After additional amendments, the Edmonds City Council on Monday night moved closer to passing a 2024 city budget.

Councilmembers continued Monday to look for ways to shore up the city’s depleted general fund. In early October, the council approved a resolution declaring a fiscal emergency, which authorized the city to use general fund operating reserves for 2023 general fund expenses. On Nov. 21, the council heard that the city’s estimated ending fund balance for 2023 was $3 million — $3.6 million lower than projected when the budget was prepared in late summer. The latest estimate presented Monday night was an ending fund balance of $1,860,738.

The council was able to add a bit to that total by approving a staff proposal — suggested by the city’s bond counsel — to transfer $385,274 from the building maintenance fund to the general fund — a reimbursement for interest payments made on bonds for capital projects.

As a result, the total projected ending fund balance is now $2,246,012.

Councilmembers rejected another idea proposed by city staff: A utility interfund loan that would have involved transferring a proposed $3 million from the city’s water fund and $3 million from the stormwater fund to the city’s general fund. The logic behind the loan, which would have been repaid on a schedule with interest, was to give the city “breathing room” as it starts a new budget year, Administrative Services Dave Turley explained.

Councilmember Susan Paine said that while she appreciated the creativity of the interfund loan concept, she was “very leery” of withdrawing money from the utility funds and thus opposed the idea.

“I don’t want to borrow either externally or internally until we have to,” added Councilmember Will Chen. “Borrowing is just a patch. The more we patch, the bigger hole, the bigger problem we’ll have to fix in the future.”

Councilmember Chris Eck moved to remove the interfund transfer from the budget and her motion was approved unanimously.

Among the other budget actions taken by the council Monday night:

— Approval of $250,000 out of the city’s real estate excise tax fund for a consultant to identify and analyze stream health and erosion control at Shell Creek in Yost Park. According to the staff proposal, the study includes the existing pedestrian trails, boardwalks, bridges and historic concrete structures and will inform future design, permitting and construction work preliminary planned for 2025. Councilmember Vivian Olson said that while she supported the allocation, she pointed to recent bridge closures in the park (one was due to erosion issues and the other to a fallen tree) and concerns heard from residents that they would like access to the park while the study is underway. “Us people in parks feel the same way,” replied Deputy Parks Director Shannon Burley. “We very much want all of our parks to be available and safe to everybody, so it’s certainly a priority.”

— Discussion of a placeholder left in the budget to cover the expenditure of $300,000 for consultant work to explore the feasibility of the Landmark 99 project. Councilmembers and residents in recent days had asked whether one of the funding sources earmarked for that expense — a supportive and affordable housing sales tax credit — could legally be used for the consulting work. Community Services and Development Director Todd Tatum told the council that staff would be withdrawing the Landmark budget item and reintroducing it in early 2024, to ensure that the expenses and identified funding sources were lined up appropriately.

The council did not pass the budget as amended Tuesday night because there were concerns on a couple of fronts: First, councilmembers wanted to see a finalized budget prior to approving it but Turley said he couldn’t guarantee that would be available for the council’s next business meeting Dec. 19, due to staff vacations and illness. City Attorney Jeff Taraday suggested that Council President Neil Tibbott stay in touch with Turley as the week progressed, “to determine if a special meeting needs to be scheduled next week at a later date or whether Tuesday, the 19th will be a realistic target date.”

Under state law, the budget must be approved by Dec. 31.

Second, there was a lengthy discussion about whether the council needed to have another resolution — separate from the one passed in October — that would allow the city to use operating reserves in 2024. Taraday agreed to research the issue, and the council approved a motion — made by Councilmember Olson — that if the city attorney determines that such a resolution is needed, it would be on the council’s consent agenda next week.

The council also did a final review and further amended the city’s 2024-29 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program, also known as the CFP/CIP. The Capital Facilities Plan, updated annually, identifies capital projects for at least the next six years that support the city’s Comprehensive Plan. It contains a list of projects aimed at accommodating the city’s projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. The Capital Improvement Program is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various city funds and revenues.

Several of the proposed CFP/CIP amendments were related to the Landmark 99 project. The council agreed, by a 4-3 vote  — Councilmembers Eck, Paine and Jenna Nand opposed — to remove $290,000 that had been designated for Landmark work in 2024. The reasoning by those supporting the amendment was that the Landmark work was removed from the 2024 budget document at staff’s request — thus removing its connection to the CFP. The council also agreed — by a 6-1 vote (Nand opposed) to add $1 million to the CFP for Landmark in 2025, reflecting the money that would be required in 15 months if the city chose to move forward with the property acquisition. Another amendment to put $36 million in the 2026 CFP to capture the estimated purchase price of the Landmark site (minus the $1 million deposit), failed on a 1-6 vote, with Buckshnis supporting. Those opposing the measure said it wasn’t accurate to include the purchase price in the planning document because the city plans to seek development partners for the venture, thus reducing Edmonds’ cost.

In the council’s final action of the evening, it approved a final vision statement for the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Olson proposed a slightly reworked version of the statement — originally developed through public outreach and then reviewed by the Edmonds Planning Board — which passed unanimously. It reads: