City Council - Regular Meeting

Disclose whether or not there are conflicts of interest or even the appearance. of a conflict of interest So because the doctrine seeks that so far as practicable council members and the mayor because the mayor breaks the time though in the case of a tie. Be open minded and objective, impartial and free of entangling influences or even the taint thereof. So I'm going to start with my questions. Does any member of this council or the mayor have any financial interest in the project. the property, or with the applicant or owner involved. No, no.. There ain't none. Does any member of this council mayor have any property ownership interests or personal, family, or business interests directly affected by the outcome of this proceeding, the rezone of these parcels. No. Does any member of the council or mayor live or own property in close proximity of the area subject to the rezone and close proximity of define the case law of right around 300 ft. That Does any member of this council or the mayor know whether or not their employer has a financial interest in the project. The rezone, or in any outcome of this proceeding. No Does any member of this council mayor have any special knowledge about the substance or the merits of the proceeding which would or caused them to prejudge the outcome of the proceeding without listening to the arguments or reviewing the record. No. Have the council members been contacted outside the record on this project by either a proponent or opponent with respect to the proposal. Yeah, should we say email? If so, if you can please disclose the substance of that communication and the name of the contacts Um, how about I just abstain from the vote instead. You can always, you can always disqualify yourself if you elect, and that would require under the appearance of fairness that you would have to remove

yourself from the room during the hearing. Yeah, that's fine. But, uh, you can also disclose the substance of the communication which provides an opportunity of all the parties of record to listen to it and rebut it if you so desire. Up to you though. That's fine. You just call me back after. Yep, come back. This, this is the last thing. No, no. No we're coming back legislative acts. I promise I'll come back and get you. Um Wait a second Were there others? Well, we've received emails. Yes, we received emails. I've people better. OK If you could just disclose the nature of the emails and the substance of the record. Uh I briefly, I read something about it. It was about the project and then I that was it. I didn't a description of the project. Yeah, I didn't respond. Was there any further information, any council member received, any communication? Mostly, um they weren't in favor of it, but there was I, I didn't respond to any of them. I could probably find you a list, but because they're all in my email still, but I haven't, I haven't deleted any, but I believe we all received the same email. I don't think. Has that been made? I don't think it was available on the staff. No. OK, so if you could just disclose the substance of the conclusion of why they weren't in favor of it, so we can put it on the record. Two of them were, one was the flood flood controls and how they'll impact their surrounding neighborhoods, and the other was traffic and currency and how it would impact the road and the streets and the neighborhoods. Has there been any other communications outside the record of a substance different from those two concerns. No, I don't believe Kevin, I had an inquiry about someone who just wanted to know how to provide comment tonight. That was, that was an exchange.

Yeah. Do you feel these contacts would prevent you from deciding the case on the record? No. No Is there a member of this council who believes that he or she cannot sit and hear this matter fairly and impartially, both as to the respective positions of the proponents and the opponents of the requested zone change. Apparently there's one, you know, he's done. At this point, I'm gonna open it up. Is there any party of record because of the appearance of fairness doctrine, who wants to make a motion to disqualify any of these council members. And so, please identify the council member, state the reason or reasons why you believe the council members should be disqualified. Hearing none OK, so I am done with my disloaders. All the legal stuff is mostly done, and I will invite the mayor and staff to move forward with the hearing and staff to begin their presentation. Thanks, Marianne. I've installed a lot of my thunder, so. you have to bear with So tonight that our request is for the council to hold a closed record public hearing and making a motion to accept the hearing examiner's recommendation and authorized the mayor to sign the accompanying ordinance approving the McLaughlin Road rezone. The property where the rezone is is requested is 4400 mL. and the recommendation staff recommends that after holding the closed record hearing, counsel make a motion accepting the hearing examiner's recommendation and authorized the mayor to sign the accompanying ordinance approving from McLaughlin Road rezon request, which is file number PLAN 21. 0506, and I emphasize 21 because this is the oldest project. in the planning department right now. So we are really, really excited to get it off

of our books. So the background The proposal is for a site-specific rezone to bring the property into compliance with its existing comprehensive plan designation. This project is, is, is somewhat unique. So I'm going to give you some contexts to help you understand this um process. Some of you have seen this slide um before, but the the those of you that are new have not. So this this is the regulatory context for how the um we, we operate in the the, the planning uh department or the development services. There are 3 different, um, approval processes for things that, that we that we work on. The administrative which is the top of the pyramid, the quasi-judicial, which is the the middle of the pyramid and legislative. Administrative approvals are are day to day approvals. The way we, the things that we process every day in our department, things like set building permits, site plans, short plots, boundary line adjustments, sign fence permits. The approval for these permits is by our director. Then as we move down the pyramid get into the middle part, into the quasi-judicial approvals and Kevin talked a little bit about those, and those are the approvals that require um someone other than the, the planning director to make the decision, the approval decision, typically the hearing examiner or city council. These are things like conditional use permits, preliminary plots, variances, larger master plans and site specific rezones. This process includes a public hearing and typically that's before the hearing examiner, and for some of the permits, the hearing examiner is the final decision maker, and for other permits, it's city council. He made the council, the hearing examiner makes a recommendation to counsel and then counsel

is the final decision maker. And finally at the bottom of the pyramid are the legislative approvals. These approvals are where council makes the final. decision. Things like when we create or amend our zoning or development regulations, and we create or amend our comprehensive plan and actually just to put it in context, when you do your budget, those are all legislative, um items. The public hearings for the for the planning work is often held at the planning commission, but it can also be held at the city council. and the council makes the final decision on that. So let's just a kind of a bird's eye view of the regulatory context that we operate under. The next thing we're going to talk about is the uh the how comprehensive plan designations and res work. So in this case, in 2020, that this city council um approved a redesignation for the property. It was in December 2020, and it was ordinance 3823. There are two state laws, RCW 3670A0403 and 3670A 120 1 that require development regulations to be consistent with an implement the comprehensive plan. In this case the rezone request is considered a development regulation. So typically arison what we do we do a comprehensive plan, amendment, and right after that, we would come behind it with the rison request. That didn't happen in this case for a couple of reasons. There was a requirement in the council's

um approval of the, the comprehensive plan redesignation request that the property be subdivided so that we wouldn't create a split zone. parcel When they applicant applied for the, for the rezone and the, the short plat became clear that there was a great the the the prop the property was challenged by, by critical areas. And it took us several years working with the um various state and federal agencies to work through all of the critical area, um, issues that were, that were associated with that, and we, we finally were able to do that. early last year, and they were able to then finally complete the short plot, and we got that recorded in September and then started this process for the, the backup. So there was a large, large gap of time that we, that we have that honestly we've never seen before on any other on on any other comprehensive plan. designation and rezon. So that's just, this is not usual. This is very unusual. So, again, the purpose of this um rezone is to bring the zoning into compliance with the comprehensive plan designation as required by um state law. So the comprehensive plan designation for this property is medium high density multifamily. That comprehensive plan designation is associated with zoning designations of either R3 R4. In order to be consistent with an implement the comprehensive plan as required by the state law. the city can rezone the property as either R3 or R4. Anything else

would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would therefore not be consistent with the state law. This is the last context slide, and then we'll talk about the project. So, the last thing we're gonna talk about is is the the relationship between a reason and in sight-specific development. For the purpose of a rezone is to plot to apply a use designation to a piece of property or sometimes we do it to entire areas. That designation allows the the property, all the property to be considered for any use that's allowed in that zoning district. It's not lock in any specific use. So, in the R3 and the R4 districts, the lodge uses are, are, are the same. Two family and townhouse dwelling units, multi-family residential development, municipal parks and playgrounds. professional offices such as medical and dental offices. specialized housing for the elderly and day nurseries. There are 4 district has a higher density allowance. so more of the residential units could be built, but the types of the uses allowed are the same for both districts. There's been a lot of speculation, a lot of discussion about multifamily residential being built on the property. until the city has an application for a site-specific development, and that, and it is approved. any. of those allowed uses could happen on that property. The current owner could sell up the property next week and we

could have something totally different proposed from what it, what they are currently thinking. Now we move down to the site specific development. When an applicant turns in an application or a property owner turns in an application for a site-specific development. It is required to comply with all of the cities's development regulations to be approved. They turn in a detailed application and must meet all the city requirements for stormwater management, floodplain development, critical areas, traffic concurrency, fire requirements, zoning, building code, and any other regulations that would be relevant to the proposal. When we get that application, this um it's, it's a detailed application that shows how it complies with all of those regulations. So then all the relevant departments look at that application, they review it carefully and make sure that it does in fact comply with all of the, of the city requirements. We look at a rezone we cannot do that with any that that detailed review because we don't have the detail to, to look at it. We do a we do a high level review of it. and we are often able to identify areas that will need additional review during a site-specific review. but they are very different things All right, now we're gonna move into something that is more fun and I, I, you know, I apologize, just like a lot better. Well, it looks a lot better on your tra than it does on mine, so maybe I don't have to apologize. Um. so you can see where the site is located? It's on the very, very eastern edge of the the city. Um, there is a, if you, if you look, you

can see that there's a dash line. I can't even drop it for you on here cause I can't log there yet. There it is. So come down. This is the city limits all along here, runs along the top, it runs along the side of this one, it comes down here. and then down, down there. So that, that is the city limits for, for the, for the city of Mount Burn. So this is really on the very, very eastern edge of the city. This is a college right down here. Martin Road, uh, McLaughlin Road. Then we have our, our our our zoning and our comprehensive plan designation today, right now, the zoning public right here, you see that? And you see, that's on the comprehensive plan? medium high, density, multi family, not consistent. There's a short plot we talked about that was done. This is lot 2 of that short plot Tracki and Track Beats. These, these three pieces. Venereal photo, you can see the area photo of the, of the area So the, the, the proposal is to redesignate 8.3 acres of property currently designated as Lock 2 and Track B of Mount Burnisher Platte, PLAN 25,030. Currently its own public, it's proposed to be zoned multi-family residential R4 to be consistent with its comprehensive plan designation. The hearing examiner held a hearing on October 30th, 2025, and recommended approval on December 12, 2025. The applicant has satisfied the reason criteria outlined within the Mount Vernon municipal code and has completed the procedural requirements for rezons. Project has completed the required public process. up to this closed record hearing and the hearing examiner has recommended

approval of the request. The hearing examiners's decision is included as an attachment to any. That's all I have for you. If you have questions for me, I'm happy to address that. Mm Questions for Mary Anne about this, and it can be. process or anything else OK. You have the right to ask more questions later. We're going to open the, the closed record hearing at this point then, and anyone who is already a party of record is invited to come up to the podium. and give comments Hello. Welcome. If you could please state your name and. to be a president Mayor Dunleman and city council members, good evening. My name is Norm Barber. My wife and I live at 3811 Autumn Way in Summer sun stats built along McLaughlin Road. I am also speaking on behalf of my neighbors at their request, and a number of them are here with me tonight. After spending over 30 years in risk management, including partner level positions at Anderson, Protivity and Microsoft one lesson I've learned is that risk can rarely be eliminated, but it can be minimized. In regard to the excerpt of the public record you've been provided, and I believe you should have 3 pages available to you. And thank you for your executive assistant for for help. Um so if you look at the first page line 23. Hearing the examiner Phil Olbrechts identifies the inherent risk of this site, and I quote, One major point against the higher density zoning is that the rezone area is in a mapped flood hazard area. On the second page, line 3, he further notes, and I quote again, a

potentially more compelling argument against the higher density rezone is that density should be minimized in flood hazard areas to minimize the number of dwellings that could be affected by the flooding. While the recommendation before you may appear to be cut and dried. Examiner Olbrichts offers an alternative for you to consider on line 5. If the council has any doubts. as to the effectiveness of these regulations and here referring to the municipal code. it may wish to consider adopting the R3 zone instead of the R4 zone to minimize potential damage. Now, as to potential damage on December 12th, we all know flooding was severe and it was severe at this site. The Skagit River and the setting, setting a new record height caused water flood water on this site to rise to a point only 130 ft from McLaughlin Road itself. and Fire Chief Harris told us in this chamber last week flooding in general could have been even worse. Now, turning to the 3 page in the excerpt, marked as exhibit 10. You'll see that 2.5 acres of landfill will be used to elevate buildings above estimated flood levels. While buildings can be raised, existing roads in the city's existing stormwater system cannot be mitigated by landfill. In December storm drains back up onto roads. McLaughlin Road along dead end road shared with Skagit County did flood. McLaughlin Road is the only access to and from this site. We still rely on FEMA flood insurance rate maps that took effect

over 41 years ago, to anticipate where to apply flood mitigation such as landfill. As a result we are concerned about the increased flood risk to our future neighbors. particularly those who relying on affordable housing. and concerned about safety risks to emergency personnel like the young firefighter who knocked on our door during the evacuation to check on us. That was a very sobering experience. We respectfully urged the city council to consider examiner Olbricht's alternative to minimize risks and to amend Section 3 of the ordinance to rezone the property at the lower density are 3 to align with the comprehensive plan designation of medium high density multifamily uh, for this site as required by law. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mr. Barber. It doesn't look like there's anyone else who wants to speak. or maybe they can't speak. OK, um, we will close the uh the closed record hearing at that point. OK. OK, so I just have a, a, a couple of things to, that I wanna, I wanna tell you, you know, um, uh, the uh, the hearing examiner did, in fact, give an alternative, and that is, that is an alternative that, that, that, that, that the city council has. I do want to full disclosure so that you, that, that, that you, that you know, um, as you're well aware, we are right now working on uh our update to the comprehensive plan and we are working on, we will be updating the development regulations to go with it. We have every reason right now to believe that we will be taking the right now we

have the two multi-family zones that we will be eliminating those and rolling them into just one multifamily zone. So, while you could change this to R3, when we finished with the comprehensive plan process and and our, our development regulations. that will not, that in, in all likelihood that will not exist. We will only have one multifamily, um, zone that will be, that, that will be, be available in the city. So I just want to make sure that you're, that you're, you're aware of that. And um and now that yes, you could do that, but I don't know that, that the benefit of, of of, of doing that in the long run because there are going to be changes that are going to be made. The other thing that I wanted just to point out to you is, we and we talked about this you know, about, about the, the site specific um versus the, the um comprehensive plan or the rezone level zoning. because the, the, the, um, the property just to the, to the west. is, is does have a development proposal on it right now. There's the, the development proposal for a church on it. So when the applicant was doing that, what was putting that up that application together. They did a, uh, what, what we call a no rise flo study. So they came in and they, they they looked at um what, what, what the, what would happen if you, if you filled the um the property. what the impact that would have on flooding, and because they were doing that study and those studies are, are, are quite expensive and the the owner owned both the both pieces of property. They did the no rice study for the, for, for both pieces of property. So they did do a no rise study to to show what the impacts would be if they fully

filled both pieces of property and, and, um, the results of that, of that, um, study were that there would, there would be negligible amounts of flooding in that area. And I and and those there were they they did two of those studies, and those studies are attached to your, your um counsel packet. So, um, we did do more. We did look more at the, the, the flooding for this area, then we typically would do for a reason because the, the property owner and applicant had prepared that, um, that, that flood study. So I just wanted to make you aware of that, so that, that might help in any um decision-making you have. Do you have any questions for me about any of that? Thanks, Mary Anne Counsel, so that the zone consolidation is something that's been talked about a lot at the staff level, maybe planning commission level just as our code in the city of Mount Vernon is sort of unique in that it is so complex. There are so many levels of zoning that that's been one of the things that's been identified through this comp plan there would be that consolidation. Questions for Marianne. Yeah, Councilman Brad, um. so you, what you're saying is that the R3 and R4 would merge into and BR4. It would just, I don't know, it could be it could be LP. OK, I got you. OK, I just wanted to try to understand what, what you meant by that. OK Oh, good question. Yeah. So, and you're saying if somebody does come along and purchase this property, but they, they will have to go through all of it and do a new updated study because the last study was done in 2020. Um, of like the flood plains and the trafficking concurrency, all that would need to be updated and done before they could even go any further with

this property, correct? Yes, but there, there are some studies that, that, that, that don't expire, some that do. So for example, trafficking currency, absolutely. They would have to, they would have to do new, new trafficking currency because we did trafficking currency on you know, something that we, we said, yeah, there's about this much area and at a maximum we could get about this, this much on it and that would generate this much traffic and what would that do? For, for and and that's what you do at a rezone level, but at the for a site specific, they're gonna say. we're gonna have this, this this this and then it's gonna generate this many cars in the PinP that's trying to generate this many cars during the average and, and we, uh, we, the city has a traffic consultant that we use that does, uh, that does that trafficking currency and then we'll say, based on all that information, these are the improvements that need to be made to, to the, the frontage. These are the improvements that need to be made. further out Um, can I ask one more? And just to be completely um clear we are not ruling on any specific project. This is just legal work it's, this is the zoning only. It has nothing to do with any project at all. This will, this will change the zoning from public to whichever are you, you choose, and then that that list of all the things that I read to you any of those, any of those could be, would be available to be developed on, on that piece of property. Who knows? I, you know, we see, we see strange things happen every day. Council ordinance 3933 is a recommendation to uphold the hearing

examiner's findings and decision. So as written, that's what it would do, and that is what you will be voting on tonight. if there are any other questions though, now is the time to get those out before a motion. Yeah, I, I don't have any questions. I just, I just want to say, um, I want to thank the four members of the public who testified and then Mr. Barber, who spoke tonight, um, your concerns are very real. I believe that they are, well, they're certainly my concerns as well. Um, I, I even was looking at Marianne's image and in the PowerPoint and there's just a lot of water Um, but we're here because we received a rezone application and that is the focus of this hearing here. And um absent any real mistake like misapplying the law or not, you know, evidence that isn't supported in the hearing examiner's decision. I believe we are to affirm that. So really what we're talking about is whether we want to designate R3 or R4, and at the very top of my page here, I had written notes over the weekend that said way too many zones. And um so I'm, it's I, I don't know, I guess that what I'm wondering is, is, OK, let's I, I don't know, I guess that what I'm wondering is, is, OK, let's just say we err on the side of caution and we go with an R3. Is that gonna prolong any? What does that do? Nothing's been submitted at this point in time. I, I'm just you know, in, I'm just understand that and they could sell the property, but thinking out loud here what that does, um. to any potential project that may be uh submitted next month, but we don't wrap up the housing piece of our plant. Plan until 789 months later. Um, that's just the only thing that I'm just,

yeah, so until, until the, the zoning changes, that would be, that would be the zoning. So if that, if, if the property owner would, would, would be in a big hurry and choose to to, to put in a multi-family development at that point, that would be, that would be the, the, the number of, of units that they could get. zone changes they could add more When, uh, if they wanted to wait. if they're not in a big hurry, then, um, and, and the, the, the zoning changes, then they would be subject to the the new zoning that they would be under. I, I also think it's important to mention that that the city has a very, very robust shoreline master plan, and I do know that we have had developers come before us before and talk about how robust it is and that our neighbors to the north, um, don't have, you know, that restrictions aren't as strict as ours, and so um they also don't have 26 streams in their city. We have and I do want to mention that this, this, this project is not subject to shorelines, so not at all. OK. Yeah. OK, this one doesn't fall under shrines It's, it's the flood plain that is, that is the flood plain and and wetlands that are the the the the big issue on this. But like I said, we did work with the um Army Corps of Engineers and with the Department of um Ecology, and it actually on this one with EPA, um, on, on the, uh, get the all of the, the wetland issues resolved for on this, on this, this piece of property. Looked clean wetland, shoreline. I know it's salt water so much I know. I, I, I don't want to scare our new, our new council people, so, so, so, so let, let's, let's keep some of that stuff till another meeting, OK? Too late. It's out in the open. Oh the hearing

tab were put in the report. You have what's called an overlay zone. If you're in a flood plain, we have a body of law on how you develop, and that's actually given to us by the federal government through FEMA. It says these are the minimum standards you have to build, either commercial or residential. in order to build in a floodplain and be able to get flood insurance and be eligible under um National Flood Insurance Program. Council member went Oh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I've reviewed the hearing examiner's report and specifically finding effect by Charlie. While I understand the community's anxiety. regarding the 2021 flood. The examiner found that the hydraulic rise analysis in the record shows the specific project will have negligible impact on flood levels. as this is a closed record hearing. I'm bound by those technical findings. Therefore, I will be voting yes to maintain consistency with our comprehensive plan. OK. With that Council member West, is that a motion or just an indication of support? A motion, please. OK I'll second that and moved by Councilmember West, seconded by Council member Tricero. Is there any more discussion on this item? OK All those in favor of approving ordinance 3933 as written. Please signify by saying aye. I opposed say no. and motion passes. Thank you, Mary Anne, for your help with this. Thank you, Mayor. Could somebody please get Councilmember Van der Stoop out of

timeout. All good Oh sorry, no Praying for the next one I thought he went that way. I know, I thought I was Isaac went that way. Isaac went to get him. Oh, I thought he was Who's on food? I'm terrible at height and seek. It's good. Hopefully it didn't go far. I hope not Yeah. We're rubbing coats. What you get for feeling out. All right, we are moving on to new business item D. It is an agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology and City utility manager, Blaine Chesterfield has this item, I believe, yeah, there he is. Hey Hey, come on up. Take a nap Did you take a nap? As long as we're talking about water I know. Um, I did want to, uh, make one correction to the subject line here before we start for the record. So, um, it should say FY 2025, 27 on the subject line and in the agreement number instead of the 2325, I should say 25, 27 there. And instead of 74, I should say 208 Yeah Oh, I just wanted to make those corrections before I started for the record. That's fine. Um, staff requests that the council authorize the mayor to sign funding year 2527. Water quality, stormwater capacity grant agreement, execution of the agreement with the State

Department of Ecology is required to use the 120,000 of grant funds which has been awarded to the city for implementation of the city's national pollutant discharge elimination system, Phase 2 municipal stormwater permit. The city is required to implement the MPDS permit whether ecology provides funding or not. Once the agreement is fully signed, any eligible costs incurred between July 1st, 2025 and March 31st, 2027, may be reimbursed to the city. Approval of the grant agreement is recommended and is an important step for the continued implementation of the city's MPDS municipal stormwater permit. Right? Questions for Blaine on this item. Congrats on the grant It's a little bigger than usual. Usually it's about 75, 50 to 75, and we've got 120 this time, so. take it. OK. Nice job. Um,, I'll move to approve the grant agreement. Sorry Motioned by Mary and the second by Navor. discussion. Like who was it? I said pick a name any name. OK, I thought I heard a bunch of voices. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye. Hi, all opposed say no. Passes. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor, counsel. E is an ordinance for public safety sales tax, city attorney Kevin Rogerson will introduce this item. Thank you, mayor and members of city council. You are now in a purely legislative role for the rest of the council. Uh, this is before you ordinance 39, 34, an ordinance proposing imposing a sales and use tax of 0.1% for criminal justice purposes. as authorized Section 201, Chapter 350. Laws of Washington, 2025. Well, it's not as an RCWs because this law was just passed, so it's still a session law. We haven't

codified it yet in particular to the best of my knowledge, I looked at it a week ago Um so, as I just stated, during the 2025 legislative session in gross substitute House Bill 2015 expanded funding for public safety in Washington by creating 22 new sources of funding. Councilmanic 11.1%. Calciummanic is just a fancy word is that you don't need to go out to a vote You can take the tax if you so choose. And a grant program uh that law enforcement can apply for uh for funding for criminal justice purposes if you adopt the tax, it still has to be used for criminal justice purposes. The new sales and uses text can be used for a broad range of public safety purposes. This includes law enforcement. It includes programs to abate or mitigate domestic violence. It includes funding public defenders. programs that help reduce the number of people interacting with the criminal justice system. You have two diversion courts, a community court and a drug court, and you're a misdemeanor court systems and other related purposes. Certainly IOS would be one as well. Uh, the ordinance imposes a 1/10 of 1% sales tax for criminal justice purposes within the city of Mount Vernon, and the revenue raised by the new sales and use tax. will lessen the impacts of the city's continuing dispatch of declining revenues being outpaced by increasing expenses, which is driving the general fund deficit is, uh, described by your uh finance director during last budget session. Uh, there are some statistics here in your recitals and in the memo of how mismatched that is when you look at consumer price index raises and how much revenues you are authorized to raise in property tax given the 1% cap another revenue generating sources. and how that is a trend in the wrong direction. So to implement this tax under this new body of law, the city must deliver to the Department of Revenue an ordinance opposing the tasks and attesting that the city's police department meets

the requirements of the legislation establishing the tax. That's in section 1 of the ordinance. It's a laundry list of everything that PD had to do in terms of training and policies uh that you need to do and you will attest to that, uh, before you have been given the authority to take the tax. Police department has completed that training and is in full compliance with the requirements. and before you is ordinance 3934, which adopted, which will take a majority of the whole of the council voting affirmatively but impose a sales tax. All right? Any questions for Kevin on this comments and our police chief is present. If you have any questions for him, council member Beaton, I just wanted to confirm we will be using this for public defense. Yeah, so we discussed that back in, in budget session and this is sort of a response, our response, and being able to keep up with Washington State Supreme Court, which has adopted new public defense standards effective this year that really significantly reduce the annual case loads that that attorneys representing people accused of breaking laws in Mount Vernon, so fewer caseloads per attorney equals more attorneys that the city of Mount Vernon has to hire, and this of course is in spite of the fact that the City of Mount Vernon has worked for the better part of the last decade to provide pretty high level and set up the bar and outpace much of the nation and our commitment to public defense. State supreme Court said that that doesn't matter Thank you, but that doesn't matter. Um, you need to hire more attorneys. And so really it's a decision that is crippling a lot of cities as they talked to cities around the state, the mayors around the state, wondering how in the world they're going to keep up with these standards. It's it's a big deal and

so this is a small step toward helping to offset that. Uh, other questions, comments for Kevin, you know, so the grant funding and the tax are going to public defense. This is just for the sales tax and we haven't talked at this point about the, about the grant. Yeah. With that, I'll make a please, Melissa, I'll second you though. OK, I'll make a motion that counsel pass ordinance 3934. That's it. Motion by council member Beaton and the second was by council member Van der Stoop first. Um, discussion. We'll let you through it Um, all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Motion passes Thanksgiving Um, item F. it's that time of year. The election of Airor pro tem. of the esteemed mayor. I was only a kid, it's that time of year and you're organized under the mountain reminiscent of Bull Cove, which requires you after every general election, you need to appoint amongst your body one councilperson to function as the mayor pro tempare, which is a fancy Latin term because lawyers like to speak Latin to make it sound like we've gotten our education worth, but it's basically, you're the substitute mayor. You have all the powers of the mayor, uh, and you will also be entitled to vote. as a councilperson, and this would be triggered upon the mayor's inability to perform the functions of the mayor's office. All of this is set forth in Mount Vernon municipal code 208-040 um, so this uh bear protempare would be appointed for a year and then the next general election, we would be back at here seeking a

reappointment or a new appointment, a mere pro tempore. With that, question about process or yeah, I think the nominee. OK, I will accept nominations, Council member Terra. Councilperson Hudson. Thank you. All right We have a nomination for Councilmember Hudson. I think we're good. I do too. It's like, we don't think I'll wait for a second and then we can. OK. OK, and the 2nd. Any discussion on this one though? Yeah, um do you get his salary if he's gone? Yeah, don't wait. No. No. That just the honor of serving, yeah, the executive substitute. We should amend that Anyways. fair question. Any other discussion? All right, all in favor, say I I, all opposed say no. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Congratulations fellow counsel. Congratulations members. With that, I will ask our city attorney if he wants to keep this party going in executive session. I do not. All right, and with that we will adjourn this meeting for Wednesday, January 14th, 2026 at 8:28 p.m.