The Redmond City Council met for a study session on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, beginning at approximately 6:00 p.m. (the agenda listed 7:00 p.m.). Mayor Birney and all council members were present. The agenda included a grant threshold proposal, a park impact fee schedule update, the public art master plan, Vision Blueprint 2050, and council talk time. No consent calendar or public comment period occurred.
Good evening. I'm calling this meeting to order. This is a Redmond City Council study session held on Tuesday, June 9th, 2026, convent commencing at 6 p.m. All council members and Mayor Burney are in attendance. There are five items on the agenda tonight, and tonight's a little bit shorter topics. It's it's kind of like a glorified committee meeting, folks. It's gonna it's gonna have a little bit different pace, but we'll have some fun. Uh the first item on the agenda is the grant thresholds, followed by the park impact fee, schedule updates, the public art master plan, vision blueprint 2050, and council talk time. So for the grant thresholds, Deputy Director of Equity and Strategic Services, Zach Hoovner will introduce the team. Thank you. Thank you, Council President. Uh pleased to introduce Lauren Thompson, our grant supervisor, Amanda and Amanda LaSalle, grant coordinator and Jeanette St. Paul, Capital and Grant Analyst to introduce this item. I will be pulling up the PowerPoint here shortly. Good evening, Council members. My name is Lauren Thompson. I'm the grant supervisor. I will be conducting the presentation tonight just for sake of one person speaking and swiftness through the presentation, and then we all three of us are present to answer any questions you may have. Perfect. So I'm gonna walk through the current challenges that we face in our grant approval process and present a recommendation for establishing a grant threshold. The goal is to streamline our ability to pursue smaller grants by reducing administrative burden while still maintaining strong oversight and transparency. Our current council workflow process includes three touch points internal committee, committee of the whole, and the consent meeting. Typically it results in a five to six week minimum before an item can be approved. This long timeline affects our ability to implement grants effectively, especially those with short turnaround requirements or limited performance periods. Finance conducted a cost analysis of the council approval process for contracts that estimates a total cost of $3,000 or $3,411.95. This means that for smaller grant awards, it costs the city more to accept the award than the award value. Some departments have stopped applying for smaller grants entirely because the administrative time required to take a grant through council is not cost effective. Staff have consistently expressed the need for a grant threshold that would allow them to pursue low dollar opportunities while being fiscally responsible. The grants team recommendation is to establish a $50,000 threshold for all grants, with a few important exceptions. Grants will still go to council for award acceptance if they require unbudgeted matching funds, create any future staffing or operational commitments, or if the grantor explicitly explicitly requires council acceptance prior to execution. CIP grants are significantly larger awards, so different thresholds are not necessary. Using a single threshold across all grants is intentional. It simplifies the process, provides clarity for staff, and reduces the need for interpretation. Creating category-based exclusions would add complexity rather than support efficiency. One important point we want to highlight is that this threshold aligns with our existing professional services procurement limits. Today, department leadership already has the authority to spend up to $50,000 without coming to council. However, what they cannot do under current structure is bring revenue into the city, like grant funds of any amount without council approval. So the authority to execute expenditures up to $50,000 already exists, but the authority to accept funding does not. This recommendation simply brings those two practice processes into alignment. It allows staff to apply for, accept, and fully execute grant agreements up to $50,000 under the same level of delegated authority they already have for spending. Council will still review and approve the budget authority through the quarterly budget adjustment process before any grant funds are spent. This does not include the added cost of administering the grant itself once awarded. If you compare this cost to the value of small grant awards, the burden becomes clear. For example, the effort to approve a $6,000 grant represents roughly 62% of the grant's value. For a $12,000 grant, it's 31%. At $50,000, the administrative cost is about 7.5%. National data shows that local governments typically spend between 7 to 10% of the grant award on administration. By reducing the number of small grants that must go through council individually, we reduce administrative costs, avoid agenda congestion, and improve our ability to meet short execution deadlines, which is especially important for some state agencies with turnaround times as short as 45 days. Implementing the proposed threshold still allows for strong internal controls. Staff must get approval from their department leadership and from the appropriate governance body before they apply for a grant.