City Council - Regular Meeting

jean brazel i just want to do a sound check can you hear us i can hear you awesome thank you and kim shipman can you hear us council member shipman just doing a sound check can you hear i'll try again in a minute

now kelly if you can hear me then yes i can hear sorry it took me a second okay mic on oh no worries okay great thank you we'll start in a minute okay thank you

Thank you.

Hello, I'll call to order the City of Lake Stevens regular City Council meeting for September 8th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Clerk Chung, can we have a roll call?

Yes, absolutely. Council Member Araya. Yes. Council Member McManus emailed us earlier that he would be absent tonight. Council Member Donahue.

Present.

Council Member Shipman online. Present. Council Member Jorstad. Here. Council Member Edwards. Present. Council Member Packard.

Here. Thank you.

Move to excuse Council Member McManus from tonight's meeting.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. All right, item number four, Council President.

We have an agenda in front of us, Council. Good to see everyone tonight. Are there any concerns or questions, or is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve the agenda as written.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Thank you. You have an agenda, Mr. Mayor.

Excellent. All right. Item number five. We do have guest business with Rebecca Dunn, our new public works analyst.

Yeah.

So everyone online can hear you as well.

Yeah. She'd be happy to.

Test. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Aaron Halverson. I'm the Public Works Director. I might just take this out. Okay. And I'm pleased to be here tonight to introduce Rebecca Gunn. She goes by Becky. Becky is the new public works analyst. Lori moved on. Lori Erickson moved over to the administrative side, works with Jean and Anya, and Becky is her replacement in public works. And she has big shoes to fill, but I'm confident she will do that. Becky joined, oh gosh, a few weeks ago now. And she really brings a diverse background in public service leadership and data-driven problem solving. She served eight years in the United States Navy. I didn't know it was eight years. That's great. She's been very busy. As a surface warfare officer, where she developed strong leadership, project management, and operational planning skills. She holds an undergraduate degree in mathematics. with a specialization in business administration and actuarial science. Should have practiced that. Along with a master's degree in epidemiology, which is pretty cool. That's a lot of fun. She went to the University of Washington. I did not, but she hasn't mentioned the outcome of the Apple Cup. And so, so far, so good. Yeah, so before joining Public Works, she worked as a 911 dispatcher, reinforcing her commitment to public safety and community service. She's lived in Snohomish County since 2018 and is excited to work with Public Works through thoughtful analysis, process improvements, dedication, and high-quality service to the community. Outside of work, she enjoys gardening, embroidery, and spending time outdoors. Welcome, Becky.

Thank you.

real quick aaron aaron can you just describe real quick what uh type of work a public works analyst does i'd be happy to and then the other one is i didn't watch the game what was the outcome it's hard sorry i don't actually know no i do

That's what she's here to find. It's an outcome I'm accustomed to, unfortunately. Um, so no surprises. No, uh, the public works analyst, um, they generally look at opportunities for process improvement and efficiency. There are between 36 and 40 people in public works, and there are a lot of opportunities to improve, improve services. So what she's working on right now is the new open gov asset management system and rolling that out and making sure the processes are in place, um, So the team can maintain the assets in the city and track that. And the next thing she'll be working on our budget, fleet management and making sure our replacement cycles make sense. And so things kind of like that, capital projects, things like that.

Perfect. Thank you. What is epidemiology? Is that correct? What is it?

Yeah, it's the study of diseases and it's like COVID kind of stuff or like cancer epidemiology. There's a lot of different flavors of disease tracking.

It goes right with her undergrad of being a math major.

What kind of problems do you have in public works?

How much time do you have? All right.

Thank you guys. Welcome and thank you. All right. Number five, guest business. Do we have any green sheets or anyone online?

Nobody online and no green sheets.

Okie doke. We will move on to the consent agenda. Council President.

Let's see. We have four items on the consent agenda. Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve the consent agenda.

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

Thank you. You have a passed consent agenda. All right. Wonderful. All right. Action item 8A. Julie, are you presenting this?

I am. Thank you.

Okey-doke.

So Margaret and I are here to bring back our recommended updates to Chapter 5 of our Muni code, specifically as it pertains to animal licensing and roosters. So in July, when we first brought this to you for discussion, Council was supportive of eliminating pet licensing and didn't have any further recommendations there. In regards to roosters, there was discussion that surrounded rehoming and on lot sizes. that the complaints originated from. And at that time in July, no consensus was reached. So we wanted to bring it back with some additional information for you. Yes, under the proposed recommended changes, roosters would be prohibited within the city limits. We went back and we reviewed the calls over the past year. and all originated from properties that were under one acre. So if there was an acre limit imposed, it would still result in those households having to rehome, just their roosters, not all their chickens. We do understand that there has been at least one email to council from citizens that had questions about whether the calls were coming from new neighborhoods, perhaps new developments that had covenants and HOAs and things like that. When we did that research, only one complaint actually came from a neighborhood with an HOA. All the others were from well-established neighborhoods within the city. The average life of a rooster is five to eight years. And so based on the citizens that CSO Cooper has been in contact with, not all, but several are from citizens who bought a new chicken and it turned out to be a rooster. So based on feedback from council from July, it would be our intent to extend the educational period to citizens through January. And after that, As I put into the staff report, our goal is always compliance over enforcement. We don't want to ticket people. We want to educate them. We want to work with them in order to comply with our municipal codes and create a harmonious living environment for themselves and their neighbors. And so we would not just come January 1, start ticketing everybody who has a rooster. In fact, we wouldn't even be actively seeking out roosters. It would be if we get complaints, we would provide education, continued education, and work with them to rehome prior to any kind of ticket enforcement action. And this process is similar to noise complaints that we receive from barking dogs. This is also consistent with the city's approach on other areas of our code that limit the number of animals allowed at a household. And so we're just creating that consistency throughout Let's see our public outreach plan. More or less stays the same. We wanted to make sure that you guys were aware that we would be reaching out to citizens that have current pasture plans. We would extend our reach to the What is that? Like the co-ops and all the places that sell chickens and roosters in our area so that they're aware well in advance that this is a new update to our code if people live in the city. Lastly, I wanted to point out that in front of you is an updated copy of the ordinance. It's updated from what was sent out to you last week. I noticed this morning that on Friday, The whereas is five, six, and seven. What was sent to you last week, I did not update the actual dates. So the one that was sent to you last week said July 21st, 26, instead of today's date. So only the dates in those three sections were updated. In the whereas seven, our outreach plan starting on October 1st. So that would give us time to develop and build, you know, brochures and things like that after you guys have a chance to make a decision today on what you want to do. And so those were the changes. And also in the final passed by city council section of the ordinance, updated the date there as well. So those were the only changes to this particular ordinance. Is there any questions? Kim, go ahead.

Okay, so first I want to say that I appreciate that if there's not a complaint, you're not going to take somebody's pet rooster. At our last city council meeting when this was addressed, we talked about lot size. So in other words, you know, how big of a piece of a land does somebody have? You know, do they have other livestock on that land? That type of thing. And I did not see that when I read through my packet. It just flat out outlawed them within city limits. And I can appreciate that you said there's no complaints. We're not going to go around hunting roosters, right? So if nobody complains, then they're essentially... out of compliance with the city, just not caught. And that makes me uncomfortable. And that, like I said, when the last meeting, I'd mentioned the horses across from sunset beach. Well, there are horses back on that property. They were gone for a while. And the other day I was driving by it. I'm like, Oh my gosh, the horses are back. So this is like right smack, just, you know, right down the street from where we're, where a city council sitting now. Um, So I'm a little uncomfortable with that blanket statement of not within city limits. When our last meeting, I was led to believe that there would be some exceptions based on lot size. And just as a side note, I go for early morning walks many days a week and I can hear roosters in the background. And if they were like crowing at the bottom of my bedroom window and I'm trying to sleep, I would not be happy with that. But to have a blanket statement where, oh, geez, if nobody catches me, I'm OK. But otherwise, this is my child's pet and that we're illegally keeping.

That that. kind of bothers me. To address that, after the last council meeting, if there was specific lot sizes that council wanted to see included, it was unclear at that point what direction council wanted to go with that. As far as leaving it as we're not going to look for it, I mean, we don't know where all of the For perspective, we don't know where every single dog and cat is in the city now because not everybody goes and licenses their dogs and cats. So if we are called out for a specific purpose or reason or complaint and we see those violations, then absolutely they will be addressed.

It's no joke. How is that different than so like if I have a neighbor because I live in a neighborhood, if I have a neighbor that has a rooster that's disturbing the peace, just like if I have a neighbor who has a dog that's disturbing the peace, then we would call the city and code compliance. So, I mean, that makes 100%. sense to me. But to say because it's a rooster and not a hen, they're not allowed in city limits when they may not be causing a problem is where my concern lies. Because you're talking about people that already have roosters that are now going to be out of compliance and have this illegal animal within our city limits.

Correct. Not Even though it's required to get a pasture plan, all the complaints that we've received, none of them had a pasture plan. So it's not feasible for the police to go door to door to find who has roosters and who doesn't. So the only way that we would know is if there was a complaint. So if someone's rooster just doesn't crow, or is that the right word? If it doesn't crow, we would have no, no way to actually know.

Right. So, so is it necessary to put this in code? That's my whole thing. Is it because kind of, as you had mentioned in your discussing this, and this is my whole thing is I'm just an advocate for people and their pets. Um, if somebody gets a check, they think it's a hand turns out to be a rooster. If it's causing a disturbance in their neighborhood, then it should be investigated. They don't have a pasture plan. Okay. So there's one more thing, right? Um, But if it's not causing a nuisance, but it doesn't matter, it's still illegal to have in city limits. That's my challenger. Even if it's not causing a nuisance, it's still illegal within city limits when we have other pets that absolutely are also nuisances and much more common that unless they're causing a nuisance, they're not a problem to have in city limits. And I won't go on and on because I do recognize I'm a minority and feeling this way, but I just am a huge advocate for people and their pets.

I guess to that point, if I'm understanding correctly, is there a way to tie removal of the animal to repeated violations? Like if you're called out to a property multiple times after a warning, two warnings, then force removal of the animal versus just saying all a particular type of animal are illegal within the city?

We would have to run that back through... Greg, currently the penalties, it's an infraction and then a second infraction and then a criminal citation. And so if the citizen decided to not rehome, then that would be the route that it would go if they really wanted to get a criminal citation rather than rehome their rooster.

I guess I'm just wondering if we – because from what I'm hearing, it sounds like the police don't become aware of the animal unless it's reported. And if we're only going to – if we want to protect pets who are not a nuisance, then it seems like there might be a middle ground here where if you're called out to a property multiple times, that animal is then removed or the owner is told this has to go.

I guess for consistency then, not – So if we go out to your home, say for a barking dog, and we discover that you have six dogs, we will make you rehome three of them because we have a limit on the number of animals. It's in the code, and it's been adopted in the code for a long time. And so... And we don't have a violation period for that. You're just in violation, and so you need to remove them.

That makes sense. And I guess I'm wondering then why we need a different approach to like, I'm trying to understand what's different about a rooster where, you know, if the dog is only a problem, if you guys are caught out there and there's more than a certain number that works for dogs, why couldn't it work for rooster?

Sure. Sure. To, to be frank, you can, there's really no way to muzzle a rooster. Like you can, you can put, you know, a barking, a bark collar on a dog. You can, you bring them inside your home and, and perhaps somebody brings their rooster inside, you know, I'm not, I'm unsure. Um, but there is not a real good way. And, and most people, they don't have their dogs out at, you know, 4.00 AM in the summertime when the sun comes up.

Right.

So those noise, excuse me, noise complaints aren't starting until later times in the day.

Yeah, so to be clear, I'm not suggesting that we ask the owner to somehow control the rooster. It's going to do what it's going to do. I'm saying if you guys are called out to a specific property and that property is a known issue because of a rooster, do we have the option as a council to pass an ordinance where if they are warned once, twice, whatever we decide, then removal becomes an option that's on the table. I'm not saying we tell them to keep the rooster quiet.

Yeah, I think it's kind of... I'm going to say, if we go out, if it is the first time we're being called out to a home for a noise complaint for a rooster, We are not going to automatically perhaps give a ticket. We're going to, hey, were you aware that this is our ordinance? Were you aware that roosters are prohibited? It's like getting a warning for not having your tabs and things like that. Were you even aware of this? No? Well, look, here's materials for you. Here are resources. so that you can be in compliance with our code. And we might come back in a month. What's a good time frame for you? We're going to work with the homeowner before we just start making demands and issuing tickets and provide that education before. Yeah, Greg, go ahead.

You're muted.

Okay. Hear me now? Yes. All righty. This is a civil infraction. So if you go out, please respond because there's a crowing rooster, the property owner is given a civil infraction and they're warned that they're gonna have to do something about the rooster because the penalties are going to increase. There's really no good legal basis at that point to try to impound the rooster. If they're not going to do anything about it and you're out there to where you're going to, this is going to become a criminal misdemeanor, well, then the rooster can be seized as evidence in support of that crime at that time. But I think your process should be for at least the initial and the second. If there is a second violation, they're simply given the civil infractions and warn that they do need to do something about it. It could lead to the impoundment of their rooster if it goes to a criminal offense.

So, Greg, to me, that sounds like we already have a mechanism in place to remove these problematic animals.

Right, right. Yes. Yes, if you adopt this the way it is, yes. If it goes to a criminal, if they go out there to issue a criminal citation, they can take the rooster as evidence.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Right now, as the code exists, if there are multiple complaints, under the current language of the code? Yes. Okay. So then I guess I'm confused why we need to change the code.

Changing the code, it would make it consistent with all the other cities in Snohomish County, frankly, who have already prohibited roosters. Additionally, while yes, we absolutely at that point of a criminal ticket can impound a rooster, I would say that the financial aspects to the budget would be a lot in order to keep that rooster at the animal shelter if they take it at all.

Um, so for any animal that we take to the animal shelter, it's $240 for 10 days. after that it continues to rise. So that's why we don't, I think if we put that in place, that's gonna put the onus on the city to pay for it. It would be the same way with the six dogs. If we go in and take three of them, number one, they're going to a shelter versus empowering the owner to do the right thing and find maybe a better home for that dog, maybe with friends, family, whatever. But it puts the onus back on the owner who neglected to verify that they were allowed to have that many dogs. So the rooster is the same way. Co-ops will take them back because 50% of eggs that hatch will be roosters. And so they can empower themselves to handle that themselves, whereas the city would be on the hook for the money and for keeping that animal as long as we need to as evidence. I can't imagine why we would need to keep an animal as evidence for a crowing issue. I just see that it would be an expense to the city. Yeah. I will say that out of all the people I've contacted with roosters, they've all chosen to rehome them. So once we've had the educational conversation that we're talking about, they're like, oh, I can get tickets for this. I will rehome it. And we give them the options on where you can go to rehome it. I haven't had anyone push back and say that it's their pet and they don't want to rehome it. Now, that's not to say that some people might not feel that way, but that has not been the experience that I've had so far.

But if we pass this and someone refuses to comply, how does that process differ when we ultimately end up seizing the animal and having to dispose of it somehow?

I mean, it could get to that point, but I don't see it going that route. But yeah, I mean, like if we had like a dangerous dog that had bitten people and they're not, you know, we require them to get rid of a dog. If it's caused serious injury to a person, they have to move it outside of the city limits or they have to put it down. And if they refuse to do that, then yes, I can see getting some kind of a, I mean, I would probably go get a warrant to take it just to be on the safe side.

can i make a comment question i guess just really quick i'll finish up the the part i'm struggling with and hopefully my fellow council members questions will help me understand it to me it sounds like we're arriving in the same place if people say oh i can get punished for this they seem to be willing to get rid of the animal if they refuse then it falls to the city and all the necessary expenses to affect removal of the animal And so I guess I don't understand why we need a blanket ban on them if we can target the problem animals and get to the same place.

I'd like to make sure everybody has a chance to speak, so I'd like to recognize Tasha.

I just kind of want to restate kind of the whole picture here. So previously we had this rule already that if there was a nuisance rooster and they were called three times that they would be ticketed, and that was the procedure. So now we're basically saying this is the same thing that we're going to continue to do, but we're going to say that – they're not allowed to be brought into the city any longer. So from my perspective, my interpretation is this is gonna prevent more people from bringing more roosters into the city, which in the long run is going to prevent those noise nuisance animals, right? That's how I interpreted it. Thank you.

That would be our hope too, by putting these notifications and brochures up at the places that people even sell, so they are aware in advance.

Yes. So just to come back on Councilmember Donahue's question about what's the point, I guess, is prevention. I think that's what I see as the big benefit of this is preventing it from becoming a bigger nuisance and more problem down the road.

But we can ban sale without banning ownership.

Well, I mean, how many people in Lake Stevens do it?

We don't. There's no place in the city that sells chickens. They're purchased outside of the city currently.

So, I mean, to that point, anyone who wants a rooster can still go purchase one just like they always could after.

Well, and that could be said for anything, including fireworks.

And we've seen how many fireworks come into the city. That's my point.

Fortunately, roosters are not deadly.

Kim, did you want to say something?

I did. So as I'm listening to this conversation, there's a few things I picked up on. First of all, the lifespan of a rooster is five years. Council member Edwards, I see what you're talking about. This is like maybe preventing new roosters, but okay, I've had a rooster for three years and I just happened to have a neighbor that complained. So then the city comes out and says, oh, by the way, are you aware that they're illegal to have within the city limits as of September? And they've had this rooster for three years without a complaint. And they just, I don't know, for whatever reason, there was a complaint. It gets addressed. From what I'm hearing from code enforcement is when it does become an issue, they rehome their pet. The owners of these roosters aren't looking to cause problems or anything like that. And I'm not a huge rooster advocate. Don't get me wrong. I am just, I don't, I'm not supportive of far reaching regulations and overstepping by our city government. And that's what I feel this is. Because even if a rooster isn't causing a problem, we're making it illegal to be in city limits. It doesn't matter to me that code enforcement isn't going out there. That just means that roosters aren't causing a problem. but that I'm a rule follower, right? So then I get word of, oh, roosters are now illegal in Lake Stevens. Sorry, hon, your rooster that we've had for three years that causes no problem is now contraband we need to get rid of. So that's kind of what I'm seeing here is we already have steps in place if it's a problem and And Council Member Edwards, I hear what you're saying. We're trying to reduce the possibility of a problem in the future. But there is nothing that makes this retroactive for families that currently have roosters that are not causing a problem.

Councilwoman Shipman, just a point of order. It seems like we've moved to discussion and we don't have a motion on the table. I'm wondering if there's further questions for staff. And if not, we should make a motion before we move into discussion.

I have a couple of questions. And I've heard you mention this, but I know that other jurisdictions have similar ordinances in place. All of our neighbors do. Question on the outreach plan. Do you plan to reach out to all of those folks that had previously had a complaint issued or if they still have the roosters? Yes. Yeah, I think during my short time here, I've heard on both sides. So I can understand the difficulty in dealing with a nuisance noise. I have a pet too. And the moment I hear him bark, I bring him inside. So I cannot imagine. a prolonged period of time where somebody cannot control the noise. So I appreciate you bringing this forward. I do think that what I've seen in other jurisdictions was a grandfather clause to the ordinance, whereas existing pet owners of roosters are not automatically illegal. They're not illegal to hold until they have a complaint against them or they should register them in that outreach period before it becomes effective so that you have a record of them and they don't feel like they're having some, you know, they're illegal and holding them and there's no active complaints against them. So I think that was mine. That was a comment and a question. Thanks.

Any more questions for staff?

I guess the only other one I have... I realize that this, the practicality of this, but I am concerned that the proposed statute says any male chicken and then in the staff report, you know, we admit up front that it can be difficult to tell if you even have a rooster to begin with. So I'm wondering if there's any way we can change the language, something to the effect of an adult male chicken or adolescent or however you want to define it. I know that our practice is not to cite people initially, but I am admittedly concerned that it could be read that way. And that action is potentially on the table the way this is written for someone who unknowingly has the wrong type of bird. So if there's anything that could be done to shore that up, I would be interested to know.

So you're suggesting changing the definition?

5.18.030. It just says harbor or maintain any male chickens. But then again, in our staff report, we've said that a lot of times people don't even know if they have a male chicken. So practically, I understand we're not going to go out there and drop the hammer, but I try and look at these statutes for how they could be interpreted someday. And to me, that is something I'd want to address.

Yeah, I will say that they don't know that they have a male chicken until it's hatched. As soon as it's hatched, you know it's a rooster because it'll have the characteristics of a rooster. But it's just when it's hatched. So if you breed your chicken, it's usually 50-50%. You'll get males and females. But once it's hatched, you can definitely tell it has the crest on the head and everything.

Okay, thank you.

So is there not a need to make that change?

No, not if it's identifiable on birth.

All right, any more questions for staff?

Just, I guess, a question on process. After the motion, would that be the time to bring amendments if we wanted to change anything? Is that okay?

Yep. I guess I thought of one other one. At the last meeting where we discussed this, I did ask about properties that have an extinct pasture waste management plan on file. And to Council Member Araya's point, if there was any way we could grandfather those in if they've gone through the trouble of establishing the plan, or at least giving them some sort of extended grace period, you know, it looks like the the permits renew every five years so if we could handle those properties through maybe uh declining to reissue those permits as opposed to going in right now and saying things have changed to my knowledge from christy and in planning is that none of the current pasture plans i'll um even discuss having poultry okay and so um if they were to

The plan would have to be reestablished. Okay.

Anything else for staff? All right. What would the council like to do with this proposal?

I move that we adopt Ordinance 1221, adopting changes to the Lake Stevens Municipal Code Chapter 5 Animal Regulations as written. Second.

There's a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Just to clarify, it doesn't sound like it's a lot of impact on our direct citizens who currently retain roosters, unless they've already been having complaints. I really feel like it's... a non-existent problem and I don't feel like we should be beating a dead horse to pick apart an ordinance that we may not even have to enforce.

Council Member Shipman has her hand up again.

Council Member Shipman, go ahead.

Okay, I'm gonna beat this dead horse. If there's a posted speed limit, whether anybody's looking or not, I'm gonna follow that speed limit or risk getting a ticket, of course. Like I said, if this is a huge problem, I get it. Handle those roosters that are a problem. It sounded to me in our per city council meeting that there was one person that was calling over and over and over and over again. I don't feel we should change code because one person was calling over and over and over again. I just hesitate. I'm not a fan of government overreach. And that's what I feel like this is. If somebody has a pet rooster of, you know, they say the life spans five years and the rooster is younger than that. And now we've passed this code where it's illegal for them to have their rooster. I'm a rule follower. I'm going to tell my kiddos, I'm sorry, guys, the city of Lake Stevens and city council has now decided your rooster is illegal. And I just, I'm not a fan of government overreach. And that's what this feels like to me.

I would say I agree with that. Not so much from a rule following perspective, but just it sounds like according to the city attorney, there's a mechanism to deal with these animals. And I don't I guess I still, you know, to the sale point, it sounds like they can be purchased outside the city, brought in if someone wants. I feel like we're changing something that's not going to address the problem any better than the existing code we have, and therefore I'm not in favor of this change.

I just want to just say a few words. I really appreciate our police department and code enforcement staff and the thoughtful approach that you've taken. I can see both sides of this issue. I appreciate the opportunity a few weeks ago to have this conversation with and some of the changes that have been made. And I really do appreciate the focus on education, on outreach. I think we live in a community where we want to build community and we don't want to come down with a heavy hammer and lead with enforcement. And that's the way that I read this. I feel like this leads with thoughtful discussion and education and talking to folks about the options that exist. I feel for folks that own roosters. I also feel for their many, many neighbors that are struggling with a noise issue that is not... something that can be muzzled or not a situation where you can bring those roosters inside. So, you know, I feel for those community members as well. I think this is a really thoughtful, balanced approach. And I just appreciate the way that you've looked at a difficult situation and come up with a solution. So thank you.

Any more discussion?

The only thing I would say is I also appreciate the policy work that has gone into this. My job as council member is to look at the statute, which is the ultimate authority. The statute is not as forgiving as the policy. So while we have good intentions now – Like I say, I try and look at the impacts of my decisions when none of us are sitting in these chairs anymore, when none of you are at the police department anymore. And this leaves room for a change that I don't like.

I would like to know if the issue is with this not being any different than what we already have. besides the prevention portion? What else can we do besides this to prevent other people from bringing roosters in? I mean, is that kind of... Because that's the point, right? Is we don't necessarily want to impact people who currently have these animals, but we also want to respect the people who live near them and prevent people from bringing more of these animals into our city. So the way that... it sounds like to do that is to put a ban on roosters in city limits. So is there an alternate that we can explore that would allow? I mean, then we're talking so many little nuances like, oh, if your chicken dies within three years, then you're exempt. So looking at the entire picture with both sides in mind, What other kind of solutions are there realistically to prevent more of these animals coming into Lake Stevens? And like Council Member Shipman said, you know, I'm also a rule follower. So if someone says that my animal is no longer allowed in the city, that's going to be a tough conversation that I have with my family and a decision that we have to make. And, you know, maybe I do it differently than other families, but... You know, sometimes rules change and it's for the better of the community. And, you know, I think that's what we need to look at is what's the whole picture here? How many people are being impacted? What are the steps that we've looked at? And I think that the city has done a pretty good job, like Council President George said, of bringing things together. So I guess I'm just curious if this is not the answer, then what might some other possibilities be to prevent people from bringing roosters into Lake Stevens?

anybody well i think that's that's the distinction is we don't need to prevent roosters we need to remove the problem roosters and by saying all roosters are gone forever is the overreach when there's a mechanism in place to take out the the problem ones that leaves people their you know their rights to owning a certain type of animal instead of just blanket saying you can't now having said that Me personally, as I sit here and think about your comment, I think I heard someone say at one point the average life of a rooster was, what, like five years or something? What did I hear? Five? Personally, I would be willing to adopt something this strict if we set out a timeline that it didn't go into effect for five years. That way, any current existing animal in the city is almost guaranteed to have passed on, and at that point, no new one's can come in under your desired rule set, that's about the only way I'd be comfortable with a blanket ban. Otherwise, I feel like we are banning something when a mechanism exists to remove the problem-specific animals.

I understand that. I think the problem that I have with that is Any rooster can be a problem rooster. You don't know, you know, so you can't say like, oh, this is a problem rooster because it crows three times a week, but this one's not because it only crows once. So there's got to be some way to.

The reporting is how they would know it's a problem. If they get complaints about property with a specific animal, that is the problem. And then we proceed through the consequences. And according to what Greg said, we remove the animal.

Can I ask city staff for clarification now that we're in discussion or is that not?

Is that a point of order? I mean, I don't think it is a problem. I think it's fine. Yeah, I think it's fine. Let's do it.

Please excuse my ignorance. So the introduction and the changing of this code, can you remind us why this was initiated to begin with?

It is initiated due to the complaints that we've had listening to the citizens that are complaining. And Well, yes, there is that ticket and criminal citation process that is in the code. It is also difficult to get that through court. We literally have to be out there and catch the rooster crowing. And so in the summertime... When the sun is rising at 4 a.m., it's not always feasible to have staff go out there and do that enforcement process. So we spend more time educating now, but there's no... If we cannot start to issue those tickets or get to the point of the criminal citation, there could sometimes be no end in sight for the people who are being affected by the roosters crowing. And so we brought this forward on their behalf and for the consistency within the county, it was a reasonable approach that we could add to our education process. to help find that relief for the people who are being disrupted.

Thank you. And I don't want to put staff on the spot. Is there any like percentage range of increase that we've experienced over the last five years or anything like that? If not, I understand.

Yeah, I don't, we don't have a five year statistics.

Um, You know, but it's it's definitely not just one person complaining about one house, it is a I mean it's it's several houses in all different areas of the city, so I don't I don't want Council thinking that we brought this up because of one person complaining it's it's. a large number of complaints, especially over the summertime, because that is when the sun is rising early. So we'll kind of dip down during the winter because it's rising later in the day and people are kind of up and moving, right? But no, it has been, I mean, I've been in this role for almost four years and I've noticed a large increase in the last two years. of these complaints, especially over the last year for whatever reason, maybe more people are homesteading and wanting to have chickens at home that are laying eggs and whatnot. I'm not sure of the reason for the increase, but it has steadily been increasing. Okay, thank you. That's all I need.

Any more discussion? I mean, I could say more, but I... Kim. No, that's fine.

Yes, I just wanted to say I'm with Councilmember Donahue. If we were to make this thing go into effect, you know, four or five years in the future, I could get on board totally because you're not removing somebody's current pet. I will say I go for walks around 6am and there are plenty of roosters crowing as I'm walking around. I can hear them in the distance. So they don't stop at like 4.30 a.m. If there's a problem rooster, they're crowing all morning. I'll watch my grandson in Marysville, and I'll go out there at 10 a.m., and I can hear roosters in the background crowing. So they do, like as mentioned in our last city council meeting, they don't have a shutoff valve. These roosters can crow all day if they're a crower. and if they're a problem and they're a nuisance. So I don't really feel like it would be a problem for our city to address the nuisance roosters. But I could totally get on board saying, you know what, this is becoming a growing problem. We're a bigger city than we were in the past. We have a sunset period for people to own roosters. And this is what it is. And then have the education be our citizens knowing this is on the horizon versus being blindsided by, hey, your pet you've had for the last three or four years is now illegal, whether it's a nuisance or not. I could totally get on board sunsetting this four or five years into the future.

So you're suggesting an educational period of five years versus the educational period until January? Yes. Correct.

Just simply because of the people that already have these pets. And like I said, if they're already a nuisance, we have policy in place to address the nuisance roosters. But the roosters that aren't a nuisance... You know, I just think that we need to let people keep their pets until they pass if they're not causing an issue. But the roosters that are causing an issue, I'm totally 100% behind saying, okay. And as you've said, they voluntarily decide to rehome their roosters. So I don't see the reason why we should make people's pets contraband.

I have something to add. I think back to the understanding of how was this implemented, you wouldn't, we're not going to go knock on people's doors to seek all the roosters. If people have roosters and they're not crowing and there's no complaints, there's no, we're not going there to tell them to rehome their roosters. That's my understanding, right?

Correct. Similar to how we've discussed people having an overage of animals. We're not aware it's a problem until it's a problem. I'm not going door to door and asking how many dogs do you have? How many cats do you have? Are they licensed? It's when we get a complaint about an animal that I'm asking those questions. So no, we're not going to go on a hunt for roosters. And then in addition to wanting to extend this out five years, I mean, five years is not a definite term. deadline of when a rooster is going to die it could be eight years it could be 10 years it could be 12 years so if we extended out five years those people could still have that have roosters now they could still be alive um so we would still be taking the same action and there's no way to really greatly identify a rooster it's not like a dog where you can have it microchipped and we could be like okay this is definitely a new dog i mean they could get a new rooster and And we would have no idea if it's the same rooster or not. So at five years is up, are we going to go door to door and say, like, do you still have that rooster that you said you had back in 2026? And they could be like, well, no, this is, you know, this is the same rooster and it could not be. I don't know. I can't see a great way that we could identify them. And also kind of that's going to be a big use of city time and employee time to kind of try and find a way to track that.

To be clear, I would not expect you to do that. For me, it's more if we say, okay, five years, hopefully any roosters in the city have expired by then. If someone, knowing that this is coming, buys a new rooster in that five-year period, well, then it's on them. I'm not saying you have to track whether it was the original or not. If they have a rooster in five years, okay, now it's illegal. So if they want to knowingly buy into that, that's their problem. That's how I look at it. I would not expect... Not only the identification, but I would also not expect you to maintain an education program for five years either. I think letting them know, you know, if that's the way we're going to go now is sufficient and it becomes effective when it becomes effective.

Is the five-year proposed amendment a motion?

I will make that a motion, sure.

Okay. Can we spell this out a little bit?

So you're making an amendment, Council Member Donahue, to- The effective date of this new ordinance would be five years from today.

But the entire ordinance? No, the ordinance also has the cat regulation.

Oh, sorry. Just the part pertaining to roosters. So Greg, I don't know if you have a specific way you want me to word this, but that is my intent.

I don't want to speak out of turn. I would suggest that we talk with Greg about this and split this up and come back on consent on the 22nd. I think we're smithing it tonight may be a little difficult, especially since there's two pieces involved in this. But it's your call. Sure.

I think we have a motion on the floor.

Yeah, we do have a motion on the floor.

Then I withdraw my motion to amend.

Any more discussion?

Sorry, I need to clarify.

You said you withdraw your motion to amend?

I am withdrawing it because the clerks would like us to wordsmith it, so my plan is to vote no on the current motion and then ask them to bring an amended version back to vote on.

Greg has his hand up.

Greg, go ahead.

Greg, you're probably muted again.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Yeah, I was going to suggest, yes, that we bring this back. with amending language if that's what the council wants. Rather than try to pass it tonight on the fly here, adding in language with different effective dates for different sections, that somebody could at this point make a motion to table to the next meeting requesting staff to come back with a revised version.

So we would have two choices. We could do that or the person who makes the motion could withdraw their motion, correct?

If the person who made the motion second, both agree, yes. Okay. So those are, go ahead.

I guess the question is, what if we don't agree with the amended one? If you're bringing something that's amended, but we haven't agreed on what that amendment should be.

I guess we would need a consensus from you tonight to direct the ordinance with the new revised language.

But we would have to agree on what that amendment should be, not just...

Which we can do when it comes back.

Yeah.

I would say out of respect for my fellow council members, though, I would urge us not to table this. I would say vote on the motion because if a majority of the council wants to pass this as is, then I don't want to hold up the process. But if it fails, then I would ask that staff, you know, get collects our input and brings back in a minute.

That is my I would support that. I am not willing to withdraw the motion.

Any more discussion?

Okay. Understand, though, and Greg can correct me if I'm wrong, if the ordinance passes, it passes. You don't have an opportunity for an amendment at that point.

Correct. But if it passes, that means the majority of the council like how it's written now.

I just want to be really clear. Yes. Thank you.

I haven't made any comments. I will just state that... Yeah, five years to wait would be really frustrating for me if I was dealing with that. I understand that code enforcement should take care of issues like this, but I also know the reality of dealing with a neighbor dog that barks and how apprehensive some people may be to call the police on something like that, etc. So as I look at the greater good for the community and where our community is now, I'm inclined to accept the motion as it stands today.

Any more conversation? Call for the question.

All right. So the motion on the table is to pass the ordinance as presented tonight, 1221. Correct. And we have a, Council Member Jorstad made the motion and Council Member Edwards seconded it.

Correct.

Can I request a roll call vote just for clarity?

Just going to call. Clerk Chellan, will you please do a roll call vote for ordinance 1221, please?

Council Member Shipman. Nay. Council Member Edwards. Yes. Councilmember Packard?

Yes.

Councilmember Araya? Yes. Councilmember Donahue?

Nay.

Councilmember Jorstad? Yes. It passes 4-2.

Okay. Thank you, Council, for your work. Thank you, staff, for your work. All right. We move on to action item number 8, B, Mill Spur Traffic Calming Update. Whitney? Yes.

Okay, just gonna share my screen here. Okay, we're good to go. Good evening, Council, Mayor, and members of the public. My name is Whitney Oleto. I'm a civil engineer in the Public Works Department, and I am here tonight to bring back the Millsburg Traffic Calming Project for Council Action. I was here two weeks ago on August 25th, and in that meeting, we introduced the project and gathered feedback from Council and residents. After that meeting, we went back to the project team and some stakeholders, made some adjustments, and we have a proposal ready for Council Action tonight. All right, just to quickly orient where we're at in the city, it's right here in our downtown. The project location is right off of Main Street and includes three separate streets. That's Millsboro Road, also known as Festival Street, 123rd Drive Northeast, and 17th Place Northeast. But before we get too deep into the nuts and bolts of the project, I did want to just take a minute to reiterate that the scope of this full project, like the mill spur project outside of traffic calming is much bigger than just an engineering issue or just a traffic calming issue. And as we've heard, this has been. an ongoing process for a couple of years. In particular, Parks and PD have been working through many solutions to address just some of the issues raised by residents. And I wanted to take a minute to acknowledge the work that they've done, especially around recreational and enforcement issues. And we have still continued to receive reports of speeding and racing activities, particularly at nighttime. So public works has been working with an engineering consultant to provide some traffic calming active alternatives to reduce vehicle speeds on these streets. And that brings us to where we are at in the process right now. At the meeting a couple of weeks ago, we had some really good discussion and feedback from both residents and council members. One of those was the need for enforcement in the project area. And we have since heard from PD that there are multiple enforcement efforts underway. Uh, there was also some discussion about the pros and cons of the different alternatives that staff, um, provided, including a rumble strips, speed tables and cushions and planter boxes and, um, We also discussed that an iterative solution makes sense for the project. This will allow a responsive and right sized approach as the project area has been under development for a couple of years. The conditions are changing a lot and will continue to change over the next few months. And we want to just have an opportunity to check and adjust our strategy before we continue to spend a large number of resources across multiple departments. In phase one of the project, as currently proposed, while enforcement is underway, Public Works plans to install pavement markings. And I'm going to just toggle back and forth between a couple screens here so we can zoom in and see the concepts a little better. So here on 17th Place Northeast, as presented last time, we do have centerline and edgeline striping proposed. This was a previously standing legacy request that was already an identified need to help kind of delineate and direct traffic through the curve here. And then along with the pavement markings we are proposing to install rumble strips both on 17th place northeast and on mills for road. This is just a short term quick installation effort. And the benefit is it will not obstruct pedestrian traffic. Um, boat traffic operations and also will not obstruct driveway access on 17th place Northeast, which is just something we need to consider as we move forward with evaluating, um, vertical traffic climbing measures on this road. There are a lot of driveway cuts. Um, and so we want to make sure that any design is going to be compatible with, um, driveway access. And then we'll monitor the situation. We'll coordinate with our stakeholders to gauge effectiveness of the enforcement and the changing conditions with the ongoing construction of the museum project. And if it's determined that it's still needed, then we'll move forward with phase two, which would be installation of the physical traffic calming devices. And what we are proposing is on Mill Spur Road, we would use horizontal traffic calming that looks like a planter box. This is an example shown here. And on 17th Place Northeast, we are looking at feasibility of installing either a speed cushion or a table. we would need to just make sure that we can observe a four-foot pedestrian path outside of whatever that vertical traffic calming measure is, as well as driveway compatibility and, of course, coordination with emergency response. And phase three, we briefly touched on this in a previous meeting, but that's also kind of a future phase as needed to look at formalizing 123rd Drive Northeast as a shared street. Um, after review of the traffic data, I think the biggest problems are on mills for road and 17th place Northeast. So for that more short term, we're prioritizing those locations. All right. And this is just a high level cost estimate of the different, um, specifically the different speed management treatments that, um, we've been discussing for the last couple of weeks. And as you can see, all of the treatments are relatively reasonable. So it's not necessarily a cost prohibitive project. And as a reminder, the expenditure would come from our approved traffic safety and traffic calming budget. We do budget $100,000 annually for traffic safety projects such as this. Rather, I think the phased approach here is just understanding that each treatment that proposed has associated cost pros and cons. And we really want to ensure that we work with the stakeholders on this project and ensure we have buy-in from all stakeholders before we proceed with making physically restrictive changes on these roads. And so our proposed action tonight would be to request for Council to make a motion to approve traffic calming devices to reduce vehicle speeds on Millsboro Road and 17th Place Northeast. Or if there's any discussion or questions at this time, I'd be happy to take them.

Thank you, Whitney. Any questions for her?

I have a question on the follow up for implementing or not phase two. What's the timeline for that look like? Like, how long are you going to go on trial to see if that's working?

Yeah, we haven't defined what that metric would be yet, but we would coordinate with the primary stakeholders, including parks and emergency response, being mindful of the areas still under development. But we would for sure include both a timeframe and a metric of what looks like success or failure and how to define if the need has increased or decreased. We did do a traffic study here and It's a little bit more complicated than just applying our standard traffic calming criteria, as this was a legacy request that came in before we had adopted or kind of fleshed out our current traffic, our neighborhood traffic calming criteria. It's very common for agencies to score dead end streets and loop streets, lower or very low volume, low speed roads. Generally with the neighborhood traffic calming, we're looking at the 85th percentile speeds, you know, and really targeting how most drivers behave on a street. And we know this is a different case here. We're targeting Um, the behavior here is a minority of drivers and that's consistent with the data that we observed is there's, you know, one or two drivers, um, in the evening, reaching a speed of around 30 miles per hour.

Thank you. I guess what I'm asking that for is I want to make sure that there's a loop closure with the public who has come and spoken and that everyone's been talked to in the meetings and expressed their concerns. And so I guess my concern is that six months go by and nobody hears anything, and then we have more citizens that are upset because they haven't heard anything. So I just want to make sure that there's something on the schedule to close that loop with this first part of this project.

Whitney and I talked about that a little bit as well. I think maybe what we should do is report back to council in six weeks with some information and outcomes and next steps we're planning, just as a department report.

That sounds great. And then, like I said, my concern is really with the citizens and making sure that they also have that information so they know kind of what the updates are as well.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Happy to do it. So one question slash concern I have is we're heading into fall and I'm curious how much of this behavior is good weather dependent and what kind of, how accurate will the data be that we gather in the next six weeks compared to, you know, next July? Yeah, me too. Well, so I mean, I guess is your recommendation still that we proceed with this immediately or do we, go into winter and maybe implement this when the weather turns nice next spring, summer. And so we can get the best data. I mean,

I think the approach is sound where it's sort of escalatory. So I think we should start with the low level, see how it goes. And yeah, if it's good through the winter, great. But we should check and adjust next summer. So come June or July, we should look at it and see, okay, we are getting more calls. We are having more black marks out in the roadway. This didn't work. So yeah, I think that we might get a false positive feeling. right now, if we put it out there, we go, the speed's one down. Well, no, that just the behavior changed because the kids are in school now and they don't have as much free time. I don't think the behavior changes though.

Right. It just happens earlier in the day when it gets dark at four, then they're out there at seven instead of out there at 11. Yeah. The behavior is the same. You know, so yesterday, for example, I was here at the boat launch and Some teenage kid comes through in his truck and goes, you know, four miles an hour down this road across 17th and then or 123rd and up 17th. And as soon as he gets out of the parking lot, whips a big donut, screams down the road. And I just hear it and then gets to the next intersection again, whips the donut and screams down the road. So, yeah, the behavior is going to continue. This is going to do address a issue. But there's a broader issue in the city of. people speeding and being excessive. So this isn't going to fix everything. It's going to fix a thing. And we need to continue to be proactive as city to explore opportunities to curb that behavior through design and enforcement. Agreed.

Yeah.

Kim.

Thank you. I want to thank you, Whitney, for this brief presentation and all your hard work on this. I agree that I think it's kind of seasonal in that while our we'll say they're young adults that tend to behave this way. We do attract a lot of people from outside of Lake Stevens during our spring, summer and early fall months. They're not necessarily the same people that are here during the late fall and winter months. My question is for our families that live, and I apologize, I'm remote, so I've got one screen I'm looking at. So not Mill Spur, not 17th, but the Waterfront Road, that's a dual access road that's both for pedestrians and citizens. Those are the people we've heard a lot from, and I don't see anything really addressing speeding on their street. Are we going to come back and visit this if they're still dealing with people racing on their street?

I think you're referring maybe to 123rd drive Northeast, if it's not 17th or Mill Spur and double check. From my recollection, I think the speeding problem was primarily on Mill Spur and 17th. And those are the longer straightaway stretches. But certainly we can double check and circle back on 123rd and Mill Spur. Um, we can reach back out to the residents and confirm. I know there were a number of issues identified, um, on the different streets and their kind of location specific. So I don't recall speeds being a huge concern on one 23rd, but I I'll certainly circle back on that.

Yeah, I don't think it's big enough for there to be any real speeding there. It's not long enough, right? It's just the loitering that those citizens were talking about, right? Just revving of engines, loud noise, music at late night, and then, yeah, the speeding getting out of the little development here. So can you go to your options again, your one through four? Oh, this one? Sorry, no, down two, I think. One more. This one.

Oh, sure.

So you're saying, yeah, you could put in multiple speed cushions for 3,000 or rumble strips for 2,200? Is that how I'm interpreting that?

Yeah, the cost estimates are a little high level. Sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, I'm inclined to just go straight to the speed cushions. I need to think through that on particularly on 17th because of the boats. Right. And the ability. So I don't know if you want to do that in the on the main boat launch. I think that would bother a lot of people. But to put them on Mill Spur and slow things down right here in front of the park and everything else like that, I'd be inclined to go that route. But. If it's comparable cost.

Yeah. I think what we're asking tonight is for council just to say yes. Just to make a motion saying, yeah, we approve traffic calming. And I think what we're saying is we'll just do it in an iterative way. We're going to start with this lower level. If it doesn't work, we're going to go to speed cushions next. If that doesn't work, we're going to, I don't know, try something else. Okay. Keep working on it.

Yeah, that's correct. I think, oh, go ahead. I guess, did I understand, I thought last time that you presented the cushions on the mill spur were problematic because of ADA access versus, is that, okay. Yep.

Yeah, that's an ADA. It's basically, it's a curbless ADA access road. So we'd have to be kind of creative with the speed cushions and removing them and all of those things. Yeah. I'll let you do your job and I'll approve. Okay.

All right. Any more questions for staff?

All right.

Sounded like Nathan already made them. I was waiting to make sure nobody else had any comment.

I'd make a motion to approve. Millsburg traffic calming activities.

Second.

I need to be more precise. I make a motion to authorize the mayor to approve the Millspur traffic calming proposal in accordance with LSMC 1456-260. Second.

Got a motion and a second. Any more discussion? Hearing none. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? All right. Thank you, council. All right. We are now to our item number nine, city report.

Caitlin. Good evening, council. We're closing the loop on a topic that was brought up prior to us going on council break. We just wanted to bring this back. It's an offer of staff support. The council had been requesting additional ways to connect with citizens. This was something that we had brought up as it's done in other cities and it had been done with our previous mayor. that myself and Olivia could support with some scheduling and marketing. I know you guys are able to connect with citizens, but this would be sort of a way for us to mass market an opportunity for you to be up at Starbucks and just do a Citizens Connect once or twice a month. This would be, we could do a 90-day trial, just see how well attended it is, see if it's working for everyone and kind of make it sort of a casual launch. We have some details in here on, you know, how we could do scheduling. Again, we would be posting this on social media. We did, there was a request for who else is doing this? Is this common? We did some research. You'll see in your packet, there's examples from City of Edmonds. City of Bothell, City of Kirkland, all kind of named something different, hosted in different spaces, but very similar vibe, casual, open to the community, open topics, whatever people want to bring to you. When we did that research, we also looked at their council procedures and did not see any additional policies that governed these topics. So we sort of went back to our council procedures and thought that that would be effective as to how you guys show up and kind of sit within your roles as council. All I'm looking for really is because it's kind of on my punch list. If there's a head nod and a general kind of thumbs up from a majority, we'd be happy to do this work. If not, we can also put this work aside. So I just wanted to touch base with the council and see where you're at.

I'll definitely be the first person to say that I am all for it. Anything that can get counsel out in front of the public and give them an opportunity to see us face to face and talk to us, I think is going to be beneficial for everyone. And so whether it's this or something similar or whatever, the main point in my concern is being able to be accessible right in front of people.

Thank you. I'll echo what Councilwoman Edwards said and add that I really appreciate staff's willingness to support this. I think this is something as council members we could do on our own and we could go meet with our constituents tomorrow. I could put something on Facebook and meet with folks, but I really appreciate the city's willingness to have some structure around this to help let the public know that this is an option and to help us kind of schedule so that we all have um equal opportunity if that's something that's that's desired so thank you for your willingness to support this and i too am looking forward to an opportunity to um to meet with folks that are living in our community and hear what they have to say thanks thank you

So, Kayla, when you say do this work, are you talking about the 90-day trial and then we'll revisit? Or are we talking about implementing the program as it will be if it's successful beyond 90 days? Because it's the latter. I do have some questions and concerns. If we're just going to say try it for 90 days, I don't think any of my particular concerns will pop up in the next 90 days.

I think we're just offering to see if you guys wanted to try it for 90 days. I don't know that past 90 days, it would look any different unless, unless there are changes that you guys would want to make again, we're just offering to schedule and to, and to promote this. Um, and again, it's pretty common practice. So, um, we're just offering our services to be able to facilitate that for you. Um, but yeah, I thought maybe you just want to try it for 90 days versus like a large commitment. Cause yeah. In the past, I know for former Mayor Gailey, sometimes he had nobody come, or he had the same two people come every time. So we don't really know what will happen. So this would be a way for you guys to determine how does it feel? Is it working? Are there little adjustments to how you'd want to schedule? Are you enjoying this? Is this meeting the need that you described, Council Member Edwards? So we were just sort of saying, hey, do you want us to give it a try?

Can we check that in? Yeah. 90 days? Yeah, about that.

Well, and I mean, I can mention now since Greg is on the phone, I think really my biggest concern would be what does this look like for anyone entering an active election cycle? Because as you mentioned, it would be city staff promoting it, marketing it. And so it's two thresholds in my mind. One, is there a legal issue? Is that somehow the city supporting an active candidate that we need to address? The other one would be, even if it's not a legal issue, how does that look to our citizens? Because I know of programs like this in other cities where it's actually caused some discord among citizens. They're like, hey, you know, my candidates over here running against an incumbent. Meanwhile, they're at the booth or the coffee shop or whatever, and the city's blasting it on their social media. That's not fair. So I guess I'll stop there and see if Greg has anything to say on the first one. Yeah.

I don't think there's any legal issue if you make these Coffee with Counsel meetings a normal and regular thing that you do. as part of the regular course of business of a council member, just like attending council meetings, going to commission meetings, going to other public meetings where U.S. council members participate in discussion and comments, there's no reason why you couldn't do this at the coffee shop. In fact, there's probably less concern doing it at the coffee shop.

And we'd be clear in the way we marketed it, just like we did for former Mayor Gailey, that this is a copy of a council and this is what it is. And so whether it was an election season or not, that branding would stay the same, the language would stay the same. I mean, it would be clear that this was, especially if this gets established. So then I know no one in this room is running in the next 90 days. We could set this out as the sort of neutral event that is, again, where you're able to connect in your current role as a council member. I know council member Shipman has her hand up.

Kim, go ahead.

Yes. So my concerns were the same as Council Member Donahue. So thank you, Greg, for clarifying that. And then, of course, the liability issue of, you know, we're speaking for council when really we're one of seven where the mayor is an individual. His position is one person. That was, you know, one of my concerns. But if the majority of council wants to do this, I don't have any problem with it as long as it doesn't leave the city at risk for liability. And as long as during election time it doesn't give incumbents an advantage. Because even though if I were to run again, I would be an incumbent, I don't feel it's fair for incumbents to have an advantage over somebody else during the election period. Okay.

And I, I appreciate that feedback back council membership. And that's why I also tried to look at other cities to see, is it specific only to mayors to single physicians versus to councils? And it does seem like there are other places that have done this with a, with a group. So I'm hoping.

I appreciate that. Thank you. I did look at our packet and did see that in the Edmonds in different places. So I appreciate that research. Thank you. Of course.

I think, too, you know, as council members, we have a responsibility to follow, you know, the ethics and the code of conduct. But we also have a responsibility to... make sure our fellow council members are following that code of ethics and to have those conversations with each other. If we feel like someone is stepping outside of their role, or if we feel as though someone isn't following what we all have agreed to follow, there's sort of a self-governance that exists up here too. And so I would hope that if any of us were using our position for nefarious purposes, that we all feel comfortable enough to go up to that person and have that conversation and potentially have that conversation in public, in a council meeting, in a workshop, and to talk through, like, how do we deal with this situation that's happening where we have a council member who isn't following, you know, the code that they're supposed to do? So I hear the concerns about, you know, doing this during an election year, I think I'll go back to what our lawyer said. We're in public positions a lot where we have an advantage. Some may say a disadvantage, honestly, where we're attending meetings, we're in commissions, we're up here in front of the public. This to me feels no different, that it is still an opportunity to be in front of the public and there are gonna be pros and cons to that. And so- I don't share the concern about whether or not it's happening if you're up for election or not. But again, that's not happening in the next 90 days for any of us. So I like the idea of let's try it out and then let's come back in December after the first of the year and kind of talk through what went well, maybe what didn't go well, whether it makes sense to continue or not. Sure.

I just had a thought that would address my concern, I think. Is it possible, and Greg, I don't know if you have a comment on this, is it possible to keep which council members are attending the coffee and council internal so that people show up and they're guaranteed to meet with a council member or two, but they don't know who? Because then we can advertise the event, but in my mind, then you're not saying, you know. Come meet with Councilmember Donahue as he runs for reelection at the start. I mean, I'm obviously not going to say it like that, but people aren't going to know it's me. They're going to know the council will be there and you're going to get to talk to someone. Is that possible?

I have a little bit of a problem with that.

Let's let Greg go real quick.

Okay, go ahead, Greg.

Okay.

You could have surprise council members, I guess, although if there's a sign-up sheet with a schedule, it's subject to public disclosure. So, you know, people that ask would know. The people that don't ask won't know. I don't. know that there's any great advantage to that. But it would seem to me these events are going to be more successful if you advertise who's going to be there because people will have council members they want to talk to and council members they don't. They have burning questions and lots of burning questions.

Okay, fair enough. And I guess my preference, I don't know how the council feels, my preference would be that people in an active election with an active opponent would take themselves out of the rotation and we put that in the guidelines. So it's, again, to Council Member George's point, I would feel comfortable talking to these people. I don't know how someone in 10 years, if this is still going, will feel talking to their fellow council members. So I'd rather just... I'm always a fan of putting a rule in place now and everything's amicable, then it becoming an issue and it has to be some nasty discussion about why.

Are you? Yeah, just kind of make another comment. That would be my. I think it's more problematic to try to exclude council members who are candidates from participating in this kind of thing. Because basically what you're doing is you would then be removing council members from just a regularly scheduled activity that provides access between the public and city council members. You can be asked election questions now. You go to the supermarket, you go to a store or whatever. If somebody really wants to come to the coffee shop and ask a question, A question they have because somebody's running for office and they really want to know what that council member feels on the issue. They should be able to have that conversation. But trying to exclude council members from participating in one of your programs simply because they're running for re-elections... That seems to be more problematic than allowing them to just continue their regular activity. It's not going to be advertised as election speech, an election campaign activity. It's simply a regular ongoing program of the council.

I agree with you. I mean, I guess the way I look at it is if a council member wants to set something up on their own and have that outreach during a campaign, that's one thing. When the city is the one promoting it, when city resources are – I mean, it's not – in my mind, it's different than a council meeting or any of our other meetings where there's an agenda or a specific topic. This is show up and talk about whatever you want. Get to know them as a person. There's no structured format, and it's being promoted using city resources. So to me, I don't know. That just – It doesn't feel fair to me. So, I mean, I've expressed my preference that the council voluntarily adopt something in the procedures that would address that. But if nobody else feels that way, then it is what it is.

Council Member Edwards.

Go ahead. Oh.

I'll just say I was originally inclined to go towards where you're going, Councilmember Donahue, but I appreciate Council President Jorstad's comment that we should be able to self-regulate. And in the event that somebody does take advantage of an opportunity like that, I would expect the other Councilmember in the room to hopefully hear that and correct that and, uh, prevent that from moving forward. So I'm okay with self policing on that rather than, I mean, we have events out here in the city, right? For a farmer's market. And we have a city booth and we ask us to come and participate in that. Right. I mean, we have a number of situations where we're asked to go and represent the city, even if we're on an election cycle and we need to, uh, approach that appropriately and use good judgment in each of those situations. So I don't see this as different than a number of those other situations. And I'm inclined to self-regulate and peer regulate.

But which of those events are marketed is come talk to council member Packard at the booth at blah, blah, blah. I guess that's my, my problem is it's, it's now council member specific and it's being advertised by the city, which to me just takes that little bit farther than I'm comfortable with.

I think I've already spoken, so I want to make sure you, but I wanted to give it.

Okay. Yeah, I guess I had, it's my understanding that this would be optional for council, depending on their schedules. You don't provide any supplies we're responsible for for buying coffee and doing our thing and. that there was not going to be a quorum at these meetings at any point in time so that we're not going, okay, that was my, okay.

Yeah, so all we're simply offering to do is to give you guys a place to schedule. We have a spreadsheet where you guys can write down who wants to do what, and then Olivia would post, just like we did with former Mayor Gailey, hey, community, here's the two events this month if you'd like to show up.

Yeah.

And it would just go on the calendar and that's that's where our work begins and ends so we're just asking if that's something that the majority would like us to do again if not we can just throw it into the pile or we can move forward with it so that's kind of all we're asking. So, um, um,

I guess I feel like a little I feel pretty responsible for kind of bringing this forward because I'm so adamant on wanting to be able to be accessible. And I think as a citizen that came into this position, not feeling like any of or majority of the council was approachable, especially whereas if I email them, they can just not reply. It's really important for me to be able to let people in Lake Stevens know that they can come and approach me, whether it's good or bad, and I'm not going to treat them any differently or dismiss them. And I think the important part for me, whether it's at Starbucks or at the booth at the Aquafest or is being accessible and letting people know that we are here to listen because as a citizen myself, I did not feel that. And so as a council member and an elected official, I'm being advised not to do this or not to have a presence on social media as an individual because I'm representing the city. So I can't necessarily do these things on my own, So I'm leaning into my position to put myself out there in front of the people that want to be able to talk to their city officials. And I think that's really important. And if we're not adult enough to know the rules during an election season, then we've got bigger problems. And I feel like, you know, like I said, even if it's not a Starbucks, people are not coming to us. Look at our look at our meeting. It's empty. People are not coming here. They're not talking to us. They're not like, no offense. Thank you to all of you who show up. I appreciate it so much. But seriously, though, people are not coming to us. People are not talking to us. We see all of the stuff on social media, all of these complaints and everything. I didn't get one email. I did not get one email about all of these things in the past two weeks that I've seen being complained on social media about. So people need an outlet to be able to come and speak to their representatives. And I think that that's, as an elected official, that's our job to be available. And if I'm being suggested not to go and do this on my own, then I'm going to expect the city to provide some sort of avenue for me to do that. And if not, then what's to prevent me from going and sitting out here with a sign that says, come talk to me, your council member, and let's answer any questions. I feel like we have to be safe. We have to protect our liability and protect our city assets. But at the same time, there's a point where you get to be too safe to where it's detrimental. And I think that's where we've been. And I think that it's time to try something new.

Council Member Shipman's had her hand up for a minute here. Kim, go ahead.

Okay, first, thank you, Council Member Edwards. I can tell that you are very passionate about that or about this, and I very much appreciate your outreach and your passion about being available to have anyone come talk to you. And as you mentioned, while I do see some people like backs of heads coming I'm here tonight, but we are always accessible on Tuesday evenings. As you had mentioned, we're accessible via email. I know I've gotten off the community pages because it's just too hard to watch the misinformation. I answer every email I get. I just don't get very many of them. So this may be an easier way for people to approach their council members. And especially, say, if you have a following out there that feels you're very approachable, this will give them the opportunity to come speak to you that maybe is outside of an email or a city council meeting. So I appreciate that. I share council member Donahue's concerns. Election cycles are different from day to day. This last election cycle was very challenging for me to watch as upstanding council members I knew were drug through the mud in social media. And because of public disclosure, I didn't say anything. And the one time I did, I was attacked. So I disagree. When it comes to election time, there's a whole different set of rules than day to day. So I share Councilmember Donahue's concerns about how this may give, and not that incumbents don't serve and may be You know, they have this experience and they have what they've given to their community that should be counted in their favor. But I think that come election time, if you're on that ballot and then you're coffee with council, and no, that's not going to be in the next 90 days, that maybe that's something we need to consider. And I also agree with the fact that I respect each and every one of you sitting at the table, as well as council member McManus, who's not here tonight. I respect all of you and feel we have a good relationship, but I also know there are other city councils that very much don't. And I think whenever we create a new program, we can't create it just based upon our current city council members, but there has to be protections for the future In case in the future there's a council where that's not the case. So I'm not saying I don't want to move forward with this because I am very much in favor of let's move forward with this. Let's take a look. Let's see how many citizens come and want to talk to us. I would like to have a schedule to where we're all available because we all have varying schedules. None of us are retired. We're all working. We all have careers outside of this. So I would like to see a varied schedule and have that be part of it. And then let's come back and talk in 90 days. But I do think it's a valid concern during election time that anybody who's named on the ballot maybe isn't with coffee for council because it'd be hard pressed. We're humans. It'd be hard pressed not to campaign when talking to our citizens. And that's my two cents.

All right, what's the consensus of council?

Yes.

I'm good for the next 90 days.

All right. Okay, real quick, this may sound silly, but yeah, can we change it from like Starbucks with the council? Meaning, why are we not doing it at Hagen? Why are we not doing it at Froyo? Like, let's spread out the love a little bit.

We totally can, we can do that. And I know when I looked at the city of Bothell, I believe it was the city of Bothell, They had specific criteria about which locations they were utilizing. That's much more complex and having places apply to be host spots. I think we stuck with Frontier Village Starbucks because it had open space. It was something familiar and there was a connection there. We had permission essentially. So since we're just doing a pilot, we can maybe grab one or two spots to try to start. If you want to develop out something a little bit more complex that will take additional staff time and a process of applying, maybe we could revisit that after the 90 days.

Yeah, I don't want it to be complicated.

Maybe just try it.

I would expect that Froyo would be happy if we just show up and bring people into their store, but maybe I'm underestimating the complexity.

The mayor likes his chai tea from Starbucks.

I worry a little bit, just space-wise. I have no idea what to expect, right? But I know the Froyo place is a little on the small side, right? And so, yeah, would they be...

Prove me wrong that the space isn't big enough, right? Like I don't see a scenario where there's 35 people and they're hoping to talk to me and they can't. Oh, now you said it.

Even eight people might be too much. Yeah. I don't want to. Yeah.

Yeah.

I would just prefer one place where I don't go home smelling like coffee.

Sure. Okay. That's great. We'll maybe look for more than one place. I like the Higgins. I like the Higgins idea a lot. That's great. Yeah, that's great. Okay. So we'll just start somewhere and then we can tweak it depending on feedback.

And the place might depend on the two council members that sign up for that place. Yes.

Yeah. And I think also I saw some other programs. I can't remember which city it was, but they actually rotated between places like the senior center of the library. Again, that would just be a larger program where we'd have to get permission and coordinate with those locations, which. I know they're very willing. We'd love to just start somewhere and go from there.

It makes me wonder too about like the family resource center or the food bank.

We need to be where the people are, like Ariel says, right? That's my Disney joke. Get it, Ariel? Okay, good.

So we'll start with the 90 days and then we'll, sounds like we have a lot of ideas. We'll grow from there if it's successful. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council. We'll move on to item number 10, Council Business. Let's start with Council Member Shipman, since she is online.

Thank you. So I don't have any business of the last week. However, I have an observation. So as an avid dog walker myself, a lot of people walk on the South Lake Stevens trail. That's relatively new that sidewalks and the city has put waste collection for dogs. Like I always carry three bags or more because my dog doesn't always take care of business in one shot. Right. So the city has placed these out on this walkway. And I always assumed it was public works that was emptying them because public work maintains your road in that. I drove by the other day and saw someone in a T-shirt with Parks Department on the back. And so I just want to give a shout out to our Parks Department for emptying them. The poop containers that our amazing citizens scoop up in their bag and deposit, because that's not a job most of us desire, right? And I always assumed it was public works and saw some with the Parks Department. So that's all I have to say. I just wanted to give a shout out to our Parks Department of doing the dirty job of cleaning up the dog poop along the South Lake Stevens walkway.

Excellent. Should we start with Councilmember Packard and work this way? Nothing from me tonight.

So I have a couple things, just really quick. I did get to attend the Night to Remember Fentanyl Overdose Awareness Night in Everett at the county courthouse. I'll tell you, as someone who has lost several family members and loved ones to overdose, It's someplace you don't ever want to be, but I'm so glad that I was there. It's a huge impact on our community, even right here in Lake Stevens. And so I just wanted to kind of bring that up and say that... You know, I'd like to at some point maybe explore ways that we can help our community members here who have youth that are maybe being impacted by our opiate addiction problems that we have. Something maybe, you know, lockable medicine containers, things like that. So I would just like to explore that at some point. And then the second thing is last week I got to go to the all city meeting here and I just want to thank all the staff for being there. I had a great time. I didn't get to talk to nearly as many people, but it was really cool to see everybody in their element and to see not just the directors, although I appreciate all the directors very much. But it was great to see the crews behind those directors who, you know, are out on the streets and getting those things done and working. Seeing how great everyone works together was really awesome. And the longer that I'm sitting in the seat, the more I have been able to get to know people in the city. And I just cannot say enough how many amazing staffers are here working for Lake City, Lake City, Lake Stevens, the city of Lake Stevens. So thank you all. And I just wanted to say how much I really enjoyed that. So if you haven't been to a staff meeting, you should go because they're pretty cool. Thanks.

Thank you. Last week, I attended the Planning Commission meeting where they went over the public comment on the critical area ordinance. We received lots. Gosh, I keep saying we. It's coming to us at some point. So we, the city, received lots of great public feedback from several tribes, professional organizations, and state agencies. David, as always, did a great job of going through that. And Dave and Russ and Christy. And again, as I mentioned, that will make its way to us at some point. So hold on to your hats. We're going to talk a lot about best available science.

Thank you. Just a couple of things. Last week, I met with Lance Morehouse, who is the CEO of Sherwood Community Center, had an opportunity to learn more about what they do and was very impressed. I'm always so surprised and pleasantly surprised of all the resources our city has available and we'll look for ways to support them. get the word out and learn more. And then there was a community transit board of directors on the same day on September 3rd. Just a couple of highlights that just had a service change at the end of August that was implemented. Lake Stevens Transit Center is now Lake Stevens Park and Ride. Cathcart Park and Ride opened with 154 spaces. Route 109 that also serves Lake Stevens serves that too in addition to Routes 166 and 901. And Sound Transit had some changes to their service that starts in Everett. And also on October 1st, because Community Transit this year is celebrating their 50th year, there was an invitation that went out to council and the mayor to attend a reception held at CT's headquarters just prior to their next board meeting. That's all I have.

Thanks. I wanted to just take a minute and share some community spotlights and cultural celebrations since we're in the beginning of this September month. September is World Alzheimer Month to raise understanding of Alzheimer's disease and dementia. From September 15th to October 15th, it is Hispanic Heritage Month honoring cultural celebrations and considerations. And then just a few days here over the next week. September 7th, as we all know, is Labor Day, celebrating the contributions of workers and recognizing labor rights. September 10th is World Suicide Prevention Day, promoting global efforts to prevent suicide and self-harm. September 10th is Hispanic Heritage Day at the Mariners game, in case anybody has tickets. And then September 11th is Patriot Day, honoring the lives lost on 9-11 and the first responders who were there. September 12th is Rosh Hashanah, marking the Jewish New Year. And this Sunday, if you're down in Seattle, the Seattle Center will be hosting Live Aloha, which is a Hawaiian cultural festival. That's all I have. Thanks.

All right. Thank you, Council. Yes, just to echo what you said, this month is Emergency Preparedness Month as well as Suicide Awareness Month. So Olivia has written two Facebook posts, one for each of those, just to highlight those. I'm going to jump on what you talked about, overdoses, Councilmember Edwards. the Snohomish Health District or Health Department now, their data by zip code of overdoses, you would think that perhaps disadvantaged areas had a higher incidence of overdoses. They do not. 98258 is consistent with 98020, 98208, 98037. I could go on and on. It's uniform throughout our county. So this happens in our neighborhoods here in Lake Stevens, even though it might not be as visible as the Linwood Transit Center or Airport Road and Highway 99. It is still an issue in our community. I have nothing spectacular to talk about, although I do have a meeting this Thursday. Chief Bezizos and I are going to go to the Navy base and speak with the commander. She is eager to speak to the mayor of Lake Stevens because they would like to explore more Navy housing. Don't know what she's going to say, but that's what she wants to talk about. So that's exciting that they continue to see Lake Stevens as a partner. So that's all I have. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Mayor, can I just make one comment? Just a reminder, I sent an email out today, no workshop next week. I'm canceling. And then please put September 29th on your calendar. I think I sent an outlook request for a special meeting for the budget. So thank