Public Meetings - Edmonds, Washington

The Edmonds City Council met on Monday, August 3, 2026, at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers. The meeting included presentations on the Edmonds Public Facilities District, a financial update from the Mayor, a comprehensive overview of city services by department heads, and a technical correction to an ordinance. A motion to add paid parking to a future agenda was debated and failed. The council also discussed budget priorities and upcoming community events. Consent Calendar - Approved minutes of previous meetings (July 14, 16, 21, 24, 28), a resolution on personnel policy, a construction contract for the 7th Ave Pedestrian Improvement Project, an ordinance amending recitals in Ordinance 4424, and claim checks/wire payments. All items were approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were made. Presentations - Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) Board Presentation: Wayne Grooth (board president) and Caitlin Pontrulla (interim executive director) presented the PFD's 2025 impact and 2026 outlook. Key statistics: served over 78,000 people, 900+ donors raised $1 million, 124 volunteers donated 11,943 hours. In 2025, the organization achieved a $400,000 surplus but projects a $304,000 deficit in 2026 due to one-time costs ($554,000) for interim leadership, financial services, and executive search. They are launching a search for a facility partner to address $30-50 million in capital needs and updating the joint operating agreement with the ECA nonprofit. Councilmember Barnett asked about the governing status of the expired operating agreement and future decisions; Councilmember Chen inquired about capital planning and potential partnerships with other cities. Councilmembers expressed appreciation for the community programming and economic impact. - Mayor's Finance Update: Mayor Rosen shared community feedback from "Ask the Mayor" events, emphasizing pedestrian safety, speeding, bike lane concerns, noise levels, illegal parking, and the fishing pier debate. He noted that community priorities reflect impacts on homes and neighborhoods. Discussion Items - 2027-2028 Services to the Community Presentation: City Administrator Lukash introduced a high-level overview of city services by department heads, categorized as core, basic, and quality-of-life. Presenters included: City Council (legislative), Municipal Court (judicial), and executive branch departments (Administration, Finance, City Clerk, Human Resources, Information Services, Utilities & Public Works, Planning & Development, Parks & Recreation, Police). Each department connected its services to council priorities: financial stability, strategic clarity, prioritization, and economic development. Councilmembers asked questions in a round-robin format: Councilmember Eck asked about position cuts in finance, planning, police, and parks (responses highlighted significant reductions, e.g., police from 67 sworn to 44, parks from 36 to 12 permanent positions). Councilmember Chen asked for a quality-of-life rating; City Administrator Lukash emphasized that such services are foundational to community identity. Councilmember Barnett requested program-level cost data for trade-off analysis; staff indicated policy direction is needed. Council President Dash inquired about sidewalk trip hazard prioritization; Utilities Director explained a contractor handles grinding and an in-house crew is being hired for ADA ramps. Councilmember Olson asked Police Chief about including economic development in public safety metrics and costs of school resource officers. Councilmember Nand proposed a centralized contracts manager; multiple directors confirmed such efficiencies exist (e.g., King County Purchasing Cooperative). Councilmember Eck pressed for an economic development plan; Planning Director Cluxton noted existing comp plan elements and need for leadership position. Council President Dash highlighted purchasing alliances (e.g., ILA with school district). Councilmember Barnett asked the Mayor about maintaining city assets and unionized workforce given fiscal constraints; Mayor Rosen cited low morale from chronic uncertainty and suggested evaluating city-owned properties for potential sale. - Correction to Title of Ordinance 4443: Council considered a technical correction to change the word "repealing" to "amending" in the title of Ordinance 4443 to align with amendments made on July 28, 2026. The process required three motions: reconsider adoption (passed 5-1), amend title (passed 5-1), adopt as amended (passed 5-1). Key Outcomes - Paid Parking Discussion Fails: Councilmember Olson moved to add a discussion of paid parking to the first available council agenda. After debate—Councilmember Eck cited urgency for non-property tax revenue; Council President Dash preferred a holistic approach; Councilmember Nand argued for committee process to gather staff input; Councilmember Chen noted impacts on small businesses—the motion failed (2 ayes, 4 nays). Councilmember Olson then requested the topic be considered in committee. - Ordinance 4443 Title Correction Adopted: The ordinance was corrected and adopted 5-1, changing the title to reflect "amending" utility tax rates and sunset provisions (previously "repealing"). - Budget Process Next Steps: Council will receive written responses to remaining questions from the services presentation. A council budget retreat is scheduled for September 11, 2026; the mayor will present the proposed budget on October 5, 2026, with adoption targeted for November 24, 2026. The fiscal sustainability task force is open for public sign-ups.

Note: The agenda lists this meeting as July 29, 2026, but the instruction specifies the meeting occurred on July 31, 2026. This summary uses the provided instruction date. This was a special meeting of the Edmonds Citizens' Tree Board, convened to address unfinished business from the July 2, 2026 meeting regarding the 2026 Tree Code Update (Project AMD2026-0001). The board focused on key code concepts, including landmark tree definitions, tree removal allowances, replacement requirements, development tree density credits, fees in lieu, penalty fines, and maintenance agreements. Discussions considered planning board recommendations, staff proposals, and previous tree board consensus, with several motions debated and voted upon. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public were present or provided comments. Discussion Items - Approval of July 2, 2026 Meeting Notes: The board debated whether the draft notes should be classified as “meeting notes” rather than formal minutes due to procedural issues (lack of hybrid access and missing published link). A motion to include Ben’s personal notes and table adoption until the next meeting passed. - Landmark Tree Definition: Two motions were made. The first, to set landmark trees at 28 inches DBH and remove species-specific thresholds, failed (3–2). A second motion adopting a list of protected native species at lower thresholds (e.g., Pacific dogwood at 18 inches, madrona at 12 inches) passed. - Significant Tree Definition: A motion to change the threshold from 6 inches to 8 inches DBH failed, leaving the current 6-inch definition unchanged. - Tree Removal Allowances (Non-Development): A motion to allow three significant tree removals at once (rather than one per 12 months) with no permit fee passed. - Nuisance Tree Definition: Several motions regarding monetary thresholds and “extensive” damage language died; the board did not adopt a revised definition, leaving the current draft unchanged. - Tree Replacement Requirements (Non-Development): A motion to reduce required replacement numbers when conifers are planted (e.g., 1-for-1 for trees up to 17.9 inches, 2-for-2 for 18+ inches) passed. An amendment to apply the reduction to any tree replaced with a conifer also passed. - Development Tree Density Credits: After extensive discussion comparing 50, 88, and 110 credits per acre, the board voted 3–2 to recommend the previous tree board proposal: 88 credits per acre for low-density residential, using a condensed 1–6 point scale for valuing existing trees. - Fees in Lieu and Penalty Fines: Initial votes set fees at $2,600 per credit and penalties at 1.5x that amount. Later, a motion to adopt the planning board’s numbers ($1,600 per credit, double penalty) passed, overriding the earlier votes. The fine structure will apply to the condensed credit scale. - Five-Year Maintenance Agreement: A motion to require a five-year maintenance agreement (noticed on title, expiring after five years) for trees retained/planted in low-density residential developments passed over concerns about encumbering property. Key Outcomes - Approved July 2 meeting notes with Ben’s notes; adoption tabled. - Landmark tree definition adopted with species-specific thresholds (e.g., all trees ≥24 inches, dogwood ≥18 inches, madrona ≥12 inches, etc.). - Significant tree definition remains at 6 inches DBH. - Three tree removals per 36 months allowed with notification (no permit fee). - Reduced replacement numbers for conifer plantings (1-1-2-2 scale) approved; applies to any tree removed if replaced with a conifer. - Tree density credits set at 88 per acre for low-density residential, using condensed 1–6 credit scale. - Fees in lieu set at $1,600 per required credit. - Penalty fines for unauthorized tree removal set at double the fee in lieu ($3,200 per credit) based on the condensed scale. - Five-year maintenance agreement required for trees in low-density residential developments, with notice on title expiring after five years. - The board did not adopt a revised nuisance tree definition, leaving the current draft for council review. All recommendations will be forwarded to the Edmonds City Council for its August 11 study session and to the Planning Board for its upcoming public hearing.

The Edmonds City Council met on July 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting included a presentation on the Edmonds New Start Center bridge housing project, public comments on annexation and utility taxes, and council action on extending the temporary utility tax increase with a new sunset date of December 31, 2028. The council also discussed the updated fiscal analysis for the potential Esperance annexation and directed staff to continue evaluating both full and phased approaches. Presentations - Edmonds New Start Center – Representatives from Snohomish County (Julie Moore, Susan Christ) and YWCA (Krisha Green) presented the bridge housing project at the former hotel on Highway 99. Key details: 45 client rooms, 90-day intended stay, referral‑only entry, 24/7 security, approximately $2 million annual operating budget, 75% of clients expected from the local community, and a four‑month ramp‑up to full occupancy. Councilmembers expressed support and asked about success metrics, outbound bridge support, and emergency cooling capacity (not currently planned). - Mayor’s Finance Update – Mayor Rosen noted that the council had received financial materials and that the city is proceeding with the Baker Tilly engagement, utility tax discussion, and Esperance annexation analysis. Consent Calendar Approved unanimously: - Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Phase 7 Stormwater Replacement Project Design (second reading). - Approval of claim checks and wire payments. - Authorization to purchase an International HV507 dump truck (second reading). - WWTP Supervisor job description revision (second reading). - Fiscal Sustainability Task Force charter and selection process (second reading). - Joint Resolution with Mountlake Terrace requesting Snohomish County 2027/2028 REET funds (second reading). Public Comments & Testimony - Colleen McDonald (Esperance resident) – Expressed support for continuing annexation conversations on behalf of the Esperance Neighborhood Alliance. Noted that the effort originated from a proposed county rezone, not as a city revenue generator. - Emily Benson (Esperance resident) – Supported annexation, citing that many residents already identify with Edmonds and that annexation would address concerns about tree canopy, road safety, and representation. - Dom Parker (Edmonds resident 65 years, now Esperance 11 years) – Supported annexation. - Linda Anderson (Esperance resident) – Supported annexation. - Jim Loganowski (Edmonds resident) – Questioned the accuracy of the utility tax extension spreadsheets, pointing to a potential $700,000 change in the 2026 ending fund balance over three weeks and a negative fund balance on the extended option slide. Asked if the general fund is technically insolvent. - Jack Malik (Shoreline resident) – Spoke about a small bakery (Bakery Louise) seeking to lease at Port of Edmonds Building 471 Admiral Way. Objected to an estimated $35,000–$40,000 impact fee, calling it onerous for a first‑time brick‑and‑mortar business. - Bill Krepik (Woodway resident) – Criticized the Baker Tilly engagement and proposed fiscal sustainability task force, arguing that residents should help shape the analysis from the start rather than react to conclusions. Recommended that at least 60% of the task force represent the 60% of voters who rejected the 2025 levy lift. - Ken (Edmonds resident) – Urged council to reject removal of the sunset on the temporary utility tax increase. Proposed a Utility Taxpayer Protection Ordinance requiring voter approval for rates above 10% after June 30, 2027. - Deborah (remote participant) – No substantive comment. Discussion Items - Utility Tax Extension Ordinance (First Reading) – Chris (Finance) presented a proposal to remove the June 30, 2027 sunset on the temporary 20% utility tax rate for water, sewer, and stormwater, making it permanent until council changes it. The administration argued it provides $1.6 million in additional 2027 revenue and $3.2 million in 2028, reducing the projected structural deficit from $4.5 million to $2.9 million, and supports cash flow stability while longer‑term solutions are developed. Council debated the regressive nature of the tax, the need for time to implement the Baker Tilly work plan and community task force, and the commitment made to residents that the increase was temporary. An amendment by Councilmember Payne to set a new sunset date of December 31, 2028 passed 5‑2. A second amendment to update the recitals passed 6‑1. The main motion as amended passed 5‑2. - Updated Preliminary Fiscal Analysis of Potential Esperance Annexation (Third Reading) – Michael Cluxton and Brad Shipley (Planning and Development) presented updated analysis from consultant Burke. Key updates: assumed 10% utility tax (not 20%) after the first year; included staffing costs (1 PW, 1.75 Parks, 4 police, 1 support); annexation still projected positive. Per‑capita tax impacts for Esperance residents shown (property tax change minor, utility costs higher under Edmonds rates). Risks noted: capital needs for the 84th Street Bridge (currently “fair” condition), potential level‑of‑service impacts without additional staffing, and uncertainty over the annexation sales tax credit eligibility for major infrastructure. Council discussed phased vs. full annexation, including the possibility of splitting to obtain a second 0.1% sales tax credit for the bridge area. Councilmember Chen recused himself due to a conflict of interest (his office building is in Esperance). Key Outcomes - Utility Tax Extension (Ordinance 4415) – Passed 5‑2 (Councilmembers Chen, Nan opposed) after amendments. The ordinance removes the original June 30, 2027 sunset and replaces it with a new expiration date of December 31, 2028. The utility tax rate of 20% will revert to 10% on that date unless council acts sooner. - Esperance Annexation – Council approved a motion (6‑0, Chen abstaining) directing staff to continue evaluating both full and phased annexation alternatives and return with a recommended strategy, including details on staffing, service levels, capital obligations, revenue assumptions, implementation timing, and legal constraints. The final fiscal analysis is expected August 12, with a resolution on whether to proceed on August 18. - Consent Agenda – Approved unanimously.

The Edmonds Hearing Examiner held a hybrid meeting on July 23, 2026, beginning at 3:20 PM after technical difficulties. The sole agenda item was a public hearing on a preliminary five-lot unit lot subdivision (PLN2025-0030) at 222 3rd Avenue South. Staff presented findings of compliance with subdivision, zoning, and comprehensive plan criteria. No members of the public attended or submitted comments, but the examiner allowed a one-week extension for written comments due to Zoom issues. The examiner noted the hearing was unusual because the project's design had already been approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) in December 2024, and the unit lot subdivision only changes the ownership model. The examiner indicated he would approve the subdivision. Discussion Items - Staff Presentation: Mr. Sewell summarized the proposal: a quarter-acre site zoned RM 1.5 (multifamily residential downtown), currently a single-family residence with an approved demolition permit. The proposal creates separate lots for five townhouse units. The design was approved by the ADB in December 2024, and a Determination of Non-Significance under SEPA was issued. Building permits are under concurrent review. Staff concluded the subdivision complies with the subdivision ordinance, comprehensive plan, zoning code, and floodplain management (no floodplain on site). Key findings: adequate parking (10 spaces provided, 9 required), EV parking per unit, bicycle parking, site coverage at 45% maximum, density at half the maximum allowed. Engineering and fire provided preliminary approvals. A sidewalk upgrade is required. No public comments were received after the hearing notice. - Hearing Examiner Remarks: The examiner, Mr. Olbrex, acknowledged that the public hearing is somewhat procedural because the substantive design was already approved by the ADB. He noted that under state law, the only impacts that can be addressed are those from the change in ownership. He raised a question about safe walking conditions to schools, which was not considered by ADB. Staff confirmed sidewalks exist on the arterial frontage but did not have details on school bus stops. The examiner also responded to concerns raised in a single public comment letter regarding height measurement, garbage storage, and parking—all previously addressed by ADB or engineering reviews. - Applicant Comments: The applicant representatives stated they had nothing to add, confirming the proposal is solely a change in ownership model. Key Outcomes - The hearing examiner closed the public hearing and indicated he would approve the subdivision due to compliance with all criteria. He stated he would issue a final decision within 10 business days. - The examiner admitted the ADB decision as Exhibit 15 into the record. - Due to Zoom technical issues, the examiner allowed a one-week period for any public who could not log in to submit written comments, with staff and applicant given an opportunity to respond if needed.

The Edmonds Planning Board met on July 27, 2026, per the timestamp provided with the source materials; the agenda and transcript identify the meeting as July 22, 2026. The hybrid regular meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall. The Board approved the July 8, 2026 minutes, heard five public comments on the 2026 Tree Code Update (Project AMD2026-0001), and made several decisions on tree density credits, replacement credits, fee-in-lieu, and penalties. Several Tree Code items were deferred to the August 5 public hearing and August 12 meeting, and the Westgate Neighborhood Center map item was deferred to August 12. Approval of Minutes - The Board approved the July 8, 2026 minutes with edits circulated by Judy Gladstone; the vote was unanimous in favor, with one abstention (John Elkey). Public Comments & Testimony - Kathleen Sears (Edmonds resident): Recommended adding minimum tree-retention requirements for non-development properties (at least one landmark tree or three significant trees) and for development properties; supported a requirement that at least 50% of required tree-density credits be met by retained trees; urged that fee-in-lieu be used only as a last resort and that claims that minimums cannot be met be verified by city staff. - Another Edmonds resident (name not stated): Asked for formal definitions of development and non-development using a 500-square-foot disturbance threshold; recommended consistent use of those terms; recommended that hazard-tree assessments be made by an ISA Certified Arborist with Tree Risk Assessment Qualification. - Kyle McIntyre (Edmonds homeowner): Opposed the subcommittee's $750-per-credit fee-in-lieu, saying it was too low and below the current code's mitigation value; supported $1,400 per credit or more; urged requiring applicants to maximize on-site retention and exhaust on-site replacement options before fee-in-lieu is approved; cited current-code calculations including an 8,500-square-foot lot capped at $4 per square foot equating to $34,000. - Tom Herskey (Edmonds resident; Bowitt): Supported a 24-inch landmark-tree threshold plus a landmark-tree species list, with those species counted at 10 credits for retention and replacement; supported added credit tiers for larger trees but not a 1.5 multiplier for native conifers; supported two replacement credits for native conifers; recommended a four-tier replacement schedule with landmark trees and species-list trees requiring four replacements. - Deborah Ashland (Edmonds resident; FOET): Supported the subcommittee's tiered low-density residential tree-density credits as a compromise, but recommended credits 20% higher (for example, 132 credits per acre for a one-unit lot); accepted 30 credits per acre for commercial and mixed use but recommended 44 credits per acre for multifamily; noted the upcoming public hearing on August 5. Discussion Items – 2026 Tree Code Update Landmark Tree Replacement Schedule - Board members noted the replacement schedule applies mainly to nuisance-tree removals, because landmark trees are otherwise protected from removal, and that hazard-tree removals do not require replacement. - A motion to apply the four-to-one replacement tier to all landmark trees, regardless of diameter, passed unanimously. This revised the subcommittee's over-24-inch-DBH trigger. Tree Density Credits for Low-Density Residential - The Board adopted the subcommittee's low-density residential tree-density-credit scale and minimums. As described during discussion, the tiers are 110 credits per acre for single-unit sites, 88 credits per acre for two-to-three-unit sites, and 66 credits per acre for four-unit sites. - One public commenter described the tiers as 110 credits for one unit, 88 for two units, and 66 for three-to-four units; the Board discussion used the one-unit / two-to-three-unit / four-unit grouping. Retention Priority and 50% Minimum - After debating whether the priority section alone would prevent a developer from removing most existing trees, the Board voted to remove from the subcommittee package the proposed requirement that 50% of tree-density credits be met by retained trees. - The removal was paired with direction to revise the priority and retention language so the operation of tree density credits and the emphasis on retention are clear. Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Multifamily Tree Density Credits - The subcommittee had proposed 30 credits per acre for commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily sites. - The Board voted to follow staff's recommendation instead, leaving those site types to existing landscaping requirements rather than adopting a separate tree-density-credit requirement. Judy and John abstained. Existing Tree Credit Table - The Board adopted the revised existing-tree credit table as amended: 26-inch trees = 10 credits, 28-inch trees = 11 credits, and trees 30 inches and above = 12 credits. - The amendment avoided the skipped 28-inch increment in the subcommittee's proposed table. Replacement Tree Credits - The Board adopted a motion allowing two replacement credits for preferred trees identified by staff, with native conifers explicitly included at a minimum. - The landmark-tree species list was not included because many of those species are difficult to plant successfully. Fee-in-Lieu and Penalties - Members discussed the subcommittee's $750 recommendation, staff's earlier $1,000 figure, the $1,400 figure supported by FOET, and the current code's $2,500-per-tree/appraisal structure with a $4-per-square-foot cap. - A motion to set fee-in-lieu at $1,000 per credit failed with five nays. - The Board then adopted $1,600 per tree-density credit, based in part on dividing the current $34,000 maximum fee-in-lieu for an 8,500-square-foot lot by the 21 credits required on that lot, which yields roughly $1,619 per credit. - The same motion directed that penalties be revised to double the fee-in-lieu amount, following the same scale. The motion passed with one nay. Fee-in-Lieu Cap - The Board voted to remove the existing fee-in-lieu cap of $4 per square foot of lot area. - The motion passed despite some nays and two abstentions. Unresolved Items and August Schedule - The Board confirmed that site improvements over 500 square feet should follow the tree-density-credit thresholds tied to the number of dwelling units on the lot (for example, 110 credits for a single-unit lot and 88 credits for a lot with an ADU/two units). - Items left for the August 5 public hearing or August 12 meeting include conservation subdivisions, forest management plans, and maintenance agreement versus bond requirements. - The Board's Tree Code recommendation is expected to be transmitted to the City Council for its August 11 meeting. Westgate Neighborhood Center Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map (Second Reading) - Listed on the agenda as a second reading, the Westgate future land use map and zoning map amendments were not acted on due to time. - Staff said the item would be taken up at the August 12 Planning Board meeting for discussion and recommendation; it would not have a Planning Board public hearing, but the City Council would hold one. - The map amendments will be part of the Comprehensive Plan docket and combined into one ordinance before council adoption. Key Outcomes - Approved July 8, 2026 minutes with one abstention. - Applied the four-to-one replacement tier to all landmark trees, regardless of diameter. - Adopted the low-density residential tree-density-credit table of 110 / 88 / 66 credits per acre. - Removed the proposed 50% retention minimum and directed clearer retention-priority and tree-density-credit language. - Followed staff's landscaping-requirements approach for commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily sites rather than adding a separate 30-credit-per-acre requirement. - Adopted existing-tree credits of 10 at 26 inches, 11 at 28 inches, and 12 at 30 inches and above. - Allowed two replacement credits for preferred tree species, including native conifers. - Set fee-in-lieu at $1,600 per tree-density credit and directed penalties to be double the fee-in-lieu amount. - Removed the $4-per-square-foot fee-in-lieu cap. - Deferred action on conservation subdivisions, forest management plans, maintenance agreement versus bond, and the Westgate map item to upcoming meetings.

This special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was convened on July 24, 2026, at 9:00 AM to receive the exit report from the Washington State Auditor's Office on the city's 2024 annual comprehensive financial report, covering accountability, financial statement, and federal grant compliance audits. The audit team presented results and responded to council questions. Accountability Audit (Period: January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2024) - Overall finding: The city was in compliance with areas reviewed, with one management letter item related to financial condition. - Management letter item: Expenditures continue to exceed revenues; the general fund cash balance has declined from about 56 days of operating expenditures in fiscal year 2024 to about 27 days based on unaudited 2025 financials. A $6 million interfund loan from utility funds was taken to sustain the general fund, with repayment planned over fiscal years 2026 and 2027. The auditors noted that efforts are being made to reduce expenditures and a panel is in place to develop a plan, but the downward trend remains a concern. - Other areas examined (cash receipts, payroll, sensitive assets, annual report filing, professional services procurement, open public meetings) showed no issues. A prior management letter item on leave use for exempt employees was resolved. Financial Statement Audit (Fiscal Year 2024) - Opinion: Clean unmodified opinion on the city's financial statements. - Internal controls and compliance: No significant deficiencies were identified; however, one material weakness was reported regarding capital assets. - Material weakness – capital asset useful lives: Approximately 97% of the city's streets were fully depreciated because they were being depreciated over 30 years. The auditors determined that a 100-year useful life is more appropriate for the full road structure (including base, curb, gutter, etc.). The resulting correction was material to the financial statements. The city has since made the adjustment; ongoing recommendations include careful evaluation of useful lives for all asset classes and improved communication between departments. - Other uncorrected misstatements (minor) were included in the packet; none affected the statements' readability. - No non-compliance with laws or agreements was identified. Federal Grant Compliance Audit (Single Audit) - Program reviewed: SLFRF (State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds), which comprised about 90% of federal expenditures. - Opinion: Unmodified opinion on the program. - Internal controls and compliance: No significant deficiencies, material weaknesses, or non-compliance were identified. This is an improvement from prior years when findings were reported. - A prior audit finding on SLFRF was fully corrected. Citizen Hotline Complaint - One complaint regarding the procurement of a professional services contract was investigated; no issues were found. Future Audit Team Transition - The State Auditor's Office is reassigning audits: the North King County team (introduced via Haji Adams) will conduct future audits for Edmonds starting with fiscal year 2025 audits, replacing the Everett team. - The next audit (for 2025) is scheduled for fall 2026 and will not require a federal compliance audit. Discussion and Questions - Council members raised questions about the capital asset depreciation methodology, the general fund cash reserve benchmark, and recommended monitoring indicators. - Mayor and staff emphasized the difference between engineering and accounting perspectives on asset life and committed to improved communication. - Auditors clarified that the 60-day industry standard for fund balance is a benchmark; the city's trend should show improvement. They recommended monitoring revenues vs. expenditures and fund balances monthly. - Council member Barnett questioned how to account for future road overlays; auditors outlined options such as expensing maintenance or using componentization. The city will work with finance to refine procedures. Key Outcomes - The council received the audit report; the city's financial statements received a clean opinion. - A material weakness in capital asset depreciation was disclosed and is being corrected going forward. - Management letter on financial condition remains active; city is expected to continue efforts to align expenditures with revenues and improve cash reserves. - Audit reports were scheduled for publication later in the day on July 24, 2026. - No formal council actions or votes were taken; the meeting was informational. The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 AM.

Note: The agenda and transcript list the meeting date as July 21, 2026, but the provided date for this summary is July 22, 2026. This discrepancy is noted. The Edmonds City Council Finance Committee met on July 22, 2026 (as per the provided date) to discuss bond rating changes, the May 2026 financial report, an updated strategic outlook, a potential utility tax extension, and the formation of a Fiscal Sustainability Task Force. The meeting was chaired by Councilmember Will, with attendance from Mayor May Rosen, Council President Dutch, Councilmembers Wilchin, Echt, Olson, Chan, Vivian, and Erica, along with Finance staff Keisha, Melinda Okerland, and Scott Bowers. Bond Rating Changes - Melinda Okerland and Scott Bowers from the bond rating agency presented the reasons for the city's downgrade from AAA to A- (three notches) with a negative outlook. Key factors included drained fund balance, reduced liquidity, corroded reserves, and delayed budget adjustments. The downgrade will increase future borrowing costs by an estimated 20–30 basis points (0.2–0.3% interest rate increase) but does not immediately affect existing debt or investment returns. The water and sewer utility debt remains at AA, one notch higher. Bowers noted that only about 2.1% of Washington cities (six out of 281) hold a AAA rating. Councilmembers asked about the timeline for recovery; Bowers indicated that sustained improvement in financial metrics would be needed to regain a higher rating. May 2026 Monthly Financial Report - Finance staff Keisha reviewed the report. Sales tax revenues are up compared to last year and budget, but the margin is narrowing, suggesting a possible flattening trend. Charges for goods and services are slightly down due to the removal of EMS fees, but in line with budget. Intergovernmental revenues are below budget partly due to delayed grants and annual payments. Utility taxes are ahead of budget due to seasonal patterns. Department expenditures are generally within expectations, with administrative services slightly over due to temporary labor for audit corrections. The report noted a correction on page 7’s revenue graph: the modeling incorrectly included a $6 million interfund loan from 2025, artificially inflating expected 2026 revenue. Keisha will correct this. A question about building maintenance fund spending (unspent bond proceeds) was addressed; the city may face arbitrage penalties if funds are not spent on time. Councilmember Chan noted that the bond was issued in 2022 and interest is being paid while projects are delayed. Updated Strategic Outlook - Keisha presented updates to the 2027–2028 strategic outlook resulting from the council retreat. Revenue assumptions were adjusted: 2026 sales taxes increased by $505,000, annual sales tax growth raised from 1% to 2%, and interfund service charge increases from 3% to 5%. These changes reduce the projected deficit by $739,000, leaving a gap of approximately $4.55 million. Keisha emphasized that this is an estimate; health insurance costs are now expected to rise 11–14%, adding further pressure. The outlook is a baseline for budget planning. Utility Tax Extension - Keisha presented four options for the temporary utility tax increase (currently at 20% for electricity, 6% for solid waste, etc.), which is set to expire in June 2027. Extending the tax would reduce the deficit but not eliminate it entirely. Councilmembers expressed mixed views: Councilmember Olson opposed maintaining the high rate long-term, calling it burdensome on low-income families, and suggested tying it to the task force recommendations. Councilmember Erica supported a temporary extension to allow time for other revenue solutions. Councilmember Chan preferred not to retain the 20% rate and suggested focusing on the 2027 budget first. Councilmember Chris emphasized exploring all options. The committee agreed to refer the item to the full council for discussion. Fiscal Sustainability Task Force - Michelle led the discussion on forming the task force. The application process, scoring rubric, and selection criteria were reviewed. Key points: the task force will be under council control, with 11–15 members (drawn from applicants), aiming for diversity in background, skills, and geography. Councilmembers supported having at least half the members with financial expertise, and emphasized communication and collaboration skills. Options for selection included council members each choosing one applicant, then ranking the remaining, or using the rubric to create a slate. The committee decided to move the task force to the consent agenda for the July 28 council meeting, incorporating feedback from this discussion. Key Outcomes - Bond rating: Informational; no action taken. - May financial report: Keisha will update the report and file it, with corrections to the revenue graph. - Strategic outlook: Noted for information; further budget discussions will follow. - Utility tax extension: Referred to the full council for discussion. - Fiscal Sustainability Task Force: Moved to the consent agenda for the July 28 council meeting, with the application and rubric approved as presented.

The Public Safety, Planning, Human Services, and Personnel (PSPHSP) Committee met on July 22, 2026, from 4:30 PM to 5:07 PM to discuss three agenda items: an ordinance correcting recitals in a previously adopted critical areas ordinance, a revision to the wastewater treatment plant maintenance supervisor job description, and a policy clarification on minor job description changes. The committee forwarded two items to the consent calendar and provided direction on the third. Ordinance Amending Recitals in Ordinance 4424 (Agenda Item 2.1) - City Attorney Jeff presented a draft ordinance to strike two recitals and insert three new ones in Ordinance 4424 (the Critical Areas Ordinance update) to align the legislative findings with the council’s actual action. He stated there is no substantive change to regulations. Committee members expressed support and agreed to forward the ordinance to the consent calendar for the next council meeting. Wastewater Treatment Plant Maintenance Supervisor Job Description Revision (Agenda Item 2.2) - New WWTP Manager Joseph Carter and staff described replacing the assets and projects supervisor role with a dedicated maintenance supervisor to strengthen plant operations and better align with traditional wastewater practices. They noted the position would coordinate with engineering on capital projects. The committee unanimously agreed to schedule the job description revision on the consent agenda for the July 28, 2026 council meeting. Personnel Policy Clarification for Approval of Job Descriptions (Agenda Item 2.3) - HR Director Lisa Takich presented examples of minor job description revisions (e.g., updating certifications, removing obsolete duties, correcting grammar) that she believes fall under the mayor’s existing authority per Section 3.10 of the personnel rules. She requested the committee’s agreement on this interpretation to streamline recruitment. Committee members concurred with the interpretation and recommended that Ms. Takich consult with the city attorney to determine the appropriate formal action (e.g., a motion or resolution). Councilmember Vivian also suggested providing a summary report of minor changes as a receipt for filing to ensure transparency. Key Outcomes - Forwarded the ordinance amending recitals in Ordinance 4424 to the consent calendar for full council approval. - Forwarded the revised WWTP Maintenance Supervisor job description to the consent calendar for the July 28, 2026 council meeting. - Directed HR Director Lisa Takich to work with the city attorney on next steps to formally codify the committee’s interpretation of “minor revisions” in the personnel policy, and to consider providing a periodic summary report to council.

Note on date discrepancy: The agenda and transcript identify the meeting as July 21, 2026, 3:00 PM. However, the provided meeting date is July 22, 2026, 10:15 AM. This summary uses the requested date. The Parks and Public Works (PPW) Committee, chaired by Councilmember Nydien Olsen, met to review five items: the Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a construction contract for the 7th Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project, a professional services agreement for Phase 7 Stormwater Replacement design, authorization to purchase a dump truck, and a joint resolution with Mountlake Terrace requesting Snohomish County REET funds. All items were recommended for forwarding to the full City Council's consent agenda. Consent Calendar - Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – Parks, Recreation and Human Services (First Reading): Received for filing as an informational update. Councilmembers noted the need for intentional discussion on the REIT split between parks and public works during the September capital budget process. - Report on Bids and Award of Construction Contract – 7th Ave Pedestrian Improvement Project: Staff reported bids ranging from approximately $258,000 to $473,000. The lowest bidder had a filing error, and staff are working with the second-low bidder. The project includes curb ramps, a raised crosswalk, and curb bulb outs to improve pedestrian safety near a park. - Presentation of PSA – Phase 7 Stormwater Replacement Project Design Services: BHC Consultants will design stormwater improvements at multiple sites to address flooding and root intrusion. The scope and fee have been negotiated. - Authorization to Purchase International HV507 Dump Truck: The purchase exceeded the $250,000 threshold due to taxes and customization. The truck is already in the city garage. Council requested an updated memo clarifying the customization costs. - Joint Resolution of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace City Councils – Requesting Snohomish County 2027/2028 Biennium REET: The resolution supports a grant request to preserve aging aquatic facilities, including the Mountlake Terrace pool and Edmonds’ Yost Park pool, which are at risk of closure. Discussion Items - Parks CIP Overview: Director Angie Fesser presented a “Parks Capital 101” on project selection (grounded in the 2022 PROS Plan), funding sources (REET 1 & 2, park impact fees, interest, donations, bonds, grants), and the role of limited staff (one full-time project manager). The committee discussed the 50/50 REIT split between parks and public works. Councilmember Chris F proposed a joint task force of council members, city administrator, mayor, and parks director to review the split. Public Works Director Andy Riem noted that the combined REIT funds now offer more flexibility and that the capital budget process in September will be the appropriate venue for these discussions. Councilmember Michelle requested updates on the Shell Creek restoration project (delayed due to other projects) and emphasized the need for ADA-compliant restrooms at CVU Park, suggesting it as a priority. Fesser welcomed council input on priorities. - 7th Avenue Pedestrian Improvement: Engineering representative Ryan presented the project, funded by a TIB grant. The project adds curb ramps and a raised crosswalk near a park to address speeding and pedestrian safety. Discussion included concerns about bicycle accommodations (bulb outs sized for cyclists), sight lines, and snow plow markers. Councilmember Michelle shared an anecdote about a driver hitting a bulb out due to missing markers. Staff noted that markers are being considered. - Stormwater Phase 7 Design: Ryan explained that the design includes multiple sites to relieve flooding and decommission lines in backyards. Root intrusion is a challenge in easements. No questions from the committee. - Dump Truck Purchase: Public Works Director Andy Riem explained that the truck was budgeted under $250,000 but came in just over. A resident offered an alternative truck, but the purchased truck is already custom-built. Councilmember Vivian requested a clarification memo on customization costs for the full council packet. - Joint Resolution REET: Councilmember Michelle reported on a monthly task force regarding the aquatic crisis in South County. The joint resolution supports the administration’s request to the county for REET funds to address the end-of-life conditions at Mountlake Terrace pool and Yost Park pool. The committee agreed to forward to consent. Key Outcomes - All five agenda items were approved for forwarding to the full City Council’s consent agenda. - The Parks CIP will be discussed further during the September capital budget process, with a focus on the REIT allocation split. - Staff will provide an updated memo on the dump truck customization to clarify costs. - The committee expressed support for the joint resolution and encouraged public advocacy at the county level.