City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah. I can. I

call this hybrid regular council meeting on 05/12/2026 to order at 07:00PM. And would you please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance? Police chief Jason Youngman will be leading us tonight.

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

Okay. Thank you. Will the clerk please call the role?

Mayor Olsen?

Here.

Deputy mayor Creeley?

Present.

Council member Pazaruski? Here. Council member Ramirez?

Here.

Council member Keith? Here. Council member Erasmus? Here. Council member Edwards? Here. Council member Sothard? Here. Rule is complete.

Okay. Thank you, Jill. Council, as you know, council rule 9.3 allows council member to add an item to the agenda. Does anyone have anything to add to tonight's agenda? K. Thank you. Moving on. We have a presentation. Jeremy Metzler is gonna present on the town center development regulations. Jeremy, please take it away.

Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council, members of the public. Based on some recent conversations with council, felt it was appropriate to have a presentation this evening regarding our town center development regulations. I wanna touch on four points this evening. First, what our 2024 conference of plan says.

Second, ordinance twenty six zero six ninety eight, which was just adopted earlier this year. Third, the former Dollywall site. And fourth, next steps. So the 2024 comprehensive plan, just wanted to take some highlights from our town center element and some of the phrases contained therein. It states that the town center is envisioned to reflect Edgewood's community character while bringing new people, places, and opportunities to the city.

It requires a planning effort that will establish clear implementation strategy for public and private investments, And mixed use development continues to be challenging in part attributed to vacancy and capitalization rates. But more plainly, there's vacant space in nearby cities, so it's harder to create new spaces when you've got existing vacancies elsewhere. Last but certainly not least, Meridian Avenue accommodates a significant traffic volume, challenges creating a walkable town center around this roadway. Much of the development has been designed around automobile access. This is something that has become more prevalent in planning discussions in recent years, the concept of a strode, and it's caused us to look more closely at how town centers envisioned and how we can more practically, activate it in in the coming years.

So let's talk about ordinance twenty six zero six ninety eight, trying to bridge the gap between what you see today and what that ultimate vision is. Council members, may recall that we just adopted the updated comprehensive plan in December 2024, as staff was observing a lot more single use residential development inquiries along the corridor, enacted a interim zoning ordinance twenty five zero six seventy six back in March. And at that time, we required nonresidential uses to be developed within 200 feet of arterial roadways, removing the ability to just set spaces aside for future retail or office type commercial uses. Study was performed by the planning commission over the next several months with a recommendation to the council in December '25 with a final ordinance that would replace that 200 foot standard with a ground floor building frontage standard and a minimum unit depth based on the building height. That replacement ordinance was adopted at the January.

All the projects that are currently in our review pipeline are being reviewed against this new development standard. And just as a quick example excerpt, in the town center zone as adopted, 50% of arterial frontage must have a building on it and a 100% of that must be nonresidential. So example, if you've got a building that occupies 50% of the frontage, that building has to have all non residential use on that ground floor abutting that road. If you've got buildings that occupy 80% of the frontage, that 50% is all that's required for the non residential so that remaining 30% of furniture would could be residential along the ground floor. Staff is working closely with the applicants to develop this along the arterial roadways and as it's currently stated, there is no minimum height requirement.

So that would allow for non residential uses to be single story structures. I just want to make that clear as well. Minimum height requirement could delay or prohibit practical development for an extended period of time. I wanted to highlight that because we have not been seeing solely nonresidential developments even come knocking on the door. If we're gonna be getting a nonresidential component, it's it's usually because we are working with a primarily residential developer to provide that.

Just throwing that out there. Let's talk about the former Dollywall site. It was an aspirational vision. I wanna highlight that. And and the next couple slides are just showing you the proposed profiles of those buildings where four to five stories of residential units over commercial ground floor and what we call structured parking underneath, parking garage.

And you can see how tall those buildings are, very attractive, don't get me wrong. But from a practicality standpoint, that developer was having a very hard time finding somebody to help him build that vision. I did a little bit of searching around our neighboring jurisdictions, and the nearest example I could find is Puyallup City Hall, which is not a private development. It's a public development, And it's got a footprint that's more than three times smaller than what was being proposed with the doll Dollywall project, just the first the the big building. There were two buildings on my frontage, and that big building was more than three times larger than Puyallup City Hall.

The next closest I found was on 320th Street in South Federal Way where they've got all ground floor commercial, and I believe three to or four stories of residential on top of it, no parking underneath, and that footprint is five times smaller than what was being proposed with the Dolly Well project. Both of these markets, Gallup and Fredaway, have significantly higher demand for these types of developments than Edgewood does. And so the my gut tells me we're gonna have a very difficult time attracting that kind of a development when those cities are not able to attract those types of developments. The other part of this was that the developer was not going to be able to build those buildings first. It was always intended to be the last phase of that development.

They needed to have something else to generate revenues and support the construction of that front building. So the reality of the agreement that was in place and the the planned intent at that time was that we had no guarantee that those buildings were going to be constructed even as approved. So I just, again, wanting to lay that foundation of understanding where we were at in trying to get there. So next steps, how do we move forward? We are seeing some viable multi story mixed use developments being proposed both off of 16th And 24th Street.

One of them actually has building permits in, and we're just waiting for final payment of fees for that to go forward. It's similar to the Dollywall project, the last building that's gonna be built, but they're working their way from the back to the front. So we have very high confidence that this structure is gonna be built. It does not have any parking underneath it, but we're told that there is a commercial tenant already lined up for occupying that space. So positive news.

Just wanting again to note that parking structures are prohibitively high cost to build in our local market. And wanted to reemphasize that the planning commission is reviewing the design standards for multifamily tax exemptions. We had good discussion about that at their meeting last night. And as part of those design standards, we can be looking at minimum heights and and potentially parking structures as elements to be included if a developer wants to be eligible for an MFTe to try to incentivize that. So that is my high level presentation tonight.

I'm happy to take any questions that you guys might have this evening.

Okay. Council member Keith, lead us off.

Thank you, Jeremy. Somehow, I don't know the maximum height.

So it varies by zone.

Sure. But In this zone, we're talking about the Meridian Corridor.

So on in the town center zone, we we have a maximum height of 57 feet.

Which is?

It's it can be up to five stories depending on your configuration. Yeah.

Thank you.

K. Any further questions for mister Metzler on his presentation? Yes. Councilmember Pazaruski.

Trying to think how I should word this, Jeremy. So as you as you presented, when a developer has a large project like these multifamily housing units, they build from the back to the front. And they are required to have that 1st Floor arterial nonresidential up to 50% if 50% of the frontage is a building. And if so, you were mentioning if they have budget constraints, if they are building back to the front and they get to the front and have to stop construction and tell the city, hey. We ran out of money.

We need to fill our units first, and we don't know if we're gonna get to building that front building with the nonresidential. What type of penalty do they get from the city?

It it depends on the development. So if it's just a standard project that follows our codes, there's not a lot of control we have over what I would call timing other than we do have rules in place about phasing of a development and we can limit occupancy of structures until phases are complete. So there is

that. Meaning that the city can limit how many units are filled if they aren't at that phase of construction of that front building?

There there's things that we can put in writing through a developer agreement that would make it a lot more clear, and we can look at things on a project by project basis when we do that level of scrutiny. Mhmm. Generally speaking, a practicality standpoint, understanding certain economic factors, understanding you sometimes need to build something that you can generate revenue from to support the entirety of the project. So so there is a reasonably natural sequencing that that can occur. And and from the perspective of a project where you've got more traditional style residential development as part of the overall plan and then a mixed use component to it, It's generally gonna take more capital, more funding to build that mixed use component.

And I mean, I suppose there are developers out there that that have a lot more capital at at their disposal, and they they could do the front of a building first, but we have not have had those developers come knocking at our door yet.

Alright. Thank you.

Yes. Council member Rasmus.

So that was the one that asked us to be on the agenda, doll Dolly Wall specifically. So, again, looking at the original, what you just showed us was the original design correct, and that's what they said they're not able to to build or they're not able to build it right now until they build more residential units in the back of that property. So

the the original proposal has expired. That developer is no longer

at play. Okay. So they're they're blank slate now around just totally new development, new developer, everything. Yes. I I I guess, I mean, I just really, the looking at what I've seen from, you know, friends, family, people in the community, I think the the issue is really apartments.

I mean, they you ask anybody if they want more apartments, they say no. Nobody wants more apartments. So the the, you know, the trade off with the Dolly Wall was supposedly that, oh, but we're gonna have commercial coming in as well along with these apartments. So it's a little bit more sellable with folks. And so, I mean, I I I guess what is you know, again, being new to this, what is the city's or the the council's ability to to either say you're going to build it with this much, this percentage of commercial, or you're just not gonna build it because we don't need or want more apartments along that corridor.

Is do we have any kind type of control over that design from a city perspective?

I mean, I I I would, defer to Meily if I misspeak, but, you know, council has the authority to enact ordinances if they so desire. But I will say that there's been a lot of work performed over the last year and a half to get to the development regulations to where they are today, which does require nonresidential uses along those frontages that that did not exist prior to that effort. I was doing some research today because, you know, we've got two apartment projects just north of City Hall as a great example of something that was started in the review pipeline in around twenty thirteen, twenty fourteen. And the rules at that time did have discussion about minimum commercial use along the frontage if a developer's proposing a mixed use development. But there wasn't anything in the regs that required a mixed use development or required that along the frontage no matter what else you were proposing.

So it's it's taken us a a decade to get to that point with the development regulations, but I believe we are there now.

So so does the current design, you know, again, what I remember, the design that we looked at, there's one small commercial building on frontage and the rest was apartments. So is that meeting the intent of what the council passed prior as far as what the council thought mixed use meant, you know, incorporating commercial with the residential. I wasn't here during that time. So that that's an honest question. I don't know what what was the intention.

Was it to say, well, sure, you can build, you know, another 500 units back here as long as you put one small shop in the in the front of it. And now we're we're seeming seemingly losing some really great real estate right smack dab in the middle of what we wanted our town center to be that's going to essentially be just apartments again with one small shop. So maybe that's not a question for you, Jeremy. That's just commentary. But, you know, I I think if that's if that's not the intention, then I feel like counsel should readdress what do we want that mixed use to me.

Yeah. Jeremy, do you know as the planning commission looked at that and kinda thought, wait. Hold it. That's not really what we had in mind. Or or they're like, well, nope. That's that's what we meant. Or has there been any internal thoughts about whether or not we need to strengthen it or revise already now that we've seen someone that has put together a plan that does follow the rules? But what what are our thoughts with that?

Well, I'll I'll say I can't speak for the council and I can't speak for the planning commissioners, but I can speak from my perspective and observation through the process that my understanding of the goal was to get nonresidential uses along the frontages, and this current proposal currently meets the the letter of the rules as crafted. From my practical implementation standpoint and perhaps more anecdotally than not. But my observation of the corridor over the course of the city's history growing up in the area, it's taken a lot to get to where it's at. And even now, more than twelve years after Meridian was widened to five lanes from 8th To 24th Street, we've seen very little development of those properties along that stretch. So even even with all that investment by the state and by the city to make those improvements, the properties are still not being developed in a mixed use way.

We can change the rules, make it more restrictive, but I don't expect that to generate demand for mixed use development. It's a market issue.

Right. Okay. Any further questions for mister Metzler? Counsel, not seeing any hands raised. Alright. Thank you, Jeremy. Appreciate it. Okay. Next up, audience comment. Council, as you know, later on in tonight's agenda, we will be addressing this next item, maybe permanently moving forward. But until we do that, I'd like to entertain a motion to extend audience comment from three minutes to five minutes. Councilmember Sothard? So moved. Sothard.

Second,

K. Looks like Pasirski. Pazarusky Beach did. Okay. So it's been moved by council member Sothard and seconded by council member Pazarusky to increase audience comment tonight from three minutes to five minutes. This item to suspend our council rules of procedures, not debatable, so we'll go straight to a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Thank you very much, counsel. So audience, that means you now have up to five minutes. Again, you don't have to use all five minutes, but you if you want, keep on talking for five minutes. So we have one person that signed up.

And, again, you don't have to have signed up. You can still speak. But we do have one person that signed up, and we'll start with him. It's Henry Dorne. And Henry's topic of discussion is the hearing examiner's recommendation. So, Henry, you can step right up to the podium, touch that button to turn from red to green, and then you will be good to go. Okay. Thank you, Henry. Go ahead.

Good evening, mayor and council and city officials and public. My name is Henry Dorne, and I live at 11214 114th Avenue East directly across from the new Tyde development near Edgewood Church of Joy. I am going to be asking Richmond American, they're the developer, to consider relaxing a couple of height restrictions that they, were originally gratefully placed on the property. Some of the sites had some limits they agreed to abide by, but I need a little more relief. My neighbors and I have something the council should be aware of.

I did invite Ty Pendergrass to to the meeting tonight, I did let him know that, it would be a very cordial meeting. That's the whole intent to that I intend to try to bring people together and work this minor issue together. About a year ago, I was at the hearing examiner's meeting along with the developer of Taiyi and city officials. During the meeting, I informed the hearing examiner that the applicant had agreed to preserve our neighborhood's treasured views of Mount Rainier's by limiting the height of the home on Lot 2 to 20 feet. Homeies on Lots 34789, And 10 were planned as single story residences.

K? And you may recall the Herrick Examiner placed a very real emphasis on the importance of protecting the views and neighbors. These height limitations resulted from a collaborative process involving my neighbors, mister McGowan, the geotechnical engineers, and together we established clear plain view references to Mount Rainier. Using a survey poll at each proposed building site, we identified where the upper boundaries of the homes would be, promoting transparency and trust throughout the entire process. However, over the past winter and spring, we witnessed dramatic alterations to the entire site's topography and landscape.

Multiple truckloads of dirt were delivered, raising the the, the, land by by of nearly 15 feet in places. And that extensive grading said significantly elevated the property and to to the point that sometimes we're looking up at the development rather than down at it or across at it. And you can imagine what that would do to an originally agreed upon view plane. Earlier today, I contacted mister Tai Benegraaffs from Richmond Homes to convey our collective concerns and let them know of my intention to bring this issue to the city of Edgewood. My purpose was not to surprise him.

I reassured mister Pendergrafs that although our concerns fall into a gray area, the original hike commitments may no longer apply due to substantial fill dirt, but that there are still some goodwill constructive options that we can take before building permits are issued. Specifically, I asked for Richmond America's help in resolving our dilemma by please considering Lots 34789, And 10, which are single homes agreed to, but bring their height restrictions down to 20 feet. Their maximum heights would then fit the view plane measurements that were originally established before filter raised the datum. And, please consider categorizing Lot 5 as a single story too. I look forward to continued dialogue with the developer.

And please, we neighbors, our city, Richmond, America, move forward on this simple, fix and make it a win win for everybody. I'll keep the city informed. I'll of what I'm doing and my communication with, with Ty. But I think, have I made myself clear? I limited this to two minutes and fifty seconds, and I'm acting like I only have two minutes, and I burned through it. Now I don't know what to do with the other four minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Henry. Okay. Any other audience comment tonight? Anyone here? Don't see any hands raised in the virtual audience. So I'm gonna assume that we are done with audience comment. Okay. Thank you. Next up, the mayor's report. Just wanna highlight two meetings that I had today.

The SAO exit conference. As many of you know, we've been having an audit done here. And I just wanna point out the great work that our finance director, Hardeep Guraya, and our assistant city administrator, Rachel Pitzel, have done with managing and taking care of our our finances here and making sure all our t's are crossed and i's are dotted and all that kind of good stuff. And and lo and behold, we came out with a great exit conference. Everything everything's fine.

A few little minor things, but very, very minor things. They had to come up with something. They spend as many months and as many thousands of dollars doing their audit, so they had to come up with something. But the stuff they came up with was minuscule. So all in all, great report, and that's not just my opinion. That's exactly what they said. Great job. Keep up the great work, Edgewood. You're doing great. So but that's a a great testament to Hardeep and Rachel and the work that they're doing here at city hall.

So thank you to those two. And then also, I attended an easy fiber teams call with a bunch of people on that call. And, again, I just wanna give a shout out to our our staff here, our public works director, Chuck Kendrickson, our senior engineer, Jamie Ward, and our maintenance tech supervisor, Jeremy Privett. Those those three guys just have it dialed in, and they are doing the best that you can do with, a project as significant as the easy fiber project going throughout our whole city. And and I would think, knock on wood, we're we're getting along better than some of our adjoining cities.

And I think those, those individuals have a they're partially responsible for that. But knock on wood, things are going well with EasyFiber. Not a 100%, but, like, 99.9%. And just wanna say thanks to those people for doing a great job managing that product project. And next, Rachel, I believe you have a kind of a report over there, kind of various directors reports and things going on. So please take it from here.

Thank you, mayor and council. I do have a couple updates, for this month that I'd like to share. You may be receiving emails and calls regarding Meridian Avenue East and questions about the repair timeline. At this time, WSDOT is still gathering geotechnical information. And while we don't have a timeline, it is our understanding that the repairs could take longer than six months.

Residents are encouraged to contact the Olympic region office directly for additional updates. The 48th Street project continues to move along well, and the contractor is currently ahead of schedule. We also recently solicited bids for the City Hall roof replacement project. Work is expected to begin soon, and I believe the contract approval will be coming before council in the next few weeks. Chief Youngman reported that the Citizen Academy is now in its fourth week and continues to go well.

The police department is also planning a couple of traffic enforcement emphasis patrols throughout the month of May. And then a really cool next thing is that the Edgewood PD was selected along with several other Pierce County Sheriff Office agencies to help pilot pilot the sheriff office's new partnership with Blue Bridge Alliance. I believe the program launched last week. Through this program, officers will have access to Blue Bridge debit cards connected to a community supported fund, allowing them to provide immediate assistance and resources to individuals when and where it is needed most. And then lastly, comprehensive plan amendment applications are currently under review.

We have seen strong public engagement during the notice of application process and staff anticipates bringing the item forward for a Planning Commission public hearing as early as July. I'd also like to close by recognizing our city staff for their hard work and reliability. Their commitment to the community and to each other is what keeps us moving forward. So that concludes my report.

Okay. Thank you, Rachel. Council moving right along. We are up to our consent agenda. Are there any items to be amended or pulled from the consent agenda?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented.

So moved, Edwards.

And is there a second Creeley? Okay. It's been moved by council member Edwards and seconded by deputy mayor Creeley to approve the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Motion carries. Next up, council business. First one is agenda bill 26 dash o seven zero eight. This is an ordinance regarding public work standards and code updates. Mister Jeremy Metzler, would you please brief the council on this item?

Thank you, mayor. Good knee good evening again. This item is something that both Chuck and I have been working diligently on for many months, Presented the information to you at last week's study session. No changes made sense. Happy to take any questions you might have this evening.

K. Well, that was simple. Any questions for mister Metzler tonight? K. Seeing no further questions or no questions at all, I'll entertain a motion on this item. Make a motion to adopt a b two six dash zero seven zero eight. And do I have a second? Second Pazaruski. Okay. It has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by council member Pazaruski to approve ordinance 26 dash o seven zero eight. Council member Ramirez, you have the floor. Just wanna thank you, Jeremy and Chuck, for all of that hard work. It's a nice thick document. It's it's a nice read,

something we may share with our technical writing students, but it's a long time coming. Hopefully, next new maintenance yard or shed or something like that. But thanks for that.

Okay. Councilmember Pazaruski, you now have the floor.

I also agree. It was a I wouldn't say a nice long read, but it was a long read. Also wanna thank Planning Commission with all their due diligence and looking over that packet and also to staff on all their work and edits. And thank you for answering all the questions at the study session last week.

Any further council comments on this item? Seeing none, let's vote on this motion to approve ordinance 26 dash o seven zero eight. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any any opposed, say nay. K. Motion carries. Next up, ordinance a b 26 dash o seven zero nine. This is an ordinance for our sanitary sewer code updates. Once again, mister Jeremy Metzler.

Thank you, mayor. Again, Chuck and I have been working on this for some time. Good discussion at last week's study session. I added summary to the agenda bill based on that discussion last week. Just wanted to highlight those points that as proposed in EMC eleven fifty five zero one o, it implements the 2024 comprehensive plan policy that prohibits new community on-site septic systems, but allows for limited exceptions for unit loss subdivisions and as interim use in proposed subdivisions that install dry sewer lines.

EMC eleven thirty five zero two o as proposed requires dry sewer lines for all proposed subdivisions that are more than 300 feet from an existing sanitary sewer unless a, the subdivision's unlikely to have sewer service within twenty years, b, all the lots will be connected to the sewer when it becomes available, and c, the subdivision would include a no objection to sewer clause on the face of plat, I e, clearly states that all lots must connect when sewer becomes available so it's not a surprise to anybody living in the subdivision. EMC 1601125 as proposed allows for subdivisions to create the number of lots that would be allowed by the zoning district's maximum density or minimum lot size so long as those that are allowed in excess of what would be allowable under septic design standards are restricted from being built upon until sanitary sewers are provided. This is also known as shadow plotting. EMC eighteen eighty point zero four o and 1880.05 o as proposed would clarify instances where minimum lot sizes may need to be larger than the minimums prescribed due to health department septic system design requirements. And it also ties reference together with dry sewer line requirements.

And then last but not least, EMC eleven sixty five zero one o has already codified establishes a civil infraction for the installation of sewer line within 10 feet of a waterline unless otherwise allowed following the current edition of the criteria for sewage works design as published by Ecology, also known as the Orange Book. With that, happy to take any questions you might have this evening.

Questions for mister Metzler on sanitary sewer code updates. Head on a swivel here. I don't see any hands raised. None in line either. So Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve ordinance 26 dash o seven zero nine. Make a motion to approve a b two six dash zero seven zero nine. And do I have a second? Second, Erasmus. Okay. It has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by council member Erasmus. Council member Ramirez, you have

the floor. Just wanna say thank you. That was a big project years back to see it kinda come to life and appreciate the clarity. Also appreciate you mentioning last night to the planning commission about this. So now council member Rasmus, you have the floor.

No comment. Good job.

K. Any other council comment on this item? So council or deputy mayor Creeley came off mute.

I'm just ready to vote.

Oh, okay. Got it. Alright.

Thank you, though.

Okay. See seeing no further comment then, let's vote on this motion to approve ordinance 26 dash o seven zero nine. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay. Motion carries. Okay. We are up to our next item. This is agenda bill o seven nine three.

This is a resolution to update our council rules of procedure. And council, bear with me. I'm I came up with what I think, will be an easy to understand way of getting through these council rules. I kinda looked at there were four highlighted sections kind of different areas. So I broke them up into red edits, purple edits, green edits, and blue edits.

So and I believe we have that cleaned up copy available for your viewing now. I would describe the red edits as the least complicated, pretty much just changes, updates to our street address, the updates to the audience comment time from three minutes to five minutes. We added some language about adding the flexibility of utilizing a parliamentarian or parliamentary oversight at meetings and some other various things there. So there was only one more red line edit that I wanted to throw in there, and Jeremy has pulled up section 3.2 under parentheses two. Robert's rules refers to votes kind of two ways.

Either this one requires a majority vote or this one requires a two thirds majority. Those are kind of the two most popular ways of describing the votes required. The majority vote plus one is not not too different than two thirds votes in some particular situations depending upon how many council members are there, things like that, it could make a difference. But the majority plus one language is not typical throughout Robert's rules. So I would kinda suggest that we'd be consistent with Robert's rules of order and use the language that they do of requiring a two thirds majority vote.

And the point is some some items are deemed should be should have a higher threshold for approval. So that's why they have an additional requirement beyond just a simple majority. So I would suggest changing making one final red letter edit, changing the majority plus one to a two thirds majority. So if anyone doesn't have any huge heartburn with that, and Jeremy's putting that in blue, but that's okay. We we won't get too too sideways. We we get the idea. We we we know what we're we're we're saying there.

Yes. I've spent a lot of this day in the sun. What does that look like? Is that five or six members voting for it?

For the two thirds majority? Well, you you can do if it's seven council members, it requires five, because that's 67%. Thank you. So and basically at least five to two rather than four to three. So so that's one change.

But and we're we're still at I guess I guess questions for clarification on the red letter edits before I'll entertain a motion as to why you like or dislike certain things. But is there any any further questions for clarification on the red letter edits portion? Okay. Then let's give this a shot. I'll entertain a motion to approve the red letter edits in the council rules of procedure in the document before you. Oh, Meily would like to weigh in first. So what did I miss, Meily?

And, Mayor, just to clarify, what I'm just concerned about is that this last edit here, the two thirds, changing the majority plus one to two thirds, that's an amendment to what you've already put on the agenda. So I think we have to do that separately as a motion and then motion to, approve all of the red edits. Does that make sense?

Sure. Okay. So before we vote on the red edits, I'll entertain a motion to make one final edit to change majority plus one to two thirds majority in section 3.2 parenthesis two. Do I have a motion?

So moved, Erasmus.

And do I have a second? Second. Okay. It has been moved by council member Erasmus and seconded by council member Ramirez to change majority plus one to two thirds majority. Council member in section 3.2 parenthesis two. Council member Erasmus, you have the floor. No comment. Council member Ramirez, you now have the floor. No comment. Any further comment on this change? Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. Okay.

So now thank you very much, Meily. Now we do have a clean copy of everything in red, and so we all know what we're voting on the red the red edits. So any further questions before I entertain a motion? Is that the questioner or motion? Or okay. Go right ahead. Councilmember Keith.

So just to stay tidy, we're supposed to be considering the whole document as a whole. I'm gonna make a motion to divide, divide by color. That way we can consider these in chunks, red, purple, blue.

Will that

I'm Without the motion, you would be considering the whole document at one time.

Okay. Well, I will restate this. I was entertained a motion to approve the red edits in the document before us.

We need a motion to divide first, and that's the motion on the table.

A motion to divide.

By color, apparently. So you can divide by paragraph, by subject, by page, but we're dividing by color. So first, we agree by voting that we're not gonna consider the whole document in one whack. We're gonna do it by color. And then we go on to deal with each color.

Okay. Is that not assumed?

It's not assumed, and it's not what Robert says. This just makes it tidy so that the record's clear. We're dividing by by color. Do I have a second?

Yeah. Let me let know what I'll

say to you. Meily, do you have anything to we have a motion on the floor. We don't have a second, but go ahead.

I just wanted to clarify, I think, what the summary of what I think both of you are making the motion for, but I don't wanna mess up any type of motion. So let me wait till that motion's completed, and then I can go into what I think the two motions are doing.

Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. How how did you word that to divide?

Motion is division. Motion is divided. We're saying the same thing. It's

Okay. So we Please. We have a motion

is division divided by color, and it and we're saying the same thing.

Second. Okay.

It's been moved and moved by council member, Keith, and I believe I heard, council member Rasmus with the second. So so council member Keith, you have the floor.

No comment.

Council member Erasmus, you have Any further council comment? K. All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed,

say nay. Okay.

Now I believe, I have no further comments to make about the red letter edits. So regarding this section of the council rules of procedure, I will entertain a motion to approve the red letter edits. Do I have a motion?

I move to approve the red letter edits.

Second, Creeley.

Okay. It has been moved by council member Edwards and seconded by council member Creeley to approve the red letter edits as shown. Council member Edwards, you have the floor.

Nothing right now.

Council member Creeley, you now have the floor.

No comment.

Any further council comments? Yes. Councilmember Keith.

Fourteen point fourteen point one. We've discussed this section several times. It's about how you notify if you're not gonna be here. And it the words now have been inserted that we will cc, which indicates to me to constrain this to email. And we have discussed this several times, and what the council had consensus on was that we would notify, which would leave open text, phone calls, and in person notification. But now we have a new section that says c CC, which indicates to me that this is now constrained to email. Do I have that correct?

Well, CC stands for carbon copy.

So So mimeograph.

Yeah. Yeah. So it's it's kind of a, yes. I acknowledge it's frequently thought of in an email, but I think I think the concept is that you will also inform the mayor and or assistant city administrator. So I think you can put two people on a text, and I think that's kind of considering a cc. I don't know. Unless, Meily, do you do you have any heartburn over that term? I mean, it's a fair point. You know, what about texting a update? Hey.

I'm not gonna be able to attend the meeting. Can they just add the mayor or the ACA's number to that text thread, is that still considered a CC, or do we have to change the wording there?

I think it it would be still considered a CC if they're added onto it. Because colloquial now, CC means something else other than carbon copy. So I wouldn't have any heartburn, but texting is not the best way to communicate also. So I would caution that for public records in

the future.

Okay. So that's your comment on that. Okay. Any further comments on the red letter edits? Yes. Councilmember Pazaruski.

I didn't have a comment until councilmember Keith just made that comment. I don't know why we cannot just keep it at email. I like a paper trail with almost everything I do, and we all have access to email. Why we can't just keep that at email, keep it simple, just and email Jill, cc the mayor, assistant city administrator. It just it just seems like the best route for us to inform when we're gonna be absent.

It's been previously explained that not everyone has their laptop with them in the middle of a workday. So I think that was I'm not sure that we carry our city email on our personal phone, so that's what was previously stated. But does anyone have any further yes. Council member, other

I have a booming voice. Do I have to mic it? As my colleague pointed out though that you can only have one Outlook account on your phone at any time. And if you change it, you have to pretty much remove your entire account. So I only, use my email at home, but I'd be more inclined to call Jill and not leave a paper jail than to if I get in an auto wreck, I'm not gonna make sure I have the ambulance drop me off and then write an email and then go to the hospital. So so I think the phone call is an acceptable form of of letting the city clerk know.

Okay. So any further questions? Yes. Council member Ramirez.

I think it sounds fine the way it's written because the word inform is not defined on how to inform somebody. NCC does mean a variety of things in where I work. So the way I read that is you can call, you can email, you could send a carrier pigeon, with a carbon copy on the other leg. You know? But the word inform is not defined. But and I think that leaves it open for us, you know, to use the best judgment we have at that moment in time.

Okay. Any other comments on the the motion to approve the red letter? Yes. Council member Edwards.

I just do wanna make a comment. I'm so young that I did not know CC stood for carbon copy. I I did not know that was a thing because I just saw CC as an email. Like, alright, CC. So I'm just letting you all know. There's a generation that does not know carbon copy.

That's just unnecessary to make me feel old.

You don't you don't know the smell of a blue mimeograph machine.

Yeah. Yep. Or the stained purple fingers. Yeah. Yep.

Okay. So we have a motion on the floor to approve the red letter edits. We've had some additional comments. No motions to amend, but some additional comments. Any further comments on the motion before us to approve the red letter edits?

Seeing no further comments, let's vote on approving the red letter edits of our council rules of procedure as what is in front of you right now. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K. Motion carries. So officially now, the red letter edits are are done. No more three minutes. It's now five minutes, so that part's been taken care of. Okay.

We're moving on to section 8.8, what I call the purple edits. And this is the section that adds a sixth different type of council meeting. There are and if somebody would pull up 8.8 as you know, there are five descriptive sessions, you know, study session, emergency meetings, executive session, regular council meetings, and now there's a sixth one listed. And this is some language related to council retreat. And so there's only one suggestion here, late breaking suggestion that we make, and, Meily will will have to entertain a motion to make this change to the purple at its first, but I would like to entertain a motion to change the language in the one on one meetings, that makes Meily nervous to hear about council meetings with, you know, OPMA and all that kind of stuff.

And the suggested language would be through individual discussion. So rather than, you know, the deputy mayor will work with council members through individual discussion or a collaborative study session, blah blah blah. So instead of either one on one meetings, which invokes OPMA concerns. And then also, you know, the deputy mayor our deputy mayor is very smart, and he'll realize he needs to avoid serial meetings. So, I trust all deputy mayors in the city of Edgewood's future will understand that requirement.

So so let's let's how about we start with that? I'll entertain a motion to change in either 1.1 to through individual discussion in section six of 8.8.

I'll make a motion, Pazaruski.

Second Edwards.

Okay. It's been moved by council member Pazaruski and seconded by council member Edwards to change the language of either 1.1 to through individual discussion. Council member Pazaruski, you have the floor.

Just wanna thank Maylie for looking through this when I was writing this section. I didn't have my, I guess, my lawyer a lawyer hat on, so I appreciate you fine tuning this language.

K. Thank you. Now council member Edwards, you have the floor.

I just think it looks better and sounds better than the one on one. That's all.

K. Any further council comment on this motion on the floor? Seeing no further comments, let's vote on approving that change to through individual discussion instead of in either one on one meetings. All those in favor, aye. Aye.

Any opposed, say nay. Okay. So now we have a clean updated version of the purple letter edits. So any questions before I entertain a motion? So council member has a clarification question.

So was it the intent on the first sentence to say drive versus shall? Because I know shall is, like, binding, but it's drive. It's just so that gives us flexibility.

That was probably intended intended to if it doesn't work till April, we're we still have that flexibility. So I think that was probably intended to provide some flexibility. The intent is to try to hold it in the first quarter, but if scheduling if people's schedules doesn't allow, then an April retreat wouldn't be deemed as noncompliant.

Okay. Thank you, mister mayor.

Yes. Councilmember Keith.

So this whole purple junk, I just wanna make sure I understand. It came to an email from council member Pazaruski to the mayor.

Just the just the council retreat

Yeah. Section. Purple chunk. Right? And while that's collaborative and fluid and and while I have no problem with anything that this says, that method of making changes to our bylaws, of getting things onto the agenda bypasses the agenda process, and we've lost our legislative log.

So we can put things on the agenda by the mayor. We can motion in second, or we can do it by consensus. But emailing the mayor privately and having the mayor put it in is sort of a backdoor to the agenda. So I don't think that it's worth making a big deal over right now because I agree with your pretty purple words. In the future, we need to find a way to preserve the legislative log. Like, who wrote this? Who's the first? Who's the second? Do we have a sponsor? How did this get inserted?

Because while I know that you wrote it, and I don't know how the public would know that. So where where did this language come from? And how do we especially in these big documents and big big things that we're changing, how do we preserve the legislative law? Well, when That's future thought.

When we were talking about council rules and procedures, it was a couple study sessions ago. I'm thinking, shoot. What month are we in? May. I think this was in possibly March. And I had an input about council retreat, and then Ramirez had an input about the virtual, and that's when mayor, Olsen said, okay. You have an input on council retreat. Do you wanna work on this? So I took that on, and then Ramirez took on or I'm sorry. Council member Ramirez took on, virtual.

And then I asked him, can I jump on that with you, on record? So that's how that initially came up. And then during that meeting, mayor Olson said, okay. Send me your inputs. So that's how it transpired. But I do see what you're saying where you'd wanna see it on the document. So instead of purple, you'd wanna see off to the side council member Pazaruski. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So I understand how it happened. But if we were trying to recreate in a lawsuit or recreate in some sort of public records complaint or that you would have to watch all those videos and follow the trail and figure out that you two did an unofficial working together off the public record committee, submitted it to the mayor, and then it appeared here. Right? So you'd have to spend some time to figure it out. So

I mean, I like to call it a discussion versus a company.

What the answer is for the future to preserve the legislative log so that the public can follow what happened here.

Well, Chris, council member Keith, if I could insert here. I think it's very much an established public record that we were going through this in the council rules of procedure is the agenda item. We've discussed this multiple of times. And in a public setting, I asked you all to please email in some of your suggested council rules of procedure. This one's a little bit more difficult to try to hammer out in the middle of a meeting and take notes and write down.

It's one thing to take a suggestion. Hey. I'd like to suggest that we change from three minutes to five minutes. Well, that's an easy one. I don't need counsel to email me what they have in mind for that one. But this one, I mean, I I I think it's the record is very clear. I asked, and Jenny provided, or council member Pazariski provided. So I don't know. I I I think we're okay. Council member Erasmus, you had your hand raised and have been waiting.

Well, yeah, I just wanted to to also comment that I I recall this being discussed, And I also had said, hey. I'd like to have some input on this as well. So I just wanna clarify that also. This isn't the first time, I think, that all of us have heard about it. I don't feel like anything was was slid into the agenda, and I feel like we're we're looking at it right now in front of the the public. So I think we're good.

Okay. Any further questions, comments, or clarification on the purple letter edits before you? K. Seeing no further questions, I'll entertain a motion to approve the purple letter present edits as in front of you.

I, move to approve the purple edits.

And do I have a second? Second, Erasmus. Okay. It has been moved by council member Suthard and seconded by council member Erasmus to approve the section 8.8 purple edits, in parentheses six as presented. Council member Sothard, you have the floor.

I'd just like to thank council member Pazariski for writing this. I have no notes on it. Well, I am the one about to strive, but just wanna make sure that was understood, and, no further comments.

And now council member Rasmus, you have the floor.

Yeah. I wanted to thank council member Pazaruski as well. By the time it got to me to to make any comment, it already looked great. I think that our last retreat, left some windows of opportunity for improvement, and I think that this will will help do that. Thank you.

Any further council comments on this motion before us? Seeing no further council comments, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. K.

Motion carries. Next up on my sheet here is section 8.1 known as the green edits. And I would say that these are the Zoom participation or virtual participation. And unlike the previous color edits, I would actually say I would not like to entertain a motion on this item, because I think this item has some additional comments that have come in from Maylee that council member Ramirez and Pasaruski would like to have a chance to digest those comments and kinda go through them and sort them out and get a little more clear direction on some of her suggestions. So on this one, I would say, I would recommend that we postpone this for two weeks.

So I would say I would not reckon or not entertain a motion on this item. Yes. Council member Sothard.

Will we be hearing about the the, suggestions at the study session, or do you think it'd be just bring it right back to the regular?

Good question. We we will I think we can try to, discuss that at the study session. Yes. That would I think that works, and I I think, that gives us a week. So I think that should be enough time for Mealy to get with council member Ramirez and Pazaruski and kinda fine tune some things. So you can look forward to that on next week's study session for final action at the regular council meeting in two weeks. K? K. Yes. Maylee, their hand raised.

I'm sorry, Mary. You're you'll need a motion to postpone, to the study session, and so that needs to be made by a council member and then seconded.

Make a motion to move the green section of the council rules and procedures to next week's study session so that we have an opportunity.

Maylie, may I ask, so we need a motion to postpone a motion that hasn't been made yet?

Well, technically this whole amendment was all one document and then when council member Keith divided it, she divided it, and everyone voted on this into different colors. So at that point, it became its own motion. And so you do, mayor, have the ability to move anything onto a study session. But because it was already on the agenda, we can either just not address it, which we didn't. And so to be proper and and clear, there should be a motion to postpone it to a time certain.

Okay. And I think council there is oh, and I'm sorry. And council member is that a second? Okay. It has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by council member Pazaruski to postpone section 8.8, the purple edits, to next week's study session. Green. Oh.

Green.

Sorry. Just doing so good up until there. It has been moved by council member Ramirez and seconded by council Pazaruski to postpone section o point 10 known as the green edits to next week's study session for further conversation with pending final action to be taken at the May 26, regular council meeting. So council member Ramirez, you have the floor.

Just I don't have a comment, but I don't know kinda how this came about, but I just would appreciate a little bit more notice on some some input, because it looked at as if the green or the purple edits had some comments on the side that I I didn't personally see on this one. So that's all I have to say on that.

Yeah. I I will slip in a comment here and then councilmember Patzaruski. I I learned something about track changes, and it just my green was someone else's purple, and it just got to be so so confusing. And and I apologize. I I think we got it pretty good, but it just it's still there were 10 different sloppy versions and 10 different colors, and it it was kind of a mess, but I apologize for that. Okay. Councilmember Pazaruski, you now have the floor.

At last week's study session, this this revision seemed to draw the most questions. So I thank Meili for taking a look at it, providing her comments. I look forward to working with her and council member Ramirez to bring this forth to the rest of the council for next week's study session.

K. Any further council comments on this motion? Okay. Then let's vote on postponing section 8.1, the green edits to next week's study session for further review and final action at the regular council meeting on May 26. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. Motion carries. Our final edit.

We're down to section 9.3, and we will scroll to that section. This is known as the blue edits, and this is something that we've gone back and forth with right now. Council 9.3 allows council members to for kind of a late breaking, addition to the council agenda after the council agenda has been closed and posted, but there's been some question about giving the council the authority to also remove an item. And, again, this is another situation where, you know, probably have to entertain a motion. There's that majority plus one vote.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, let's let's jump right to that. So council member Southern apparently would like to make a motion.

Yes. I would like to amend 9.3 to from majority plus one to two thirds majority.

Okay. And is there a second?

Second, Keith.

Okay. It has been moved by council member Sothard and seconded by council member Keith to revise the language in section 9.3 of the blue edits to change it from majority plus one vote to two thirds majority vote. Council member Sothard, you have the floor.

No comment.

Council member Keith, you now have the floor.

Housekeeping. No comment.

Any further comments on this item? Seeing no further comments, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay. Magically, look at that. Nice and blue. So so we're back to, this item. So and the additional requirement of having more than just a majority just kinda increases, you know, to make sure that everyone's really on in a in agreement on either adding or removing an item from the regular council meeting agenda after the agenda has been closed. So this one's, I think, pretty straightforward.

We'll see what opinions are, but I don't think there needs to be any further explanation as to what this one is about. So or although are there are there any questions about this one? K. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

I move to accept the blue edits in 9.3. Second.

Okay. It has been moved by council member Suthard and seconded by council member Edwards to approve section 9.3, the blue edits. Council member Suthard, you have the floor.

Thank you, mister mayor. No comment this time.

Council member Edwards, you now have the floor.

Nothing at this time.

Is there any further council comment on this item? K. Well, then let's go to a vote to approve the section 9.3 blue edits. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay. So we successfully approved three of the four. So nice job. And then the fourth will come back next week.

So we'll discuss that then. Council comments. Are there any council comments? I saw council member Ramirez hand off in my periphery, so he gets first and

start to improve who's next. Just to, thank you chief for taking the citizens of Edgewood to jail last week. It was a good experience. There's a lot of positive feedback. My second piece is I'd like to get on the agenda the possibility of our city becoming a gold star family city, designation for that.

Past council members have brought that up. I've spoken with a few, people who are in the loop on that, but it was also mentioned at a retreat. It was mentioned, I think, earlier in the year as well. So I just would like to get that going as we come upon the possibility of the windmill moving up this way.

I'll be a set of

place Sorry. For that. Well, I I will say, you haven't seen the updated FAL because it went out last week. But earlier this week, it's it's the Gold Star family conversation has been sitting in pending action. And earlier this week, we, assigned it to I think it's next Tuesday. Yeah. So it's on the study session agenda for conversation next Tuesday, Gold Star family. So it's it's coming up. So ask and you shall receive. So it'll be there next Tuesday. Any further council comment? Yes. Councilmember Suthard.

Do you, get anywhere with the fireworks display research?

Yes. I'm getting somewhere. I'm getting positive feedback. No no one's kinda told me that's the dumbest thing they've ever heard. So people seem to be supportive, yeah. No. Sounds like a good idea. So I've already started making some request for sponsorship assistance, and I do have some information from the America's two fiftieth foundation. They're providing some small grants, and I think things are progressing. No no hurdles yet or no big roadblocks.

So still looking at Friday, July 3, kind of a Friday evening, I don't know, seven to ten type of thing, and I'm thinking some food trucks and some entertainment and the biggest and best fireworks show South Of King County and North of no. I don't know. Deputy mayor Creeley has his hand raised.

As long as we keep it under a 150,000, which I think this nearby city is buying a flag to celebrate the fourth of July. Yeah. Yeah. We'll keep it under that budget. I just wanted to point out that this is law enforcement, appreciation week, so thank you, chief, and to all of the officers and, staff on our police department. We appreciate you.

Thank you, deputy mayor Greeley. Council member Edwards.

Two things. One, thank you for everyone who came and sat through the whole meeting. So thank you for that. And two, I looked up that Blue Bridge Alliance thing, and I'm really excited about that. That seems like it's gonna be really cool. And then just a question, does everyone on the force get a card or just just you or a couple people?

How's that gonna work? Yeah. Thank you for the question. It's in kind of a pilot phase initially. So right now, we just have two cards at this department. One is managed by myself, and one is managed by sergeant Chapo. And then there's a lot of accountability built into the program. Every purchase is recorded with a copy of the receipt uploaded and a report as to what it was for. So, eventually, it would roll out to where we could get as many cards as we wanted, up to one for each deputy so they have one to carry at all times. And we do have cards that the deputies will carry with a QR code attached for citizens so they can donate to the program because it is community funded.

Initially, it'll just be, a Pierce County Sheriff's Office fund. Once the phase once it's fully rolled out, we'll have our own Edgewood PD specific fund so that the funds are going just to Edgewood.

Perfect. Cool. Thank you. I'm really excited. I looked up the program because I never heard it, and

I'm like, that's awesome. Oh, sweet.

Any further council comment? Yes. Council member Rasmus.

So I don't wanna keep on dragging this up to the ends of ends of time. But, again, the the former Dolly Wall property, going back to the retreat when we saw that design, it was just disappointing. It it seemed like this was the bare minimum to use that property for mixed use. I I think that if we can do something about it, then we should. I'd like to continue to have a discussion to not be the only one speaking about it, but to hear the opinions of the rest of the council members on if they think the bare minimum on this very valuable commercial property on our corridor, which we have very little of, is worth just giving up to to apartments.

And it doesn't come from a position of being anti apartment necessarily, but pro commercial. We need businesses in Edgewood, and this is very valuable property on our Meridian Corridor. I think we should keep discussing it. So

Okay. Thank you. Seeing no further council comment, we are adjourned at 08:22.

Good night, everybody. Take care.

Good night, Mark.