just withdraw well we already voted though you can't withdraw a motion that's already been voted and passed oh sorry

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to move it back to May. And we have a first and a second. And so, Council Member Rasmus, you have the floor.

It's okay to sometimes retract and go back to what is right. It's okay. Okay, Council Member Edwards, you now have the floor.

I feel like I started this all. I'm sorry. Legal risk. That's fine.

Okay, any other comments on this motion to go back to May? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. We're going two steps forward, two steps back. So were you, did you have the floor? Okay. Deputy Mayor Creeley, you now have the floor on this main motion. And coming off mute. There we go.

All right. So we're just to make sure there's nothing on the floor and I can offer a new amendment?

Technically, yes.

Okay. I'm losing track of where we are. Okay. So I'd like to amend number four. I'd make a motion to amend number four to read the presiding officer must be able to effectively conduct the meeting in accordance with this section.

Did you say to strike that or amend it?

To only strike everything prior to and only keep the wording. The presiding officer must be able to effectively conduct the meeting in accordance with this section.

Got it. Okay. And is there a second on Mark's, on Deputy Mayor Creeley's motion to amend?

Second.

Okay, we have a second. So Deputy Mayor Creeley, you now have the floor on your motion to amend that section.

Thank you. I see where we're going on the amendments now. Sorry about my... comment earlier um so again this takes out the the deputy mayor being singled out and it also would include the mayor so whoever's presiding I think the the intent is to make sure that whoever's presiding remotely um can do it effectively and I think this amendment does that okay um Councilmember Keith

I agree with that. It resolves the targeting question. If there's ever a look back on this, then it's not targeted. It applies to whomever is chairing the meeting. Although I'm not sure it's terribly effective language, but I like this better than the original.

Okay. Any other council comment on this motion to amend to strike that sentence? Yes, Council Member Edwards.

Can we just read the language back one more time or have it written?

Do you see it on your screen? Just striking the blue line says it is preferred Deputy Mayor presides in person. Okay. So just striking that.

Sorry, nope. Everything before if the presiding officer participates. Strike everything before that. Only keep if the presiding officer participates remotely.

Okay. All right. So can we, someone over there strike the blue when the mayor is unavailable to preside? There we go. Does that look, look correct? Okay. So that's, that's the motion to strike all of the blue. And is there any other council comment on this motion?

So I have a question on that. I don't have the entire rules of procedure in front of me. Do we have somewhere else in the rules of procedure where it does state the deputy mayor will preside if the mayor is unavailable?

Correct. Yeah, that's earlier.

Okay.

Deputy mayor's roles and responsibilities and state law. Okay, any further council comment on this motion to amend before us? Okay, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay, motion carries. Okay, we've made three or four amendments, depending upon how you want to look at it. I think we're doing pretty good. Are there any further amendments? or any further conversation on the main motion on the floor, which is what technically we are back to. Okay, so as Councilmember Ramirez requested, we will do a roll call vote. This is on the main motion to approve or to amend Section 8.10 with the amendments that we have made this evening that Jill will thoroughly document and we're good to go. So anybody have any further questions before we vote? Okay, roll call vote on the main motion, please, Jill.

Council Member Pasaberski aye Ramirez aye Heath no Deputy Mayor Creeley no Council Member Rasmus aye Council Member Edwards aye Council Member Southard aye

Okay, motion carries. Takes us to Agenda Bill 26-0801. This is a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute the First Amendment to the Mountain View Community Center Heating and Cooling Site Agreement. Councilmember Keith, this is your motion. And Councilmember Southard is the co-sponsor. But Councilmember Keith, would you like to brief the council? Would you like to take it from here?

I'll do a quick brief, and then I want to offer a motion. The council and the city attorney and Mountain View are working on this contract to refine it. Unfortunately, the executive director of Mountain View is... wherever, Canada, on vacation somewhere very fun where we're not. And we haven't been able to loop back around with her to finalize the language of the contract. I am personally committed to getting this signed in a form that makes everyone happy as soon as possible. And you can count on me to lend my voice loudly to urgency and quick and satisfactory resolution. On that note, I move to postpone consideration of resolution 26-0801 to September 22nd. The council will discuss the terms of the suggested terms of the contract that hopefully Mountain View and our city attorney are able to resolve to come to at the September 15th study session. So the motion is study session and then next council meeting. I would need a second.

So moved. Rasmus. Okay. We have a motion to postpone to discuss this item at the September 15th study session and put it on the agenda at the September 22nd regular council meeting. The motion and a second. Council Member McKeith, you have the floor.

I think I'm out of words.

Council Member Rasmus, you now have the floor.

And I would also just echo what Council Member Keith said. We are all, everybody that I've talked to on this council, which is everybody, is very, very committed to the community center and getting this done. I think that this is the right path to go to make sure that we get it right and that we protect both parties. So that's the intention here. So I really appreciate Keith's motion.

Okay, any other council comment on this motion to postpone? Okay, seeing no further council comment, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay, so motion carries. We will postpone discussion of resolution 26.0801 or dash 0801 to next week's study session and next week's regular council meeting. And I'll also point out that there's going to be two different items to be discussed at next week's study session and at the following regular council meetings. So if you're here for the Mountain View Community Center Heating and Cooling Center contract, there'll be lots of discussion on a couple of different things next week and more action slated to be taking at the September 22nd. So there you go. We are to council comment, and I see council members southerned raised his hand first. So Council Member Souther, you have the floor.

Thank you. I would like to make a motion to include the URA resolution on the next session and a vote for the following regular council meeting.

Um, may I point out you can just request so we don't need to make a motion or council rules. Make it clear if you just want to if someone would like to be Jeff's 2nd person I 2nd. Yeah. Okay. So can I be dramatic? Um, it's, it's not currently spelled out in our council rules of procedure. So that's why I'm just saying that's, that's not one of the routes to put it on the agenda, but simply asking and council member Keith being your second. So yes, we will add a review of the unified regional approach to homeless housing. resolution of intent yep yeah resolution of intent to the study session agenda next uh next tuesday so let's let's make sure okay go ahead and then uh can we schedule the vote for the next uh regular council that's following that as well sure yeah so two things on the study session to review the resolution of intent next week with a vote to follow on september 22nd and i'll we'll put together something and get get it to you for your final review or sign off before thursday at noon so stay tuned for that thank you council member southard any other yes counts oh council member ramirez and then councilman mckee

I just wanted to let the public know that on February 27, 2026, Puget Sound Energy filed a three-year rate plan with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. The UTC has the authority to approve rates. And the 2027, 2028, 2029 proposed rate increases are 17.5% on average for electricity, 3.5% on average In 2028 for electricity, 8.07% on electricity on average. 2029 natural gas, 2027 average 12.93% increase. 2028 increase of about 3.18% on average. 2029 average increase of 3.71%. I bring that up because it's just a reminder that they're holding one and only one public hearing for these requested changes. It will be held in person only on Tuesday, September 29th, 2026 at 6 p.m. at Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, address 621 Woodland Square Loop, Southeast in Lacey, Washington. So if you have time to come out and express your voice, I would encourage you all to do that.

And I'll just add, I just today sent PSE a request to have someone come present to our council. I mean, I don't know that it's going to do any good, and I don't know that they'll come here before September 29th, but I reached out to them because I know another neighboring city did the same thing. I thought, oh, that's a great idea. Why don't we invite them to come speak to our council meeting? So I've made that request, and I'll keep council posted. Council Member Keith.

I have a quick request of someone. Rachel would be perfect. During the fireworks conversations, I noticed that someone in the audience was concealed carrying, which I'm fine with. I have a concealed carry permit. That's not my concern. My current concern is, is allowed in this building per state law If it is or isn't, are we following whatever state law is on signage? If you don't come back to the council, I'll assume the answer is yes, everything's fine. But if not, we should consider changing our signage. Yep, I'll work with Chief on that. Okay, thanks.

Boy, I have questions. I'm curious. No, I'm just curious, what did you see?

Is that even...

Yeah. No, great question. We'll look into it. Any other council comment? Are we good? Not seeing any further council comment. We are adjourned at 8.50.

Good night, everybody. Take care.