welcome everyone I council president
Walsh call the June 27th
committee meeting of the whole meeting
to order
there are multiple public comment
opportunities at tonight's meeting there
is a general public comment opportunity
at the beginning of the meeting or you
can make comments after the presentation
and counsel question and answer period
on tonight's agenda items
members of the public May address
council at this time in person or
virtually those who signed up in advance
to make comments will be called on first
if you're joining us virtually and would
like to make comments please raise your
virtual hand if you're on the phone you
can press star 3. if you've joined by
computer or smartphone look for the hand
icon it can be in various different
areas one option could be to go to the
participant panel and choose the raise
hand icon in the lower right hand corner
we do not have anyone in the room
tonight but I will go ahead and wait a
moment to see if anybody wishes to raise
their hand virtually and clerk did
anyone sign up to speak or indicate a
desire to speak this evening
council president no one signed up in
advance and I'm monitoring we do have a
few members of the public on the line
with us I'm just taking a quick look
here but I'm not seeing that anyone's
indicating a desire to speak at this
time
okay thank you clerk Geezer
um as a reminder written comments can be
submitted at any time to city council at
issaquah.gov and we will also have
another public comment period after our
question and answer period I did receive
two emails from the community on the
topic of tonight's agenda so I'll
summarize those quickly now one was
focused on the icap the Issaquah climate
action plan and wanted us to
basically use the funding and add some
funding to get the items done from the
Issaquah climate plan
and then another was supportive of
the proposal and very excited about the
I-90 under over Crossing and the related
Light Rail and appreciated the focus on
that and so those were the community
comments that we received for tonight's
agenda item
and let's see looking back up at the
agenda we have one other item on our
agenda tonight that is ID 1141 the
community investment strategy this will
be presented by Andrea Snyder Deputy
City administrator and mayor mayor Mary
Lou Polly will be introducing the topic
thank you council president Walsh
and good evening council members staff
and members of the community it's kind
of fun to address you from down here
instead of up there
tonight you will begin a very important
Dialogue on how the Issaquah Community
will invest the funds from the American
Rescue plan act this Federal allocation
does come with restrictions on how it
can be invested in brief they can apply
to projects or programs that have been
harmed by the covid-19 pandemic or to
advance lagging infrastructure needs
within our communities
as a community we have made some very
difficult decisions over the last two
years plus
and we have prudently invested the cares
act Federal funding in a manner that
provided stabilization during one of the
largest threats to health and life in
our community's history
I am proud of the hard decisions that
were made to ensure that we were staying
safe
and working to stay financially
sustainable
I am also proud that we were able to
partner with others in providing
life-saving vaccines and Recovery Care
directly in this city
the vaccine partnership with the
snoquami tribe and Eastside fire and
rescue provided easier access to those
in our community
to life-saving vaccines I'm proud of our
partnership with King County
on the covid recovery center that
allowed hundreds who could not
quarantine to have a place to isolate
and safely recover I know it feels like
a long time ago but the reality is that
the vaccine partnership started in
August of last year not even one year
ago and the covert Recovery Center wound
down last September it feels like a
lifetime ago
cities around the country will have
varying plans for the use of arpa funds
many will replace lost public sector
revenues use it for hazard pay hire back
employees that were laid off use it for
premium pay provision of additional
public health and safety activities or
capital and infrastructure expenditures
most cities will likely select a variety
of all of the above depending on their
City's particular needs
I'm proposing a list of items tonight to
council that invests in capital and
infrastructure projects plus one of the
major game changers in transportation
and mobility in Issaquah the addition of
Light Rail to our transportation choices
and an additional under Crossing of I-90
tonight the council will also discuss
how to spend down the ending fund
balance and make the investments in the
community's number one stated concern
transportation
later this summer Council will also
begin discussions on the 23-24 budget by
providing the administration with
recommend recommendations on how to
invest in all of our community
priorities and move the needle on the
city-wide strategic planning goals and I
believe this event is planned for July
your discussions tonight provide a
historical opportunity to give our
community a shot in the arm to move the
needle on capital projects and
infrastructure I am looking forward to
hearing the discussion and I'm available
tonight for any questions on the draft
investment plan I'll turn it now over to
Deputy City administrator Andrea Snyder
for the presentation
thank you mayor Polly a good evening
members of council
just one second while I share the
presentation
okay
good evening again I'm Andrea Snyder I'm
the deputy City administrator and
tonight we are talking about the
community investment strategy this is
also a follow-up to previous Council
discussions that we've had relating to
the Capital Finance Community task force
and their recommendations and how we can
Implement their recommendations they
provided
so we have a number of questions for you
tonight and seeking direction for a
number of policy decisions if we can't
get the through all of them tonight we
do have additional time on July 5th for
this conversation to continue but we'll
get as far as we can this evening so
there are quite a few questions
first does the city council approve of
the marriage proposal and spending
remaining arpa funds on infrastructure
including a focus on transportation and
parks and trails how does the city
council feel about spending the majority
of the remaining arpa funds on high
impact investment in one of the city's
anchor Parks we'll discuss all of these
more of course through the course of the
presentation but just want to give you a
preview of the type of direction we're
looking from you
a third question we'll be looking for
feedback on the community investment
fund concept
does the council agree to keep the focus
on small transportation and parks and
Trail projects for the community to
select and respond to through that
public engagement process mayor Paulie
discussed earlier
does the council have any changes they
want to make to the project selection
criteria
and does the council have any feedback
on the proposed next step of taking the
community investment Community
investment fund engagement plan to the
mobility and infrastructure committee
next month
what is the council feedback regarding
spending down ending fund balance and
the additional proposed positions and
finally fifth question I know it's a lot
uh what is the city council feedback on
the timing for medium-term actions
listed in the strategy including looking
at facility needs in 2023 and assessing
new Revenue sources for additional
investment in transportation and parks
and infrastructure
so that's some of the direction that
will be seeking from you tonight so now
a little bit of background uh
so as a reminder the the Capital Finance
Community task force provided several
recommendations to council and the
administration here's a summary high
level summary of some of those
recommendations so first they wanted the
city to focus on Transportation
infrastructure as the top priority
second they wanted the city to explore
additional funding to increase
investment in infrastructure including
the potential of a transportation
benefit district sales tax a levy lid
lift and or Parks District
uh the task force also recommended that
the city reduce the undesignated general
fund ending fund balance in order to
spend more annually on infrastructure
they also recommended that the city used
9 million dollars of the city's
remaining arpa funds for immediate
infrastructure Investments and one thing
that they emphasize throughout their
conversations and recommendations was
they wanted to make sure that the the
infrastructure Investments the city made
had a really high impact on the
community and that was something visible
and bold even
so with that uh we will talk about how
this plan addresses those
recommendations
so first let's talk about the
administration's recommendations for
arba funds so the Administration has a
little bit more than nine million
dollars in arpa funds and what we're
proposing is that we would use those
funds on an anchor Park Improvement
phase one of that Improvement so that
would be a six million dollar investment
that really speaks to the task Force's
recommendation that we do something
immediate that's very high impact and
visible in the community
uh also that the arpa funds two million
dollars of the arpa funds go towards a
community investment fund where we have
projects that the community would then
through a public engagement process
select as their priorities that they
would like to see get done over the next
year or so
and finally uh with arpa funds
to invest one million dollars in the
I-90 Crossing and Light Rail station
planning study this is work that we can
do now and to help prepare us for light
rail coming in 2044.
so first let's talk about that anchor
Park project a little bit more we're
again talking about a six million dollar
investment in an anchor Park anchor
parks are identified in the park
strategic plan is including the Issaquah
Creek Corridor area the Tibbetts Valley
Park and a Veterans Memorial Field and I
have a Parks director Jeff Watling on
the line if there's any more specific
questions you may have for Parks tonight
but as you know we've been going through
a Parks Master planning process for some
of these areas and so this would be an
opportunity to complete that Master
planning process and then Implement
phase one of that Redevelopment or
investment in one of these major city
parks
so uh how this would look moving forward
is that 2022 we would complete the
vision and scope and do more public
engagement now through the end of the
year on again identifying the vision and
scope of that Phase One Park Improvement
in 2023 we would design and complete
permitting for phase one of the work and
that construction would occur in 2024
and this is something that would be on
our immediate steps for an immediate
investment and Improvement in the park
and so that is the first recommendation
for arpa funds
the second recommendation I'd actually
like to turn over to Jean Paul the
city's management analyst to talk about
the community investment fund
so Gene are you on the line
yes Andrew you can hear me yes
great thank you good evening members of
the council as Andrea indicated I'm Gene
Paul I'm the management analyst in the
executive office and for the second
component of the investment strategy
we're recommending creating a community
investment fund and allocating two
million dollars that will allow the
community to really help decide what
projects they'd like to see funded for
this we're proposing that the
administration will help identify a
short list of projects and as you can
see with the criteria there we're
recommending that those projects are
eligible for arpa funding and can be
completed by the deadline where arpa
funds need to be spent
that those projects focus on
transportation and parks and trails
projects which aligns with the task
force recommendation and really that
these projects have already been vetted
and approved by the council through the
capital investment plan or CIP process
if you could go to the next slide please
and once we identify those projects if
there are multiple projects where we
really need to prioritize and create a
shorter list we're recommending using
the criteria from the test force in
order to help prioritize and create that
short list the top criteria that the
task force identified for their
prioritization exercise included
addressing pain points across the city
seeing a higher return on investment or
having a high impact relative to the
costs of the project
addressing areas from the 2021 Community
survey that were identified as highest
importance but least satisfaction for
members of the community or projects
that really would improve life and
safety
so in terms of next steps for this
component of the investment strategy the
administration will develop that project
list we'd like to discuss both the list
and the engagement process with the
council mobility and infrastructure
committee beginning next month but we
look to launch that public engagement
process in the fall after summer
vacation where we can really maximize
the engagement with the community
thank you Gene
next and finally for arpa funds the
multimodal I-90 Crossing study this one
million dollar study would identify how
the crossing will incorporate sound
transit's Link light rail station with
that Crossing evaluate the land use
impacts of the different alternatives
for locations of the crossing and and
concepts for the crossing it would also
be the first step in helping us develop
a Project funding plan
would I identify potential environmental
impacts of the Alternatives that would
either need to be avoided or mitigated
and it would also uh develop a
preliminary construction phasing plan
so in addition to spending arpa funds
the task force had recommended spending
down the general fund undesignated
ending fund balance by investing in
infrastructure the latest projections
that we have from Finance show that we
anticipate a 25 percent
um
that that will have 20 25 of general
fund expenditures uh at the end of the
year this may change uh come in come
August when we do more forecasting and
have more information about our revenues
but the best information we have right
now is that we're looking at uh 25 uh
percent and uh currently the city
council policy is to have 15 to 20
percent of
um general fund expenditures as a
reserve or as an ending fund balance
and so the task force had actually
recommended that the city move away from
that 20 figure by policy and instead
make a policy change towards 15 percent
so that uh that
that money can be more invested in
infrastructure instead of kept in
reserves or an ending fund balance and
so for us to go from 25 of general fund
expenditures where we believe we are
today to reduce it to that task force
recommendation of 15 of general fund
expenditures that's about 5.8 million
dollars
and again it is subject to change
depending on how the forecast goes we'll
have more information in August as we
prepare for the budget but that's our
our best guess today
and so we have a a proposal on how to
spend down that general fund ending fund
balance Andrea we have a question
um council member D Michelle uh thank
you when we're talking about uh reserves
are we talking about undesignated
reserves or the oh yes undesignated
reserves all right I think that really
needs to be emphasized when we're
talking about this because we're not
talking about the whole general fund
Reserves that's correct yes just
undesignated thank you
thank you for the clarification
and so we have a proposal for how to
spend down those undesignated ending
fund balance and so while we think we
have about 5.8 million dollars that we
could spend down to get us to more to
that 15 percent number we're proposing
to spend 3 million of that until we have
more information as we get closer to the
budget process so those three million
dollars our proposal is to have more
positions we're at a point in the city
where our limitations and being able to
do more Transportation or other
infrastructure projects is really
limited by the staff that we have and
their capacity to manage these projects
and so we are requesting two additional
Transportation Engineers one of those
positions uh was reduced during covid
and has not been replaced so we're
asking for that position to be restored
plus an additional position we're also
asking for one administrative Specialist
or program coordinator to assist with
the implementation of the capital
projects our Engineers are doing a lot
of paperwork shuffling and not able to
spend as much time on what we've really
hired them for as their technical
expertise and so we'd like an
administrative Specialist or perhaps a
program coordinator will need to
finalize that classification
uh but um that would be about a hundred
and four thousand dollars per year
and they would be really supporting the
engineers and completing these projects
and doing a lot of the paperwork that's
required reporting Etc
then um we're also requesting one turn
limited Parks planner that would be a
term of two years to really assist in
this anchor project and as well uh with
some of the other Parks projects that
perhaps the public would
um
would select through the community
investment fund process
finally we're asking for 2.4 million
dollars of that ending fund balance to
be set aside for the budget process and
rolled over and to the to the 2023-2024
budget and set aside for as yet
unspecified infrastructure projects but
that's something that we can discuss
during the budget setting process
I have a question Deputy council
president Hull thank you super quick
clarifying question so each of these
positions are one FTE is that correct
yes that's correct so two
um full-time equivalent Transportation
Engineers one administrative specialist
those those we anticipate to be ongoing
needs the parks planner would be limited
to two years but still 40 hours a week
yeah but limited to two years
okay so that really covers more of the
immediate actions that we would start
this year in 2022
next I'd like to summarize the timeline
of the strategy for looking out ahead
through 2026 and so
as we discussed in 2022 just to review
we would invest in transportation by
adding staff capacity with the strategy
we would begin preparations for that
I-90 Crossing and Light Rail study we
would begin that Community survey and
engagement process to select additional
small capital projects through the
community investment fund that add up to
that two million dollars of arba money
and we would complete the visioning as
part of the anchor Park project phase
one you know we do that scoping exercise
that's all in 2022. in 2023
were proposing the administration come
up with a facilities financing plan
through the task force recommendations
they had said that transportation is the
number one priority but didn't select
after that what was number two or number
three they said parks and trails is
really important facilities is also
really important we don't want to
prioritize among those or choose among
those
and for facilities we do have some
urgent needs we have a fire station that
is needed to improve response time in
North Issaquah we have some needs here
in the municipal court and council
chambers and other needs that we would
like to discuss further and explore with
Council how best to fund those facility
needs so we'd like to come up with a
plan to finance those in 2023
we also in 2023 would be completing
those Community selected projects that
were voted on through that Community
investment fund process
we are starting the transit plan process
in 2022 and so 2023 we would complete
that Transit plan which would then
inform projects that would go on the CIP
we would update the CIP the capital
Improvement plan and the transportation
Improvement plan
and we would in 2023 begin that design
and permitting for the anchor Park
project while also
the parks department would be updating
the Strategic plan that work begins next
year as well so all those efforts would
then inform the next steps here we go in
2024
uh we would of course act on what
facilities financing plan that we came
up with with the council pending Council
direction
we would also begin to have those
discussions about a transportation
ballot measure as a follow-up to the
task force recommendations and so that
means that we would be looking at what
is what is that Suite of projects that
the city should pursue through a ballot
measure that would be informed by that
work we conducted in updating the
capital Improvement plan and the tip the
the year before
um and we'd also discuss the timing of
that ballot measure and when the timing
would be best and you know whether we
should do a ballot measure at all right
so all those discussions would really
begin in 2024.
um the anchor Park
um would still be progressing along and
we would uh be constructing with that
big anchor Park investment in 2024 and
complete the park strategic plan and
through that Park strategic plan process
is also when we'd really begin exploring
the topic of a Parks District the park
strategic plan will have a lot of public
engagement
with the Parks Board and others and so
that's when we would like to begin
discussions about that and make some
progress on that recommendation
so moving along to 2025
we would be further develop the funding
recommendations from that Park strategic
plan
and we'd begin Transportation
improvements from a ballot measure if
applicable if that ballot measure if we
go forward with a ballot measure in 2024
then we would begin implementation in
2025 if we determined that 2024 isn't
the time for a ballot measure then we'd
move that to the date that's decided so
these dates that anticipate the ballot
measure in this timeline are really just
the soonest possible we'd recommend
having those discussions and considering
a ballot measure those discussions are
really going to guide whether that
ballot measure is even occurs or when we
would do it in this timeline this is
really just to show here's the soonest
possible that we think that we would
recommend exploring those conversations
um and then in 2026 following that the
parks strategic plan uh conversation and
Parks funding conversations
um if we do anticipate a Parks District
ballot measure 2026 would be the soonest
possible we think we we would recommend
pursuing that so again these are kind of
the soonest possible dates there's a lot
of discussions that need to happen
before we get there a lot of community
conversations a lot of planning that
needs to get there this is really just
us trying to
anticipate when we would start those
discussions and and build out a plan
from there
okay and I see a question from council
member Martz thank you um Deputy State
administrator Snyder uh the I-90
Crossing and Light Rail study how long
will that take
I've been told that will take a year
all right that's what I uh kind of maybe
expected this makes it look like we can
get it done this year and I didn't think
we could spend anywhere near anything
near a million dollar study by the end
of this year so it would be it'd be next
year that's correct what we would get
started on is writing the RFP and trying
to select a consultant to help us with
that study so we can get started but we
don't we will not be able to complete
that this year got it thank you
and a question from Deputy council
president Hall
and it's been delayed go ahead
okay thank you so as far as next steps
go
in July we would be returning to the
council July 5th to complete this
discussion and whatever follow-ups come
out of this evening also in July there's
a council mobility and infrastructure
committee to discuss public engagement
and other topics related to the
community investment fund
in August we'd begin recruitment for
those authorized positions pending
Council Direction in September we would
deploy the Outreach and engagement plan
for that Community investment fund
so those are just some of the most
immediate next steps and public and
Council touches and that concludes my
presentation
any other questions
excellent okay
um go ahead
yeah
thank you
um in the executive summary so in the
memo it says that there's 4.5 million to
be determined by community outreach and
and the upcoming budgetary process so I
was trying to figure out what goes into
that 4.5 because it's actually on the
presentation 2 million for the Community
Fund and then there's some other
budgetary process funds but I couldn't
quite figure out what is going into that
bucket
yeah
um so that would be uh the 2 million
from the community investment fund as
you said as well as
um
it refers to this ending fund balance so
we have 5.8 that we've identified so far
and a recommendation to spend three
million of it so that leaves that leaves
some money or 2.4 right here I'm sorry
2.4 of unspecified infrastructured
projects to be rolled over into the 2023
and 24 budget process
does that answer your question
okay so we are considering that 2.4 in
addition to the two from arpa that 2.4
million unspecified to again be a
Community Fund
because that's the part that I'm
wondering about community outreach so
the community outreach will largely be
around the community investment fund and
then the budget setting process is when
we'll discuss this 2.4 million
which is that so it's so it's
unspecified projects that still need to
be worked out through through a process
all right thank you okay
and council member Mertz
so
I'm trying to wrap my head around that
2.4 million because if we don't spend it
and if we say okay it'll go into next
year and it'll be part of next year's
budget but then if at the end of next
year we're still at 25 ending fund
balance and we'll still have just always
been 25 ending fund balance like 25 or
30 or 35 like we always do every year so
I'm just trying to understand if we're
trying to do that what what does that
actually do in the next year's budget
process do we go into the budget with
already a proposal in there for 2.4 more
than we would have if we hadn't put two
because there'll be other I mean
there'll be a budget right and it'll be
aiming to
uh get to a certain percentage I'm just
trying to understand how this what this
what this 2.4 actually does
thank you
um so we
um what the 2.4 does is it really
earmarks it for infrastructure projects
so the task force had recommended that
instead of having a planning for a you
know a large ending fund balance that we
try to spend it down and that we spend
it down specifically on infrastructure
and things that support infrastructure
investment and so that's what it does it
really tries to ensure that this money
that has generally been left over year
after year that we invest it more and do
more with it for the community and so we
would keep a really close eye on that
through the budget setting process for
2023 24 and try to make sure that we are
with this money uh really investing it
in infrastructure versus other types of
City expenditures
anything else uh it it's just it's not a
mechanism I've seen used in previous
budgets so I'm just trying to understand
what as a policy decision it actually
does does it also commit us to shoot for
15 instead of 15 to 20 would it change
our our financial uh
uh policies document yes and I think
that's that's a conversation that we
anticipate having in the 2023-24 budget
setting process is really contemplating
um a reduced ending fund undesignated
ending fund balance so not having that
20 not planning for that 20 as we've
done in years past but planning for
something closer to the 15 percent
um that that would be the policy change
and council member marks members of the
council if I can just add uh we hear you
loud and clear that you're uncomfortable
with the large ending fund balance we've
had a number of years of as you have all
lived through it a whole variety of
different factors so we sit here at the
end of June we are in the process of
working on the operating budget
proposals uh for uh 23 24. so we already
know uh the administration that will be
coming to you to spend down those fund
balances I think as the deputy City
administrator is saying we want to
commit tonight the 2.4 of that we are
going to be putting toward capital
projects there's still additional
dollars we are still working on that
ultimately the council has to decide how
comfortable you truly are we are still
in a rebuilding uh mode with our staff
we you will hear from us in August that
we are still underspending the budget
because of the number of vacancies that
we have so that fund balance will
continue to grow at the same time
there's other needs in the community
that have nothing to do with with of the
capital infrastructure that we're
talking about that would be one-time
funding eligible so I think tonight the
message is 2.4 million dollars is what
we're looking at to put into the 2324
Budget on the capital side there'll be
additional expenditures recommended and
then ultimately the council will have to
decide how far down you want to go
thank you
councilmember Ray
thank you council president Walsh I have
so many questions
um most of them are interesting so the
number one priority coming out of the
investment task force was transportation
and depending upon how I choose to look
at it I can either get 11 or 33 percent
of the arbor funding is going into
Transportation with the Lion's Share
going to Parks how does that work
uh the other there's other ways that
we're implementing that recommendation
to focus on transportation and what we
also heard from Council with your
feedback is saying maybe
um a little bit of discomfort with
declaring Transportation as the number
one priority right now I think there
were concerns that we wanted to make
sure that we were picking the right
projects to invest in in the future so
what how this overall strategy responds
to the task force recommendation was
that we look at the any transportation
funding ballot initiative first before
we look at a Park's district for example
so that makes the timeline for looking
at additional revenues to provide
additional investments in transportation
doing that really starting that in 2024
before parks and so there's a number of
things that that
are in place that are underway right now
like the transit plan and other things
that will inform that discussion
um so so that's another way that the
strategy responds to that priority for
setting Transportation first perhaps
before some of these other conversations
I have more questions but council member
marks Did you want to respond to that I
thought you did
council member marks so as a former
member of the long-term uh task for a
financing task force I appreciate your
question and I appreciate the uh urge to
uh keep honest to other feedback that
that task force created
um I would I would say that the feedback
was nuanced because we broke things down
into three phases right and we said
things we could do near term
specifically with our dollars things we
could do medium term with certain
funding mechanisms and things that we
might do long term with yet different
funding mechanisms so in the spirit of
that I would say maybe at the point
where this bill comes or this this if we
if we get General agreement this evening
on what we want to do at the point where
it comes back maybe a re-resh of that
and understanding how this fits into
that sort of medium and long-term
conversation that was had because it was
really a lot of work went into
separating what would you do with
near-term dollars and what would you do
with longer term dollars thank you
all right picking back up
um I noticed that the in the plan
there's no contemplation of using any
debt was that the reason we're not
considering any debt for so we could
chunk off something bigger or faster
um we are contemplating using debt I
think especially as we talk about 2023
and that facilities uh financing plan
and debt will likely be related to our
conversations in 2024 regarding
transportation and whether or not the
city moves forward with a ballot measure
or any Revenue new revenues the city
would like to pursue to help pay off
debt related to increased investment in
transportation so we didn't list that uh
explicitly in the strategy but that's
certainly part of the conversations yeah
I'm just struck that um
we we're looking for ways to spend down
ending fund balance which is excess
Revenue which could then be used to
retire debt and so instead of doing a
bunch of little things you're using uh
ending fund balance we could take on
something big and impactful and
meaningful
um and do it with debt and then use
ending we wouldn't have any fund balance
because those additional dollars that
are Revenue in excess of expenses could
be used for Debt Service so just a
thought to look at that a little
differently I'm looking at the capital
Improvement plan from that we adopted in
2021 April or May or something like that
last year and there's some really great
Transportation initiatives on here that
we could do
for instance you know the uh
non-motorized uh
access on East Sammamish and um so I'm
just kind of curious why we're not
looking at things that are on the
capital Improvement plan for ways to
invest in infrastructure
um so I think
great point about how we're using our
how we're proposing using arpa funds or
ending fund balance in relation to debt
and what that strategy is
as far as your question about why are we
not looking at the CIP
we are looking at the CIP based off of
the projects that are being proposed in
the community investment fund the I-90
Crossing study some of these projects
are really moving up from future years
into something that we can do more
immediately so these projects are really
derived from the CIP but you know I
appreciate your point about how we're
considering using debt in relation to
some of these other bigger project
options all right two more I'm almost
done I really am
um so when I look at the CIP and I look
at the I-90 Crossing which would have
been the study when we did the CIP we
estimated at 3.4 million not a million
so trying to rationalize the difference
between what we thought it was going to
cost in the CIP and what we think it's
going to cost now
it may be that additional study is
needed this is really going to get us
kicked off at make some progress right
now and there are going to be additional
Environmental Studies that are going to
be required after this this isn't this
isn't the last plan we'll see and then
be ready to build a light rail station
or a Crossing this really just gets us
started yeah I'm just thinking if we
have the funding and that was the
2022-2023 time frame on that study why
not do the whole thing when we got the
money and then my final question is was
an anchor Park in the CIP because I
couldn't find it
uh there is a discussion about anchor
parks in the park strategic plan an
investment in those I would have to
phone a friend here and see if Jeff
Watling can speak directly to Anchor
parks and what's in the CIP so Jeff are
you he's not on the line okay I thought
he'd be here tonight
oh he is okay I understand he's double
booked so we'll have to come back to you
with an answer on that okay I'll look
for it thank you thanks
and Deputy council president Hull
thank you very much for the detailed
presentation
um piggybacking off a council member
Mart's earlier question on the I-90 uh
Crossing study so we think that's
something that can be accomplished in a
year
um do we have a good sense of what the
timeline is for Sound Transit to then
approach us about next steps from their
end and do we feel satisfied that if we
have a study after a year it'll still be
useful when Sound Transit comes forward
just genuinely asking
I'm going to be the blunt talker tonight
so I'll apologize in advance
um
if the council would like to see light
rail come to Issaquah we need to start
spending money now if we do not spend
any money we will get a call from Sound
Transit 15 years from now
and so we don't know all the parameters
here mayor Paulie I think has made it
very clear that this is a community
priority we also don't want to say let's
take all the arpa money because gosh we
could be studying this forever so what I
think we have put before you this
evening is our best estimate to what we
need to do to jump start this project to
get sound transit to pay attention that
we are serious in Issaquah about having
light rail come here we know what the
processes are between the Federal
Highway Administration
the transit funding we know what steps
we need to take we are saying the mayor
is saying we do not want to wait for
Sound Transit for that phone call 15
years from now we want to get started
now so a lot of what you're seeing
tonight is not in the easy buckets that
perhaps other CIP discussions have been
uh and I I I'm speaking for the mayor
and she's standing you know 10 feet from
me
um but but I think it's an important
point to make that this is meant to be
transformed this is meant to say the
pandemic has been horrible Scourge on
everyone this community the entire world
but we need to move on and we're ready
to move on we have these funding there
we need to give something back to our
residents in addition to Transportation
which is a much longer term piece that's
why you're hearing so much about the
anchor Park so mayor Paulie I apologize
I'll get off my soapbox for now but I
think it's really important
to put this in the proper light and that
this is a very different kind of
discussion this is not our regular CIP
what are we going to do this year how
are we going to move the deck chairs
around this is really a signal from the
administration that we need to take a
different approach we need to take the
dollars that we have use them as a
catalyst and move on near poly I'll shut
up hi it took my wind never mind I just
have a few details to add you know over
the last year or two talking with
washdot I've asked frequently when and
would they would be ready to sit and
talk with us about the big the
pre-planning for the Sound Transit Light
Rail station it very likely will be on
one side or the other or on top of that
right away and when that partner is
ready to come and talk with us I think
we begin the pre-planning if I were to
enhance on the narrative you've already
heard uh
the one million dollars is a down
payment it's the start of a process that
brings stakeholders through the tail
table that can then come back to council
enter their respective agencies and let
them know we have a 3.5 million dollar
process but we've invested one million
dollars in order to get washed.metro
sand Transit City of Issaquah and
whoever else we need at the table I've
sent uh information to both our state
senator the head of Sound Transit the
head of Metro
King County council member and a few
others to say that you would be having
this very important conversation over
the next two meetings and again to frame
it as this is the first step and we need
to take the first step in order to
figure out what the rest of them look
like stand transit's very unlikely to
assign us a project manager right now
but that does not mean they will not sit
at the table with us and talk about it
the one advice I got from the former
mayor of Redmond and former mayor of
Bellevue was they'll tell you when they
they want to start but you'll know when
you need to start and where the
conversation started on the sound
transit schedule they felt like they ran
out of time so it's not too soon to be
doing this this is a good investment
thank you one only one thing to add to
all of that which is that uh our
transportation staff have indicated that
this first step allows us to be really
competitive for future grants and so we
can start to leverage grant funding to
pay for additional steps in the process
all right uh well thanks that makes a
lot of sense so it's not necessarily
that the end of next year Council will
have it deliverable from this that we'll
see this is the start of a larger maybe
the beginning of stakeholdering and then
the start of a larger process
you yes and I think it's the start of
understanding what those future asks are
right so it's looking at project costs
funding plans I think there's going to
be a lot that we get out of this study
that will guide our next steps and so
that's that's really that's really the
goal
uh thank you and I had one more question
if that's okay
um
and I've been trying to think about how
to frame it so it doesn't sound
adversarial so let me just say that off
the bat it's not meant to do that I'm
just interested in exploring the
administration's thinking and how you
came about the thinking for the anchor
Park so
um when I think about arpa money in
general
um transformed is transformative is a
world that comes up a lot
um you know we tend to think about it on
the task force we tend to think about it
a lot as um
what qualifies as spending that we can
have for arpa
um but you know if we think about it in
its true form it's a stimulus right to
create economic prosperity in
communities to help lift you know the
American economy that's the reason why I
did that so from that lens I'm
interested in exploring why the
administration thinks
um an investment a
large investment in an anchor Park would
help create economic prosperity
in the community and if you can kind of
speak about it from from that lens it
would be really helpful for me
great I think that there's a couple of
responses we have
one is that we also know that during the
pandemic so you mentioned economic
Prosperity there's a lot of studies out
there that talk about the economic
effects of big Park Investments things
like that but also coming out of the
pandemic we heard from our community how
much they appreciated parks and it was
the only thing that was open to the
public that they could do for a long
time and so we heard more of an
importance and appreciation for our
parks and more of a desire to invest in
them and so we felt like this would be
an opportunity to have a big investment
with high impact high visibility that
would
um that would really uplift quality of
life and provide that great investment
for the community so those are some of
the the thoughts that we've heard based
off of the community feedback we'd had
it was also mentioned if you recall in
some of the task force discussions the
desire to have maybe a big impactful
Park project with arpa funds I am
looking at the city administrator I'm
wondering if he has something to ad he
looked like you did before
mayor Paulie does and also Jeff Watling
is on the line so council president
Walsh if you'd like to we can go back to
that question regarding the fun thing
for the anchor parks in the current
budget it's so nice that they're giving
me so much my time today this is fun
um for me the reason I was looking at an
impactful Parks project was because a
lot of the parks that we have in
Issaquah have not and council member
Mart knows this very well have not had
Investments over the long term if the
parks themselves are older and many of
our signature Parks such as Tibbetts and
Memorial Field really haven't changed in
decades and decades and the community
I think it's I'm going to phrase it this
way it is a impact to the community if
they could have a outdoor place with the
kinds of activities they've been asking
for that Issaquah has been yet able to
provide so for example looking at
Tibbetts park with grass fields which
probably was a great idea in the 80s we
all know that turf fields would turn
that park from a three-month a year park
into a 12-month year park it would
increase the diversity of activities and
provide opportunities for abled and
disabled and so we don't have a lot of
those components in our older city parks
so for me the impact was an outdoor
positive healthful place for all to
gather and the same with Memorial Park
it's got a lovely very fun old-fashioned
grass baseball field and a great play
structure but if you visited other
cities or even just the state park and
you see what improvements are being done
in the last decade for children with
disabilities adults with disabilities
and all the different kinds of uses that
people are now expecting from Parks you
don't see that in this park either I
feel like this is something that would
be highly visible quickly built and
widely enjoyed and that was how I
defined impact
[Music]
thank you and so we have director
Watling on the line
um
yes we do council president good evening
Jeff thank you for joining us the you
are double book tonight I know
there's some questions regarding anchor
parks and current budgeting for anchor
Parks it was noted they're not in the
CIP but I believe there are planning
dollars elsewhere could you give a
little bit of explanation there
sure you you bet
um I believe within the CIP there is
funding for Tibbetts Valley Park for
Memorial Park and Issaquah Creek
Corridor
um so I I'm I guess I'll pause there and
maybe seek clarification on what the the
question was uh Council chair
so I think the question was related to
whether the projects were in the CIP and
perhaps it was that we were looking at
it as anchor Park
improvements whereas you're saying that
the planning for those parks that had
done been done through the park
strategic plan was already listed
individually for each of the quote
unquote anchor parks within the CIP is
that correct
yes that's how it lives now and maybe I
can I could speak a little bit about the
the
etymology the the the how this
progressed from the park plan forward so
the park plan was adopted in 2018
um as the mayor said so well a lot of
the community feedback was hey we love
our Parks but they're tired
um and a lot of the the the the more
established Parks have not been invested
in a long time and so you might recall
before the pandemic we endeavored uh
I've met pretty big Master planning
effort uh that was all wrapped into one
master planning budget in the CIP and
that's what kicked off this anchor Park
discussion where in 2019 we went out and
had a lot of community engagement around
what we called the anchor Parks which
was
um Veterans Memorial Playfield and the
conglomeration of parks around it Depot
and pedestrian Park and then Tibbetts
Valley Park and the Issaquah Creek
Corridor so you saw within your
budgeting planning dollars for that work
that happened in 2019 as the pandemic
hit us in 2020
and I think the most recent CIP effort
during the pandemic we have now tried to
identify budget and planning for each of
those as separate Parks knowing as we
eventually continued in that work that
the actual
sort of finishing of the planning and
then the eventual design and
construction of those would need to be
have would need to happen as separate
separate Parks so
I hope that helps
thank you
and so do you want to follow up on that
yeah it was it was my question so I
think that's great and I I may have
confused some I was thinking anchor Park
was anic and anchor not ankors
um so so that that's helpful but when I
look at the and I guess if we we suck
everything forward so we can accelerate
it but if I look at the CIP for 2022 to
2024 since that's our period I look at
Tibbetts alley I look at this um
uh Veterans Park and I look at the creek
Corridor I see about two million dollars
worth of uh planned expenditures so is
the plan then to accelerate some of
these things that we had in the 25
through 27 kind of time frame for those
parks
yes the six million dollars would be an
accelerated investment a lot of that
work
um
as well
um include some planning some planning
dollars as well and I I don't forgive me
I don't have the CIP in front of me I
was just coming from a park board
meeting I don't know if all that 2
million is actual funded or if some of
that is is unfunded at this time but the
goal would be identify identify one of
those anchor parks and accelerate an
initial phase one investment
great thanks Jeff
okay and our next question from council
member Joe
thank you council president
um
want to compliment the administration
for thinking a little bit outside the
box and trying to figure out ways that
we could creatively use our funds
um
Barbie Michelle councilmember D Michelle
went to the AWC conference and there was
an innovation section a class that she
went to and she commented to me this
evening that she was very excited that
the city was already doing many of the
things or almost all the things that
were in The Innovation conference and I
think this project as well the
undertaking that you've that you've
started here is part of that as well
I always look at you know what could
possibly go wrong as we look at these
big expenditures and and The Innovation
that we're trying to take on and I'm
looking at the the the new positions
that we have here and with the tight
labor market and and the conditions that
are out there
um if we're not able to fill either the
two Transportation engineer positions
the one program coordinator for public
works or The one-term Limited Parks
planner my question is if we don't fill
those positions will any of the projects
and things that we're talking about
tonight not be done or will we still be
able to to make them even though we're
not filling the pro the positions here
foreign
thank you councilmember Joe certainly we
need staff to complete the work and so
um I think we have been having a pretty
good track record of being able to hire
really qualified Engineers over the past
year and so we would need staff to
complete the work but certainly even
adding an additional
engineer and program coordinator or
admin assistant to support them would go
a really long way in being able to
implement some of these projects
thank you I know that when we discussed
the tip there were a couple of projects
that we wanted to do but we couldn't do
because we didn't have a staff for it
and I want to see us get as much done as
we possibly can and any innovative
new ideas that HR might have or the
administration might have to recruit and
find people to get these positions
filled I think the to get the positions
filled I think we'll go a long way to
getting us to the goal that I think we
all want to get to in terms of being
Innovative and using the city's funds
the funds and tax dollars that our
citizens have put in there to the best
use possible so thank you
and Deputy council president Hull did
you your okay
um councilmember D Michelle
thank you just to follow up on that
question I didn't notice that one of
those positions is term limited and the
others are not and uh could you just
explain uh why that one particular
position was designated that way
uh yes I think that we can see the need
for this position as maybe you recall we
had two parks planner positions before
the pandemic
that was one of those positions was
reduced uh during our expenditure
reductions during the pandemic we have a
term limited because we think that
there's certainly going to be enough
work for that position over the next two
years I think at that point then we'd
like to reevaluate as the park strategic
planning process has been completed and
as we consider what are the next steps
for a potential Parks district and so uh
but we're we're pretty sure we're
confident we have the work for that
position for the next two years and then
timing of additional resources and when
they would be needed we want to we want
to be able to evaluate within two years
to see if that would be a permanent need
or not
thank you
I'm gonna wait until Deputy council
president Hall decides whether or not
this is an actual question okay go go
redhead
sorry thank you I've been going back and
forth on this so I want to dig a little
bit deeper into into my last question
about thinking of ARP as a stimulus for
economic Prosperity so thank you all um
for responding to that
clearly parks are a great economic
investment in communities
um I guess I'm interested in exploring
the administration's admission
administration's decision making on that
though because
um I think we could all agree that
investment in Mobility especially you
know alternative and alternative you
know opportunities for Mobility
multimodal access is also a good
economic driver and would be a good use
of arpa dollars so I'm just curious if
the administration kind of went through
and exercise at all and said okay these
are both good economic engines for a
community but we believe this one rises
above and that's why we're proposing so
much of arpa funding for that one in
particular so I'm just curious if you
have that conversation through that ends
not necessarily because this is the best
impact project we can have but through
kind of an economic Prosperity lens if
you can speak to that
uh thank you Deputy council president
the short answer is yes
um you know I we spent a lot of time
myself Andrea mayor Jeff Watling who's
on line with us you know really thinking
about the future of this community why
do people want to be here do people want
to be here because there's Trader Joe's
and Target and every grocery store you
can imagine did they want to be here uh
because or near a hospital why do they
want to be here
um you know we keep coming back to one
thing it's the quality of life it's the
Outdoor Experience why do people spend a
million dollars for a condo in this
community it's because of those outdoor
experiences so as we look more broadly
at the future of Issaquah we really
believe we need to continue to make
those Park Investments so as you've
heard tonight the two existing Parks the
um the the the the the the golden
necklace the the along the Creek that's
what's going to keep this community
viable for the long term
and we really think that making those
Investments are really important
I'm disappointed tonight that we seem to
be thinking that we're spending no money
on transportation and that's not true
there are dollars spent here one of the
challenges with many Transportation
projects is that there's many many
partners we can't just go out and do
something because we want to we have to
work with state agencies we have to we
work with property owners on council
member hunting I had long talks today
about sidewalks on squawk Mountain I
mean it would be great if we could just
say okay we're going to do that but all
those properties and all the
right-of-way issues that we need to work
through and we're prepared to do that
but you're hearing tonight I think is
what can and this is Mayor Paulie's
Vision you know what can we do to ensure
that this community thrives and really
that quality of life piece we're not
going to get an Amazon headquarters you
know we're not and that's not what this
community needs we'll continue to look
at the central Issaquah plan as that
engine but people want to recreate here
they want to enjoy the outdoors here
they want to be have access to that and
if we as a community as a city
government continue to make those
Investments I mean I think that's where
some of our economic Prosperity comes
from you look at what's happening in
Bellevue
thousands and thousands of jobs where
are these people going to live
um you know many of them are going to
want to come here and we're going to
want them here because they're going to
have high paying jobs
they're going to want to enjoy those
those benefits and amenities so again as
many of you have said tonight this is a
very different kind of conversation but
we absolutely did think about these
things Parks can be an economic engine
Parks can be Economic Development and we
can invest in Parks but we can also make
the investments in the transportation I
mean we've got a strategic plan a master
Mobility plan and a and a climate action
plan all done in the last three years
there are many community members that
would like us to be done with all of
this by the end of next month that's
just not possible and so the mayor's
Vision here is let's let's do this in a
way that brings all of these things
together that works on all of them but
also be thoughtful about how we pay for
them because we do not have the money to
pay for new things we do not have the
money to pay for the maintenance of
things and we need to be thoughtful
about that in that long term
long answer to a short question I
apologize
um council member Martz
so when we talk about Park's investment
I remember when we put together the
three disparate pieces of real estate
that made Confluence part
and we had at the time
something like and it was the previous
it was a different Parks director but we
had something like a 15 million dollar
plan for that Park and for that to be
the Cornerstone for really all of our
Parks efforts at least in the valley and
I guess my question is
um how much of that 15 million have we
actually done
and it's this is a two this is a couple
partner how much have we done
um have has Council gotten sort of an
update on what still is the plan for
that park because I hear a six million
dollar potential Parks investment and
um it seems obvious to me that there's
still things we want to do with
Confluence but it doesn't seem like
Council has heard a lot about where
Confluence is at or where Confluence is
going for some time
thank you councilman Vermont
um I'm wondering uh Jeff you're still on
the line can you speak to that question
yeah it's a great question thank you
councilmember Marge I do not have
specific dollars but I can tell you I
know from that original Confluence Park
Vision a great vision a significant
amount of that investment required a
different city facility investment and
that is the the park operations and
Facilities Maintenance Shop moving
um that that obviously hasn't happened
yet and so
um I think to date you know with the
addition of the bridge in 2018
um some of the irrigation improvements
that were done in 2019 I can get you a
running total of what that is uh but I
know some of the the more expensive
future phases
um uh required in in essence replacing
the shop facility moving the shop
facility somewhere else and then
repurposing that shop facility as as
Future Park
and and with that with that six million
dollars if we said we wanted to go to
parks would that potentially could
uh is it is it something the city would
entertain having a fraction of that 6
million go towards moving that facility
such that uh we could commence with the
additional phases of that park because I
think if we dusted off the original plan
we would see there was a lot more to
Confluence that we wanted to do not that
Confluence isn't beautiful it really is
but it was a pretty ambitious plan back
in the day
very ambitious and in a great a great
Pearl on the necklace for certain
um you know project Readiness is a very
important goal with these arpa funds as
well and so we we could certainly dust
that off and take a look at it I would
um I would hesitate in saying moving
those two really important shop
maintenance groups
um is going to be a pretty expensive
Endeavor before we can even invest in
repurposing that place as Parks but we
can take a closer look at that
again just curious given that it is our
Premier uh Park in the valley and not
that I don't love the idea of of doing
something transformative with tidbits I
really do love the idea of of
transforming tidbits I was just curious
given that it is really the centerpiece
including centerpiece of our long-term
plans to transform the creek
thank you
council member says an excellent
question who's on the development
commission when the plan came through
and it is ambitious and there are some
elements to go
the point of the conversation tonight on
the arpa funds is that many of the
things you do are the pieces of a larger
puzzle and you've heard me many many
times talk about your inventory of
facility assets that needs to come back
to you so you can evaluate what you want
to keep where your needs are and how all
those shifting pieces will work some of
that work is happening this year under
director of administrative Services out
of Monahan
but that's just another one of those on
the list of where that goes may be
influenced by which pieces of land you
decide to keep and which pieces of land
you decide to dispose of and just for
council member or Deputy council
president Hall's question again we are
trying as an Administration to find
projects that are ready to go because
while two years may sound like a long
time it's absolutely not and so we're
doing a Transit study we'll get some
information from the transit study
you'll make some decisions you'll make
some recommendations not really sure we
can spend the money by then and so
really want to make sure that we have a
plan that we don't have to give back any
of our arpa dollars and I think if
you're not on Council people don't
realize how so many of the things you
work on are puzzles that have so many
pieces that are happening at different
times my last one is going to be a
council member Ray's question about the
CIP I think there's wide support that
the CIP process lists criteria area
everything be looked at
holistically with the climate action
plan and the master Mobility plan and
get all these documents and these The
Listener and the CIP coordinated and
that's a process you're all going to
have to go through with the community
and so the CIP is the best we have right
now but the CIP may not really look like
that in a couple of years once those
activities of coordinating them happen
so you guys are asking really great
questions I'm not sure if the public
understands how complicated your task is
tonight
okay so I'm going to take a look at the
council see if there are any other
questions okay then at this point I am
going to end our
um questions and ask the clerk if there
are any members of the public who
have indicated and desire to make a
comment
council president we do have a few
members of the public with us let's just
give them a moment if you have interest
in making comments please raise your
virtual hand
or send me the host a comment in the
chat
I'll monitor this for just a moment
all right I'm not seeing anyone indicate
desire to speak
hey that's fantastic then we are going
to move to council discussion and I know
everybody has been raising their mics
all over the place but the big question
is going to be do we want to give a
general sense of thoughts I know the
administration had five questions
um but I heard a lot of questions that
maybe everybody want to go through a
general sense before getting into those
five
or does anybody feel like we should just
jump into number one
I see one jump in one jump in okay then
you've got the questions up and so let
me see if I
so the first question is does the city
council approve of the mayor's proposal
to spend the remaining arpa funds on
infrastructure including the focus on
transportation and parks and trails
so
anyone for comments
council member Ray
I'll get us started
um I'm not sold that this is the right
set of priorities I mean I love our
Parks but my recollection is in the
community survey people said parks are
super important and then they said and
parks are super good and when we talked
did the survey people said
transportation is super important and
transportation is super bad and so I
would like to see us flip this around a
little bit I mean we've got the
non-motorized transportation Corridor on
Sammamish road that we've been talking
about for years and you know that's
something we could do
um and you know a couple years ago we
decided we were going to do a light at
Providence Point and we put all of our
investment for that year into that
project and you know what we got it done
and it's making a difference and so I
I'm not you know my colleagues could be
of a different mind I'm just not
convinced this is the community's
priority
thank you
um councilmember D Michelle
thank you
um I'd like to plan a lot and
um
I really
um
I want to Echo uh City administrator Bob
kowitz's thoughts about the over under
Crossing
um I think when we were at the Highlands
listening session I said at that time
that we're kind of waving our hands and
jumping up and down and trying to get
Sound Transit and Metro's attention
I absolutely agree that we have to start
spending the money now
we by investing 1 million in in the
design first of all we demonstrate the
city's commitment to long-term Transit
improvements
and that demonstration of commitment I
think is really important we position
ourselves much better to receive County
state federal support and engagement we
demonstrate to developers that the
city's commence commitment to densifying
Central Issaquah Israel so that's a
you know it's all part as as mayor
probably said it's all part of a big
puzzle and uh by taking some actions we
are signaling to a bigger Community what
we are really about when it comes to the
Light Rail station and then finally I
this is I love this proposal because it
helps us to take control of a project
that we've been waiting to for other
agencies to prioritize for other
agencies to recognize and by making this
investment we take control of this
project we move this project forward we
get it ready for
um for the next step and so I I think
it's it's absolutely a great idea to do
that
the community investment fund
I will try not to get too long-winded on
this one I love this proposal as well so
when I worked at King County Department
of Transportation they also had a
community investment fund like this I
was in charge of doing the community
engagement for it
it was so well received by the
communities that participated in it and
very much followed the guidelines this
is almost precisely exactly what we went
out and did we came up with we presented
the community with specific projects and
then engaged them in the process of
choosing which one and in that process
not only did the community become
engaged they became owners of that
project so it's it's brilliant
especially coming out of a covid to have
this proposal and then the the projects
themselves actually got better because
of the input that we received from the
communities I think it's a great way to
engage our community in discussing
Transportation
helping them to feel ownership of their
community and the way that we go forward
and and put some actual money behind
that a lot of times we go out for
engagement and then they say what
happened but this would be something
that would really happen so
um I don't know if you're ready for me
to talk about the parks that's question
number two should I go ahead
no I'd wait on that let's see what else
we can hear on question number one okay
um council member Joe and then council
member hunt
thank you council president
I think that uh
putting the one million dollars down for
the
um the Terminus in essence for Sound
Transit is an important stake in the
ground for us you know it says to the
transportation agencies whether they're
state or you know local or what have you
but we're serious about it enough to put
down this one million dollar down
payment as the mayor said and that we
want to start that discussion I kind of
think of it as coming to the poker table
so to speak and saying you know here's
my Annie and here's my stack let's start
talking about what's going to make it
work you don't get to the poker table
unless you put down the money to get to
the tournament we need to put the money
down to get to the tournament and start
talking about it so I'm wholeheartedly
in favor of the one million dollars arpa
funds for the Terminus project involved
in this and I also like the the
investment fund that that will get a
conversation going with our community we
have been talking about getting out in
the communities whether it's going up to
the highlands or having an events in a
park Park where we're inviting the
public to come and talk to us about
their issues and having transportation
as a primary issue out there for
discussion will get that feedback back
from the community that we need to make
those decisions otherwise we're making
decisions in a little bit of a vacuum
and we can get criticized one way or
another for not taking public input but
if we do this process and we carefully
listen to the community I think we're
going to get good projects out of it and
we're going to get some movement on
transportation and so I have to say at
this point thank you
councilmember hunt
thank you I agree with the comments that
have already been made on the over under
Crossing and I think that's a step in
the right direction and I am supportive
of that on the community investment fund
I
my my initial reaction is that we know
from many Community surveys including
the statistically valid Community survey
that's done every couple years what our
community's priorities are and that
survey in particular is done in a
randomized fashion and they collect
demographic information so I think that
that's really a good source of
information that we already have and I
think we can use that to put some
parameters around what this fund
um could could be to meet the needs of
the community
looking at that fund for again this
community investment I think the things
that rise to the top of that which also
rise to the top of the list in our
Master Mobility plan and in the climate
action plan because of the multimodal
aspect are things like sidewalk
improvements and Street repair so
actually in that Community survey the
infrastructure items that residents
thought should receive emphasis from
city leaders over the next two years two
of the top ones were Street repair and
the conditions of sidewalks so I I think
it could be a great way to engage the
community but I would think that we
should put some parameters around it and
say you know where are the sidewalks
that are the most important for these
connections of these tier one sidewalks
you know which are the ones that would
be most impactful and really make sure
that we are we are addressing those
long-standing Community concerns and
then I think this could be could be good
because we have these long-standing
Community issues that we haven't
especially in established neighborhoods
that we haven't been able to
um
that we have not been able to address
with with grant funding or other funding
I also think that
the approach here one of the one of the
top Community concerns from the
community survey and that we hear is
around congestion and I I recognize that
that isn't concern and I think we are
taking Smart Steps to do what we can
here with the traffic or the
transportation engineer position looking
to light rail looking to what we can do
for for projects that will improve the
quality of life because my concern is
that yes there is congestion and that is
a real issue but we could also spend a
lot of money and have induced Demand
with all of the regions around us
growing and just more cars going through
Issaquah which would be outside of our
control and and really that I think
would not then meet the
um intent of the arpa funds so I think
we I think that we avoid that outcome
with this and we take the steps that we
can to address congestion which is a
real concern and then we look to what we
can do to improve the quality of life
and transportation
um so that would be my one consideration
for that Community Fund is that we we've
heard time and time again pavement and
sidewalks and I would think that that
should be some parameters on that fund
council member marks thank you so uh I I
support the terminal study
uh the
um having a Community Fund I think is a
great idea coming back to the uh largest
use of the arpa fund you know I'm I'm
looking at the
Capital Finance Community task force
recommendations and I'm really struck by
in the short term there was much uh
there's not a consensus on exactly what
to do in the short term so the
recommendation is mix of projects across
categories per city council which is not
particularly helpful however a medium
term which they talked about Levy lid
lift and TBD sales tax was suggested
Transportation primarily and then the
long-term suggestion was for a Parks
district for parks and trails
and so
um I circled back to council member
raise concern and you know if
um if there was a suggestion of doing
something on the longer term with Parks
um you know using arpa dollars for that
um you know we recently reached out to
the public and had a listening session
and their concern wasn't with Parks
right their concern was with Public
Safety and it was almost exclusively
about public safety and the public felt
very very very very strongly about us
wanting us to do some more Public Safety
so if you said for instance if you did a
thought experiment and you said well
let's just take that 6 million and put
it into the 2.4 million and make 8.4
million and have a community outreach of
8.4 which would be big I grant you
um I think the public would tell us
they'd want us to spend it on as you
mentioned roads and traffic and Public
Safety and um while Parks was listed in
the report in the quadrant that said
continued investment and continued focus
it to councilmember Ray's point it
wasn't in the quadrant of uh important
and uh broken right it was in the
category of uh important and and working
well so I continue to struggle with the
mix I guess is where I'm at
um I look at 2.4 million I look at the
terminal study absolutely 100 a
community engagement effort all for it I
think we're gonna hear a lot of Public
Safety and maybe some about social
services
if we go ask the public because that's
what they told us uh two weeks ago and
then I just don't know about 6 million
for Parks right now with the
recommendation that we got from the
Capital Finance Community task force I
just don't know with with the guidance
that it gave to make that a long-term
thing and look at a Parks District it
doesn't feel like uh we'd be focusing on
that so
that's where I'm at I I think parks are
super important and they're a critical
part of our quality of life here but
this mix of taking six million of the
nine and 9.4 and using it for Parks I'm
not sure I feel great about
I don't feel great about thank you thank
you and checking other council members
okay counts
we'll just go down the line
councilmember Joe and yeah yeah
um if I could just say a brief comment
on councilmember Martz
um I I think that
we all like would like to have the money
spent on particular things that that you
know Transportation what have you
we also need to think about the timing
of the spending though we have to spend
it within two years or we lose it I'm
not sure we can do a transportation
project bringing in dot or County or
whatever partner we need to bring in for
some of these projects to get them done
in two years it took us
you know how many weeks to get water to
New Orleans after the hurricane I mean
that's not that's the federal government
mind you but what I'm saying is
government moves slow and we have more
control over parks and what we can do
with them because all our property it's
our equipment that we're bringing in
it's our people that are doing it I
think we can spend that within the two
years I'm not
entirely certain that we have the
ability to spend the arpa funds and
tears on a transportation project but
you know I'd be happy to look at each
one of them as we kind of analyze them
and parse them out and if the
administration says yeah we can get that
done in the two years with the
Partnerships that we have and the
relationships that we have fantastic but
just a word of caution there
councilmember day Michelle
so uh to council member Mart's comments
as well when I read the proposal for the
community investment fund I didn't see
uh that that was a community engagement
process that was open-ended
I saw some very careful parameters
around how they were going to go out and
I really think we're going to ask the
community to choose between one two
three five you know whatever it may be
projects and to give input on those
projects which is again exactly what we
did at King County and we're not asking
for input on their other priorities or
other items and we're asking them to
engage
specifically on let's how do we
prioritize these set of projects which
isn't something that we've gone out and
asked them before so so I think that and
I think that's a very valid and very
useful parameters to put around that
Community engagement I think it yields
really good results
um
I also wanted to talk to the to the
parks issue I really I really like this
and I have now that visit Issaquah is
reinvigorated I've been following them I
get their newsletter and I am just
surprised I shouldn't be but I've been
surprised by how many times they are
touting our green our Parks our Trails
you know all of the recreational
facilities that we have so it's a real
tourist engine too and that brings
tourist dollars to US that's the
economic Engine That councilmember Hall
was talking about
and I also think the focus there is it
you know let's make an investment in one
of these anchors let's not spread the
money around let's make a six million
dollar high impact investment on one you
know and my only problem with that is
it's like deciding between three
beautiful kids and saying which one gets
to go to college you you know they're
all wonderful projects and they will all
be wonderful assets and they would all
bring Economic Development to Issaquah
so I'm struggling with with which one
would be but I think the idea of making
that strong investment not spreading
around our money so thinly that we don't
really get anything big out of it but
putting it into one project and making
that a really strong high impact project
is really a good idea and a good
proposal thank you
council member hunt
thank you
so I think the conversation has moved
into question two so I'm going to start
on the response as far as the parks and
um when I was looking at this the first
at first I I had I think some of the
similar concerns as far as lining this
up with long-standing community
community concerns for our
infrastructure I do think though after
thinking about this a lot and looking
back at the community survey I think
that
um arpa this funding really is a
provides a historic
time where we can fully fund some things
that we would not otherwise be able to
do in cities have these long-standing
lists of infrastructure issues and I I
think showing that this is what we would
do with this funding it's it is a really
unique opportunity and
focusing that funding will better allow
us to to show
um the results
and give something back to the community
so so that sort of central reason for
the focus of the funding in the Parks it
does resonate with me
um when I was looking at the specifics
of the parks
um you know I go back to this questions
in the community survey about the
infrastructure items that residents
thought should receive emphasis from
city leaders over the next two years the
first two I already talked about the
third one is actually walking and biking
trails so Parks does have high
satisfaction they are amazing our open
space is also amazing and we we do need
to maintain that there's High
satisfaction as well as high importance
for those in that quadrant where we
don't have as much
where one of the areas where we don't
have satisfaction is actually second in
terms of congestion and then the next
thing that's high in that high
importance low satisfaction quadrant is
planning zoning and growth and so when I
look at this list the one that stands
out to me on the anchor Parks is
potentially the creek Corridor because
we need to plan for growth that that
Corridor actually connects all the all
the parks including Confluence as well
as Tibbetts and Memorial so if we think
about it I you know which beautiful
child gets to go to college this I think
improves the potential for all of these
parks to thrive it connects them and we
actually don't own all the land on that
one so for that one it's it's more
unique to me it has some some
things that I think would resonate with
the community because it shows we're
planning for growth it shows that you
know now is the time these properties
will be more expensive in the future now
is the time to actually make this happen
we talk a lot about that we're planning
this connected
um
connected green necklace but really it's
it's on paper at this point and we do
expect growth and we expect this to be a
huge Community Asset so maybe this could
tie into that need and show that we are
planning for growth and planning to make
sure that as we grow we maintain this
very special quality of having these
Open Spaces that are so important for
quality of life here
um so I thought you know we also have
this unique opportunity with Title 18
where we're redoing our our code and
we're talking about how to make private
um private properties along this
Corridor uh work with this vision of the
green necklace and so it seemed to me
that this is one that lines well with
this long-standing issue that the
community does have that says important
and also low satisfaction which is
Planning and Zoning
um so that was that was my my thoughts
on those I I recognize that Parks
generally have this High satisfaction
but it seems to me that this is one area
where the community would like to see
more and we could take a big step and
and actually make this green necklace
come alive so
that
that ultimately is where I landed on if
this was addressing the needs of arpa if
it was supporting Community quality of
life and um if it was sort of rising to
the opportunity that we have for this
historic funding
council member Ray
thank you I I'm going to go back to one
for a second then I'll move on to two
since I think we're jumping ahead
um so I didn't comment on the funding
for the over underpass and Sound Transit
which I am completely supportive of the
million dollars but I actually think
it's probably more than that and I think
I would rather invest more and and to
steal from council member Joe I'd like
to bigger bring a bigger set of chips to
the party or to the game and uh
definitely um demonstrate commitment
because it's the best way to move
washdot and it's best way to move Sound
Transit and I think we can make a bigger
commitment there on to Parks I'm still
struggling with this one because I don't
know if it's a park or Parks because
when I look at question number two it
says invest in one of the city anchor
Parks so it's a singular not a plural so
I I don't and and it gets really to the
heart of my problem with with the anchor
Park thing is I don't know what it is I
don't know where it is I don't know what
it is I don't know what we're going to
do so I can't say yeah that's a great
investment because I don't have any idea
what we're going to do so without any
specificity about what that six million
dollars is going to do to some Park
which I don't know which it is or where
they are could be more than one I just
can't say yeah that's a great idea so
that that's my biggest problem there is
I just don't know what it is and so it
might be a great idea might be a
credible idea so help me understand what
it is
uh councilmember Mertz did you want to
nope okay Deputy council president Hall
uh thank you I have uh some very unbaked
unfinished and
raw remarks
um so just bear with me
um actually I guess the first remark
I'll make is I don't think the handful
of days that I spent preparing for this
was enough so I'm sure many of the
um
Direction neat you know many of the
areas that need direction will evolve
for me over time between now and the
July 5th meeting
um I just think these are
really important questions in a heck of
a lot of money that it's really hard to
make a decision in just a couple days if
yes I agree with this proposal or no I
don't so
um that being said the I-90 Crossing
Light Rail station planning definitely
in favor of that thank you um City
administrator Bob quits for letting me
ask the probing question to get that
that answer I think that was perfect and
exactly what we needed
the community investment fund
um
I think I'm I'm of two minds on this I
think in the perfect world it's great
you know I think you look at cities like
Seattle or other major cities that have
the kind of community-based budgeting
systems where they have kind of a pot of
money and then go out to a community to
say what is it that what are your needs
and what do you want you've seen it work
really well and successfully in these
communities
um and
how this is described with the
parameters parameters is I think
something I could I could live with and
be supportive of
we also have lists of projects with
Community significance already though so
you know I sometimes have conversations
with residents when I kind of probe this
question and say well you know when we
have money it's really good to go out
and kind of ask what you need and every
now and then someone says I've already
told you what I need like I've already
come to this meeting I've provided
Community engagement like we elect you
to make the decisions about what's best
for our community too so I'm kind of of
two minds there
um
and uh that is not very good direction
but I'm just going to leave it at as
that
um this will also not be very good
direction
um for the anchor Parks
um improvements
um I don't know yet
um it's clear to me that investments in
Parks have great benefit see Issaquah to
creating the kinds of economic
Prosperity that we want with arpa
funding to having something to point to
made possible by federal dollars in
historic Federal investment but I'm also
of a similar mind to
um
councilmember Ray I guess I'm just not
yet convinced that it's the best use of
arpa dollars I'm convinced it's a good
use of City dollars period but I'm not
convinced it's the best use of arpa
dollars yet I I
um am definitely pliable at this point
though I think um uh State administrator
Bob Quinn's made a pretty compelling
point for it I think um an emphasis on
our Creek Corridor is also interesting
and compelling point
um
yeah I think I think this is tough and
I'm going to need some more time to to
digest it
um because at if we were taking a snap
pull right now I I still think that
using all of all or the vast majority of
arpa dollars on Mobility projects would
be the best use of arpa dollars in my
mind but again I'm convincible the other
way
so I'm going to take a moment to comment
on one and two
um
I think I come to this knowing that our
budget season is just a few months away
and I approach any bucket of money
whether it's budget or arpa if you if
you gave me a bucket of money and you
said this has to be spent within two
years which is the same thing that
you're going to say for Budget season
um
if I'm going to evaluate the projects on
that I'm going to look back at the
community survey and I'm going to say
what does the community just satisfied
with what do we need to do if it is
one-time funds
um are there capital or infrastructure
or one-time spend that we can make or is
this something that's more up ongoing
revenue and operations costs and hiring
and things like that so when I go and
look at this in specific
if I was looking at this from a
budgeting standpoint I would never
propose putting forward six million
dollars to plan an anchor Park
I don't think that is what our community
has said
they need right now
and so I think if we are respecting what
the community has said they've said
infrastructure
um they've said transportation we have
certainly heard through the community
survey that funding for sidewalks and
Street Maintenance
um I just don't see
Parks a six million dollar Parks
planning project as
you want to correct
if if I may so the six million dollars
wouldn't be a six million dollar plan it
would be phase one of implementing the
master plan so we would finish that
visioning process this year and then
permitting and design would be next year
and then construction would be the year
following so it's not just a plan it
would be implementation of the plan an
actual Construction
can you tell me what the difference is
between phase one and just doing the
full thing what does that mean yeah it's
a great question I think we anticipate
that some of these anchor Parks they're
big they have big needs and the
community is going to be re-envisioning
them for future years to come so the six
million dollars likely wouldn't pay for
the entirety of the plan uh that is
envisioned by the community but would
get
um it make really good progress on the
first phase which is still be to be
determined from that Community
engagement process
there's a community engagement process
related to the Anchor parks are related
to
yes I'm sorry it's getting confusing but
we're talking about a visioning and
scoping process to kind of pick up where
we left off with that Master planning
process which began before the pandemic
so we'd pick up where we left off with
that process finish that visioning and
scoping process through more Community
engagement then once we've developed
that vision and scoping which again
should be by the end of this year next
year would be more about design
permitting and then the following year
construction so we we are proposing six
million dollars for those three years to
cover not only the finishing of the
planning process the permitting process
and design process but also
implementation
okay then I will take a bit of a step
back and say
gosh six million dollars is a lot but
I would really need to get a sense of
what
what that phase one would accomplish and
which of these anchor Park projects we
are ultimately talking about
um
so to continue on with the rest of my
comments on questions one and two
um
I
like focusing on infrastructure I
disagree with the prioritization of
parks I do support the I-90 over under
Crossing funding I agree that we might
need more than one million dollars on
that but I'm a little bit hesitant to
put a lot of money into that without
knowing that the other stakeholders are
actually willing to engage with us I
think yes we need to put money down to
get them to come to the table but
just like if I look at our park
strategic plan and all of the money that
we've put into that planning I get
really hesitant about putting a large
amount of money into planning something
that may not be something we have a
whole lot of control over
so those are my comments on one and two
I see a few mics up our responses or
okay
um council member Ray council member
hunt
so member marks
so uh Deputy City administrator when you
describe the process of doing some
Outreach to the community and then doing
planning next year and doing execution
the year after
um I I guess and I I want to say that I
would say this respectfully I I'm having
a hard time buying the argument that
it's a lot easier to do that with Parks
than it is to do with some
infrastructure improvements or
Transportation improvements if we're
talking the scope of six million dollars
and things that we might be able to do
to move the needle they seem about you
you step back and sort of squint and it
they're both you know call it 50 FTE
years worth of Staff right or maybe 30
to 50 FTE years worth of Staff right and
whether that's Park staff or whether
that's
you know engineering and Facilities
staff it seems six of one half dozen of
the other so you know when we come back
and talk further I mean that's a further
concern that I have why not you know one
not Transportation why not
infrastructure when you described that
process to me of what we would need to
do with Parks it's like yeah just take
the word Parks out and replace that with
transportation and infrastructure so and
if I may I I I can't get over the the
thought that we're not communicating
properly
transportation is really important we
have a master Mobility plan we've hired
staff at the council's direction and
funding to continue moving forward with
this we are working at the greatest
diligence and speed on these
Transportation projects if the council
says work with greater diligence and
speed we can do that with some projects
but not every project that is a part of
the master Mobility plan is within our
control and so as we talk with our
transportation engineers and we say the
city council wants you to work as
quickly as possible their response to us
is great we have a step here that we
have to spend a wash Dot and then we
wait
an undetermined period of time when that
happens and the city council still wants
us to move with diligence and speed but
we sometimes can't because of that so
work wanting to move forward we've heard
about the East lace to manage multimodal
the city council at your last budget
said get it done
find the money we will fund it get it
done and so our Engineers are working
with this and we're working with the
greatest diligence and speed but is not
all within our control
so that is part of the conundrum with
Transportation projects you could say
take six million dollars and spend it on
the transportation projects we could
staff up and some of them have other
stakeholders that are beyond our control
and so it's really important I think
from the administration's perspective
that you understand that's we're not
pushing back on Transportation we're
simply saying this is these are Big
questions these are Big projects and
some of them cost lots more than even
the six million dollars we have
available for arpa the community's done
a park planning project we have a park
master plan we have that if the council
says we want to do one Park not go out
look at all three that will speed things
up even further so I mean the the issues
with the transportation projects
are broader than just hiring up staff
and going because of those additional
stakeholders again we're prepared to go
as fast as we can but again some of
these projects ultimately once they're
designed will cost far in excess to six
million dollars
others require the the stakeholders so
Madam council president I think the
administration's I'm just concerned that
you're
not hearing the word full support of
moving forward as diligently as we can
and additional money is helpful but will
not get us to move fast as perhaps some
of you think we'll be able to move as
fast
mm-hmm so so are you saying that if we
said you must spend that six million on
Transportation in the next 24 months are
you saying that the administration there
just isn't a way to spend that money
intelligently is that is that what
you're saying
we may have difficulties and and council
president when you think appropriate
Robert Hamad the Chief Financial Officer
is on the line uh we'd like to talk a
little bit more about the time frames
associated with the dollars we've not
really dealt with that in particular
terms this evening but uh We've not we
believe there's some other flexibility
that we have with those dollars so that
that 24-month clock uh perhaps is not as
rigorous as we once thought through this
process so we'd like to share that
information as an appropriate point but
I think the short answer to your
question council member marks is forget
about our requirements just the college
courses spending the money we're not
convinced that we could spend it in 24
months or perhaps even 36 months because
of some of the other constraints and I'm
sorry my back is to you Andrea but uh
that's important to say we want to do
these things quickly we have the the
plan we want to implement it it's just a
matter of how and what are the
parameters in doing that
thank you
council member hunt
Q I wanted to respond to the
um the planning comments that you
council president Walsh made
um so I completely agree and had similar
concern about plan a plan is not in
itself transformative and is not in
itself delivering I think the
transformative improvements the quality
of life that we're looking for with this
again historical opportunity we have
with ARP funding so completely agree
with that and thought it might be
helpful to point or to to
um
quote some of the numbers from our last
CIP on cost so Confluence Park it it
says here 28 million dollar overall
project cost Veterans Memorial
Park 17 million and then Creek Corridor
is 6 million so for the for
implementation I do think if we're
talking about like wanting to get
something done which I think we do it
would be potentially a piece of one of
these projects unless somebody wants to
correct me but you know if we get into
implementation and wanting to prioritize
based on wanting to have on the ground
the projects done I think looking at the
size of these different projects and
completion would would then be good but
you know based on this conversation
first coming to an agreement about
about
um
is this the impact of the funds again is
this the impact we want to have with the
funds again I think there is an argument
to be made that it would really improve
the quality of life and would deliver on
our lagging Investments on
infrastructure which is what we what we
um are trying to do with arpa funds
um so I I think the argument is is there
and is solid but again just wanted to
point out the very different costs for
the different anchor projects at least
in our CIP
thank you
so we are at a point I think we've made
our comments on questions one and two
um is anybody ready to go on to question
number three which is about the
community investment fund concept
or might I propose a five minute break
because we've been sitting here for two
hours
that okay I'm gonna go with a five
minute break and so we will come back at
8 57. thank you
okay we are back and I just want to take
a moment to talk to to the council and
try and figure out how we want to
approach these next three questions
because we will be coming back on July
5th but I think we've we've taken a
little bit of a break we have a little
bit of energy to move on
do we want to have people address all
three questions so the questions are
Community investment fund another one
related to spending down ending fund
balance and additional proposed
positions and then the fifth question is
feedback on timing for medium term
actions so
any
comments any thoughts preferences on how
we approach
Deputy council president
um I think it might be best if we do
question three and four together maybe
each of us could provide feedback on all
of three and four and then five seems
like a good kind of separate enough
thing that we could then go back through
everyone else on that one
does that sound good
okay hearing no others
um so we're looking for feedback on the
community investment fund concept and
the question number four related to
spending down the ending fund balance
and additional proposed positions
I'm not seeing any mics jumping up all
at once so council member Ray oh yeah I
will jump in um Community investment
fund concept
um I think it's it's a great idea I like
the idea of Outreach I like sending out
setting aside a bucket of money to to do
that and focusing on smaller
transportation and Parks Trails projects
I think that's all great
um I think the criteria are good
um in terms of the positions the only
feedback I would have is we have the one
term limited position which makes
perfect sense it's for parks and if we
did that
um
what's the long-term funding plan for
the two new or the three new positions
in transportation would be the only
thing because if uh we're using a spend
down
um initially do we have
um you know what's our ending fund
balance look like I I have a suspicion
that we're probably good in the long run
but I just would like to see that played
out so that's my thoughts quickly
Deputy council president Hull uh sure
thanks I also have quick thoughts on
these uh two questions
um
um you know moving forward with the
community investment fund Pro concept I
agree that we should keep it in focus on
kind of smaller transportation of parks
and trails projects especially because 2
million is 2 million for the in the
grand scheme of things there's not a
whole lot of money so keeping it small
will actually make meaningful
deliverables for the community to
actually see that their decisions had an
impact right
um does council have any changes uh no
no changes to the selection criteria I
appreciate that it's you know really
focused on kind of timeline and eligible
eligibility but then also on the
categories that were already talked over
and over for a couple meetings I think
at the Capitol Finance Community task
force so I think those are good
um and then feedback on the proposed
next step of going to the committee
um is there anything in particular the
administration is looking for foreign
that item in particular I guess I don't
have any feedback on it going to a
committee meeting the next committee
meeting but
other options would be whether that
comes back to the committee of the whole
um well being biased as I'm on that
committee I'm perfectly fine with it
going to the mobility and infrastructure
committee
um oh yeah that got some mics up
I'm I'm still fine with it
um and then any feedback on spending
doubt no spending down fund balance I
was glad to see that that in this
proposal in line with the task force
recommendations
and
using it on
proposed new positions as well as a few
other things is certainly a great use
for those funds so thank you
council member March then council member
hunt
thank you uh
uh yes
no
no
and
uh yes
so uh yeah no I mean I uh yes uh it's a
it's a fine idea the focuses are fine
um uh send it to Mobility infrastructure
um why not bring send the fund into the
Committees but the uh going down to 15
we have ample evidence that using 15 to
20 results in getting us 25 to 35 to 40
percent any fund balance so uh shooting
for 15 will maybe get us closer to
something like 20 which is what I really
like to see so yeah I I support all of
it thank you
councilmember hunt
yes so I agree with the community
investment fund concept I would add a
criteria
which you you kind of can get to from
the existing criteria because one of the
criteria is ability to be completed
within arpa timeline and then another is
to address pain points in the city but
from the community survey we do have
this
um infrastructure items that City should
focus on in the next two years and those
are Street repair and condition of
sidewalk at the top two so I would I
would add that criteria that they be
things that the community specifically
said we should focus on in the next two
years because that kind of encompasses
multiple
aspects of the challenge here and we
have Community survey data on what those
things are
um and then yes agree to the sending to
the mobility infrastructure committee
and
um
on the ending fund balance completely
agree with council member Martz
council member D Michelle and
councilmember Joe
um a very similar questions I agree with
Community investment fund I don't have
any suggestions for the project
selection criteria although I like
council member Hunt's thoughts
um yes please do send it to mobility and
infrastructure love to get my hands on
it thank you very much and
um yeah I agree with council member
Martz on the uh
taking down the ending fund balance so
that's it
I agree with counts council member Martz
thank you no
um that being said
um I I believe that number four spending
down the ending fund balance is is
pretty important because
the money is
our taxpayers money it's my they've
already given us and put in trust to us
to use you know and use wisely so
um putting that getting that fund
balance down to reasonable amount so
that we still plan for a rainy day
but are spending the money wisely I I
think that's a great thing to do and
then um
the small Focus the focus on small
Transportation projects that's fantastic
I don't have any suggestions for changes
in the selection criteria
and um yes I'm chair of the mobility and
infrastructure committee I would just
love to have this back in front of us
for additional discussion and maybe
members of the public will have some
time to digest this a little bit and
give us some other comments as well
thank you
okay I'm gonna dive into my comments
here
um on the community investment fund I
mean generally
generally I think we should be focusing
more on Transportation than parks and
trails so depending on if we go forward
with an anchor Park project that I am
absolutely in favor of a community
investment fund focused on
Transportation
but toward that idea I don't think two
million dollars is enough I don't think
it's enough to get much of anything done
and unless you can really give me a set
of proposals that actually get some
things done I think I'm going to come
back to this and say okay if you've got
a bunch of one million dollar projects
are we just gonna pick the top two and
just it feels a little bit light
um then on the next one I appreciate
what councilmember hunt said about the
project selection criteria and having it
be from a pre
set of list of community priorities
um that have already been indicated
and yes I agree it should go to the
mobility and infrastructure committee
on the topic of spending down ending
fund balance in the additional proposed
positions
um on the proposed positions like
council member Ray I just have concerns
and I would need addressed what the
continuing
positions what the funding mechanism is
going to be in the future because I
certainly wouldn't want to hire someone
on something that isn't term limited and
not have the funding I think that sets
us up for a problem in the future
but
um
I agree we should be spending down our
ending fund balance but I don't see how
this plan does this I think what
what you've shown here is 2.4 million on
unspecified infrastructure projects
is just earmarking dollars it's not
actually spending dollars and it's not
actually completing tasks and I think
what the
um Community task force
said was
you've got the money you should be
spending it and so toward what
councilmember Joe said
this is taxpayer dollars we have an
obligation to spend it out and I have a
really hard time looking at that
2.4 million dollars is actually being
spent
um
so I don't know how to address that
um but I'm open to ideas
I'm confused as to how if it is budgeted
to be spent within a fiscal year how
it's not being spent
from that perspective it seems
it seems like you're basically just
putting a budget proposal in front of us
which doesn't change the fact that
you're still coming into a budget season
with
more than 25 percent undesignated fund
balance
I guess I just don't see how this is any
different from coming into budget with
the
that amount unspent
well I think the difference is the again
this is for fiscal year 2023. so
um we would budget it in 2023 using
those fund balance dollars so I as of
December 31 2023 would be what the
estimated fund balance would be after
those expenditures and the
administration is looking at additional
expenditures above and beyond
infrastructure spending
so we would anticipate that this would
be an Essence an earmark for the 2023
budget that we would put toward Capital
spending there are other recommendations
and proposals that we'll make for other
portions of the fund balance I think
we're trying to get a sense from the
council
um it's 15 too far
15 is not too far
and I very much appreciate the focus on
infrastructure and you know capital
projects and spending
um so I'm generally in favor of that I
just I want to make sure we're actually
spending and not just earmarking
so and and just to finish the thought we
would propose it in the budget that it
would be spent
okay uh councilmember D Michelle follow
up
thank you
um I didn't comment on the additional
proposed positions and I really it's
more of a question than it is a comment
but
um
we there are a couple of positions that
I think it looks like these positions
that you are recommending are related
directly to the funds that are being
spent
um going forward there are a couple of
positions that I think would be really
important but I'm presuming that when we
have our Retreat we'll be able to
propose additional positions that could
be needed in other areas such as the
sustainability office and so so it looks
like these positions are you've selected
these positions based on their direct
relevance to the other expenditures is
that correct
that's correct this strategy is really
about infrastructure investment and how
the city can move the needle on
infrastructure investment it is not
meant to be an exhaustive proposal on
addressing all staffing needs there are
going to be more conversations about
that through the budget process and you
know we're we'd be eager to hear
council's feedback on that in terms of
other areas other positions Etc so that
would be the appropriate time would be a
retreat to talk about additional
positions that we're interested in in
considering
okay thanks
okay so I think we've heard everybody's
response on questions three and four so
moving on to the last question what is
city council feedback on the timing for
medium term actions including facilities
needs in 2023 and addressing new Revenue
sources for additional investments in
transportation and Parks infrastructure
council member marks
thank you
um I think that
um I I'm not a fan of looking at both
the transportation ballot measure and
exploring of Park District
simultaneously I think that the commit
the financial task force
considered the uh Transportation ballot
measure medium term item but it
considered the parks District a
long-term item and I think it was an
intentional separation of those two I
think talking about and considering
putting both of those in front of the
voters simultaneously
um would be a challenge
so I personally would like to see the uh
Parks District item moved out until
after resolution of a transportation
ballot measure
correct me if I'm wrong but I believe
the transportation was proposed for 2024
and the parks was proposed for 2026.
that's correct
yeah
so just
so um I can walk I can walk us through
this uh so
um in 2024 it anticipates the beginning
of the conversations regarding any
transportation ballot measure also in
2024
um we would be completing the park
strategic plan and in the conversations
regarding the park strategic plan are
going to include you know how do we pay
for this and contemplate that Park
District that was recommended by the
task force so it's really the beginning
of those conversations and utilizing the
community engagement process for the
Strategic plan to begin some of those
conversations about a Park District but
but a ballot measure this is suggesting
would not be proposed until we've
figured out what we're doing for
transportation so we can kind of utilize
some of those processes that are
underway to start having conversations
about it but in terms of developing it
further getting it ready for a vote that
would occur after a transportation
ballot measure I think it's a huge stake
for us to even talk about a Parks
District while we're contemplating a
transportation ballot measure and you've
got complete Parks District proposal
ballot six years or four years from now
when the task force said six to nine so
I thank you for the explanation I feel
as strong I mean I feel really
personally very strong about this thank
you
Deputy council president Hull
uh thank you very much
um I guess respectfully I disagree I
think that this timeline meets the
Urgent needs of all three categories you
know we did vote as a task force to have
parks in the six to nine range this Park
District in the 69 range but there are
many task force members including myself
who advocated for you know ensuring that
we're doing the planning work very far
in advance so that way it doesn't sneak
up on us so I actually think that this
is in line with considering the urgency
of the needs and it makes a lot of sense
to me I hadn't really you know thought
deeply about what next steps for
facilities would be but
um you know starting next year on
engaging for that sounds right to me too
it actually seems pretty
um
what's the word I'm looking for
um it's a lot for next year so I wanted
to ask if the administration feels like
they can accomplish everything they need
to because 2023 is going to be a big
year with this plan so does the
administration have feel confident about
their ability to deliver you know good
progress next year
they're all big projects they're all
different people I mean so one of the
challenges as we look at next year's
budget is what else is there I mean this
this 2023 column is largely what we'll
be doing as a city in 2023
um with the possible additional
inclusion of next steps after Title 18
these are the big issues we have not
even talked about office facilities for
the city you know we're vacating a large
building what do we do with it
that's a big question and so there's a
lot of a lot of work to be done here I
think we feel there's a sense of urgency
to keep all of this moving we're coming
off of two years of not getting a lot
done because of the pandemic uh but
they're different people but this will
be the a real primary focus of the city
government
next year
well then yes supportive of the timeline
as presented thank you
anyone else
council member Joe
thank you
um I
I think the the feedback that I'd be
giving for the medium-term action the
facility's needs
are certainly important we want to take
care of our people
we want to make sure that they have a
safe working environment a working
environment that allows them to be
productive and conveys to them that the
leaders on the city council or just
speaking for myself as a leader on the
city council appreciate the hard work
they do
the long hours that they put in and we
want to have a nice facility for them to
work and we want our firefighters to
also have a great facility
now with respect to the court I'm a
little bit biased because I'm sat there
as the municipal court judge myself and
the the
improvements that they're talking about
here are the the improvements that'll
streamline things and allow
a smoother operation for the court it's
not they're going to have plus seats for
all the jurors or anything like that
along the way so I'm anxious or excited
to look at what that might involve just
to make sure we're moderate modernizing
our court making sure that we're able to
cut down on Transportation costs because
we have good video facilities and allow
for smooth operations
the the last thing that I had comment on
just I think that uh
the timing of the
um transportation and the parks
infrastructure
um you know votes I I would like to see
them a little bit farther apart I think
the transportation one does need to go
first but
um we want to just be very clear that we
want to get the transportation one done
first before we start having a
conversation that's too in-depth about
the parks one now that doesn't mean
we're not doing work as a council and
the staff is not doing work to figure
out how we're going to put that together
but the conversation that we're having
externally with the community I I just
don't want us to confuse the community
and get them to think about two projects
at once we really need to focus on the
transportation project first get it done
we can do all our internal stuff but
then roll it out after the their vote is
taken on on the transportation one would
be my preference
councilmember hunt
one thing I I think this is makes sense
as a strategy timeline but I know that
in the past we've had a start and then a
stop of a conversation around
Transportation ballot measure and
um I those things can happen there can
be you know things can be overtaken by
events or the needs could change and it
might this timing might not work out and
um it seems to me that as a strategy it
makes sense just recognizing that
it may not be possible on this timeline
it seems optimistic to me there are a
lot of a lot of things going on and a
lot of things could I think
change
um one other thought I had is I think
the the parks issue
matters uh the
mayor Polly talked about this being a
puzzle I think the parks District
proposal ballot measure that
um is related to what we decide to do as
far as the the investment right now in
Parks or not
um because we do have a number of parks
that I think ultimately the vision that
the community has is to
um to make
transformational improvements so I think
if we start that now then I think that
sets us up for a Parks measure that
could be further out and could take into
into account those changes that were
made using arpa funds but I think in the
in the puzzle of things that's how I'm
thinking about it so I'm not opposed to
um and I think it's it's actually
probably likely any way that the parks
District ballot measure would get pushed
further and there would be more
separation from the Transportation
ballot measure but I I also think
there's a relationship here with the
investment we make right now with parks
and again if we make that investment in
Parks maybe that sets us up for that
later decision but also gives the
community
a transformational change now
council member D Michelle
I don't have much in addition to ad
except that perhaps it would be easier
to look at this by what we're doing
externally and what we're doing
internally and the external
Communications does need to be really
clear and focused
but at the same time we're working
internally to prepare for the parks
um yeah sure and I I think we can do do
both of those but I do agree that uh the
conversation out to the community really
needs to be focused and clear
uh and other than that I think the
timeline looks really good and
um great job on the on the materials
that were presented tonight thank you
council member Ray no uh you've already
have you made your comments okay and
step back to me
um
I am very eager to explore facilities
and get a sense of what our facility
needs are as council member Joe said you
know Municipal Court fire station city
hall or workspace facilities those are
all very important I appreciate
exploring a funding plan
because those are big big dollars and I
think that's definitely an area where we
could look at some debt as an option
um
I still remain unsold that any of the
transportation needs that we have right
now would make a successful ballot
measure
um but I'm happy to explore it and I
think if we can come up with a good set
of items then I would put it ahead of a
Park District
but again I just I remain unsold that we
have
moved in a New Direction significantly
from the last time we did a
transportation ballot measure um that I
just
yeah I don't want to go down that road
again
um
and I do think that exploring whatever
we would for a Park District
um
requires internal and external
conversations and so we just need to be
aware of how that falls in between
things but generally and I guess the
other comment I have is all of this
seems fairly ambitious considering we're
we have the title 18 whiteboard list
considering we have our comprehensive
Plan update that has to come through
I mean more power to us if we can
accomplish it but I'll be looking for
what we're addressing in the budget as
ways to handle those things uh council
member marks
thank you
um so I have run successful Bond and
Levy campaigns as part of the volunteers
for Sequoia schools and I think we would
be in a very different position in a
couple of years to run a transportation
potential Transportation ballot than we
were last time I think we learned a lot
from the last time we tried to run a
bond and uh which again would have
passed had it been a levy
uh I think that we have a strategic plan
in place and we have now years of
community engagement on what our
priorities are that we didn't have the
last time we tried to run one so I think
it would be a very very different and
much more educated conversation with our
community than it was the last time and
so I'm eager to see where that
conversation goes as a as a city thank
you
okay as we near 9 30 I guess I would say
we have gone through all of the five
questions
um
can you talk through what the next steps
are what you've heard what do you plan
to bring back to us for the July 5th
meeting
sure thank you very much I am very
impressed because that was a lot to get
through so I really appreciate all of
that feedback so we are going to follow
up on July 5th at that meeting I think
that there's additional conversations
that we need to have regarding the parks
proposal for the anchor Park so we'll
put together some materials based off of
the questions we heard tonight
and also I think we'll be hearing a
little bit more from our Chief Financial
Officer Robert hamoud on debt and arpa
funds as well and so we'll prepare some
of that information take the feedback
that we heard from you this evening
regarding some of your concerns and
return for more discussion on July 5th
okay Deputy council president Hull uh
just really quick and generally
um but I just wanted to make sure
um Deputy City administrator Snyder
Andrea knows how much this Council
appreciates all the work that you've put
into this effort it's been a long time
now shepherding it from the beginning of
the task force all the way to coming up
with a proposal and now dealing with all
of our questions and comments up here so
really greatly appreciate all the work
that you've done to to bring this
Mammoth of infrastructure investment
strategy and vision from birth to here
and just thank you
councilmember hunt
thank you one suggestion for some other
information that I think would be
helpful so I I did have a conversation
with City administrator Bob quits before
the meeting about some of the
long-standing
infrastructure Transportation
infrastructure like sidewalks on squawk
and the
multimodal South Cove project and and
those and where they were and you know I
think that that information would also
be helpful because in reviewing this I
was looking at the CIP and the master
Mobility plan and then the community
survey and there's just a lot of
information that's in a lot of places
and so I think I think explaining the
timeline for those explaining the
funding strategy that is in place would
would be helpful and would also give us
a sense of the more holistic look at
what the administration is planning for
those long-standing projects so that
would be my information ask for you
thank you much appreciated summary
um I think at this point we can say we
are done and that is the only other item
on our agenda so at this point at 9 30
p.m we're adjourned thank you