City Council - Regular Meeting

and reviewed by the Department of Commerce. In order to ensure the long-term vision of a community stays consistent and the comprehensive plan can only be updated once a year, outside of a few selected emergencies. And so that's where we are today. This is the 2026 comprehensive plan update, as well as a related zoning map amendment. So all that background to get to the idea that this is our once a year amendment. And normally we just sort of, for the most part, unless there's something important, it's usually just an update to the six-year capital improvement plan, because that's important for staying eligible for a lot of grants and state loans and various other capital projects that needs to be listed in that. But this year does have an annual, This year's annual amendment does include a private application. It is from Rory Skinner, so I have attached those documents and will briefly go through them. He has requested that a parcel, which you can see on page 5, it's the one that is encased in blue, outlined in blue. This is 2801 Redwood Street. He is requesting that it change from urban residential mixed, that's not correct. Is that correct? Urban residential, I don't think it's mixed use. Yeah, from urban residential to uptown mixed use on the future land use map. And then this requires also a zoning map amendment, which is attachment three that will run concurrently. And then it does have the changes to the six-year capital improvement plan that are being recommended and requested as well. So looking on page five, you can see it's just, this is the proposal, the area outlined in blue. They're requesting that it change from this sort of olivey green, which is urban residential or urban residential multifamily to the reddish, which is the uptown mixed use. The bottom picture shows the actual area footage. It also shows that Rory Skinner owns the Surprise Lake Square, the property in question and the small property on Taylor. You will also see again comparing the two that the other two properties are currently uptown mixed use. And so he is wanting to put all three of the properties to be the same designation and the same zone. If you turn on page six, it does sort of do a kind of a brief summary of the differences in those. The idea is mixed use is just for multifamily for the most part. And it does have what's called a 12 dwelling unit per acre limit. The uptown mixed use has a variety of both high density residential, commercial, multifamily childcare, restaurants, mercantile. and it does have a standard net density of 30 dwelling units per acre. And then on the next page, which did not come out, I guess it's seven and eight, just shows you what the map would look like. So again, we have what's called a comprehensive plan future land use map. It looks very similar, slight differences to the zoning map. So those are that. I've also included his application. Hopefully it's in here. If not, I may not have printed it for myself. And then starting on page 11, it has the inventory of existing capital facilities. This is part of a section out of the comprehensive plan. In essence, what we do is the public works department under Dustin has, they have the various capital plans for power, for water, for storm. And so I go through with him. And he updates what all those are planning to be. And so this is just information they are providing us to make sure it's up to date. And then I did also look at the police department and I worked with the chief to just make sure those items that they have already done or still hope to do. And so again, it's not something that the planning commission is recommending. This is stuff that that's already in sort of the capital budget or hopes to be at the capital budget at some point. And this allows us to hopefully, like I said, any kind of grant or low interest loan or whatever, they're gonna say, hey, is it in your capital plan? It doesn't commit us to those things. It is a, for planning, purposes. So just because it's in here for 2029 doesn't mean we have to do that if we don't have the funding or we can do it sooner, we can do it later, maybe it changes. But again, it shows that the city is planning for this and we've also identified possible funding opportunities and so those are those items. So that being said, I will open it up for if there's any questions related to these.

Council Member Roberts.

Thank you, Mayor. So I just had a question about the funding sources. So I do see the marked out for RCO grants, for example. I'm just curious, why were those removed for the grant purposes? For example, CF-8 in one of those figures on page 14.

Unfortunately, I don't know for sure. Like I said, this was somewhat coming from Dustin. My suspicion is maybe they wouldn't qualify for an RCO grant. Which page are you on?

It's on page 14. 14.

I don't know if the finance director has any... He just removed things like park amenities and dog parks from RCO grants. Is that something that wouldn't qualify?

That's the Olsen Park, which we don't have access to. It hasn't been...

but he has dog park. Yeah, the New Olsen Park would definitely not be eligible. I'm not sure on the others. Like I said, my suspicion is either he doesn't think they'd be eligible or just doesn't think they would need to be that he's got something maybe bigger in the works. He will be, like I said, this will come back Monday, so I can have him address that if. Yeah, that'd be great. Yep.

Yeah, Council Member Mounts.

Thank you, Mayor. So there's on page four, it's not residential mixed use, it's just urban residential?

It's urban residential multifamily.

So is the comparison, which is really nice to have, by the way, thank you for putting that in there. Is that comparison, the UMR and the UMX, is that comparing the correct to the old and the new? So UMR is just urban residential, not mixed?

The URM is urban residential mixed use. So it's intended for apartment complexes. Or UMR, sorry.

So that's not what it currently is? It's currently just urban residential? It's not currently mixed use?

It's urban residential multifamily. So it's currently, so the one that's being highlighted is URM, urban residential multifamily. It's intended for apartment complexes in essence. I'm not sure why that, you know. and then they're requesting it to be churned to urban mixed use, which would allow the variety.

Okay, so maybe just a couple of minor typos on there. The other question I had was the proposed park that's going in on Surprise Lake. Is that this one? I think that was on this one. Is that the new Wilson Park?

No, Olsen Park is, so there is some property, let's see, where is it? Off of, let me find it really quick.

23rd, it said two to three acres. Is that in this section?

Yeah, so if you go, so basically it's 23rd and Alder. There was Donna Johnson back, I don't know how many decades ago, when in her will, they made a subdivision of basically the corner of 23rd and Alder Of that, there is a parcel that she designated to be dedicated to the city in 2030 as Olson Park. And so as we're approaching 2030, the Public Works Department has added it so that we can start doing some planning. There's some real restrictions on it as well. In essence, it's supposed to be sort of a a low-intensity park based on the rules that come with the dedication. It can't have, like, baseball fields or anything, but it can have picnic tables and different things. So that's the park we were discussing when we mentioned Olsen Park. It's up in that area.

Will it have access to the lake?

It's up by Alder, so no.

I'm sorry?

It's up next to Alder, Alder Street. Okay. So no.

Gotcha. Okay, thank you.

Yes, Council Member McNally-Martinez.

Quick question on page five on that map. Does that negatively affect in any way the two parcels just north of him? Because I noticed it's just two other parcels north that would still be the original designation.

So those are currently, they're zoned the multifamily, the urban residential multifamily.

Could they do it all at once if they wanted to do it?

Yeah, so I know both of those, the two that are there are actually owned by one person. and I know they have looked at that as well. We have sent out notices to let them know that that parcel is, so just basically the property's right around it. It's not required, but we did send out notices just saying, hey, this is being proposed. Please feel free to contact us, contact me, and so that I can explain it, answer any questions, let them know if they have concerns.

Okay, so they're aware.

Yep, and I did, yeah, one of those, I can't remember which one, did have their real estate agent contact us.

Council Member Hall.

Page 16, the top paragraph, it still says that there may be a possibility of the public safety sharing with police and East Pierce's

I tried to take all that out. I will make that note and I will get that corrected. So yes, previously for those that are newer who may not have been aware, there was discussions of doing, turning building A into a joint or replacing building A with a joint public safety facility. As you are aware, East Pierce Fire and Rescue is building their own. That did not pan out. So yes, we've been trying to remove all references to that.

Thank you.

Council Member Ternes.

Thank you, I was just curious under where we have the differences between the zoning for UMR and UMX. And under UMX it says other commercial uses. So to me that is a broad spectrum of what can go in there. So I know when they're applying for licenses and they will put that by the planning committee. I just don't wanna see a zone for like strip clubs and hot shops and things like that.

I just did a summary. The use table that is in the zoning municipal code, the zoning portion specifically lists what types can be there. I just sort of tried to... it would have taken too long to have listed all of them. So this is just sort of giving you guys a general summary, but our uptown mixed use, is designed to be more pedestrian-oriented. It is all of those stores, restaurants. It could be professional offices. It could be an art studio. There's a lot of those things. But as to specifically things like more adult entertainment, that has its own category and its own, because the state regulates those differently, Those are not allowed in this area. I think we have to allow it at least one place, and I believe it's in the business district, which would be along 99.

Okay, thank you.

Any further discussion? Council Member Cedar.

Thanks. Thanks for the updates. Always good to see that. I just want to be very clear that I don't see any reason to rezone this parcel. I don't see any reason to change to uptown mixed use. We have desperate need for housing and everything I can see in the application and doing a little bit of background checking on who owns that property and who the email address is, which is Northmark, a commercial investment property management company, suggests that this will not be used for housing. I actually wouldn't have a problem if it was multifamily dwelling units that got put in there, but.

They're actually look, I mean, it doesn't guarantee it, but the applicants are looking at, they're looking at it. They want it rezoned because they are looking at buying the two properties and for multifamily housing and want the higher density.

But why not just build a 12? And I'm not asking you. I know you don't know the answer. And I know their answer, which is more money. But we have this well-thought-out, gradiated zoning plan. And that's a pity that the Skinners invested in the 70s in this property that never panned out the way they hoped, and now they want to change our zoning code to match their investment goals. That's a pity. I'm sorry for them. But we have a need for housing, and I would like to see our zoning remain dedicated to housing there, which is what the UMR does. I just don't see a compelling reason to modify our comp plan to meet one investor's goals. I mean, they're not. not that there's anything wrong with being a non-Milton resident, but it's not like they've lived there. And I think that even the application suggests that this is like a Milton family that's trying to diversify. And that's not true. They're Tacoma residents. This is an investment property. And just serendipitously, there was a lot of rallying against developers just recently. Well, I got news for you. That's what this is. So just in terms of consistency with our own goals of controlling our zoning, controlling our gentle density, I think this is exactly one of the changes that would go against that. So I just want to get on the record and let everyone know where I'm standing. So when it comes back for voting, that's where I'll be.

I assume the applicants who are working with Mr. Skinner will be here at the public hearing. So they'll be able to share at that point.

Thank you. Yes, Council Member Roberts.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a general question. How often does this occur where somebody wants something rezoned, a private individual?

This is the first one I've done for this. So yeah, it doesn't, again, we're limited in general once a year if it's tied to the comp plan. So basically we have what's called a docking and they would come to us and we'd say, okay, we consider in between in January and February and then we go through them. So it doesn't happen very often. We did it sort of They didn't do it as a private application, but we did in essence for the fire department last year because they had bought all the properties and it made sense. This was the first private application I've had since I've been here. So yeah, it doesn't happen a lot, so. Thank you.

Any additional discussion? No, okay. So this will come in.

It'll be on next meeting for public hearing and if there's any further discussion. And then it actually won't come back until October for action. Like I said, we're under the certain things like the comprehensive plan requires 60 day review notice by the state for any comments they might have. And so we're currently in the middle of that.

OK. All right, moving on to the next item on our agenda this evening, item 3B on page 33 of your packet, the second quarter 2026 financial report. And our finance director, Robeck, will be presenting this item.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. We'll be presenting the second quarter report fund by fund as usual, but please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information as we go along. The baseline for activity in the operating funds is 50% of budgeted amounts, and we will be addressing any significant variances from this target as the funds are presented. Starting with the general fund on page 35, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 54%. Licenses and permits and charges for services, however, are trending below budgeted amounts. This is primarily due to lower than expected building permit fees and plan review fees. Total expenditures are trending slightly below budgeted amounts at 48%. Judicial expenditures are higher than budget as a result of the annual payment to the City of Puyallup at the beginning of the year, as well as higher than expected quarterly payments. Legal services is higher than budget due to higher than expected city attorney fees related to a contract dispute. Other central services is higher than budget as a result of annual expenditures, including insurance and city memberships. Recreational facilities is above budget due to costs related to removal of the community building. Facilities is a negative amount as a result of the indirect cost allocation. This category will change to a positive amount as the year progresses. Lastly, non-expenditures is a negative amount due to timing issues. This category contains several clearing accounts with expenditures distributed throughout the year. Does anyone have any questions on the general fund before we move on?

Okay.

In the asset replacement fund on page 36, Revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 55%, with higher than anticipated miscellaneous revenues or interest. Expenditures in the fund are for the purchase and outfitting of two police vehicles. In the street fund, on page 37, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 53%, with higher than expected street permit, motor vehicle fuel tax, and interest revenues. Expenditures are also trending above budget amounts at 55% with higher than anticipated public utilities and repairs and maintenance. In the rainy day fund on page 38, revenues are trending above budget amounts at 52% with higher than anticipated miscellaneous revenues or interest. Other revenues in the fund include budgeted transfers in from the general fund. In the Drug Seizure Fund on page 39, there are no revenues or expenditures to date. In the Criminal Justice Fund on page 40, revenues are trending as budgeted at 50%. Expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 45% with nearly all categories under budget. In the Community Events Fund on page 41, revenues include mostly Milton Days sponsorship and vendor fees. There is not much expenditure activity, but expenditures will increase as events occur throughout the remainder of the year. In the Traffic Safety Camera Fund on page 42, revenues are trending below budgeted amounts at 46%. Expenditures are slightly above budgeted amounts at 53%, but this is primarily due to the annual payment to the city of Puyallup for municipal court services at the beginning of the year. In the real estate excise tax funds on page 43 and 44, revenues are trending slightly below budgeted amounts at 47%, but higher than the previous year. Expenditures are budgeted transfers out to the capital improvement fund for eligible capital projects. In the traffic impact fee fund on page 45, revenues are trending as budgeted at 50%. Expenditures are budgeted transfers out to the capital improvement fund for eligible capital projects. In the parks impact fee fund on page 46, revenues have already surpassed budgeted amounts at 206%. No expenditures are budgeted in this fund for the current year. In the capital improvement fund on page 47, revenues are below budgeted amounts at 21%, primarily due to intergovernmental revenues or grant funds expected but not yet received. The largest expenditures in the fund to date are for the city hall retrofit and citywide parks improvements projects. In the electric utility fund on page 48, revenues are trained above budgeted amounts at 58%. Total expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 43%, but administration expenditures are above budget as a result of the annual insurance payment and higher than expected professional services. Inter-fund transfers are also above budget as a result of higher revenues. in the Electric Capital Improvement Fund on page 49, revenues are trending above budget amounts at 61%. The largest expenditures in the fund to date are for tree trimming and the meter and pole replacement projects. In the Water Utility Fund on page 50, revenues are trending as budgeted at 50% and expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 45%. In the Water Capital Improvement Fund on page 51, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 52%. The largest expenditures in the fund to date are for the miscellaneous pump station component upgrades, miscellaneous well rehabilitation, and new deep well projects. In the Water Asset Replacement Fund on page 52, revenues are trending slightly above budgeted amounts at 51%. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the Stormwater Utility Fund on page 53, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 57%. Total expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 42%, but Interfund transfers are higher than budget as a result of higher revenues. In the Stormwater Capital Improvement Fund on page 54, Revenues are trending below budgeted amounts at 26%. This is primarily due to intergovernmental revenues or grant funds expected but not yet received. Expenditures in the fund to date are for the citywide ditch and culvert project. In the stormwater asset replacement fund on page 55, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 58%. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the electric asset replacement fund on page 56, revenues are trending above budgeted amounts at 59%. There are no expenditures in the fund to date. In the Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Fund on page 57, revenues are quite a bit below budgeted amounts. Revenues in this fund are based on internal work orders and will increase as the year progresses. Expenditures are below budgeted amounts as well at 39%. And lastly, in the Information Technology Fund on page 58, revenues are as budgeted at 50%. Revenues in this fund are based on cost allocations posted to the fund in equal amounts each month. Expenditures are below budgeted amounts at 33%. That's all of the prepared comments that I had, but I'm open for any questions or additional information you might need.

Any questions for Director Robach? Yes, Council Member Mons.

Thank you. I know that we had three or four years of budget where we budgeted for an engineer and a project manager. And I don't know how that surplus, I mean, that would have generated some surplus in the general fund. Was that transferred over to the Rainy Day Fund under miscellaneous, or what's the miscellaneous revenues in the Rainy Day Fund?

The miscellaneous revenues in the Rainy Day Fund is primarily interest, or is just interest.

Interest, OK. So then the padding that we had in the general fund, is that reflected in this?

It's not reflected in the budget amounts that are showing. We didn't reduce the budget for the 2026 budget for that removal of the city engineer from the wage scale. The city engineer's wages are spread or were or are spread among multiple funds. I can tell you exactly which funds if you give me a minute. Is that like the inter-fund transfers that you mentioned? We actually allocate all non-public works salaries. We allocate our wages. We allocate according to an allocation, a set allocation scale. Like my salary, planning manager, stall maker salary have a set allocation that they go to. And the city engineer was one of those that had a set allocation as well and was allocated partially to the general fund, partially to each of the utility funds, the electric, water, and storm funds. Like I said, I could tell you exactly, but that position was allocated among multiple departments in the general fund as well as the utility funds. So there's little pieces in each of those funds.

And it is or is not reflected in this information that you've provided tonight?

the engineer, the budget for the engineer's wages is still included in the budgeted amounts that are in this report.

And then it just won't show up as an expenditure. So at the end of the year, we'll end up with a quote unquote surplus. Correct. Okay, and then just my last question. We have a surplus in the parks fund. But we're expending parks improvements out of the capital improvement project fund. Would parks expenditures logically come out of the parks fund? 200% money in there?

We can only spend those monies on particular parks projects, in particular capacity adding type projects, like if a city our size should have two baseball fields but we only have one, and I'm speaking theoretically, if we were to build a second one, then we could use the park's impact fees for an expenditure like that. Or the same thing with playgrounds. If we had determined that our city should have X number of playgrounds and we were deficient in that, we could use those monies for that. So they're restricted, though. They're restricted, thank you.

Any additional questions for the director? Seeing none, thank you, Director Roback. We'll move on to item 3C on page 59 of your packet, the Budget Amendment Ordinance. And Finance Director Roback will be presenting this item as well.

Thank you again. The proposed ordinance provides adjustments to the 2026 budget as adopted by City Council on December 8, 2025. This is the second ordinance amending the 2026 budget and reflects changes that have occurred since adoption of the original budget. These adjustments are detailed in the accompanying exhibits A and B. Exhibit A is a modification to the wage scale for one position title only. If approved, this amendment would change the position title of planning manager to community and economic development director. This new title better aligns with the position's current duties and responsibilities. Planning Manager Stahlnecker will need to be confirmed as the Community and Economic Development Director through a separate action at the next City Council meeting as well if this passes. Also attached is Exhibit B. I think I might have... I made a mistake on my agenda bill. That should have been exhibit C, I believe, which is the carry forward of unexpended 2025 budget for continuing projects. This exhibit details unexpended appropriations for continuing projects, which may be carried forward from the previous year's budget pursuant to RCW. These changes are not required to be approved by ordinance, but will be reflected in the current year's amended budget.

All right, any questions for Director Robic? Yes, Councilmember Mounce.

Thank you. I was a little bit confused by the change of position title from Planning Manager to Community and Economic Development Director. Are we creating a new position here at the city?

Maybe Mayor, would you like to address that? It's not a new position, it's just a title change only from planning manager to community and economic development director. Do we have, I don't know if you're able to speak additionally on that?

Mainly it was a request to be able to put the Planning Department on par with the other directors in the other departments in the city.

So we don't have a new job description or minimum qualifications for the director position. I noticed that, and I was looking for the org chart online. I really struggle with our city website. I could not find an org chart. So I tried to do tallies off of the salary and wage sheet that you provided. And there's one or two, two employees currently under the Planning Manager, and one of those employees is new. I looked up the definition of director online, managers manage staff, and directors manage managers. So I don't, I didn't see a manager or supervisor. And then I know that the Public Works Director has several employees under them, so I just wondered if it was consistent with and fair to the other managers or directors who have a lot of employees under them?

Well, I mean, the finance department is the same, if I'm not mistaken. But you don't have a manager, do you?

There isn't a title that is specific manager. There's finance technicians one and then a tech two that is sort of, if I'm out, they're in charge, I guess, but not with a manager title. That's correct. Okay. And my, okay, my understanding is that this will, well, this particular budget amendment will be coming back next week, but also for approval, but that also a confirmation will be happening?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, it's required by code that the Economic Development Director needs to be approved by Council. Yes.

So it's basically kind of a reclassification, or is it not? Is it just a job title? Is it a reclassification of the position, or is it a job title change?

It's just a job title change. Yes, Councillor Boehme-Hall.

I know you do a lot of different jobs, and you wear many different hats. So this should align with what doing, correct?

Yes.

I feel really weird answering on this because it is about me. On next week's agenda, it's kind of premature because it happens to be on his because she has to do two readings. There's a full presentation. It's on the agenda for next week. There is an... Actually, I think it's planning. It's not economic. We'll have to... The city clerk has prepared documentations that has an updated job description and probably a lot of the things that would help you guys make that decision that will be included in next week's packet that Bruce will be presenting.

Thank you.

Yes, Council Member.

I just want to say I did a quick dive into the city. It's the same size as Milton, and it's not uncommon for them to have directors planning and then to combine the economics and planning as a director. It's pretty common. I looked at Duvall, North Bend, Milton, Stanwood, Selah. So it's not unseen what you're asking. I think it's pretty common.

Any additional questions? Yes, Council Member Poer.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say I plan on getting behind this. I want to dive deeper into the details, but I really appreciate the work that you do, and I have only scratched the surface on understanding how much you do for our city and our citizens. So thank you for your service, and look forward to hearing the rest of the proposal.

And I have to say that I'm continually amazed that Planning Manager Stalnicker finds enough hours in the day to do the amount of work that she does for the city, so.

I have seen her little box read on a Sunday night before.

Any additional discussion on this item? Okay, let's move on then to item 4D on page 71, which is the Salary Commission Ordinance, and Finance Director Robach will be presenting this item as well.

Compensation for city council members has been fixed at $400 per month since at least 2002. Since this amount has been unchanged for over 20 years, staff is proposing the establishment of a salary commission to review the compensation of elected officials. When elected officials set their own salaries, salary increases are prohibited during their term of office. As an alternative to the governing bodies setting their own salaries, RCW 35.21.015 authorizes the creation of a salary commission to set and review compensation for local elected officials. Salary commissions can implement pay increases at any time during the term, although decreases cannot take effect until after the end of the official's term of office according to the Washington state constitution. This item is being presented tonight for discussion only. And staff is looking for questions, comments, and suggestions regarding items such as definitions for commission members. It was pointed out that in our sample ordinance, we didn't specifically designate that they must be a Milton resident. I think that might be something that's important to add. Also in the sample ordinance, it talks about benefits a lot. I don't know if that's something that this council is interested in removing or keeping in. Other things like the mayor is included in the sample ordinance. I'm not sure if that's something that this Council wants to leave in, change, or modify in any way. Among other items.

All right, any questions on this item for Director Robic? Yes, Councillor Roberts.

Thank you, Mayor. So was the verbiage for the ordinance more or less taken from the RCW? Was the verbiage for the ordinance taken from the RCW?

It was actually taken from an example in MRSC of Lake Forest Park, and a lot of that was used to create this.

Because I saw the law indicated a lot about nepotism, rightly so. Yes. Things like that. So I'm just curious how much of a structure it's actually used for, which I know you guys have to conform and follow it. So I'm just curious.

Any additional questions or discussion?

Is there any direction on changes that you? that you all might like to see if this is brought back or if there's interest in bringing this back?

Councilmember Roberts.

Thank you. So being part of council, I was surprised that we actually get a salary. So I did it for love of the game, quote unquote, but I am open to having a commission basically address any kind of increases, decreases, et cetera. So I'm for it, but typically how many people would be on there? I guess it's up to our determination though, right?

In the proposed ordinance, it designates three. That would need to be confirmed by the city council.

And again, we could change that if we want to, to five or however many. Okay, thank you. Council Member Mounts.

Is there an expectation that this might, if there is an increase, that it might promote public interest in running for council when there are vacancies? Since we had three positions that there was no opposition and the love of the game, right? But maybe more people would be interested if there was.

I think that that's part of the reason for bringing it forward is yes, to increase interest in serving on the city council and to also try and find a kind of an arm's length way of setting council salaries and possibly the mayor's salary as well.

Councillor Holland.

Councillor Holland. I have a question, is if the commission decides we need an increase, how do we balance it to the budget? Because we're already at a deficit at this point, or we're not at a deficit. We're going down. I don't want to overspeak. And do we have to take that even though we know, because we're responsible for that budget, is how do we balance that? Because I don't want to take money.

Yeah. No, that's a really good question because all of the sample ordinances that I had read actually said specifically once the commission makes its determination that that specific determination of wages doesn't have to be approved by Council. It automatically gets put into the budget. I read, too. So yes, that is a valid concern. Council and mayor's wages are not 100% in the general fund. A large portion of them is in the general fund, but they are allocated out to the utility and other funds with the indirect cost allocation. So an increase would not, you know, disproportionately, necessarily disproportionately affect the general fund only. It would affect multiple funds, not just the general fund.

And then when was the last time the mayor's salary was updated?

2020 or 21, 20 or 21. I know it was right in the middle of COVID.

Do you, you don't remember off the top of your head? I remember it happening, but I don't remember what year it was.

Yeah, I could do some research and find out.

Because at this budget or at this point, It really should be focused on Council, just because it's been too many years. Personally, I donate back to the city quite a bit of mine for events every year. And I pay taxes on top of that. So is it fair? I do it voluntarily. I do it because I want to. But yes, we do want people to make it worth their time, but I don't want them to do it for the money either. You should do it because you love Milton.

Any additional discussion? Yes, Council Member McNally-Martinez.

I think Michelle had mentioned, I do think you should add that it should be a city resident in there. I think that's a smart thing to do. And I'm okay with the commission. It's been many years since your council was looked at.

Any additional discussion? Yes, Council Member Seder.

Yeah, just on the same point, I'm indifferent about the residence. So if there's a preference for it, then by all means, let's add that in. In terms of whether it should be just Councillor Mayer, I agree this should just be the Council that's looked at with this commission. I think that this is a lift anyway to get a commission together. And given how long it's been since Council, I think it is overdue to be looked at. My hesitancy with moving forward at all remains kind of what people have talked about. I think there's definitely value in getting people interested and I think people are always surprised when I tell them that, oh, we're compensated in this much. And I go, that's not really even a part-time job. But my hesitancy is that there's so many other positions that receive no compensation that I think require almost sometimes more work, like planning commission or even events committee at times or parks commission. Those things require a lot of work, and they have no compensation. So I'm hesitant. about moving forward just because of the optics of that, that like here we are potentially increasing council, will those remain uncompensated altogether? So that's my internal tension, just throwing it out. But I do think that it's worthwhile to look at if it is going to move forward.

Thank you.

Yes, Council Member Ternes.

I was actually surprised at the timeframe from 2002 to now that there has not been any increase at all.

And we believe that it's even farther back than there. That's just the farthest back we could find documented. Yeah. I think our deputy city clerk found back in the 90s, early 90s, it might have been $200,000.

But 2002 was the last time for sure we could see when. I know the cost of gas to get here is a lot more in this day and age. But I was actually, I don't remember how it came to my attention what Fife City Council, that they make over $1,000 a month. And I was really surprised. I know they're a bigger city and they probably have a lot more issues. But I was really just surprised to see that there was that big of a difference. Thank you.

Council Member Roberts.

Just to add a caveat to what Council Member Mounce, excuse me, Turnis had said. So I was speaking with the Bainbridge Island folks and they said they get paid $3,500 a month. So that's a significant amount there, yeah. Also, too, just to reiterate, so if somebody's opposed to this, somebody in the city of Milton, they have time to file for a referendum, correct? They have 30 days, correct?

That is correct, yes.

Okay, and then there would be a freeze and a pause until a vote was taken, correct?

That's correct, until a vote of the people. It would be included in an election.

Okay, thank you. Any additional discussion?

Oh, we have confirmed that the mayor's salary was increased in 2020.

OK. All right. Seeing no further discussion, that completes our agenda for the evening. So I adjourn this meeting at 6.53 p.m.