City Council Agenda 2026-05-05
CITY GOVERNMENTOPINIONFEATURED
The Mercer Island City Council will meet on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, at 5:00 PM, at the Mercer Island Community and Event Center.
The full 215 page agenda can be found here. My summary follows.
But first, a reminder: Democracy is not a spectator sport. If you have an opinion on local city issues, social media posts are cheap, but if you want real impact, talk to the Council! You can email the whole council or me as an individual councilmember. Or send an email to the city clerk to let her know that you would like to speak (for up to three minutes) at the upcoming meeting. All are welcome. You do not need to be registered to vote. Though if you can register, please do! You do not even need to be an adult. If you have an opinion or an idea, I want to hear it. That said, for non-policy administrative matters, please email the customer service team.
On that note, as a reminder, we are currently doing our annual recruitment for board and commission seats. Spots are open on the parks commission, the arts council, the utility board, and the open space conservancy trust. Click here to apply on or before May 8.
Click links below to read more on your favorite agenda topic:
AB 6918: Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC) General Assembly Voting Delegate
AB 6919: Continuance of the April 7, 2026 Public Hearing and Adoption of 2027-2032 Transportation Improvement Program
AB 6921: Fiscal Year 2025 Year-End Financial Status Update and Budget Amending Ordinance
AB 6920: Presentation on the Existing Condition of the Public Works Building
Notable Consent Agenda Items
AB 6915: Affordable Housing Week, Proclamation No. 384
AB 6916: National Boating Safety Week, Proclamation No. 385
AB 6924: Jewish American Heritage Month, Proclamation No. 386
AB 6917: Eastside Transportation Partnership Letter in Support of Sound Transit Link Light Rail 4 Line
AB 6922: SCA 2027 Sewer Rates Response Letter
AB 6923: EPSCA Successor Interlocal Agreement
AB 6918: Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC) General Assembly Voting Delegate
This should be routine. The next Puget Sound Regional Council meeting needs a Mercer Island City Council delegate. I do not expect this to be hotly contested. Nor do I expect to volunteer.
AB 6919: Continuance of the April 7, 2026 Public Hearing and Adoption of 2027-2032 Transportation Improvement Program
The agenda packet for the meeting gives a concise recap of what this is all about:
"The six-year TIP is a planning tool used to identify specific projects that serve to maintain, preserve, and maximize use of the existing roadway and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. It forecasts revenues and expenditures within the Street Fund over the six-year planning period.
RCW 35.77.010 requires cities to formally adopt a TIP annually and submit it to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) by July 1. Once the TIP is adopted, projects are budgeted and funded through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) during the biennial budget process."
No decision in this planning process is final until funding decisions are made through the budget process, but the TIP is a useful guide. This is our second or third public hearing on this as best I can recall, and so far we have only had one person show up to testify. But we have had 69 written comments—mostly related to pedestrian and bicycle safety. So far, no changes have been made from the original staff-proposed plan, and I do not expect any tonight.
To me, the most exciting part of this plan is the acceleration of the next phase of addressing the “missing link” providing a shared use (bicycle and pedestrian) path from SE 60th St to Island Park School along Island Crest Way. This project, or something like it, has been planned for decades. Now, thanks to a $743 thousand state grant, it is finally going to happen in 2027!
Also of note, in 2027 the last remaining segment of the shoulder enhancements for the Mercers will be complete. While not the protected bike lane that I wish we had, it does provide a much safer way for bicycles to circumnavigate the Island than would otherwise exist. I think we should have a party or bike festival event of some sort when this is done!
Further decisions (and perhaps some reprioritizations) may occur when we update the pedestrian and bicycle facilities plan later this year through next year.
The scary part of the TIP is that over the next six years the street fund balance is projected to drop from positive $4.5 million to negative $11.9 million. Based on past experience, it is not likely to be quite that bad, since inevitably some projects (and their costs) are delayed, and staff tend to budget somewhat conservatively on the revenue side. (Projected REET (Real Estate Excise Tax) revenue is WAY down due to declining real estate sales. Perhaps they will pick up? If not, some of these projects will likely need to be postponed.) But it is a problem to monitor and consider as we contemplate new capital projects.
AB 6921: Fiscal Year 2025 Year-End Financial Status Update and Budget Amending Ordinance
As the numbers guy on the council, nothing gets my blood pumping like a good budget discussion. I am sure this meeting will be no exception. Staff have done a good job this year of providing additional information to explain the liabilities associated with the “fund balances” that some members of our community have talked about-- implying (incorrectly) that we are sitting on a ton of free cash. New information in the agenda materials make clear this is not the case. I have submitted 16 (so far) questions to staff about the supplied budget information. Once I receive their answers and study this a little more, I hope to recap this topic after the meeting. Suffice it to say for now: The city is NOT sitting on a pile of free cash. And, in fact, when we consider multi-year needs, we are not in a pretty place. We will have some difficult decisions ahead of us when we work on the 2027/2028 budget.
AB 6920: Presentation on the Existing Condition of the Public Works Building
Recall that Proposition One on the November ballot would have funded a new public safety and maintenance building. It received 54.61% of the vote, but it needed 60% to pass. As a result, city staff and council are researching alternative plans. The purchase of the 9655 building next to the old city hall creates some options for us, and many other options are being considered. As part of this planning process, staff did an analysis to prepare a preliminary estimate of the likely cost to renovate the existing public works building.
In 2024 council approved spending around $1 million to do critical time sensitive repairs to the public works building. These were really the minimal expenditures needed to keep the building open for a few more years. These repairs were completed in 2025. But we are left with a building that “is nearly 46 years old and does not meet current building standards, has multiple failing systems, and houses department teams the structure was not intended for. The building has seismic deficiencies and does not meet current seismic safety code.”
So this leads to the natural question: What would it take to remedy these problems? Well, now we have the answer:
$13.5 - $13.9 million to do the necessary repairs and retrofits to remedy most of the issues described above, perhaps extending the useful life of the building for another 20 years.
An additional $2.2-$2.3 million to upgrade the building to seismic level III standards (as opposed to level IV that was planned under Prop 1).
An additional $4.3 - $4.4 million to provide some level of interior space for storage of critical heavy equipment such as the vactor truck.
As is my way, I have asked many questions. But this seems like a plausible path forward. Note, it does not address many of the advantages of the Prop 1 plan, including, but not limited to:
We would have a level III rather than a level IV facility.
We would still need a home for police.
We would not have the proposed improvements to the yard.
There would be (I think) less internal storage space for key equipment.
We would still need a home for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
We would still have no public-facing customer service facility.
We would still have a 46-year-old building rather than a new building.
Likely more things I am not thinking about.
Some of these shortfalls might be addressable via the 9655 building, though this might not be cost effective for things like police or the EOC which, by state law, need to be put in a level IV facility.
Want to Know More? Have an Idea?
Drop me or the whole council an email!