Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.
The Redmond City Council's Committee of the Whole for Finance, Administration, and Communications convened on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, at 4:30 PM. All nine council members were present. The agenda comprised seven discussion items and two read-only informational reports. The committee directed four action items to future consent agendas, received updates on equity initiatives and budget preparations, and began a review of the Business Technology Investment Program (BTIP).
Note: Two read-only items were included in the agenda packet: Grants Management Update – Q1 & Q2 2026 (CM 26-604) and 2024 Impact Fee Collection and Distribution Report (CM 26-609). No verbal presentation was given.
I'm calling this meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Finance Administration and Communications Committee of the Whole of the Redmond City Council on Tuesday, October 13th, commencing at 4 30 p.m. All council members are in attendance. There are nine items on our agenda. Seven items will be covered in this meeting, and two are read only. And members of the public as well as council members can review those and I'll make a brief note at the very end of the meeting about those those two items. The first item on our agenda is on call and continuing legal services contract with Foster and Garvey. And we have our uh our um city attorney here to present the item. Go ahead. Good evening, council. Thank you for your time tonight. Rebecca Mueller, city attorney. I am here to present on the proposed on call and continuing legal services contract with Foster and Garvey. I'm asking council to provide direction tonight and to set the item to consent for November 2nd. The items in your packet will include a an engagement letter, which also referred to as the contract for Foster and Garvey's legal uh services. They're focused on continued representation in two superior court matters and any tangential items related to plausible products and expanding the scope to allow for continuing on call services. I thought it would be helpful tonight to just share an overview of the ordinance on point here and the purchasing policies to explain why this is coming to council. Um recently over the last well, don't quote me on this, but about a year and a half or so ago, the municipal chapter on city attorney came before council to adopt changes that allowed it to come in house. This is the Redmond Municipal Code 2.36. There is still an ordinance in there, the 2.36.050, which provides that city council may employ additional counsel to assist the city attorney in superior court matters, financial arrangements, or other proceedings, that the compensation for these services shall be set by council at the employment of additional counsel. As you have likely seen over the time on council, there are niche cases and niche areas of expertise that do require outside council assistance and representation. Here the uh statutory, I'm sorry, the purchasing policy requirement for professional services generally requires that caps that are exceeding 50,000 would go to council for approval, and that's why we're coming before you for that. Um we had um we have Mr. Bob Sturbank on uh on representation in the plausible products matters. That was done, which I'll share through sole source justification process. Part of the justification for that um was not only Mr. Sturbank's extensive expertise on the legal issues related to this case, um, but also his experience with the city, um, the need to have uh brought on somebody with experience and to act quickly to navigate upcoming deadlines. We um are asking the council to expand the scope to allow for an additional on-call attorney services should we need it to be able to act swiftly on any matters that might require outside assistance. The um the engagement letter would assent is essentially as I mentioned, the contract, and that is what we are asking council to approve on November 2nd for signature. Thank you. Are there questions from the council? Councilmember Forsyth. Thank you. Uh thank you for the uh explanation. When I looked at the budget um impact, it didn't have any of the information about the 50,000. I wasn't sure if that was the case. Um so I'm supportive of this, but I definitely want to see a budget impact for it in the memo when it comes back to us. Um, maybe setting setting a cap on that. I know you're gonna work within your budget, and I trust that, but it is our job to be a fiduciary responsible for that money. So I definitely want to see some sort of um cap for what you're thinking that will be. Okay. Um I can certainly provide a cap.