City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. And I'd like to call the January, 2026 meeting of the North Bengal City Council to order. Will the clerk please call roll?

Mayor pro tem, Errol Tremolata?

Present.

Council member Brendan Elwood?

Present.

Council member Mark Jocelyn? Present. Council member Heather Cullen?

Present.

Council member Rob McFarlane?

Present.

Council member Christina Rustic? Present. Council member Susan Torgerson?

Present.

All are present, your honor.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Will council member Rustic please lead us in the flag salute? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic over which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, under liberty and best and strong. Okay.

Good evening, everybody. Once again, at this time, I'll be asking mayor pro tem Tremellotta to make a motion to agenda. However, before prior to him doing so would be the time for council to inform us if they would like to move an item or pull an item from the consent. Mayor pro tem, will you please make that motion to approve?

Pull it before or pull it

aft Yeah. Pull it before. Oh, sorry.

Motion to, move item number one, the minutes, from the consent agenda.

K. Do I have a second?

Second.

Make a motion by, miss Rustic and second by miss Torgerson.

I'd also like is this now I've said what I wanna do as well?

By the order, your honor, it seems to me that the motion to approve the agenda should be put on the floor prior to its being amended to remove an item which can then be addressed and voted on prior to taking going back to the main motion and moving adoption of the agenda as amended.

Agree. Okay. We'll take it from there.

Oh, k. Motion to approve the 01/20/2026 agenda as written.

Do I have a second? Second.

A motion being made

by mister Tremblad and second by mister, mister, McFarlane. Thank you very much.

And, Joe.

Justin, excuse me. My hearing's off. My apologies. Okay. All all in favor? No. What? Oh, now is the discussion. I'm getting used to this now. Now is the discussion time. So, any any discussion? Okay. Come on in. Yes.

Thank you. I would like to, pull, item number one, the minutes from the consent agenda.

K. Sounds great. And do we have a second on that?

Second.

K. Any motions by miss Rustic and seconded again by miss Torgeson. Favor? That.

Perfect. We can talk. Yeah.

We'll wait on that. Okay.

So I will speak to my amendment. Yep. Yes. I'd just like to add to the minutes on page number one, from the last council meeting where it says, the second motion. Council member Torgerson moved. Seconded, I'd like to have added for the purpose of further discussion by council member Rustic. Excellent.

That's all. Okay. That's great. Miss Torgerson, do you have something to change?

Do we need to

We should take a I'm sorry. Point of order? Yep. That's a proposed amendment to the minutes that I think should be adjudicated prior to moving on to further issues.

Or does the person who does a second also make a comment?

Yep. Now would be the time for that, miss Torgerson.

I agree. That was definitely said in that meeting.

Okay. Moving on. Yep.

Do we for point of clarification, do we vote on this? And then I'd also would like to take something off of the consent agenda.

You would vote on this? Yeah. Alright. Thank you.

Close this one out, and then you move to the next.

Thank you. We get a rhythm to it. So we're gonna take the vote now. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much, everybody. Moving on.

Yeah. I would like to, it's unclear to me the checks on the consent agenda, are they just payroll check or are they, accounts payable checks, are they also payroll checks? I wanted clarification on that. If there are payroll checks, I'd like those to be taken off a consent agenda.

There is no payroll checks in this batch. I'll confirm with Martin, mister Chow.

That's correct.

Okay. Great. K.

Now I don't need to move them off.

No action to be taken.

Right. Thank you.

You're very welcome. Thank you, everybody. Okay. So we know we can move on.

We're back to the motion back to the motion for the full agenda now that we've passed. Yep. As amended.

Approving the agenda as amended.

Correct. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Moving on. A little clunky, but we're moving. We'll now move on to consent agenda. We have three, whoops, three items or two items on the consent agenda. Can I three? Excuse me. Three items on the consent agenda. Can I get a motion?

We just voted that.

Yep. I move approval of the consent agenda as presented.

Thank you very much. And a second to that?

Second.

K. Motion by, thank you very much and second as well. All in favor to that?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay. So now we're going on to audience participation. Since we will no longer be taking public comment after every item on the main agenda, now be the time to come forward to the podium, to comment on the item item agenda item, excuse me, or any other item you wish to speak about. If you ever request accommodation with the city clerk, and wish to speak through the virtual platform, please raise your hand, and we'll take comments after in person comments. Please remember to state your name, your address, and you have three minutes for for the record to speak. Anybody tonight? Bill, anybody online?

Not tonight, your honor.

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll move on to, announcements, presentations, and appointments. Item number four, presentation parks commission report and 2026 work plan. At this time, I would like to invite, parks commissioner Kyle Braun, hi, Kyle, to come forward and provide us the parks commission report for the 2026 work plan. Good evening.

Good evening. Can you hear me alright?

Yeah.

Alright. I'd assume Mike provided the report in the packet, I'll just try to summarize a little more detail. Try not to just read it off to you. So, yeah, 2025, we had a a good year. We'd I we did a lot. Starting off the top there, we we had some expenditures from for our small park improvement budget in the amount of around little over $10,000, which we elected to use for two new picnic tables at the Tollgate Farm Barn And Farm stand. Oh, yeah. Well, there's a slide put up as well. There you go. And I used up the the rest of our budget there.

And then in terms of activities, there's a lot of projects going on right now. So we provided our input as the commission on a number of them. I'll list them off here and kinda give some detail on them. But the Bendigo Boulevard multiuse Trail, which is the shared use path along 202, so we worked with the city, provided feedback on the the alignment and some amenities along the way, and I believe that is slated to go to construction April. And the cycle mobility plan, which is an ongoing project in the city, so we worked with several work groups to come up with some some goals and to address some of the potential improvements that we could make throughout the city just for bike and pedestrian use throughout the area.

So that's an ongoing thing that we'll continue to work on into next year and hopefully wrap that up. The shoreline access plan, the city received a grant from the Department of Ecology, and we worked, with the city's consultant to identify areas for potential shoreline access on the Snoqualmie Rivers and within the shoreline jurisdiction. Throughout the city, we identified some few projects that we think align with some of the pros plan goals and also some of our partnering agency goals. And that, I believe, was approved and adopted, yeah, in September. So that was a cool project.

You look we looked at some spots on the river within the city that you wouldn't otherwise see just from our regular trail system we currently have. We would did some dog park planning, so that is a it came that comes up a lot in our surveys, and maybe this can come up. I could stand up straight. That comes up a lot in our our surveys. So we looked at several locations throughout the city.

Dahlgren Park was identified, our newest park kinda in the the eastern end of the city there. There's an open area, kinda low low spot. We identified that as a potential location, but we wanna we wanna try it out, see how popular it is. So we proposed doing a seasonal dog park, which we've seen in other cities around King County where they put up a park basically for the summertime. And we are a little concerned about just the the seasonal conditions or what that'll do in the wintertime, so we're gonna try it out and see.

And then we also express more interest in, working with King County to pursue something out of Tanner Landing, which is already kind of an informal dog park, but, we will see how that continues to develop. And then we would likely like to pursue partnering with King County to form more of a permanent one. But it'll be good to see next year how how the pop up one is used. We worked with the city's consultant. We reviewed the Ballarat Avenue pedestrian plaza in front of the bar and grill, which connects to William H Taylor Park there, provided some recommendations on the concept, and and hope I'm not sure where that is right now, but I think we need to acquire some property.

But it's cool to see that at least moving along. Concepts are always fun to look at. The park wayfinding signage plan, went back and forth on this quite a bit. There's quite a bit of wayfinding throughout the city currently. So, we provided some kinda goal recommendations to the city, and then, we didn't put on the docket this year for funding, but because it I don't we didn't have enough money set aside.

So we're looking at coming up with a a more concrete plan in 2026 and then potentially working with a consultant in 2027 to come up with a found or a good way finding plan for the for the Valley. And when I know many other partnering agencies throughout the Upper Valley outside the city are also looking at way finding right now too. So we wanna make sure we're leveraging all the the opportunities that come with, you know, areas outside the city. Let's see here. Ballarat Avenue Plaza, I think I just mentioned that earlier.

Tollgate Farmstand. So as I mentioned before, we did spend our small park improvement budget on picnic tables out there, so they'll be located in general vicinity. We have an exact spot for them yet, but we have one regular picnic table and then one ADA wheelchair accessible picnic table that should actually be arriving tomorrow or not tomorrow, but this week sometime, and then we'll look to install those within the next month before spring. Had some public outreach. We staffed some a booth at the the block party and then also the August 13 Farmers Market at Sideview.

Some just solicit input on our various park and trail projects going on throughout the city and bike plan survey, which I mentioned before. Meadowbrook Farm Prairie Loop Trail Design, that's been pretty complicated project that city city is working on. I think Mike is leading it, and we provided feedback on the proposed alignment through Meadowbrook Farm in partnership with city of Snoqualmie. And right now, the there's a King County Parks capital grant, which is only for design, but that kinda leads into the next thing. We we did also prioritize some park impact impact fee money, which we recommended using towards the Meadowbrook Trail project because it was already in design, and the permitting for that will be fairly complicated.

So we wanna see the effort of doing the complicated design actually get built. So we recommended putting the money towards that or a potential grant match for King County levy proceeds, which I don't believe they have the grant program any longer. Arbor Day recognition, I was not there, but I believe the mayor was on November 14 at Ribery Creek on the South Forks, Snoqualmie River, where we planted native trees for habitat restoration partnership with Mountain Sound Greenway. So that's everything we did in 2025. So 2026, we also have a lot coming online.

So I mentioned the bike Northland bike plan will work in tandem with the economic development commission and hopefully have something put together in 2026. I know staff's been working hard on that. Update the park comprehensive plan addressing some of the requests from Snoqualmie Tribe for tree canopy, and then we'll do our annual park tour when the weather allows, and then support staff with the Meadowbrook Prairie Loop Trail in hopes to get enough construction funding so we can build that long plan trail alignment. And then, as mentioned, we worked on this year, but the wayfinding signage plan for, consideration by council for funding, in 2027 by a consultant. And then our regular, outreach, the block party, farmer's market, dog park coordination with King County.

We'll have some more money for our small park improvement fund, so some smaller scale park projects that we'll be looking at that didn't make it this year, but we do still have a kind of a running list and then coordination of public works on some of their ongoing trail projects, Tanner Trail Extension, the Tollgate Farm, shared use pathway as mentioned, McClellan Avenue, which it will that'll be an exciting one. Now that they moved the the rails over there by the train station, and then William h Taylor in Ballarat, that whole kinda area getting redone will be be great. And then roundabout landscaping, I didn't see that one on there. And then South Fork, so call me levee setback trail design. So so early, but be looking at that.

And then focus some more of our energy and because we are the city's tree board, but looking at what we can actually do as as a tree board. I know there's been discussions about hiring a city arborist, so I'm looking at that a little bit more. And then tree tree board, Arbor Day planning, and kinda ongoing as we have done this year, but reviewing park open space and landscaping for new development projects. Sorry if that was a wordy one. But

No. Sorry at all. Thank you, Kyle. Counsel, do you have any questions for Rod? No question. Rob?

Well, comments really. First off, wow. Accomplished a ton last year. Very ambitious program for this year. You realize you're about a month in already. Right?

Yeah.

Just to be sure. Just because I'm familiar with some of these, I was a little confused on the Meadowbrook Loop. I thought that was further along and that with the grant might need some staff input on that, but I I thought we were past design and heading toward construction. Is there more than one?

Well, I'll let Mike correct me if I'm wrong.

He's already holding his hand up.

It's a I mean, from my understanding, I mean, it's a complicated project in that there's a lot of critical areas. We're in the floodway, so there's a number of complicated permits that need to get done. And with permits come a lot of consulting fees, and what ended up happening is the design budget wouldn't was basically ate up majority of the grant, and it was a design and construction grant, which we or the city renegotiated to basically be a design only. So now we need to get construction funding. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but it's a it's a it it seems simple, a gravel trail through a field, but I don't think any projects around here are as simple as they might like to think they are.

So That that's great. 60% maybe?

Appreciate that.

Yeah.

I don't know if he's gonna correct or not, but I

think I think

that that helped me.

He's looking for a microphone.

Right.

Just to affirm, yes, that is a design only grant, and we would need to pursue additional funding for construction. So that would be a separate project. We're also exploring right now some kind of broader goal setting for Meadowbrook Farm. So that might influence some of that direction in terms of the Meadowbrook Prairie Loop Trail. I also wanted to just add a thank you to the parks commissioners.

So you've got a fantastic board of volunteers. These guys don't wanna just sit and talk about things, but they actually roll up their sleeves and do the work. So as an example, with the wayfinding sign, program, the parks commission has divvied up the city, and they're going out in person to different districts of the city to do inventory of where those needs are, and they're coming back to then plan further for that. So that's just an example that these guys really engaged. So fantastic.

That's good. Thank you, Mike. Any other questions from council for either Mike or mister Braun? Oh, mister. Oh, sorry, Mark.

I just wanted to confirm that I don't believe the alignment of the trail at Meadowbrook has been changed as of this point in time. It was just the grant funding that needed to be shifted around. I wanted to reiterate Mike's comments that and just thank the the park commission and Kyle, yourself, and all the other members who serve as volunteers. It's not surprising to learn that you go above and beyond, and it makes our city, better, and it makes our job as commissioners, as council members easier. So thank you.

Mhmm. Mister Josten. Miss Rustic, thank you. Thank you.

I just I echo that. I was going to say thank you, but, I know we get emails from, you know, residents around things that they would like to see. And I just wanna say that you I know that your list, both your past and your present list, hit a lot of the things that we hear from residents. So thank you.

Great. Anybody else wish to comment? Miss Cohen.

Thank you so much. I had no idea when I first got on council how complicated parks was. You deal with a lot of really interesting issues, and it's not as easy as you think. Like, la la la. We're gonna build a park. It's not like that. So thank you.

Appreciate it. Miss Cullen and miss Torgerson.

I was just gonna say thank you for all the work you've done. I mean, I know it's a lot of work, and you had a lot to say, so that meant there was a lot to do last year and going forward. So thank you for for doing all that for us. Thanks.

Excellent. I have it mister Elwish.

I'll just echo everybody's sentiment here. That's quite a an achievement list of of of what you guys all accomplished. So thank you very much, and just tell the rest of the committee, we appreciate all the effort and labor and everything that you guys are doing for the betterment of our community. Very much appreciate that. Thank you.

Excellent. And, Kyle, thank you from, I know how hard your team works. You do. So thank you from the bottom of our hearts because the efforts, are clearly noticeable, and it's appreciated by the community and and, of course, the council and myself. So thank you very much.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Welcome. Okay. We'll now move on to committee and commission commission reports. Let's take away with, councilmember Torgerson with CED, please.

Okay. So we met a couple hours ago. It was a little bit longer than normal. It was an hour and a half instead of just an hour. But we first talked about the, planning commission work plan, which is going to affect also, you know, council as well.

And so, what we're gonna do is we're gonna have the work plan go back to, the CED on February 17, and then, we'll have potentially go to the March 3 agenda for council. At the council retreat on February 10, we might be talking about it then because we're talking about the vision which might affect the work plan. And so then, we could also talk about the work plan at on February 24 at our work study as well. So, there's a lot of talking on that. And then we continued on the 2030 main affordable housing, which we got an update on that.

I know councilmember Jocelyn and myself were not on the committee last year, so it was nice for us to hear an update on all the latest information. So we got that update. And then after asking a few questions, we did decide to have that go to the council meeting on February 3 for a vote from council. So it'll go on that agenda. And then we also discussed, some other options for part of the work plan, part of the vision, and then James understands what's going on with that.

He'll give us he'll put that in the right appropriate spot. Is it work plan, is it an underagenda item for CED? And then we also, decided that because we were in there for an hour and a half that, we would look at the CED activity report, which is amazing, and we all love it. We confirm that and that, if we have any questions, we'll just email them. So that concludes the report.

Thank you, council member. Council member Rustic, would you like to provide us with finance administration and following, Eastside Fire and Rescue? Thank you. Yes. Thank you.

So the finance and administration committee met, Tuesday, January 13 in the Adjournment Room at 04:00. We did have discussion, obviously, forming, start of the year, forming our, now modified committee from the prior years, but we, discussed moving the ongoing finance committee meetings to, the first Tuesday of the month at 02:30 instead. So that is a change. Next up was the ordinance amending the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six budget, which is on tonight's agenda. Then we discuss the water and sewer rate study and the results and call for public hearing, which will be on the February 3 agenda for first reading and public hearing.

That was a pretty lengthy discussion with a lot of questions, and our meeting also ran an hour and a half. So, the next item was the NeoGov HRIS payroll software licensing agreement, which is on tonight's agenda, and the city hall annex improvement for King County. And that was scheduled for the regular agenda tonight. But, anyway, And that was that was it. Just some general, updates to our finance committee, and that was it.

We will meet again on the February. And then leading into east side fire and rescue, I gotta find the right papers. We actually had two meetings, since our last council meeting, December, where there was a recognition for the retirement of longtime deputy director Pam Bryson and, lieutenant Bill Pitt. And then our new fire chief, Will Ajo, took the oath of office. So that was his first the December meeting was his first meeting as chief.

We also elected the, board vice chair, which is, is a call council member, Lindsay Walsh, for this year. There were a number of candidates that were interested in that position, and she was, selected. And then there was conversation about the 2026 legislative agenda and annual calendar as it relates to, Eastside Fire and Rescue. And that led into so that was that was December. Then the board met again on January 8 at 04:00 where the oath of office was taken by the assistant chief Brian Culp, who was the chief of the Fall City Fire Department, which has now become a contract to Eastside Fire and Rescue.

So that that was that was a big, positive, addition to East Side Fire and Rescue. Not only does he bring a tremendous amount of experience, but it it strengthens the East Side Fire and Rescue total organization across the valley. So that was a good thing. I spent the majority of the meeting talking about, the board's priorities for the year. So a lot of discussion there and also, evaluations for the fire chief goals and year end evaluation.

And then, again, talked about the 2026 legislative agenda and calendar. So, this is going to be a budget conversation year, so I will keep the council apprised as things go forward with regard to how the east side fire and rescue, budget could impact our city. And if you have any questions, don't hesitate to reach out. That's all.

Thank you very much, council member. Council member Elwood, would you like to provide the public health and safety report for us?

Thank you, your honor. Yes. Public health and safety committee met January 6 at 4PM at the City Hall Adjournment Room. We had a fire update, from Eastside Fire Rescue, a police update from Suquamy Police Department. Some of those discussions were just high level, tidbits on the flooding situations and and and things like that, so that was a great update.

We also discussed the public defender contract renewal, just some administrative kind of business stuff that's coming down the pipe that we're having to think on and vote on, I think, tonight, in fact. Then we talked about the ILA for the Sunnyside jail contract, and we also discussed ICE operations in North Bend, specifically talking with the Sikwame Police Department, chief Horsea about, Sikwame Police Department's policy with respect to ICE, which, as I understood it, is essentially if they are coming to our community, they will call our police department, and they will identify the individual. And that is essentially the extent of it. We have no facilities that are supposed to be used for ICE, operations or anything like that as far as I know. The sheriff's representative, unfortunately, wasn't able to attend, so we'll get their point of view on, ICE policy within the North Bend as well at our next update.

And we also learned that there's some, financial, through grant funding and other financial support from the state that, through the police services and and, law enforcement agencies and other agencies that, if they take those monies and they are, compliant or working with ICE, they will lose those fundings or something to that as that that, component. So at the state level, it seems like there's some separation of powers there based on monies that are available. I know that sounds kinda choppy, but we can discuss that if anybody's interested. G four c can also address it if there's any questions. Other than that, that was a healthy, robust PHS committee meeting.

Our next meeting is the first Tuesday of, next month. So it's first Tuesday of every month, quite frankly, in the Adjournment Room next year. Thank you. Bye.

Thank you very much. Council member Cullen, would you like to provide transportation, public works, please?

Thank you. So Tom Moore, our new public works director, and I decided to cancel the December 15 meeting due to the flooding and all of the stress that our staff was under. And so we will have our next TPW meeting on January 27. Thank you very much. Mister Tremolotta,

would you like to provide, council work study, please?

Have a the council work study, on December 23 was canceled, and we have an, forthcoming work study next week on '2 that'll be the twenty seventh. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Henderson, planning parks and economic development commission reports, please.

Good. Good evening, mayor and council members. The planning commission met on December 3 and made a recommendation on the dockets received from the public for the annual docketing process as well as the planning commission 2026 work plan drafted by staff. The commission also reviewed draft amendments to the city's signed regulations. The planning commission will next meet tomorrow evening, January 21, and will continue review on our draft amendments to the signed regulations.

The Parks Commission did not meet in December. They will next meet on January 28 and will discuss scoping for amendments to the parks element of the comprehensive plan, addressing prospective amendments to the cap parks capital facilities plan and policies from Snoqualmie Tribe comments and in consideration of an update to the park's impact fee rate study being performed by the city consultant, Bowman. The Parks Commission will also discuss Parks Commissioner reconnaissance around the city for recommendations for future wayfinding signage improvements. The Economic Development Commission met on December 18 and received an update on the city's emergency response to the December storm and flooding and how the city supported local businesses. The commission then continued to develop their top 10 priorities for 2026, which focused on mountaintown character, outdoor recreation, creative arts, and support for local businesses.

The commission will next meet on January 22 to finalize their top 10 priorities, which they will then share at a joint meeting with the city of Snoqualmie Economic Development Commission on February 18.

Thank you, mister Henderson. Let's move on to regional reports. Anybody on council have anything to offer? Miss Torgerson?

You think the justice committee?

And we discussed the new program for next year. We talked about potentially what we'd be talking about next year, but we also got an update from the criminal justice sales tax representative, Gail Stone. She was explaining to us that they really wanna be flexible and try and help people to be able to take advantage of the sales tax. And so if we have any questions, definitely have our staff contact them, and they try to work through it if they can try She wants to find it for The US hoops, basically, is what she's explaining. Because there's a new executive, King County staff, they have they have they're rehiring everybody, and so we don't have any meetings scheduled for probably a couple of months as they are staffing King County.

So I may not have an report until maybe April.

Thank you very much. Anybody else from council have anything? Mister Jocelyn?

The Sound Cities Association public issues committee met on 12/10/2025. There was a acknowledgment of the old and thanking folks who had served previously, some of whom who did not get reelected or had were moving on, and then the welcoming of the new. The executive director gave a report. He spoke, and there were elections. Federal Way council member Lydia SF Dawson has been appoint approved as the twenty twenty six SCA PIC chair, and Redmond council member Melissa Stewart has been approved as the twenty twenty six SCA PIC vice chair.

There were regional board and committee appointments that were discussed of topics that came before the body. Interestingly, in terms of this council, their their support for safe use of e bikes and e motorcycles was a topic of discussion. There were some amendments, specifically to to expand state regulations to address the rising popularity. V bikes was an amendment that I interestingly opposed simply because all they need to do, I think, is is clarify state law. I don't know that they need additional regulation.

Simple clarification of what's on the books would be helpful, but that's a topic of concern across the region and to the public issues committee. And then the modernization of liability laws to protect the city and taxpayers from frivolous lawsuits is coming forward. There is a list of topics that will be addressed and of concern to the body throughout the year. One of the things that was added to that list was concern about utility rate affordability. The next meeting will be held February 11. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Jocelyn. Anybody else? Did I miss? No? Okay. We're gonna move on to introductions. Item number five, a b 26 dash zero zero four, ordinance amending twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six budget. Mister Chao, would you please provide there you are. Provide the, the report for us tonight. And thank you.

Thank you, mayor. For the record, Martin Cha, finance director. This is item number five on your agenda, council a b twenty six zero zero four. This is budget amendment number four number three for the twenty twenty five twenty six biennium. This amendment council does two things.

One, it increases the police department budget by 583,000 in 2026, and it also earmarked $685,000 of general fund ending fund balance for police services in 2027. There is a revised agenda packet on your dais that reflects the correction of the set aside of the general fund fund balance to 685,000. This item, as council member Rustic mentioned, was reviewed by FNA at our last meeting on January 13, and that was approved with a new pass recommendation for this council. Next slide, please. So let's talk about the increase in the 2026 police budget first.

As you know, council for the first three months of 2026, we're under contract with the city of Snoqualmie. And then under the ILA that was approved with that city, our cost for this period is $870,000. For the remaining nine months of 2026, we will be under contract with the King County Sheriff's Office at a cost of $22,488,000 for a total cost of $3,000,003.58 for the entire year. The first part of this budget amendment would increase the budget for the police services budget within the city by 583,000 so that there is sufficient budget authority to cover the total cost of $3,000,003.58. And the funding sources for this includes two things.

Number one is $425,000 of administrative service reductions. As you recall, we discussed this in work study council, and a 158,000 that we would need to take from the general fund ending fund balance. And, again, this would be in in the year 2026. I'm a pause there just for a second. Do you have any questions on this part of the budget amendment?

Any questions for mister Chaw?

Mister Schwartz? The same amount that was discussed in the November finance committee meeting? Is this the same?

When you say this amount, are you referring to the total

on the screen. Council member Torgerson. 183.

Council member Torgerson, will you make sure you hit your mic if it's not on?

We can't bring

you very well.

Close enough, apparently. In November, I think was it November 12, we were discussing these in the finance administer. Is this are these are the same numbers. Correct? They're not changed from that

That's correct.

Okay.

Next slide, please. The second part of the budget amendment, as I mentioned, is to use a $158,000 of ending fund balance. I wanted to walk you through where we're at on the general fund ending fund balance council and to help you understand the mechanics of what this means. So for the 2026 beginning fund balance for the general fund, we're gonna start the year with about 5,490,000.00. That compares to a budgeted beginning fund balance of or excuse me.

A budget ending fund balance of $4,000,008.44, leaving a difference of $488,000. So the good news on that is we're we're starting the year stronger than what we have budgeted, and that would be available to fund police services in in future years. Next slide, please. Now with that 488,000, what does that translate to for the for the ending fund balance in 2026, and how does that compare to our minimum reserve requirements? And what we see here is our 2026 minimum reserve requirements is 2,200,000.0.

And as a reminder, council, that equates to two months or 16.7% of operating expenses. And as you recall, that was a policy that the council discussed and adopted last year. With that additional 488,000, that would bring our total fund balance at the 2026 to 4,884,000, which includes the 685,000 that council wishes to set aside for police services. So the difference between the minimum reserve requirement and our projected ending balance is $2,000,006.58. And, again, this would be available to use as a bridge for funding police services in 2027 and 2028.

Now it's important to recognize that the use of these reserves could be minimized or avoided completely depending upon the extent that we raise additional new revenues either through economic development or through additional taxes, for example, the criminal justice sales tax that council member Torgerson mentioned earlier. Next slide, please. So for the listening public, there's been a few questions about the the cost of police services over the next several years and how do we pay for that. Let me walk you through the slide, council, and then we'll talk about the mechanics of this. So for each year, '26 through 2031, you see two stacked bars.

The one on the left represents police service expenses, and then on the right represents estimated revenues. Starting with the year 2026, for example, the total cost of police services is about 3,300,000.0, as I mentioned earlier, and that includes a portion of a portion of that includes the onetime transition cost for King County. And then the balance represents the ongoing cost of police services. And then the column on the right represents the existing revenues that we have. In other words, the amount of budget that we have under the Suquamish police contract.

And then the the blue portion represents the amount of of services reductions that, again, the administration has taken or authorized over the next several years. So as we go forward into 2027 and 2028, we see that on the revenue side, we have the a continuation of existing city revenues, the continuation of administrative reductions in services. The purple portion represents the anticipated revenues under a criminal justice sales tax if council were to approve that. And it's important to note that for listening public that that has not yet been approved. But if the city were to approve that, then we would have additional revenues to count towards policing to police services.

In 2027, the green portion represents the 685,000. The council wishes to set aside for police services. And then the black portion represents the use of ending fund balance. Again, going back to the previous slide, the 4,880,000.00 that's available for for for city services and then the differential of 2,658,000.000 that is over and above the minimum reserve target. So that 2,658,000.000 is available to go towards funding police services in 2027 and 2028, and that's represented by the black portion of the of this graphic here in those two years.

Where the decision point comes for council is in the year 2029. And what we see here is the there is a gray portion of the stacked bar, and that represents additional revenues that we would need either from economic development, a new source of of tax revenues, or additional reductions in services. So I'm a pause there just for a second, answer any questions you might have on this.

I see your hand up.

So on the graph, what is this it says CJ, sales tax, and you have a it looks like a dollar amount in there. What is that dollar amount for the purple for twenty twenty seven?

It's about $303,150,000 dollars.

Okay. And then when we go to '29, the gray area that we don't have a way to figure out how to pay for yet, what is that dollar amount?

1,700,000.0.

Okay. And and is it 1.7 for the other following two years as well? Or

No. Because of the of the expected cost of policing services to increase, that gray bar increases over time as well. So it's 1,700,000.0 in 2029, 1,900,000.0 in '22 in 2030, and about 1,900,000.0 as well in the year 2031.

And and if we didn't do the CJ seven tax, then we would add the 300 is those dollar amounts are $350,000 as well for 2930, and '31?

That's correct. Any other questions? Miss Rustic?

Yep. Mhmm.

Just for for the clarification, the, it's titled reductions in services, the blue bar. Can you, for the listening public, comment on what does that mean and Sure. What does that look like? Yep. Thank you.

K. So, again, the blue portion represents the reductions in services that the mayor had determined in conjunction with the department directors. And the majority of those reductions were in areas such as professional services, operational line items, basically items that did not fundamentally degrade our services to the community. However, it's important to note, councilman Rustic, that by taking those reductions, that we've basically removed almost all flexibility from the city operations to absorb any additional unanticipated events within within the general fund. Now that does take me to the next slide, next and final slide.

So a natural question from the general public would be Excuse me, mister McFarlane.

Thank you, mayor.

Mhmm.

Before we move on, Martin, you know, I've got a lot of catching up to do. I just wanted to confirm that I understood you correctly. You said a few slides back showing the reserves that were significantly higher, it might be the right word, than council approved policy. Right? There's a pretty good gap, which is favorable Correct.

In that respect. Thank you. Assume that's gonna be the subject of a lot of conversations on how to leverage that as you mentioned to police. I'm curious if you could just toss at me the top couple of reasons why we're so flush in reserves.

Sure. I think that probably goes back several years, council, to the city's overall management of the operations of the general fund. Number one, I think the city has been fairly conservative in the management of of our operations within within within the general fund. So that's allowed us to develop a healthier fund balance relative to target. The second is, as you remember, we went through a very strong economic period in the early part just prior to the pandemic.

And that's allowed us to build up our reserves further. And we can see evidence of that councilman in the community where we see the new homes being built, the new subdivisions. All those new homes that we see in the community and the growth in the population with the community, you know, has added residents, but it has also added revenues to the to the city in the form of tax revenues, development fees. So that's added to the to our piggy bank, so to speak, for the general fund fund balance.

Thank you.

Mister Jocelyn?

Yes. Thank you. Director, I just wanted to be this is if you could go to slide five, the BART, the long term funding strategy. Yes. I think it's important to be clear that if we look at 2026 and then we get to 2027, there's a significant jump in expenditure.

And it's important to understand that that is not because we're transitioning necessarily to King well, the cost for this year, the the three months that we're paying Snoqualmie Police Services is less per month than the amount of money that we're paying to King County on a monthly basis because we're going to be operating under the flex model. And then if I'm not wrong, what's reflected in that the significant jump in 2027 in overall cost is transitioning to a full city contractual model. We become a contract city with more coverage, essentially. Is that correct?

That's correct. So, again, for the listening public, in 2020 so let's back up. In 2025, under a current contract with the city of Snoqualmie, our coverage included one officer in the city and one supervising sergeant that floated between the two cities, Suquamy and North Bend. In 2026, that same model under Suquamy covers services for the first three months of 2026. And for the last nine months of '26, would be covered under what's called the flex model.

And under this model, the county would provide, two officers, coverage in the city. However, those officers would also be available to respond to calls within the unincorporated areas of King County. Starting in 2027, we shift to what's called a dedicated services model. And the reason why the like, in for listening public, why that cost jumps between 2026 and 2027 is in starting 2027, we will be under a full contract with King County with two officers dedicated to the city twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. The only exception would be over the graveyard shift midnight to 6AM where the county would provide coverage at only one officer for the city.

Mister Tremolotta?

On this graph too. So just obviously, it's clear where this is only discussing the gap for police services. So over that five year period for public safety, if East Side fire and rescue costs go increase over a five year period, that gap, that gray bar will will increase.

That's correct. So to the extent that our our other areas of risk councilman that would stress our general fund includes potential increases in our EFR contract, Recite Fire and Rescue, increases to our public defense contract. As you recall, there's a Supreme Court ruling to reduce the caseload standards for public defenders. And the other area of risk within public safety would be our jail costs and the cost of mental health care for inmates. Next slide, please.

Again, this is the last slide of my presentation. But, again, on on the previous slide, councilwoman Torgerson asked about the gray bars and the amount of the amount of the gap that the city would need to seek starting in 2029. And, again, as a reminder, that equates to about between 1.7 to 1,900,000 a year. Well, natural question council would be, well, can the city cut its way out of this? The purpose of slide six is to show you council as as well as the listening public where the city's general fund monies go.

And as you can see on the far right, the 2026 budget is valued at 13,300,000.0. This is after considering the administrative service reductions that I mentioned earlier. Of that 13,330,000.00, half of it is used to pay for contracts, and that's shown under column four b. And as you can see, I annotated the various amounts of what we used was monies to pay for, the largest of which is under public safety for jail, east side fire and rescue, and police. And as you can see, for other areas of expense, we have the next largest one is for legal costs, city attorney, municipal court, prosecution, public defense.

And the next largest one under that would be our human services allocations. And miss Escobar, I will be speaking to that later on in in this meeting. Now outside of contracts council, we see that our next biggest area of expense includes transfers out. This is column number eight at 1,470,000.00. And these are transfers these are policy transfers, but these are transfers that we make out of general fund into other parts of the city to pay for services in those parts of city operations.

The largest of which, as you can see, is for public safety, which includes street operations and street overlay. An example of this for the listening public is the overlay that we did out here on Cedar Falls Way. That project was paid for out of the funds that we were transferring out from the from the general fund. We also have funds coming out of the general fund for economic development as for well, it's for affordable housing. And then a small amount for parks equipment replacement, which was referred to earlier by the previous speaker regarding Parks Commission's work.

So outside of those areas council, we also have spending within professional services under column four a. A big portion of that is for insurance through the Association of Washington Cities for facilities maintenance. Again, this is for janitorial services for city buildings and information technology expenses, your laptops, the technology that you see in this room. And then we have development review expenses. And it's important to note that for listening public and for council as well, the development review expenses is revenue backed.

So these would these represent the payments that we make to contract with contract engineers to perform, for example, geotechnical analysis on development projects. Those those expenses are are reimbursed by by the developer. Outside of that, we have supplies under column three. As you can see, that's a minimal amount at less than $60,000. And after consideration of all the non labor expenses, then what's remaining is columns one and two, which would be staff wages and benefits.

So, again, thinking back to the previous slide on slide five, we're looking for a gap of about between 1.7 to 1.9 million. And if we want to close that gap solely through administrative service or service reductions, we we mean staff and specifically myself and Amber, we would need guidance from council as to what specific areas that's listed on this page you wish to us to take a look at for for reductions.

Miss Torgerson?

Yeah. Under wages, you have a total of 2,500,000.0, and then you've got benefits. I remember on the the the budget for 2026, it was around 9,000,000 was the the dollar amount. So You may be thinking missing?

You may be thinking of a citywide budget. So the 9 the the rest of it, councilwoman Ferguson, would be our public works employees who are paid for out of the utilities.

So this is just a segment of our, wages.

Within the general fund.

Within the general fund. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Mister Farlin.

Martin, again, I must be missing something. Professional fees for development review and community economic development, I think you just mentioned are pass through.

Yes.

How do those then represent a savings?

They wouldn't. So though those would not represent a true cost savings to the city. So by by reducing development review professional expenses, the city would have a choice. The choice would be to either forego that work, that contracted work, and forego the revenues that would come in through the reimbursement or try to bring that internal to the staff, which in this case we

would So I understand the idea if shifting what you can, keeping it internal. Staff cost is is a fixed cost to that in that example. So that's that's your suggestion on on the savings because the other possibility is we actually don't review developments, and therefore, they don't get built. And therefore, we don't get that revenue.

That's correct. Thank you. And then if I could add to the extent of that we attempt to internalize those services, my councilman, the question then for the city is, do we have the necessary skill set to replicate that same service in house versus versus contracting it out?

Martin, if I can add that to that as well as also the bandwidth. We also know that we our staff is already overloaded. And if we're gonna take anything more internally on, we need to look at that cost benefit analysis of of timing and how we can get that done. But I think the key point on Martin's slide is really looking at number eight is that's the policy decision before we get into staffing. But the key point to that is what revenue we could bring in the door before we look at any sort of reductions over the next two years.

Any other questions? Thank you, mayor. That concludes our presentation. You know, for council members, if you have any questions after this, feel free to send me an email.

Thank you, mister Cho, for your very thorough, presentation once again. Okay. Council member Rusticly, please make the motion.

Yes. Thank you. Motion to approve a b two six dash zero zero four, an ordinance amending the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six budget as adopted in ordinance number one eight two three and as amended by ordinance one eight two six and one eight three seven as a first and final reading.

Thank you. Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you. Motion by miss Rustic and second by mister Joss. And miss Rustic, would you like to speak to your motion?

Well, I think we've had a great deal of conversation. Thank you, Martin, for the presentation. I'll just say, you know, we've, as a council, put and the administration have put in a lot of effort to take a look at our budgets for 2026, and I know that we'll continue to do that going forward. But, at least in the near term, we have addressed some of the challenges, and I know we will continue to work and have conversations to as we move forward. So I'm gonna support this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mister Johnson, would you like to comment?

Yeah. I wanna thank Martin for such a good presentation. And, you know, this I'm going on my fifth year here, and early on, we didn't have the financial guidance was a little unsettled. What we need as decision makers is solid information that's well sourced, authoritative, and correct, and that's most important. And you more than clear that bar, and it really helps us in doing our job.

While prospectively looking forward, there's concerns. City is not going off the rails. We have some hard choices to make going forward, but it would be much more difficult absent your apt and due diligence in supporting us and providing us concise information that helps us understand complex matters. I certainly will be voting in support of this. I'm pleased that we are, you know, moving in a direction it's concerning to me as a citizen that so much of our resources are continuing to go to fire and safety and police, but of course that's largely beyond our control and it's a primary duty, I think, an interest we all share and are aware of that if we want to start a conversation around service levels in those areas, that that's a a steep hill to climb to going forward.

So I will be voting in support. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Johnson. Any other comments from council? No. Mister McFarlane. Yeah. As

the newly minted third member of that committee, I'm following my betters in this regard. And one area that I'm not unfamiliar with is the quality of our finance director's abilities and background having known him for quite some time. And and, so I would echo council member Jocelyn's comments in that regard. And while I've got a long way to go to catch up with the budget overall, it's a very complex document created through a lot of meetings by the council and the staff. I can support this because I know of the support that it's got.

Thank you, sir. Did I miss anybody else? I have a quick question, miss Torquerson.

I'm gonna say that I I'm curious, because this this is sounds like the the budget modification that we had last November. And the reason we were told that we're moving it to 2026 was because we're waiting for King County ILA, and, I know that hasn't occurred yet. So I'm curious as to what the city's decision when they change their mind to go ahead and do it now versus for the ILA, which we were told last year.

I

can answer that. So the King County ILA, when we were when we discussed this councilman Torgerson back in November, we did not have the King County ILA yet. We didn't have solid numbers yet from King County. I just received an email this today, this afternoon from King County with the final interlocal agreement, and I plan to bring that to public health and safety on February 3 and bring council up to speed on or council the public health and safety committee up to speed on that ILA. And then I would be happy to share that same presentation with this full council.

In terms of the figures that were shown on slide five of your presentation, those figures those expenses reflect the final figures that's included in the ILA that was received, today from King County.

And a follow-up question. We received a letter from King County Sheriff's Office, I think it was in September. Is the number changed from that number, or is it

No. And just to clarify, councilman Torgerson, that number that we received back in September, October, that was just for one year. Mhmm. That was for 2026. What I was waiting on is the county's forecast for what our expenses might be through 2031. And, that's the reason for the delay of this of this budget amendment because I wanted to be sure that the analysis I produced for you is based on solid figures from King County.

Let's go around one more time. Any anybody else wish to comment or have question? Okay. Motion before us is to approve a b 26 dash zero zero four, an ordinance amending the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six budget as adopted in ordinance number eighteen twenty three and as amended by ordinances eighteen twenty six and eighteen twenty eighteen thirty seven as a first and final reading. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you all. Motion passes unanimously. Item number six, a b 26 dash zero zero five, motion authorizing agreement with NeoGov for human resource and payroll software. Miss Morse, would you like to provide this report for us? Good evening.

Thank you, mayor. Good evening council members. For the record, Elaine Morse, deputy finance director. I'll refer you to item six, page 43 of your packet and then to the screen here for a brief, summarized presentation. This is agenda bill twenty six zero zero five, a motion to approve the NeoGov software and licensing agreement.

The request was reviewed by the finance and administration committee on January 13 for the do pass recommendation. NeoGov provides a human resource information system, otherwise known as an HRIS system, and replaces our current, and highly labor intensive, payroll system. NeoGov is a more contemporary software specializing in public sector requirements. Next slide. So this is a a list of benefits and risk factors that are mitigated, for your review.

HRS system supports entire employee life cycle, automating recruitment, onboarding, offboarding, performance management, benefit administration, and so forth. We currently do not have an HRS system, which is recommended or excuse me, recommended by, SHRM as a best practice, and that's Society of Human Resource Management. NeoGov provides regulatory compliance and support with the IRS, federal labor laws, state of Washington unemployment, and workers' compensation along with, department of retirement systems compliance measures. There's currently no software integration of our HR and payroll workflow. This creates a burden of a dual entry system with risks of delays and incorrect data.

NeoGov eliminates manual time and attendance entry, maintains our employment census, employee progress data, and progression data, contract conditions for represented staff, and confidential data while safeguarding compliance measures. NeoGov provides a modernized workforce tool that we don't currently have. We we don't have a time and attendance or excuse me, automation. Our time and attendance is taken by paper, worksheets that are turned into payroll. And the the I think one of the bigger benefits of employee impact would be, an actual portal, the handheld portal that people can use to look at their, payroll information.

There's a portal that allows staff, directors, managers, supervisors to view payroll information for their team. So it's very comprehensive and, really modernizes our tools so that we have visibility that, we currently don't. New gov is an, office of financial management approved vendor. In addition to the public sector payroll software, they manage and support all of the municipal and state government online employment listings. Other vendors that we considered are were Paylocity and pay Paycom.

Both had HRIS and payroll workflow and portals. They were comparable in cost, but those two did not have public sector compliance. So they weren't really supportive of government payroll types. So the three year cost impact with the NeoGov contract is $92,000. The status quo cost impact is 218,000 plus dollars over three years, and our operational cost savings are a 126,000 plus, over three year period.

The cost of the software, the onetime fees would be allocated to the technology fund, and then the general fund and other funds would pick up the remainder cost year over year of thirty seven to the general fund and 63% of the funds. Do you guys have questions for me,

counsel? This is miss Cohen.

Sure. So if you're getting the software to monitor staff time, is there gonna be a requirement for people to log in and log out from work? That is the case at my work.

Yes. Yes. So they'll have the opportunity to log in and out either on a mobile device or at a keypad, at public works, at city hall, at the wastewater treatment plant, and so forth rather than rather than tracking on paper.

Mister Tremoletto.

Yeah. And so there is an end user dashboard for the employee as well. It's not just okay. Yeah. So they'll be able to see hours worked, tax documents, all that available?

Absolutely. They'll have access to all of it and have some ability to make changes to things like beneficiaries, addresses. Yep. Some of those pieces, right, come to, a permission level for somebody in payroll or or Aaron, for example, in HR.

Sounds great. Long overdue, probably.

Yes. Any other questions? Oh, miss Torgerson and then miss Rustic.

When would the time frame be? Would it we'd be fully installed?

Great question. Well, I'm excited. I'd be excited to begin in April. Well, actually, sooner than that for the HRIS component because there's a lot of manual information to port into the software. But we'd like to begin in April, to begin running payroll through through that system and linking the services.

And follow-up question. How is that going to affect when the finance committee, is approving of checks via, AP or payroll checks? Well, it can do a couple and we can we can continue to do I know I know where you're going with this.

We can can continue to do, you know, present manual documentation. But the beauty of this system is that council member Elwood, I know we've talked about this before, but the beauty of this is that we can potentially allow for virtual approval by council members so that you'll have all of the information laid out in front of you in in an online environment, a secure online environment. I

love that the fact that we're getting a new system, and we're saving a lot of money. I think that's brilliant.

Miss Ruston. Yeah. Thank you. And and maybe this is a good segue after councilmember Torgin's question, Torgin's question. The, year one cost, is that significantly lower than the year three cost because it's not a full year? I I can't remember if we talked about that in finance.

Yeah. Great question. We the the year one cost is lower because, NewGov worked with us, or we worked with them, actually, to bring the cost down as much as we could so that we had a lower entry point. So they reduced our licensing, our setup fees, excuse me, by 60%, and then our licensing cost by 40%. So, they gave us an easier entry point in the first three years, so they staggered the cost. So we won't realize the full year cost, that they would normally charge until year three.

So we can anticipate then after year three potentially just going up annually by some cost of living type.

So if you take a look, if you Yeah. I think I read it. Look at the I could you'll see those costs accelerate.

Okay. Thank you.

Mhmm. Mister Drosome.

It's an if you look at table one, there's a footnote, and that explains the there's somewhere the information is that you're after, council member. And and the the year four cost is 55,000 some odd dollars.

K. Did I catch everybody? No comments? Alright. Miss Rustic, would

you please like the motion? Thank you. Motion to approve a B26Dash005 authorizing the mayor to enter into a licensing agreement with NeoGov for human resources and payroll software services in a form and content acceptable to the city attorney.

Thank you very much. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Motion made by miss Rustic and second by miss Torcic. And miss Rustic, would you like to add to your motion or comment? Excuse me.

I definitely can appreciate and understand the value that going this route takes. I think, that it makes complete sense. I'm a little concerned about the ongoing costs, but I think, you know, it's something that we can get get started and potentially reevaluate, in the future if we're start getting concerned about costs. I know how sometimes these software licenses go. So, anyway, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Torgerson.

I'm excited about it. New technology, is gonna make processing, for everything, easier, faster, you know, work you know, not work as hard. So I think it's this is great in the fact that the price is good. You know, all of it sounds good to me.

Excellent. Thank you very much. Any other council wish to comment? Okay. Seeing none, the motion before us is to approve a B twenty six dash zero zero five authorizing the mayor to enter into a licensing agreement with NeoGov for human resource and payroll software services in a form and content acceptable to the city attorney. All in favor?

Aye. Any

opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you one and all. Item number seven, AB26Dash006, motion authorizing contract with Valley Defenders for Public Defender Services. Miss Escobar, I'm calling on you tonight to introduce this to staff.

Okay. Thank you. So until 2024, we contracted for indigent defense services through an ILA with the city of Issaquah and the city of Snoqualmie. In 2024, we are informed that we would no longer be included in an ILA and would need to contract with Valley Defenders independently, which we did for 2025. We now have a contract renewal for 2026.

During our time in contracting services with Valley Defenders, we have had no service issues. In June 2025, Washington's Supreme Court ordered new caseload standards for indigent defense services. The annual caseloads per per attorney needed to be reduced from the 20 2,012 standards of 400 per year per attorney to a 120 per year per attorney. Originally, there was a ten year phase in time frame. But in November 2025, the Supreme Court clarified the order by stating that the reduced caseloads be implemented as soon as reasonably possible.

Each year, the case cases per year will drop until they hit the 120 cases per year. For the past three years, our caseloads have leveled off between a 150 and a 180 per year. Based on our current caseload numbers, Valley Defenders is allocated between point five and point seven for North Bend. There is a clause in the contract that allows for an increase or decrease of FTE depending on the cases filed. Because we are translate transitioning to King County Sheriff's Office from Snoqualmie Police, we don't know for sure how to predict the number of cases that will be filed.

So this ability to increase or discrete decrease the FTE is helpful. When we went from King County Sheriff's Office to Snoqualmie Police, that first year, there were there was an increase in cases filed until it began to level up. The cost for 2026 is $209,905.28. This was brought to public health and safety on January 6. It was recommended for approval and placed on the main agenda for tonight.

Thank you, miss Escobar. Any clarifying questions, mister Tremolata?

I probably should've asked this before, but just for my education and maybe others, is Valley Defenders sort of a one stop a one shop opportunity? Are there others in the future we could look at if the costs became too much to handle, so to speak? Or I mean, I I think it makes sense in this case. We've been using them through the other ILA. I I don't necessarily see a reason to change. But from a comparison's sake, are there other opportunities to look into? I'm I'm just not aware of how this works.

There are other opportunities that this will be limited on who Issaquah court actually assigns cases to, so it'll be limited on the court's breadth to be able to sign public defenders. So that's just one of their main defense offices that they use. So because we contract with Issaquah Municipal Court, that would be who they assign. So we can look at that. That is on the list, mayor pro tem at the end of this year to evaluate and also evaluate at the beginning in the middle of the year, as miss Escobar said, depending on our caseload standards and how they change with, King County.

But it's something that we'll continue to evaluate. And we let Sean know it, Valley Public Defenders that will be looking at all options depending on they have gotten so you'll see at the caseloads, they got really aggressive to get that number down at the beginning. That's why we have the big jump. And, hopefully, that will start to lessen over the years, to get down to the caseload standard that is required by the Supreme Court. But, they have an aggressive, start right off the get go, and that's caused the jump that we have.

Yeah. I mean, I think my concern is right. Like, if we're contracting with city of Isquah and they're signing the cases, yet we're still, quote, unquote, negotiating a rate where they're getting fed the business. It's tough to negotiate that rate. Right? There's nowhere.

Yeah. It just depends on the pool of defenders that they have available to them. In any court, you're gonna you're gonna fall into that, equation. It depends on the nexus that they have around the court.

K. And then just to add to that, in 2024 when we had to go independently, we did look at another firm, and they were higher in price. So we stayed with Valley Defenders.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Nope. Seeing none, mister miss Rustic. Mister Mister Ola, excuse me. My apologies. It's okay. Mean My certainly, my apologies. Wanting to jump in on it? I haven't said hi to you yet, I swear. Okay. Take it away, sir.

Thank you. Motion to approve a B26 Dash006 authorizing the mayor to execute and administer a contract with Valley Defenders for public defender services in a form and content acceptable to the city attorney.

Thank you very much. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Motion by Mr. Elwood and second by Ms. Colon. Mr. Elwood, would you like to comment to your motion?

No. I'm assuming all my colleagues heard Ms. Escobar's, introduction, so I think we're good.

Excellent. Thank you very much, miss Cohen. Would you like to comment as well?

I feel like it's housekeeping. We have to do it. We're doing it.

Hey. I don't wanna miss anybody, so speak up now if you have any more comments to make. Okay. The motion for us is to approve a b 26, dash zero zero six authorizing the mayor to execute and administer contract with Valley Defenders for public defender services in a form of content acceptable to the city attorney. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you, everybody. Motion passes unanimously. Now we're on to our very last item, item number eight, a b twenty six zero seven zero zero seven, excuse me, confirming 2026 human, community services grant funding. Miss Escobar, back to you. We'd like to hear what you have to say. Thank you again.

We deeply value and appreciate the oh, I need my so we deeply value and appreciate the nonprofit organizations that support our community in many ways. We have a grant request request process that has enabled organizations to request funds, report on how they plan to use them to benefit North Bend community members, and then report back with data on the effectiveness of their efforts. This year, we had 16 requests for grants totaling 343 47,000. In 2024 and 2025, we allocated 249,000 for grants. Our finance director, fabulous finance director, budgeted the same amount for this year to align with the mayor's recommendation.

The mayor's recommendation was presented at the 10/14/2025 work study. No decision was made at that time regarding allocation of funds. On 10/25/2025 at the work at another work study, there was another robust conversation about grant requests. At that meeting, council gave guidance to the executive team to reduce the funds to 200,000 and to decide where to allocate the funds. We use the guiding principles hardest hit due to federal funding cuts, availability of other noncity sources of funding, and whether the organization focused on community services versus community building.

As you can read in the memo provided, the Snoqualmie Valley Food Bank and the Mount Sai Senior Center have been significantly affected by federal funding reductions. Reclaim is finding an increased demand due to a shortage of affordable housing and rising costs of living. Friends of the Trail plays a critical role in our cherished natural spaces and works alongside law enforcement to clean up homeless encampments as well as provide court assigned community service opportunities to support full integration of offenders into productive society. Trail Youth focuses on supporting our vulnerable teen population by providing a safe, welcoming space that is nonjudgmental and provides opportunities for teens to connect with one another. Teens can gain confidence, communication skills, and work experience.

While all the nonprofit organizations are important, have significant have significant financial needs, and provide much needed services and support. The executive team use our guiding principles to narrow down the organizations to receive the funding that you can see above.

Hey. Does council have any questions, miss? Miss Collin?

Just because they are my favorite thing, Meadowbrook Farm.

Mhmm.

Could we get some money for them that is not on this list? Because they really have no money. Give us a call in.

Anybody else? Oh, miss Torreson.

It says on the agenda bill to see the memo attached. And on the memo attached, it said 17 requests. And you said there were 16, so I wasn't sure which number was the correct one.

It's it's 16. 17 in the past, but this year, that's the one did not request.

And so now this is more of, like, a clarification on how we do things. When, I believe Susie uploads this somewhere for retrieval at a later date, does this memo get attached to the the agenda so that, like, let's say, two years from now, we wanna go back and look at it, we can see the details that's in this memo. Is that attached when you upload

The memo is in the council packet?

Yeah. Because it says on the agenda bill, see the attached memo, and there's it's blank on the agenda. So because this is good information on the memo. Is that somehow attached when it's loaded for information later for documentation purposes?

Well, I do save all of the packets, the council packets. Those go to the state for archival, so they will be saved.

It will be it'll be but so, like, if I was to go up in the and research it, I'm gonna see this memo as well?

Yeah. You can see it in the council packet. That's on the website, and that'll stay on the website.

Okay. That's that was what I was curious about. Thanks.

Any other clarifying questions Yeah. Mister Elwood?

I think it's more of a refresh my mind, my memory on this, because I see quite a few organizations that we've historically funded throughout the years, and I understand that we had to tighten our belts this last year. But, I think maybe my first question is the mayor's recommendation versus what was asked by the organization, what disparities may exist there. And the reason why I asked that is that certain organizations like Reclaim, and I do respect and value what service they provide, was asking for $25,000, and the executive's team determined $65,000. Is that 45 is that $40,000 more than what they were asking for, or was Reclaim asking for a certain amount that was larger than that? And the and the reason why I asked that is because we do have a lot of smaller organizations that in the grand scheme of things are really pennies on the overall budget dollars.

And I'm just looking at some of these numbers going, well, couldn't we spend the wealth a little bit more, on certain ones of these? So I guess I'm trying to understand how we got to some very big figures for a few key services, and I don't disagree that we need to fund them. But how do we reconcile not spreading the wealth for some of the smaller organizations, that do do community service building, which is critical for a healthy community on this scale. So I'm trying to understand what was asked, mayor recommendation, executive team final, because I think to the point that my colleague just pointed out here, you know, Meadowbrook Farm Association is funded through two cities through our ILA and a couple other things. So I'm just trying to understand the distribution of the final decision making processes here.

Mayor, I can I can touch on that? And then, Lisa, please, I can add add to that. So when we were given the guidance at the work study to look at what how we could spread the $200,000 around reducing that from the $2.49, when those were submitted to the city, we had not seen the the final final cuts of all the federal impact that was gonna be hit. So when we, engaged with folks at that time when we were looking at these allocations, the reductions were much more significant than they were expecting. So you see the food bank at a higher cost, reclaim at a higher cost.

And we don't disagree. We're also councilmember Alwed that that, you know, the smaller agencies, we can funnel some money. But with the 200,000, if if council wants something different, the only caveat I will have is that we need to get these cut by the January. That's our typical timeline. So if we have any direction tonight that we need want to take something from one and divvy it down or stay at the 2,000, we need that information tonight so we can finalize that and get that cut. So we're open to that, but this is the final stab that we did after we reached out to the agencies with federal cuts.

No. And I appreciate that because I know there was a lot of thought that went in that, and I hope it didn't come across as though okay. Good.

No. Not at all.

I respect that you get to respect all the community. And adding that those guiding principles are critical, especially with federal funding.

And if we wanna change anything, let us know. We're happy to do it, but this is what we did with the 200,000 and and why with the federal cuts. Yes. K. Mister Johnson,

I see you there.

Yes. Same question. Combining those two inquiries, do we know what the ask was from Meadowbrook Farm Preservation Association for 2026?

$3,300.

That that that was their request.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome. That was

the mayor recommendation as well. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else? Mister McFarland?

Gee. I was really hoping I'd hear more from my fellow colleagues before I came on here. I I'm baffled. Yeah. Well, clarifying questions. So I don't understand in the way that this is presented, Mayor, if this is your recommendation or this is a staff recommendation.

All to be perfectly clear, this was, coming from councils talking to us wanting to dial it down $50,000. We took a took a stab to look at the times we were in, which were very challenging back in the day and and take a look at the layering of who's gonna be most definitely hardest impact, and and that's not an easy thing to just kinda float. So we started with this. This is not a thought. We can get other direction tonight too. So I would love to give to everybody. Are you kidding me? I'd love to stick to keep it at 20.

So if I under am I understanding correctly that what's listed in the mayor's recommendation column, that was what was in the original budget? Yeah. Okay.

Oh, yeah.

And that and during as was said by staff during work studies in October is when council suggested to limit to 200. Correct. But but is it then your revised recommendation limiting to 200 where these monies in the executive team recommendation, or is this the executive team's recommendation?

I support this executive team's recommendation. However, in a perfect world, I would stay let's stick with the 2,250,000 giving it to everybody. That was my my fullest recommendation would still be that.

Thank you for the clarification.

I hope I clarified. Mister Tremolata.

Yeah. So I somewhat agree with your thoughts, mayor, but I think if that's the case, I mean, maybe I'm tracking where council member Elwood was going. Why would I guess my initial thought when I was gonna see this was that if we were gonna keep all the takers on your original recommendation with maybe a little bit of a haircut from some from some others to get to the 200 so that everyone's getting a piece of the pie. That was, I think, my expectation coming out of that work study. But so this reads oddly to me, but I'm following your thought process of let's try to give to everyone.

Yeah. That that would be my recommendation.

I I agree with council member Tremolotta and Elwood. I think we can spread the wealth a little bit better to our people that are used to getting it, and now we're giving them nothing.

Ferguson?

Yeah. I I was kind of under the impression that we were gonna do the haircut and everybody and everybody was still gonna get something. That was my impression when we left the meeting. So, I would feel better if we were doing more like that. I mean, we needed we needed to do something, bring it down to 200,000 because we are under tough times as well, but I think everybody should get a little bit. So that's kinda where when I left the work study, that's what I thought our thinking was.

If I could just reiterate that that when we left the work study, we were told just to make the decision without any kind of clarification that we would be cutting, from each purse or each group. But the other thing that I wanna stress is that we did budget 249,000. It was in the budget for human services.

Your honor, I'd like to make a motion to that this council move to author authorize social services funding for 2026 following the mayor's recommendation as listed on the 11/03/2025 totaling $249,000 in expenditures.

Do I have a second on

that? Second.

K. Motion made by mister Johnston and second by mister Elwood. Would you like to speak to your motion there?

Yeah. Times are tough. Yeah. Folks are suffering. Our community is made richer by the contributions of many.

And while I appreciate the thoughtfulness that's gone in and appreciate the executive team's recommendations, I would like to be more broad minded and spread the wealth. I will admit I was not supportive of cutting $49,000 at the time, so part of it is self serving. I I totally own that, that I think this city even in these times is able to support those who are least well off. As we know, the the cost of living here is excessive for many, and all of these folks in different ways and for different reasons, but from their hearts, are contributing every day in significant ways to benefit folks who most are who are most in need. And given that the time is short, this has to be this has to be addressed by the end of this month, and we're not going to have another opportunity, we could be here a long time as a group trying to sort this out this evening.

But I believe that the mayor's recommendation list as listed here comes so much closer to what I personally would support. And listening to the converse the questions that have been raised, I believe other council members here tonight would similarly are of a similar mind as opposed to what's come forward as the executive team's recommendation. Thus, the reason for my motion, and I would hope for other council members support. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Elwood, any comments to make?

Yeah. I know when we're making these decisions last year, we're looking at different numbers. I believe the budget analysis that mister Chao presented us made me more optimistic about the short term gains. And I do agree that, I was expecting for a different, distribution even though I I understand the fact, oh, okay. Go figure it out, but I didn't think that there was only gonna be three or four organizations that were actually gonna get the bulk of the funding.

Right? So I mean, and it's it's fine. It is it is what it panned out. But also understanding to the point that miss Emery raised, you know, as the impacts of the federal cuts are slowly starting to be more become more real in our community, when we make a decision in October or November, even December, things start to escalate and ramp up rapidly. And, when you start seeing it more in the community and we start having more of these conversations and more and more folks are being impacted and we're actually seeing that effect, it makes one like myself start to rethink some tightening of the wallet decisions that I've made personally, just because I'm starting to see those effects starting to trickle through real time.

So I would support the motion to go back to the original 02/1949 or 02/50000, whatever it was, and I'm fine with the distribution as is, as was originally presented. But I would also like to, point out that, Merritt, it would have been good to know what your official recommendation was, from this, understanding that the staff did put their their work forward. So so, yes, please, that those are just my point of view. Thank you.

Sure. Anybody else? Tramela.

I have a, I guess, another question now with that motion on the floor. If we're going to if we're going to vote on that, could we just walk through for the public or the record, I would say, the items that have the hyphen and then also clarify the fund for CD for North Bend Arts and Industry so everyone's aware of how that original, that original mayor recommendation reads. Like, for example, did CarePoint Clinic apply, and then it was you know, what does the hyphen represent in that?

So I'll take that one, and then you can do the CED. Okay. So CarePoint was a new organization that applied for a grant in 2025. And what we had decided to do is to keep the allocation to the same organizations that we did in 2024. And so we just kept it consistent. And so that was the thinking for 2026 as well when, with a few alterations based on what we were able to do with arts and industry, which I'll let

So is that with all three hyphens or the same same

okay.

Yeah. Regarding North Bend, Industry, there's actually funding within the, economic development, division that would support, startups and innovation. And so the idea would be to draw funds from that, funding stream to support North Bend Art and Industry and the new, artists that are coming to to that organization.

And so that is there regardless of how council takes action?

Yeah. That's current yeah. Currently funded.

Yeah.

I get everybody? Yep. Just rest.

So I think there are two items here for consideration. This council did have conversation about, you know, the budget and where we could begin cutting budget, I guess we collectively, gave direction that we would reduce the budget by the 49,000, and then we gave the authority to the mayor and the executive team, to come up with, you know, their recommendations. And we did have conversations about, you know, some organizations were harder hit by the federal funding cuts, and there is availability of other sources of funding for some of these organizations. So, I guess, like I said, it's twofold. It's the reduction of the budget that we did intentionally discuss, and then it was how it was allocated.

So, I am actually not in favor of us not sticking to our conversation about trying to reduce budget overall. So I just wanted to, share that perspective. I am open to conversation about distributions. I feel though that, this is the first year that I've been on council where there was at least a criteria that was associated. I don't know how some of these others might fit against this criteria or if there's a criteria add to this that would, you know, help us with this conversation in the future.

I'd also final point is, you know, this is for 2026, and we can, obviously, whatever our decision tonight, make adjustments in the future. So Rustic,

just for a point of clarification. When you say criteria, these are the asks from the the Right. Nonprofits themselves. Is that can be that can be confirmed? Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. No. I understand that. Okay. But the final decision was based on the hardest hit by I mean, we've certainly seen in 2026, these organizations. Some of them have been hit very severely by the federal funding cuts. So that's kind of a new element that we hadn't considered at least in the years that I've been on council. So thank you.

In my memory as a council member, we used to discuss how to divvy up the donation money as a group in a work study, and and it's always hard to do that. But that is what we have done in years past. And just like this year, we used to have decision cards to divvy up money through our staff, and we're not doing that either. But I feel like as a group, it would have been nice to try to divvy this up better.

Thank you. Okay. Miss Torgerson?

And I think we put a lot of I mean, it was a tough decision during that work study to say we need to reduce this, but because we're looking at the landscape, and we know things are hard. And I my impression is that we would have reduced it all by because I think it's, like, 80% is what the the number comes out to be. Reduce all of them by 80% and have them all be able to receive some funds from us. And and I would feel better if we stuck with our original thought of keeping the you know, changing it to 200,000, because we got a lot of more tough decisions to make with the budget this year. And I feel like if we do a little bit here and there, it's gonna make the other parts that we have to make decisions on, not as not as big numbers, you know, if we're doing a little bit here and there.

So I I just feel like, well, I would love to give them all money as well. I mean, we do have some tough budget decisions to make. So I think, I would just I would stick with the 200,000, and I would like to reallocate it to all the people and being 80% of what they asked for.

K. Thank you. So you're wanting to make a motion on on top of that?

You want

to No.

I'm not making I'm just saying my opinion.

Oh, your pin okay. Thank you for your opinion, Mister McFarlane.

So first off, we're not even talking about a rounding error in the budget, and so we're spending a lot of time on that yet. It is one of the most community impactful things that this council does and talks about, and I appreciate the comment that was made by my colleague in regard to in the past, this has always been worked out, very difficult, very long conversations at a council work study, and that's part of what threw me to see this pushed forward today. I believe what I heard and I'm going to take as the understanding of why it's sitting here in front of us today is the notion that we have a timeline at the end of the month and it needs to be put forward. I'm not aware of any ordinance or similar that requires us to make that decision. We have done that.

Of course, the agencies are in need of their funding and we want to get that money to them. But it did not have to come in front of this council in this way tonight, and so I appreciate what I'm hearing from the council members who are being thrown off by that. In regard to the motion, yeah, I had a similar notion in mind. I want to, again, stick with the majority. I'm very disappointed in the executive recommendation.

Honestly, it feels a little orchestrated to result in exactly the conversation that's going on. And that's what you're gonna hear from me more is that I'm not gonna pull many punches in this term. I was the nice guy before. I'm gonna be a little more proactive in my speech going forward. Thank you.

Sir, have we caught everybody? Okay. What's our motion on the floor? Motion to authorize the mayor to approve social service recommendations for '90 or 2025, the total of 249,000. Anything more I can add to that?

I would say page 65 in the packet with your mayor recommendations.

Page 65 in the packet. Yep. K. In the packet. Page 65 in the packet. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Nay.

Nay. Nay.

Three nays, and it does pass at four and three nays. Okay. Moving on to mayor council and administrative concerns and initiatives. Mister Ellwood, you'd like to fill us in tonight? Your thoughts?

I'm good. Thank you, your honor.

Thank you, miss Torgerson.

I'm good.

Miss Cohen? I have some. Excellent.

So it's been a real rough 2025, but there is it's called a peace walk with the monks, and they're walking from Fort Worth, Texas to Washington, DC. 2,300 miles, and it's all over social media. And it gives me so much peace in my heart to watch the monks walking and the people giving them flowers, and they all have a dog named Aloka. And I just it makes my heart happy. Aside from that, yesterday was Martin Luther King Junior holiday, and I have a quote.

It says, in the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much, miss Rustic.

Yes. Thank you. So it is, Girl Scout cookie time coming up. So the Girl Scout cookies are more than a delicious treat. They're entrepreneurial building blocks for Girl Scouts to create a more equitable future for themselves and the world. And the proceeds, from each purchase stay local and fund their ambitions and exploration, like steam badges, camp experiences, travel, and community service projects. So over the next two months, when you see the Girl Scouts, think about what it does more than just purchasing cookies. It adds value to our community. That's all I have.

Thank you. Wonderful, mister Tremolotta.

Yes. Two things briefly. First, I wanna congratulate Ignite Dance, our local dance studio. They were the regional studio top studio in the region this weekend. So big award for Katie Black and the whole team over there, which was awesome. And then as I stated last meeting, I will make it a intention in 2026 to discuss mental health. Mental health matters. Don't let the hard days win. Reach out for help. Check-in with your friends.

Just a phone call, a text, a cup of coffee can mean more than you realize. Notion that I read during this preparation was that my dark days made me stronger or maybe I already was strong, and they made me prove it. Let's keep the conversation about mental health unashamed and out in the open. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Jossam.

Yes. I wanna say how much I appreciate all of you, staff as well. Chief Horsey, thank you. These are rough times. I'm gonna cycle back to last year for a minute because I have failed until now as I think as every member of this council to acknowledge that the Mount Sai High School girls' soccer team won state this year. So as someone who had a daughter that went through that program and two sons who a boys' soccer team, if I'm not wrong, won state just last year, that's a big deal.

I mean,

that's a really big deal, and I've been meaning to do that. Earlier this evening in the public health and safety committee report, council member Elwood referenced conversations about immigration and customs enforcement questions around ICE. The federal budget continuing resolution that's moving forward and looks likely to pass has $10,000,000,000. That's a huge number. Talk about here we are arguing over 200 you know, $5,049,000 dollars in social services funding to help our little community here, and it's some of the hardest decisions we have to make is that $49,000.

Yes, this country and the folks running it are advocating to allocate that kind of money. And the reason I bring this up is I wanna share that ten days ago, Friday, I I have a brother who lives in Philadelphia, married, I don't know, thirty, forty years, and they adopted two children from Vietnam from an orphanage from the same orphanage. And their daughter, Chi, from Vietnam, is a entirely legal US citizen who carries a driver's license that's a real ID that if anyone looks at it and not understands anything about documentation, watchmaness knows that that proves that you're a US citizen beyond any question. And she was at work working for a third party delivery service under contract to Amazon in an apartment building in North Saint Paul and saw six vehicles stream into the parking lot, smash the window of the delivery van that a colleague that she was training was in, come up to the apartment that she was hiding in, enter the apartment, throw her to the ground, zip tie her hands together, and haul her off to a detention center. We worked diligently from here as did my brother who was at work.

She could not remember her parents' phone numbers. They were both at work. She knew the landline at home, of course, but in this time of cell phones. She was terrified and traumatized, but of course, that's part of the point of all this. It was 07:00 that evening when through due diligence, you know, lots of effort, she was let go. I mean, they have a they have a part of the detention facility that's just for US citizens. They know what they're doing. There was probably no record ever created of her arrest. It's intimidation by design, intentionally intended to inflict fear and exact compliance from us. I mean, I grew up in Minnesota.

I have friends. Now read the Minneapolis Star Tribune every morning, and it is not good for my mental health because I don't recognize the country that we're living in, and it scares me. But I, again, appreciate you all, this process, how we're working together to preserve what I believe to be the type of place that I wanna live and that we wanna live in the type of country that we used to live in, and I'm hoping going forward we manage to hang on to it. As council member Cohen pointed, there's other people similarly concerned and struggling and doing what they can to hang on in these in these rough times. So I just wanted to share.

Thank you.

Thank you. Council member McFarlane.

Wow. Last meeting, you didn't like following me. Thinking about comments from council member Colin Tremolotta and now especially council member Jocelyn. Thankful for the diverse and supportive and caring community that we live in here. And when you hear things like that, it tells you how easy it is to lose that.

This morning, I read an article published in the Atlantic back in September 2015. I know you're not gonna like this weird reference but the Theudiclese trap. If you don't know your ancient Greek philosophers, look it up. Deep deep state deep state stuff, I suppose, but it was a sobering read on where we're headed. Yet more on my mind, guess, tonight is Ohio, not just because the only losses my I love that Ohio State were to the two finalists in the football championship last night, which I thoroughly enjoyed and liked the outcome of.

However, no, I'm thinking of Ohio and of Minnesota and now of Pennsylvania in more practical terms. So again, I'm going to offer you song, and I hope you'll look it up, and I hope you'll give it a listen, and I hope you will think about its message. And that is Ohio, written by Neil Young in 1970. I actually heard that, he wrote a new one about what's going on now, not long ago. But I'll share two lines from Ohio.

Soldiers are cutting us down. How can you run when you know? Thank you. Good night.

Thank you, sir, miss Emery. No updates from me tonight. Thank you. Okay. Great. Okay. Join me up, for the mayor meetup, series. It's gonna be at a Red Coffee Bar, located inside the Line Bicycle Shop in North Bend Way in City Hall, right across from City Hall, Wednesday, January 28 from nine to 10AM. Friends of the North Bend Library will be holding their annual book sale at the North Bend Library starting with a preview book sale on Wednesday, February 4, and the book sale will run from Thursday, the, February 5 through Saturday, February 7. Shop local with proceeds benefiting programming offered by the North Bend Library.

For more information, please check out the North Bend Library's website. Saviue Parks is holding an open house on Thursday, January 29 from 06:30PM at the or at 06:30PM, excuse me, at the Saviue Community Center to gather input from the community regarding the planning of our new six acre park of 400, former site of the Suquamy Valley Riding Club. Yeah. Just to add, your words tonight, everybody at the dais tonight towards the end of the evening, filled with pain and and really moving stories. And I I also agree that our mental health, including everybody out there in the entire world, needs to be recognized as something that we need to talk about and and stop the, the stigma that's attached to it first and foremost.

Have open conversations. Help each other as best you can. Stay connected as best you can and look out for yourself and your your other your other, other components and other people in your life that you care about, even your neighbors. Always your neighbors, in fact. With that, I wanna ask for a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Thank you. Second. Okay. First, thank you, everybody. Have a great night. Take care.