Edmonds City Council Regular Meeting – October 6, 2026

The Edmonds City Council met on October 6, 2026, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting included an Arbor Day proclamation, a public hearing on zoning changes for new housing in existing buildings (HB 1757), a first reading of the Mayor's Proposed 2027‑2028 Biennial Budget, and a discussion of the utility rate study. During audience comments, numerous residents urged the council to place a resolution opposing state initiatives I‑001 and I‑638 on a future agenda. A motion to add that item to the October 13 agenda failed 4‑3. The council also heard concerns about the South County Fire bond measure (Proposition 1) and the budget. The meeting concluded with an executive session (litigation) and adjournment at 8:56 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Approved the City Council meeting minutes for September 8 and September 22, 2026.
• Approved an ordinance amending authorized employee positions (second reading).
• Approved claim checks and wire payments.
• Approved the Legal Assessment Committee Report for 2026.
• Approved payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit, and wire payments for September 16–30, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Nora Carlson (Edmonds resident) urged the council to pass a resolution opposing state initiatives I‑001 and I‑638, noting that eight nearby city councils had already done so. She referenced Resolution 1381, which declares Edmonds an equitable, safe, and inviting community.
• Jerry (non‑resident, speaking for a transgender child and grandchild) said his family fears speaking for themselves due to the initiatives and that the council's silence has a negative effect on LGBTQ+ residents. He asked the council to place a resolution on the agenda and vote publicly.
• Laura Hine (Edmonds resident) read RCW 29B.45.10 to argue that the mayor's prohibition on public comment about ballot propositions was improperly applied; she stated the law allows councils to adopt resolutions supporting or opposing ballot propositions after proper notice and equal opportunity for opposing views.
• Marlene (Edmonds resident) argued that I‑001 would endanger students seeking help from trusted adults and that I‑638 would require all girls to undergo biological sex verification to participate in sports, harming both trans and cis girls. She urged the council to pass a resolution opposing the initiatives.
• Lindsay Lynch (Edmonds resident, 26 years) shared that her transgender son and his friends have been affected by the debate. She said I‑001 would force teachers to disclose information to potential abusers, and I‑638 would discriminate against all girls by requiring proof of sex.
• Jessica Brady (Edmonds resident, teacher, mother of a trans daughter) said the initiatives would create barriers for all girls, especially uninsured ones (30,000 girls aged 6–18 in Washington lack health insurance). She stated medical professionals, coaches, teachers, and mental health professionals oppose the initiatives.
• Diana Nielsen (Edmonds resident) emphasized that the measures are about discrimination and erasing vulnerable people; she asked the council to communicate that all residents are wanted and valued.
• Julie Hurdle (Edmonds resident, lifelong resident, cis woman) said her 12‑year‑old daughter was horrified the initiatives are on the ballot, and that banning trans kids is bad for all kids and all girls.
• Laura Edelstein (Edmonds resident, licensed mental health counselor, parent of a first‑grader) disagreed with Councilmember Olson's statement that the initiatives have no direct city impact. She noted the school district serves over 20,000 students, and I‑638 could require kindergartners to prove their sex, while I‑001 would allow schools to disclose students' private information to parents without consent. She urged the council to pass a resolution.
• William Bartig (Brier resident, new Edmonds homeowner) said silence is a choice and asked the council to put forward a resolution.
• Unnamed speaker (husband of Lindsay Lynch) shared the personal journey of supporting their transgender son, emphasizing that the issue is about the kids themselves.
• Layla (via Zoom, Edmonds resident, mother of two, former student athlete) reported that trans and gender‑non‑conforming community members avoid the Edmonds market because of trans‑exclusionary activists. She said the mayor and Councilmember Olson have been dismissive, and that the council's silence sends a clear negative message.
• Bill Krepik (Woodway resident) warned that the South County Fire executives' presentation (scheduled for later in the meeting) was a PR effort to hide the true cost of the $420 million capital bond (Proposition 1). He listed questions about administrative staff growth (120% in 5 years), the need for such a large construction package when 85% of calls are medical, top wages averaging $260,000 for uniform personnel, and lack of performance metrics.

Discussion Items

• Arbor Day Proclamation – The mayor read the proclamation declaring October 24 and November 7 as Arbor Day events. Staff (Deb Powers, Jen Leach, Deborah Dill) highlighted that Edmonds is planting nearly 40 trees at five sites, giving away over 450 trees, and has been a Tree City USA for 13 years.
• Mayor's Finance Update – The mayor deferred the full update, referencing the previous night's budget presentation.
• Received for Filing – The council accepted the Parks Q3 Capital Projects Report and the Planning Board Quarterly Report (Q3) without discussion.
• Public Hearing – Zoning Changes for New Housing in Existing Buildings (HB 1757) – Planning Director Mike Cluxton explained that House Bill 1757 requires cities to allow conversion of commercial buildings to residential in commercial, mixed‑use, or residential zones. The city must define “major pedestrian corridors” to protect ground‑floor commercial uses; staff identified corridors aligning with the 2024‑2044 Comprehensive Plan. No public comments were made. The hearing was closed.
• Mayor's Proposed 2027‑2028 Biennial Budget (First Reading) – The mayor outlined the budget process: council questions should be submitted to the Legislative Executive Assistant in advance of the October 13 meeting. He noted variables (prosecutor search, bargaining, salary commission, insurance, and automated traffic enforcement assumptions). The budget uses conservative estimates (5% of tested speeding violations, 63% payment rate, ~$91 per ticket). Staffing: net‑zero increase except for a court addition (3.3 FTE) for camera enforcement and a wastewater treatment plant addition (outside general fund). Unmet needs include a deputy finance director, economic development, emergency management, safety coordinator, crime analyst, and grant management. The mayor highlighted a $4.5 million deficit that was closed via temporary utility tax increase, reallocation of overhead, and conservative staffing. The ending fund balance is projected to be positive, but a fiscal cliff looms in 2029 when the utility tax sunsets. Councilmember Chan raised concerns about accounting treatments (interfund loan, accrual vs. cash). Councilmember Barnett requested a cash‑liquidity view alongside accrual. Several councilmembers praised the improved budget book format.
• Discussion of Utility Rate Study – Consultant Chris Gonzalez (FCS Bowman) presented findings: water rates need 9.75% annual increases (2027–2029) driven by wholesale water costs from Everett (15.5% yearly) and capital replacement. Sewer rates: 7.5% in 2027, then 7% yearly through 2032, with $87 million in planned capital (51% cash, 15% partner contributions, 33% debt). Stormwater rates: 6.5% for 2027‑2028, 5% in 2029, then 4% through 2032. A typical single‑family bill would increase about 8% annually (except 2029 due to utility tax drop). Edmonds currently ranks 4th highest in the comparison; after 2027 increases, it would be 3rd highest. The utility tax accounts for part of the difference. Staff noted a deferred payment to Everett (~$3 million) and that 2% of the water increase and 1% of the sewer increase come from shifting general fund overhead to utilities. Councilmember Nand asked about assistance programs for low‑income and senior residents; staff said applications are accepted year‑round. Councilmember Payne requested analysis of reducing the utility tax on water to offset rate increases.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Agenda – Approved unanimously.
• Motion to Add Resolution on I‑001 and I‑638 – Motion by Councilmember Nand to place a public hearing and vote on a resolution opposing the initiatives on the October 13 agenda. Seconded. Failed on a roll‑call vote (4‑3). Voting yes: Eck, Payne, Nand. Voting no: Chen, Barnett, Olson, Dodge (Council President).
• Public Hearing – HB 1757 Zoning Changes – Closed. No further action taken.
• Budget Process – Council agreed to submit questions to the Legislative Executive Assistant by October 12, with answers prepared for the October 13 meeting. Amendments will follow a similar compilation process.
• Utility Rate Study – Council directed staff to bring back an analysis of the impact of reducing the water utility tax from 20% to keep ratepayer bills flat, for consideration at the next meeting. The council will consider adoption of the proposed rate increases (2027‑2029) at a future date.
• Executive Session – Conducted from approximately 8:36 PM to 8:56 PM pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to discuss litigation or potential litigation. No action was taken.