Welcome everyone. I'm calling the
November 17th city council meeting to
order. As a reminder, we continue to
have a remote aspect to our meetings and
both staff and members of the public may
be participating in tonight's meeting
remotely via WebEx. Next item on the
agenda is the pledge of allegiance and I
invite you to join.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> I have a little agenda addition um last
minute addition. I'm going to turn this
over to city administrator Wally
Bobcowitz who would like to introduce
the executive director of the city of
Isiqua Fourth of July commission to the
council and to the public this evening.
Wally.
>> Great. Thank you, Madam Mayor, members
of the council. Good evening. Uh Janie,
could you come up?
As you all know, Mayor Paulie uh this
year appointed a uh a special uh
commission to uh coordinate the city's
celebration of America's 250th birthday
next 4th of July. Uh and we've been
fortunate uh to find an individual uh
that has volunteered to be the executive
director of the commission to lead the
city's efforts uh in our celebration.
And that's Janie Bube. Uh Janie uh has a
day job uh and her day job is as program
manager for the Pacific Bonsai Museum uh
in Seattle uh where she directs
community events uh with them, manage
manages their volunteer program um and
develops uh uh educational programs uh
at the museum. Prior to that, she worked
for uh center on contemporary art. And
then while she was a graduate student,
this shows the little bit of uh
connection she has to cities, she
started a company uh that designed uh in
pavement lighted crosswalks and came up
with uh some new technologies uh to put
toward that. So she has that that city
connection uh to her. Um she has a
bachelor's degree from Seattle
University um and two master's degrees
uh from the University of Washington,
one in communications and one in
landscape architecture. So Janie, we're
really pleased to have you join the team
and help us with our celebration of
America's 250th birthday next year. Do
you want to say a few words?
>> And I'm going to get you to press the
button on the microphone pad. When you
see the red light, you're good to go.
Unless it's a microphone, which we'll
find out in about 10 seconds.
>> Oh, I have to press it for the record.
[laughter] Got it. Welcome.
>> Thank you. I'm thrilled to be here and
very excited to make um the Fourth of
July a community-based um local focused
event and really make um the
commission's vision and the community's
vision come to life. So, thank you for
having me.
>> Very excited. Welcome and thanks for
coming tonight to be introduced to the
council. I really appreciate that.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, city administrator.
>> Do I turn?
>> The next item on our agenda this evening
is ID1867 and it's a small business
Saturday proclamation and I'd like to
invite Ellen Mole to come over to that
microphone with me. This one Ellen is
the Gilman Village Merchants Association
from the Gilman Village Merchants
Association and Ellen is also a member
of the planning policy commission.
>> Thank you.
>> I'm gonna read and then you can
Oh, goody. Goody. Oh,
>> so Ellen has just been um wonderfully
adept at making sure I understand the
history of this amazing treasure we have
in town called Gim Gilman Village. And
when we talk about small businesses, I
think I lived here 5 days before a
neighbor told me, "You have to go down
and check this area out." And that was
back in 1993. It has a storied history.
It's been an incubator for small
businesses for decades. And um we're
very proud to have them here and glad to
see them thriving. Last Christmas was
one of the most exciting things I've
seen. I' I had to park three blocks away
to get parking. That was shocking. So
it's really an honor to be able to talk
about Small Business Saturday with such
a storied history in our community, the
Gilman Village owners. So whereas the
Saturday after Thanksgiving every year
is recognized as Small Business
Saturday, and whereas the city of Isiqua
celebrates our local small businesses
and the contributions they make to our
local economy and our community. And
whereas according to the United States
Small Business Administration, small
businesses make up 99.9%
of all businesses in the United States.
And these small businesses are
responsible for 64% of new net jobs
created since 1995. And whereas most
consumers understand the importance of
supporting local small businesses,
especially on small business Saturday
and report this day encourages them to
shop small all year long. And whereas
the Isiqua Loyal campaign encourages the
Isiqua community to shop local and small
and community members can support local
merchants by using the Isiqua Loyal
holiday shopping guide. And whereas our
vision partners, the collaboration of
Isiqua's economic development
organizations supports the success of
small businesses throughout the year.
And so now, therefore, I, Mary Polly,
the mayor of the city of Isqua, do
recognize November 29th, 2025 to be
Small Business Saturday. And I'd like to
give Ellen a chance to address you all.
>> Well, I I wasn't sure I'd have a chance
to speak, so I haven't prepared notes.
We we really appreciate that Isaqua um
war uh hugs Gilman Village and cares
very much about seeing it succeed. A
number of you may know we have another
generation that's coming in. Our
daughter Lena, who is Ruth and Marvin's
granddaughter, has started taking the
helm. So, we hope that we will continue
to prosper in Isiqua. And thank you so
much for being supportive of small
businesses,
>> small businesses
>> and Isiqua businesses, homegrown Isiqua
businesses. So, the last order of
business is I'm going to get our city
administrator to take a picture so we
can tell this story.
[applause]
[applause]
Thank you so much, Ellen. Uh the next
item on our agenda this evening is
audience comments and members of the
public may address the council at this
time in person or virtually. Those who
signed up in advance to make comments
will be called on first. And if you're
joining us virtually and would like to
make comments, please raise your virtual
hand or send the host a chat message. If
you're on the phone, press star three.
If you've joined by computer or
smartphone, look for a hand icon. And if
you're in the room and did not sign up,
I will ask for other speakers before
closing this portion of the meeting. Uh
there's also a public hearing tonight.
AB9053 is the 2025 2026 midbenium budget
adjustment. Comments on this item should
be made during the public hearing that
occurs later in the meeting. Um city
clerk, has anyone signed up to speak for
general audience comments?
>> Yes.
>> Thanks. So just a few notes. If you're
making comments, you're invited to
address the council regarding matters
that are directly related to programs,
projects, services, or events. Um,
please direct comments to the whole
council and not individuals. And while
this is not a question and answer
session, we will contact you to follow
up if needed. When you are recognized,
if you're a virtual intend attendee,
please unmute mute your microphone. If
you're in the room with us, please step
up to the lectern in the center and
there is a button on the base of it that
you can turn the microphone on till you
see the red light. Please state your
name and address or relationship to the
city and speak clearly and pause
frequently. Please limit your comments
to 5 minutes. If you are attending
virtually and you do not respond after
your name or phone number is called or
if your connection is lost unexpectedly,
the meeting will need to proceed and you
are encouraged to rejoin the meeting if
able. Personal attacks, obscene
language, derogatory remarks, and
disruptive behavior will not be
permitted. Public comments, written and
verbal, are an important aspect of the
public process and the city takes
comments seriously. We thank you all for
taking time to address us this evening.
Uh, city clerk, can you please identify
the first person who signed up to speak?
Yes, Kevin Nichols.
>> Thank you. Uh, my name is Kevin Nichols
and I live at 352 Wilderness Peak Drive
Northwest in Isqua. Uh, I'm here tonight
to comment on agenda bill 9017.
This is the central Isiqua multimmoal
I90 crossing study update.
I want to express my concern about the
path that we're taking with this. Not
because I oppose connectivity across
I90, but because I'm worried we are on
track to miss a once in a generation
opportunity to get this right.
This study repeatedly references
integration with future light rail. It
is the very first goal stated in the
evaluation framework. It's cited
throughout the report as a core
justification for pursuing this
crossing. But when you look at the
designs, there is no meaningful analysis
of what integration with light rail
would look like in practice. Not a
single conceptual station layout, not
one shared circulation plan showing how
people would access light rail, and not
even a consideration of pedestrian first
connections into the station footprint.
There is nothing showing that this
bridge would truly improve transit
access rather than simply accommodate
the cars driving nearby.
If this project really exists to support
light rail, that relation relationship
should be visible and obvious. Right
now, it's not. And if anything,
approving a car bridge before Sound
Transit has even begun station design
risks making light rail integration
harder, not easier. Without intentional
coordination now, we could lock in a
design that constrains where that
station can go or guarantees costly
redesigns in the future.
My second concern is the lack of any
pedestrian and bike only options in the
study. The document mentions light rail
repeatedly as a reason to build this and
prior public comment from the community
mentions active mobility as a priority.
But every design presented is
fundamentally a car bridge with some
pedestrian and back bike access added
on. Further, given the significant
financial concerns that have been
brought up multiple times in the past
regarding this project, we should be at
least looking at the most cost-effective
options. And yet, the most
cost-effective, lowest carbon, highest
[snorts] impact way to support a future
rail station, prioritizing bike and
pedestrian access to transit appears not
to have been considered. A lighter, less
expensive bike and pedestrian bridge
would create the exact kind of walkable
transit oriented environment we say we
want. And it would have a much greater
probability of actually being able to
get funded and built. Right now, you're
being asked to accept a design that
looks backwards, not forwards. This is a
design that reflects the plan and
priorities of the 1970s.
A highway project, not the 21st century
transit oriented neighborhoods we want
to be planning for. We should be able to
look at something amazing and
imaginative and future oriented. And
instead, we're getting a bridge from the
past. I hope the council will pause and
ask for alternatives that truly support
transit that prioritize lowcost
pedestrian and bike access and that
align with the vision we keep saying we
have for central Isqua. Thank you.
>> Thank you. City clerk. Is there anyone
else who signed up?
>> No one else has signed up for general
comments. Um Tom, I believe you signed
up under the public hearing.
>> Okay. So, um no one else has signed up
for audience comments. Thank you. That
will come a little later. Um he's wasn't
going to speak on the budget. He has
another issue. So I think he actually is
for general comments.
>> The public hearing. He would like to
speak now.
>> Okay. Wonderful. Come on up.
>> You can come up now to the microphone.
>> Oh, not even general comments.
You found a friend in the audience.
Okay, [laughter]
thank you so much. Uh, is there anyone
else here to speak this evening?
>> City clerk, can you look online and
verify if we have speakers there?
>> Yeah, we have a few members of the
public with us virtually, but I'm not
seeing any of them indicate a desire to
speak. Just waiting a minute here.
Nothing. Thank you, city clerk. Um, so
thank you for the comments this evening.
We heard about AB9017
concerns over integration with the
overpass with the light rail station.
And as a reminder, written comments can
be submitted at any time to the C city
council at isiqua.gov.
So the next item of business we have on
the calendar is the consent calendar.
And I do not have any more remarks
tonight on the calendar, but I do know
at least one of our chairs does or one
of our council members. So, Council
Member Ray,
>> thanks. Um, I want to speak to agenda
bill 9064
today, which is amendments to the
financial policies, travel and
procurement card policies. And I
understand the desire to um modify these
uh our financial policies u quickly, but
I'm concerned that we are making these
changes with really minimal guidance
from the council. And historically,
changes to financial policies have been
made by the council with assistance from
the administration. And these updates
seem to be kind of uh upside down to me
with the administration making the
changes with um guidance from the the
council. So I urge the council going
forward to take ownership of the
financial policies. The primary focus of
the city council is to manage the city's
finances and to make policy for the
city. And um this is the intersection of
the financial policies. So, um I think I
am fine with what's in it, but but I am
uh I am sounding a tale of caution to
make sure that you do not give away this
very very important policy going
forward.
>> Thank you, Council Member Ray. Are there
any other chairs who would like to make
comments on any of the items on the
consent calendar? I am not seeing any
head nods. The consent calendar was
distributed to council in advance and if
authorized the items on the consent
calendar will be considered together and
approved by one motion. Have the
payables and payroll been reviewed?
>> They have.
>> They have.
>> Thank you. Um
does any council member desire to remove
any item from the consent calendar and
consider it under regular business? Not
seeing any head nods. Yes. Can we get a
motion?
I move we approve the consent calendar
as presented.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded to approve
the consent calendar as presented. All
those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed that carries seven and0
unanimously. We're going to move into
the public hearing which is AB9053 the
202526 midbayanium budget adjustment.
And the task this evening is to conduct
the public hearing. So, the public
hearing on the budget adjustment was
opened at the October 20th city council
meeting. The city council continued the
public hearing to allow for additional
input as they continue to deliberate on
October 27th. Tonight, finance director
Kristen Garcia will provide us an update
on changes to the budget adjustment
since the October 20th meeting. And
after the re uh presentation, I'll
reopen the public hearing. After the
hearing is closed, council can then ask
questions. Council's being asked to
adopt the budget adjustment tonight on
the agenda under regular business. So,
I'm going to turn it over to Finance
Director Kristen Garcia to present this
item. Welcome, Kristen.
Thank you so much, Mayor. Um, give me a
moment. See if I can share my screen.
I may need technical assistance.
[laughter]
Okay. All right. Thank you so much.
You'd think after being up here a couple
of times, I'd have this down by now. So,
appreciate your patience.
Okay. Well, thank you tonight. So, we
are continuing our public hearing. So,
we have a a couple purposes of tonight's
meeting. Um the first I wanted to make
sure and address any comments and
questions that came out of the last
conversation that we had on October
27th. Uh we're also conducting the
continuation of the public hearing on
the proposed 25 and 26 midbian
adjustments. And then after the public
hearing under the new business section
of the meeting, council will be asked to
um consider adoption of the midbian
budget adjustment ordinance.
So the next next slide is a
representation of all the things that I
gleaned from the last conversation that
we had on October 27th when I presented
the minimum adjust adjustments. Um I
have the the responses to all the
questions and comments kind of weaved
throughout the presentation. So, I
wasn't intending to go over each of
these items individually, but I wanted
to make sure and capture everything that
I heard and wanted to make sure that
council saw that I I was listening to
the questions and comments and wanted to
put it all in one place. Um, so you can
see um what I had gleaned from that
conversation and hopefully I didn't miss
anything. So the first item item that I
want to start with as tonight is the
continuation of the public hearing on
the midb budget adjustments is I wanted
to kind of take a step back and walk
through all the proposed amendments. Uh
walk through what's being proposed
tonight and then I'm going to point out
any changes that have occurred since the
last time that we had met on October
27th and any changes from the start of
the public hearing that we had on
October 20th. Um, so this is a recap of
our previously approved budget
adjustments. So what that means is these
are items that were brought forward
throughout the year to council on an
individual basis. Those have already
been approved. We have some general fund
adjustments. We have the budget uh
budget truck, the dispatcher position.
We had some money from the affordable
housing fund for the Isiqua Housing
Investment Plan. Uh we have some utility
fund adjustments for the Newport sewer
relocation program and Highwood
Reservoirs and retrofit project.
We also said had some grant-f funded
projects. So we need to authorize uh
budget authority for spending on those
grant dollars for the video analytics
project, the solar PV system and storage
to senior center and then some money for
Gilman. Well,
we also had some budget corrections. So
what that means is the majority of these
items we had originally budgeted for the
the expense to happen in one fund but
the expense is actually occurring in
another fund. So we just need to budget
the approved authority um and put that
in a different space. We also had some
grants that we re reauthorized during a
reauthorization process. Um some of
those were duplicated and some of those
weren't attached to the right grants
when they actually came in. So, we just
want to move that budget authority to
make sure it's aligned with the
appropriate funding.
We also um ha want to correct some
negative fund balances that were
budgeted in the original adopted budget.
Um revenues have come in higher than
what we anticipated. So, I just want to
make the correction so that the ending
fund balance is actually budgeted as
positive. And then we also had
overestimated expenditures in the
insurance fund for 2026. We know what
those costs are going to be now. So, we
just want to realign the budget with
what those actual expenses are
anticipated to be in 2026.
So, now on to the new items that are
being proposed that council has not yet
authorized and the general fund proposed
adjustments. We know that we're
anticipating some increased costs into
the public um defense contracts. Um, as
you may recall, council recently adopted
a public safety sales tax. that new
revenue source doesn't come online until
2026, but we are anticipating some cost
to the public defense contracts in 2025.
So, we want to do a budget amendment um
to authorize that additional spending if
necessary. Uh we also want to close out
our ARPA funds. These were monies that
were originally budgeted in the capital
project funds. Um that project came in a
little bit less than we are
anticipating. So, we had some ARPA
funding that now needs to be reallocated
to some other eligible expenses. So what
this is doing is just moving that
authorized budget from the capital
project funds into the general fund so
we can close out that spending. So
that's not new money. It's just
realigning again budget with expenses
for eligible categories for the ARPA
fund. Uh we're also planning some
funding for the electronic monitoring
devices. Now that will not be um
additional money from the general fund.
We're anticipating uh that to be funded
by the administrative office of the
court. So that will be uh grant funded
for 2025. A new item is the 50,000 for
human services funding that came out of
the discussion that we had from October
27th. Um administration was directed to
include that in the 2025 bud
adjustments. So it has been included.
And then the removal of the employee
leave payouts. This is a change from our
previous conversation. So, if you
recall, we have some known leave payouts
that have already been paid out from um
separation of employment for employees.
Um we had originally included that as a
budget adjustment to increase spending
for that. Um but as we're trying to
realign our targeted um ending fund
balance percentage, we're now suggesting
that um that would be removed as a
budget amendment. So we wouldn't be
adding to the existing budget and that
would just be absorbed by department's
existing budgets. So we don't want to
increase spending for that area. So
that's why it's shown as in parentheses
or in accounting world that's shown as a
a deduction. So we're re uh proposing to
remove that as a budget adjustment.
A streets fund adjustment. We had
originally proposed in the budget
adjustments that you saw earlier that
the general fund would transfer $130,000
to the streets fund to pay for some
operating needs above and beyond what
was originally budgeted. Um again, in
order to realign our targeted fund
balance and try to bring that back up to
the 15%, we're suggesting to remove that
from the general fund. So the general
fund would not transfer that money and
instead the streets fund ending fund
balance would absorb that. So that
wouldn't impact their current existing
operations. Um the streets fund has
adequate fund balance to absorb that
cost. And then the co capital project
fund adjustment that is for the east
lakes amish parkway pavement
preservation and there's funding in the
capital project fund for that.
So in 2026 we had proposed to add two
additional park positions. One of those
positions would be a mainten maintenance
position that would be funded by the
additional revenue that will be received
from the King County levy. The second
position is a parks rec recreation
coordinator which would be paid for
anticipated additional revenue from new
events that that um position would be
coordinating and also by an offset of a
reduction of a portion of the part-time.
um the 150,000 that was for the e eco
northwest report implementation was a
question or a comment that came out from
our last discussion. So I wanted to
clarify that here um that that is a
separate bulk of work from the housing
strategy. So the 150,000 will be or is
proposing to be used for um
implementation of the econ report. The
housing strategy wasn't planned for
2026. So the 150,000 wouldn't be used
for that. Um some additional items. The
remaining items are proposing uh
reductions from the original um list of
proposed amendments for 2026. Again,
removing the employee payouts. We um are
suggesting that departments would absorb
that within their existing adopted
budgets. Um remove or hopefully just
delay the Pickering Barn generator and
server relocation. That was originally
um included as an ask to increase the
budget, but we're suggesting again in
order to try to bring the targeted fund
balances close to that 15% uh removing
that from 2026 and delaying it um to a
future year. And then the three
additional items are new. Those are
items that we haven't discussed before.
Um a one-time reduction of a general
fund transfer to the IT cost allocation.
Um the IT fund does have adequate fund
balance um as a means again to get the
general fund any fund balance as close
to that 15% target as possible. That's
one of the um suggestions that um we're
proposing is to reduce that again one
time just for 2026. Um a one-time
reduction to the annual operating
transfer to the streets fund. Um, again,
that would just be a reduction of fund
balance that would not impact anything
that's budgeted for 2026 in terms of
ongoing operations. Um, that would just
be a reduction of fund balance and then
a one-time reduction to the annual
transfer for the turf replacement. Um,
there is nothing significant planned
within the next bianium. So again, um,
that shouldn't have any impact on uh,
future replacements that we have uh,
planned beyond 2026.
other 2026 proposed adjustments, the
public safety sales tax fund. So, that
is new. Council did authorize a new
revenue source, uh, the public safety
sales tax that will we will start
collecting revenue in 2026. And so, what
we're proposing is that we are going to
create a separate fund that the public
safety sales tax revenue will go into
um, in order to be transparent and
accountable for those funds. So, what
this proposed adjustment means is that
those are costs that we're proposing
that are currently within the general
fund. Um, the public defense, the
increase in public defense costs, um,
shifting some of the the police
department staffing cost and a portion
of the existing fleet cost allocation
currently funded by the general fund, we
would shift those costs into the new
public safety sales tax fund. And then
that revenue source would then pay for
that cost in 2026.
also looking at the transportation
benefit district to fund the portion of
the metroflex contract that would have
been funded by the general fund. So,
we're still intending to pay that. Um,
we're just changing the source of money
from the general fund to the TBD TBD
fund in 2026 to pay for that.
Other proposed adjustments, uh the sewer
fund, Highlands and Front Street lift
station improvements. Uh we want to
increase, we had an increased grant
award for the arts programming and the
municipal art fund. So we want to make
sure that we have budget authority um to
match the increase in the grant award.
And then we need to use some remaining
bond proceeds for the strategic small
capital project. So what that means is
we still have some bond proceeds that
are unallocated. um we need to find some
eligible expenses kind of similar to the
ARPA fund that we have the money we just
need to um allocate that to some
eligible expenses. So we have planned to
do that for 2026.
Okay. So what this is representing this
is a sidebyside comparison of the
preliminary forecast and the updated
forecast. So we had brought forward the
preliminary forecast for 25 and 26 which
showed that we were projecting an ending
fund balance in 2025 um at 8% of
expenditures and of 7% in um 2026. So
council had asked um administration to
come back with some proposed adjustments
to try to bring that fund balance target
um as close to the 15% as possible to
meet our policy requirements. And so if
we look at the 2025 updated forecast
column,
this is where I'm itemizing for you the
um changes from what we had talked about
originally and and how what we just
discussed for the proposed changes will
impact the target ending fund balance.
So I'll start in the 2025 updated
forecast column. Um if you go down mid
page to uh the unrestricted expenditures
of 67.6 6 million. You'll see that's the
same number that we had in our original
forecast. So that number assumed that we
would use about 100% of what we had
budgeted plus it included all of the
proposed amendments that we had talked
about before before we made any changes.
Um so then we're going to add the 50,000
for human resources and then we're
reducing the street operating um
overages of 130,000 because the streets
fund's going to absorb that. We're
removing the retirement cash outs
because the department budgets, the
existing budgets are going to pay for
that. And then if you go down um you'll
see the 500,000 estimated general fund
um under spend. So that's a new item.
What that means is I actually went
through line by line in the general fund
for each each line one by one um and did
kind [cough] of [clears throat] an
updated forecast from what we had origin
we had originally done the forecast
earlier in the year. Um, now we have u
more data because we have um the end of
October and so I wanted to go line by
line to see if we actually intended to
spend 100 100% of the budget. So there
were a couple places that I based on
where we are in the year that I don't
anticipate that we're going to fully
spend. So that's what that number is
representing. Historically we haven't
spent 100% of the budget. So that that
aligns with um what I'm seeing with the
updated forecast versus what we have
historically. So that's that's what that
500,000 is representing.
>> Jen, did you want to jump in with a
question?
>> Yeah, just quick question. Um do you
have any, you know, specific examples of
some of the things that are included in
that 500,000 that you'd be able to share
with us?
>> Yes, they're kind of all over the place
and not one specific department. And all
departments had some kind of
underspends, but some of those were in
salary and benefits, some of them were
in training, some of them were travel,
um legal services, professional
services,
um small tools and equipment, um repairs
and maintenance. So, a lot of different
categories kind of adding up to that
amount. Does that answer your question?
>> Yeah, thank you.
>> Okay. Um and so similar, if you go to
the far right column, the 2026 updated
forecast, um similar um reducing um the
retirement cash outs, the reduction of
the Pickering Barn generator, the
Metrlex, we're moving that from the
general fund to the TBD fund, shifting
the public safety sales tax or shifting
some of those police department expenses
to the public safety sales tax fund.
Again, assuming that we will likely have
some under spend in um our expenditures
for 2026. That was the 500,000 also
included in the 2026. And then you'll
see the one-time reductions in the IT
fund, streets fund, and the transfer the
turf fund. And then the final item, we
also know that the CPI came in lower
than what was anticipated for colas for
non-represented staff. That's what the
117,000 represents because that will be
a known reduction.
>> Kristen, Council President,
>> thank you. Kristen, can you talk about
um where we stand with the streets fund?
I see here there's they're being asked
to absorb $130,000 for street operations
overages in 25 and then an additional
$250,000
cut um in 2026.
>> Yes. So operationally it won't impact
what was budgeted for 2026. So these
would be a reduction of fund balance.
This wouldn't be something that we would
want to sustain over the long term. If
we continue to do one-time cuts to the
streets fund, then we would start
impacting operations. But again, we're
proposing one-time cuts. We've evaluated
the ending fund balance. It won't impact
what we've planned for operations in
2026. But kind of as a a preview to our
next bianial budget in 2728
um probably wouldn't want to continue
those reductions without having a
conversation on how that would impact
operations.
>> So I'm looking at our 2025 2026
adopted budget and before making these
changes it was listed at only a balance
of just over a million dollars. So, are
we saying we're comfortable with that
balance going down to
what 650 700,000?
>> That's the adopted budget fund balance.
The current budget or the current fund
balance is about 4 million right now.
So, we're we're high.
>> Oh, this is the ending fund balance for
2026.
So because what we have budgeted
to spend in 2026 was already going to
take down the fund balance. So
>> okay, I'm I'm really worried about
getting that fund down that low, but I
guess we can talk about that.
Keep going. Thanks. [clears throat]
Okay.
Okay. So, now I wanted to follow up on
all the additional items that came out
of our conversation that we had on
October 27th. Uh, one of the items was
establishing an audit committee. I think
I heard a general consensus from the
council that that was something that the
council wanted to do. So, that'll be
planned for 2026. So, there'll be more
information that'll be coming early next
year on that update on the general fund
reserve policy. that was included in um
agenda bill 90064 which was included in
the consent agenda. But just wanted to
um confirm with council that um we did
do clarification on how the general fund
ending fund um reserve is calculated and
we also determined a formal measurement
date uh within that policy. Those so
those changes were captured in what was
approved tonight in the consent agenda.
Also wanted to uh note that there was uh
a request for more information on the
public safety sales tax. So there is
exhibit B, I think it's about two pages
that summarize kind of our previous
conversations that we've had on the
previous um on the public safety sales
tax in terms of um how it was
authorized, what's the eligibility
criteria, what can it be used for, um
those kinds of things. So there is more
detail in the packet under exhibit F,
but I just wanted to reiterate here that
the the mid bienium adjustments do
include some planned uses of funding in
terms of public defense, um existing
officer salaries, and a portion of the
fleet contribution. We also have within
that document in the exhibit some
additional planned uses that haven't
been clearly identified yet, but like to
suggest some ideas for using it for
capital facilities and equipment.
Another
item that was requested for more
information and I do believe director
Monahan will be coming forward to
council early next year that will give
you a more comprehensive update, but I
just wanted to give you some um big
picture um items just to follow up um to
let you know that I I did hear the
request for more information. Um so back
in 2023 there was a fleet study that
compared the the fleet performance um to
a series of industry norms or best
practices. Um the study found that
almost 50% of the city's motorized
fleets were found to be older than the
recommended life cycle. So what we did
in the 2025 and 2026 budget is we did
make an investment to replace some of
those older vehicles. Um some of them
had aged even more since the 2023 study
was adopted. So, we did make some
investments in this bianial budget. Um,
other work that we've done so far other
than the capital purchasing, we made
some EV investments, customer service
improvements, upgrades to software, and
an an additional full-time mechanic
position. Um, we still have some work to
do to fully implement what we learned
from the study. Uh, we do need to f fill
the fleet manager position that was
recently vacated. Uh, we also want to
create a multi-year replacement plan.
Um, so what that means is we want to be
a little bit more strategic long-term
um, and try to level out the
replacements and the funding to make
cash flow um, a little bit easier on the
general fund instead instead of having
big spikes on the replacements. Uh, we
also want to have two separate fleet
funds. So we want to have a dedicated
fund um for the capital investment and
then we want to have a fund to make sure
that we're taking care of kind of the
ongoing maintenance and operations. So
again, this is kind of just a high level
um high level peak of the fleet fund,
kind of where we were, where we're at,
and director Monahan will be coming
forward early next year to give you more
information on that.
One of the other items that was
requested is some information on the
pavement preservation program. There is,
I believe, a two-page um summary in
exhibit E in the packet which goes over
um some more detailed information, but I
just kind of wanted to give you some
general highlights of what was in there.
And I do believe Director Moon is
planning again to come before council
early uh next year to give you a more
comprehensive update, but I wanted to
make sure and I followed up with you um
based on our conversation on October
27th. So, Oh, yes. Yeah, I just finished
the slide and then council president has
a question. Okay, perfect. Um, so the
pavement preservation program is prim
primarily funded by rate in the general
fund. We do have a goal of maintaining
about 8.1 lane miles per year. Um, our
approximate funding needs to do that
ranges from about 2 to 2.5 million per
year. Uh, we did meet that targeted
funding level in 2021 through 2024. Um
but to make sure that we could balance
our budget this bianium um those those
funding um that funding was reduced for
25 and 26.
>> Thank you council president.
>> Yeah. So trying to understand what you
had provided in our packet which showed
authorized budget of 1.4 million 1.47
and 1.4 million and 2526. But then we're
also proposing cuts to the street
operating fund. Is that just balance and
it won't affect the
>> correct
>> operations? Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Keep going.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Some more information on the
King County Parks levy. Um we are
expecting an increase to begin in 2026
of our King County levy of about 210,000
per year. So the levy must be used for
new expenses. So we can't supplant our
existing funds and we need to use it to
maintain, enhance or expand the park
system. So the in increase that we're
expecting in 2026, this is uh where
we're requesting the additional parks
maintenance position. We're anticipating
that to be about 150,000 of the 210,000
increase that we're expecting. And then
the remaining 60,000 uh will be used for
additional park maintenance expenses
related to recent capital improvements.
Uh there was also a question about how
much did we budget for our human
services strategic plan. Um the human
services strategic plan was performed
inhouse except for about 3,000 that was
used for outside consulting but there
wasn't any specific amounts actually um
included in the budget um because we
intended to do that work in house.
So that mayor um concludes my
presentation and so um administration
would be recommending that council adopt
an ordinance to amend the 25 and 26 u
bianial budget.
>> Thank you Kristen. I tell you frequently
that you bring us so much information
but in such an understandable narrative.
This is hard for us. So thank you.
>> Thank you so much. Excellent responses.
I'm going to reopen the public hearing
and there is a a point in time when we
have more council questions too at 7:42.
And so if you are joining us virtually
and would like to make comments, please
raise your virtual hand or send the host
a chat message. But if you're in the
room and did not sign up, I will ask for
other speakers before closing this
portion of the meeting. And city clerk,
have you had any interest in speaking
during this public hearing?
Mayor, no one has signed up to speak in
advance and I don't see anyone online
indicating a desire to speak.
>> Is there anyone in the room that would
like to speak to during the public
hearing?
I'm not seeing any indication.
Um, is there any objection to closing
the public hearing?
I am not seeing an objection. So,
hearing none, the public hearing is
closed and let's move to some council
questions. There was a lot of
information in there. If you have
additional questions, please feel free
to raise your mic. Council President,
>> thank you. So, I'm still trying to
understand the street fund and kind of
what that ending fund balance would be.
Um, and so trying looking through what
you have provided here. Um, it suggests,
let's see, it suggests adding $300,000
to the fleet fund from the public safety
sales tax,
but then making cuts to the street
operating. So, we're proposing in this
little bit of an increase to fleet fund
and two sets of decreases to street
operating. Is that correct?
So the fleet fund is separate than the
streets fund. So I'm not I know I'm just
they're about the same number and so I'm
looking at that and trying to um
understand if
what with this proposal with the public
safety sales tax we are proposing
300,000 to fleet fund. Correct?
>> No. What we're proposing is the general
fund um makes transfers into the fleet
fund for all the general fund vehicles.
>> A portion of that is for police
vehicles.
>> Mhm.
>> So what we're proposing is the portion
that the general fund sends for the
police vehicles and it's it's a lot more
than 300,000. Um, but what we're what
we're proposing here is that the public
safety sales tax will pay for the police
vehicles a portion of what's transferred
from the general fund.
>> Okay.
>> So, that doesn't have anything with the
streets fund. That's
>> No, I I understand. Um, so the general
fund is not sending 300,000 to the fleet
fund as a result of this. Correct.
>> Correct. It it is not an increase. It's
actually trying to free up some of the
general fund. So there's 300,000 in the
general fund that has been freed up and
[clears throat] we are still making the
recommendation to
>> reduce the street fund by 130,000 for
operating operations overages and
250,000
for a one-time cut. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. And the reason is
because um council had directed um
administration to try to bring the
general fund any fund balance back up to
as close to 15%. And so we were trying
to find ways without impacting one any
one department um so significantly that
it would impact operations. So we were
trying to find one-time places to get to
that 15%.
>> Yes. And I very much appreciate that. I
just have a different suggestion of how
to do that based on where I'm seeing the
numbers. But thank you.
>> Okay. Additional questions,
Council Ray.
>> Can I dig in a little bit into not so
much 2026, but 2027 and 2028
because I'm I'm seeing a bunch of
one-time um uh cost savings, and I'm
still seeing that we're not hitting the
15% number. And I'm I'm I'm worried
about the short term, but I'm really
worried about the long term. And how do
how do I not read um one-time reduction
transfer of IT funds, one-time reduction
transfer of street funds, one-time
reduction transfer of turf fund, not as
kicking the can down the road?
>> I think that's a a good question because
we have a newer council member. I think
too that this is an exercise in scraping
just to get you through the next year
and that we have fallen off the fiscal
cliff.
>> Yeah,
>> we don't have enough revenue for
expenditures. Well, yeah. And I know
this is question time, but I'm I'm I'm
>> I I I I fear that we are on a slippery
slope, and it's not going to get any
less slippery.
>> And and so when we get to to talking
about worse
>> where we're at and what we're going to
do, I I these numbers don't make me go,
I feel like we've got a plan. I feel
like we we've got a scrape.
>> So anyway, but that's a that's a
comment, not a question. I try to play
by the rules. Well, director, if you'd
like to add a little bit to uh an answer
into Council Member Ray's question and
his concern.
>> Um, I think one of the things that we
had talked about, I believe in our last
meeting, is doing an update to our
long-term financial plan. I think that's
going to be a key component to
understanding um you're correct, the the
one-time um reductions aren't
sustainable. Um, but I think we we've
kind of seen this pattern for the last
five years. So, I think that will be an
important exercise for us to go through
and during that long-term financial plan
to make sure that we can see how we're
going to be um if we're going to be
sustainable and what that's going to
look like in terms of what new revenue
that we're going to need or what we're
going to need to do in expenses.
So, that so that exercise will come
forward, I guess, is
>> you know, I think I think it's
absolutely essential.
>> Yeah. Um, I mean, I don't see how you
cannot, but it's still it's kind of hard
hard decision time is not is is a
reckoning. So, it's it's it's it's
getting to be that time where we've got
to step up and do something. We can plan
and plan and plan, but at some point you
got to do do.
>> Any other questions?
Cat Hall, Council Member Hall. Um, if I
had a question about the Eco Northwest
report, is Director Dollywall with us by
chance? No,
>> she is. I believe
>> No, director Dollywall.
>> Okay. Well, um, maybe I'll just ask it
and if not, my my vote doesn't hinge on
this anyways. Um, so, okay. So, we have
clarity that the housing strategy work
plan's not an element of that 150k.
>> Yes. Um, just looking back at the Eco
Northwest report, it looks like I mean,
we did the cottage and courtyard housing
element of it, we kind of decided the
condominium stuff was a little out of
our lane and and continued to advocate
at the state level around that. The
other part was uh inclusionary zoning.
And so I just kind of wanted to get a
better sense of like if we had a sense
of what the scope of work for that 150k
would be, would it be
maybe maybe we'll just um try and get a
response over over email or something.
I'm just curious because there's there's
quite a bit in the inclusionary zoning
and then the other items to consider
like the structured parking although I
think the state might have just taken
care of that for us and then the um
development bonus program and things
like that. So, how broad is the 150k
implementation?
>> Uh, council member Hall, members of the
council, it's not very broad. Uh, what
I'd like to try to do is phone a friend
um and see if I can get more specific
information to that for you in the
course of your discussion. Director
Dolly Walls out of the country, but I'll
see if I can't get our planning manager
Kristen Leon on the line.
>> Okay. Thanks.
Additional questions?
I'm not seeing any. So, um, we will
return to this item for discussion and
action under regular business. The next
item, uh, the next category is regular
business, and we're going to start with
the ID 1938 Metroflex contract
extension. The ask before council
tonight is to direct the administration,
and I'd like to invite Deputy City
Administrator Andrea Snder to present
this item. Welcome, Andrea.
that.
All right.
Good evening, Mayor Paulie, members of
city council, and um the rest who may be
watching. I'm Andrea Leonard, deputy
city administrator, and we're here to
talk about the
>> Apologies.
>> We'll work on the script. Sorry about
that, Andrea. I didn't I didn't say your
name properly.
>> I apologize. [laughter]
>> That's fine. I I didn't even notice, but
thank you.
>> Uh so, we are here to talk about the
Metrlex contract. Just as a reminder,
Metrolex is the ondemand transit service
uh that works uh similar to car pooling.
And there we go. The purpose of tonight
is to discuss Metroflex contract options
and terms. This is in direct response to
the uh direction we received from
council at last week's meeting uh to
come back and discuss the contract. Um
our discussion of the contract is
assuming that council provides funding
for this contract as uh director Garcia
just discussed with the mid bianium
update which is the vote is to occur
after this item. So just noting that um
this presentation pretty much just
assumes uh funding for the contract next
year and that's why we're talking about
options contracting terms and options.
Uh so direction needed is to provide any
and all feedback that council may have
on those contract terms.
And just again as a little bit of
reminder for background
uh 20 2024 2025 was the pilot contract
for the metrlex services con um in
Isiqua. Those services were originally
designed to help connect Talis and
Squawk neighborhoods better to the rest
of the valley floor and cover um a large
part of the city though not all of the
city.
Uh, as you recall, the administration
has been uh discussing our concerns for
a few years over the ongoing funding of
that contract and how we are going to
fund that in a sustainable way. It's
about $260,000 annually and it has been
coming out of the general general fund,
but as you just heard finance director
Garcia suggest it to come out of the
transportation benefit district funds.
On October 27th, we heard feedback from
council to use those TBD funds to fund
uh the Metroflex services. And then as I
said last week, we heard from you that
you wanted us to bring the contract
terms for your discussion here today.
Current contract terms are uh that are
being proposed for 26 and 27 are the
same as what uh they were for the pilot
years. So, 3,700 vehicle operation
hours, Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.
to 6 p.m. and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. Um, and again, it's about uh
$260,000
annually.
Some information for you that was
emailed to you last week in response to
previous council questions on this topic
include top pickup and drop off
locations on these maps that you see
here. This is data that we've collected
from the last quarter of services. So
you can see from these maps that first
one on the left is pickup and the one on
the right is drop off locations. They
are similar but not identical. And you
can see the bigger the dot, the more
purple uh the dot or the darker the dot,
the more popular the locations are.
and uh you can see where those pickup
and drop off locations are not places
that do not have dots. So I wanted to
provide this information for you for
your discussion this evening uh because
we heard in previous council
conversations a desire to perhaps
explore changing the service coverage
area. So, as I said, originally we had
direction from council to make sure that
we were providing a service to better
connect the Talis and Squawk
neighborhoods, and we've had we've heard
some council feedback suggest, well,
what would it take to add the Isiqua
Highlands? And so, we asked uh our
partners at Metro Transit, what would
that take to cover more of the Isiqua
Highlands than what the service covers
today? and they said in order to keep
costs the same at that $260,000
annually, we would need to uh remove
part of the service area. And this is
because uh the vans cover so much area
and they want to be sure that the vans
arrive within an acceptable time for a
rider. If a rider hails a ride and it
takes 45 minutes for that van to come
pick them up, they're that's going to
affect ridership. They're probably going
to opt for their car or some other way
of getting around. And so um so Metro
modeled out using their software what
would it take to cover the Isiqua
Highlands and they suggested uh removing
the Squawk I'm yes the Squawk
neighborhood from service due to low
utilization historically in that
neighborhood. So this map on this slide
here depicts in outlined in purple would
be a new proposed service area that
includes most of Isiqua including a new
portion of the Isiqua Highlands. And the
orange service area is uh the current
service area which shows Squawk as being
covered but not Isiqua Highlands. So, I
wanted to be able to uh show what that
service area would look like if we were
to add the Isiqua Highlands without a
cost increase to that service.
Next steps pending funding uh and
direction we receive from you today
would be that the administration
negotiates contract terms with Metro
Transit. The mayor would then sign the
contract. um it's within spending
authority. If council provides the
budget for the mayor, then she would
sign that contract, not needing to
return back to council for approval of
the contract. And then that new contract
would be in effect by January 1st. In
order for that those new services to
start January 1st, we really need the
contract signed by December 31st this
year.
So again, we seek any and all direction
that council may have tonight on those
contract terms. The administration has
no recommendation for changes at this
time.
>> So I'm thinking for this process that
maybe we start with questions and give
everybody an opportunity to ask uh
questions and then we can do a round
table and do all the comments and sum it
up at the end. So questions
council president.
>> Thank you. Um with the maps do we know
if um people can get access to Lake
Seamish State Park? It looks like the
very edge of that is right maybe at the
entrance point.
Uh yes. So um they would have access via
the boat launch area. So they could be
dropped off in that area. As you can see
from this map, it is it is at the very
edge. They can be dropped off, I
believe, or picked up at uh at the
entrance points and then they would have
to make their way into the park.
And that's part of the current service
area as well.
>> Yeah. Um and council member Hall just
mentioned the soccer fields. Um they
they would be able to be dropped off
kind of right there by the soccer
fields, right?
>> Yep. And I'm pulling up uh the
utilization map so we can see what those
rides have looked like over the past
quarter.
>> And you see there are some dots in that
area of the folks who've been picked up.
It looks like they've been picked up in
in the park or have hailed it from the
park.
>> Yeah. Okay, thank you. Additional
questions. Council member Martz,
>> thank you. Um, the nerd in me just has
to ask, um, on the drop off, um,
obviously the transit center, uh, is a
popular location. There's a location way
up in Talis. Do we understand why that's
so popular?
>> I believe that's Rose.
>> Uh, oh, Talis. Yes.
>> Ah,
>> yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. An affordable
housing project. We know that they have
really high utilization in a
>> I apologize council Marts. In a previous
uh presentation that unfortunately you
were not here for that was one of the
top five locations.
>> Gotcha. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
>> Additional questions? Uh council member
Hall.
>> Uh yeah, just to check we didn't ask
about um service time or anything like
that, right? It was it was all
completely focused on service area. Is
that right?
>> Service time. Are you
>> like hours of operation?
>> Hours of operation. So, uh I don't
recall council providing previous
feedback on that. Um if you wanted to
discuss different hours of operation,
then um we'd um like any feedback that
you have.
>> And I'll just pull this up again. the
hours of operation Monday through Friday
7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
>> Does um does administration remember any
like feedback we've ever received from
Metro even here at council when we've
discussed this with them here whether
they would ever be willing to consider
changes to ours or was that kind of like
a set thing? Yeah, I mean
>> within existing cost.
>> Yeah. So I believe that just like the
service area if we want to add uh
something then we have to take away from
some other side. So it's really looking
at the shifts of drivers how long the
drivers have a shift and you know we
don't pay overtime for this kind of
regular type of service that would be
expensive. So really trying to um the
units are like driver shift and vans
number of vans. Those are the units
we're playing around with. So, um, so we
would have to if we want to extend
later, um, we would either need to pay
more or we would need to start later as
well.
>> All right. Thank you,
>> Council Member Joe, followed by Council
Member Jiang.
>> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um, could you
refresh my memory in terms of uh the
recommendation from TAB if they took a
look at this transation um committee?
>> Uh, Commission. Thank you, Council
Member Joe. When we first designed the
pilot program and conceived of this
program, we looked at all kinds of
options and TAB recommended metrlex
services for us to pursue. There were
other options that we considered a
cityrun circulator or shuttle um and
other uh a private option as well. This
metrlex services was by far their
favorite of the options that we
presented and um we have not taken this
back to tab. um for this particular
conversation of whether or not we should
revise the contract.
>> Thank you. And if council were to to
decide to pull the plug on Metro, what
replaces it?
>> Um we have no service that would replace
it. So what would replace it is folks
would uh be on their own to figure out
um how they're connecting to different
places.
So that would be accessing other transit
services. Um certain parts of Isiqua are
not easily accessible to transit. Uh
they would need to drive their own
vehicle, walk, bike, carpool, and
arrange those things on their own.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And council member Joe, you bring up a
good point. Sending it to Tab is also an
option. Uh, council member Jiang.
>> Um, I'm just curious about, you know, if
we adopt this new service area, do you
have a plan for when we would evaluate
this new coverage area for performance,
especially relative to the criteria that
King County Metro uses to determine if
they're going to fund Metrolex, you
know, different areas. They have
criteria for that.
Uh so your question, Council Member Jen,
is how often when would we evaluate this
again to see if the service area change
was um being productive?
Yeah, I mean I think you know I think
part of the rationale for this change is
that you know potentially could increase
writership you know etc etc. And so I'm
curious if we have a plan of when we
would look at that.
We get quarterly performance metrics
from Metro Transit and so we could
assess that performance um on a
quarterly basis and um I would invite
feedback from council as to when you
would like us to evaluate that.
>> Yeah, I think um I would love to see the
data in the first quarter because I
think one of the things that we
discussed was potentially you know
changing this to something else um and
so you know we'd want to review the data
as soon as it's available. So, Council
Member Jen, keep that thought because
after we're done with questions, you can
add that to your list of things that you
would like to see the staff come back
with. Sounds good. Thanks. Questions for
Andrea?
Okay. I am not seeing a lot of
additional questions. So, if we want to
work our way around the room, we can
start with Council Member Jiang who's
already put one request out on the table
for consideration, which is quarterly
review of data. But you did you have
other things on your list? Yeah, I think
um you know going back to what we talked
about previously, I'm still concerned
about the cost of the service. I mean
$40 per ride is very high. I'm also
concerned that you know the more just
the whole concept of microransit is it's
essentially an ondemand you know
concierge service and so the more you
add service area the more you add rides
the longer the wait time is I mean you
know likely the longer the wait time is
going to get for the user. So, I'd be
very curious to see if that, you know,
my preconceptions are accurate um given,
uh, you know, the actual data. Um,
personally, I would love to see us
revisit this idea of a local circulator
shuttle. Um, and I know that requires
staff time, which, you know, given the
budget conversation we just had, we may
not have, but that's something that I
would definitely love to see us, you
know, potentially explore as a future
pilot or something like that, given that
now we have a good sense of where people
are when they're using the service. Um,
you know, designing a some kind of local
shuttle that actually, you know,
addresses those needs could be something
to explore. And since we're not um
responding tonight, you don't have an
action, I think, um deputy city
administrator is going to capture
everybody's comments so that she has it
all together. So, thank you for those.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh council member Joe,
>> thank you for putting this together. I
appreciate it. Um
in general, uh I'll just talk about the
the coverage area and the proposal. Um I
think it is a good idea to consider
expanding to the Isqua Highlands. uh
eliminating squawk. Um now keep in mind
I'm I'm supporting this. It eliminates
my kids house. Um but I think that if I
look at the demand dots, the pickups and
the drop offs, uh my kids can walk and
they can go to the bottom of the hill
and they can pick up the uh shuttle
right there at the bottom. Um I think
the highlands however uh because of the
densities that are there the number of
people and the demographics in terms of
number of young people in there and um
people that have shown propensity to use
transit I think expanded in the
highlands does make sense within the
contract parameters and the costs that
are involved. Um I would like uh to hear
further discussion from my colleagues
though. Thank you.
>> Thank you council member Hall.
Yeah, it's tough. I I you know, it's
unfortunate too because Squawk and Talis
were the original two neighborhoods
where we said there's a last mile
problem that exists here and we want to
serve this neighborhood. What we're
seeing in the data is that the Squawk
neighborhood is not using this service
as much. Um, so I see this as an
opportunity to um um experiment with the
rest of the Highlands and um see if this
is a service that um um is captured even
broader across the community to access
the points that they need, especially
from up in the Highlands, potentially
being able to access the transit center
more easily and that kind of thing. So,
um I say let's move forward with the new
service area and um negotiate those
terms. Um I still agree um like a few
meetings back um council hopefully in
the new year with the Q4 data when that
comes out can have a council only
discussion about specifically what
problems are we trying to solve? What do
the desired outcomes uh and goals look
like? So we know what success looks like
at the end of the the next contract and
we can have a broader discussion to then
about or at least we have something to
point to when we want to have a broader
discussion about what is the full range
of options that we should consider to to
solve the problem especially when it
comes to um Squawk in the future. So
those are my thoughts at the moment.
Thanks.
>> Thank you council member Ray.
>> Um thanks. I don't know that I have a
whole lot to add. It's pretty clear that
Squawk Mountain um the service didn't
meet its objectives there. So, no point
in um you know not looking at other
options. So, I'm not opposed to
expanding the the service area. Um, I I
think we should also, um, if possible,
look at alternatives to Metrflex and see
if there's a way to meet the objectives
that we have outlined and that we will,
as uh, Council Member Hall pointed out,
be very clear on what our objectives
are. Um, another way to meet those
objectives that might be more effective
and more costefficient.
>> Thank you, Council Member Mertz.
>> Thank you. Uh I'm opposed to uh
eliminating Squawk Mountain from uh the
service area. Uh the vast majority of
folks who live in the highlands are
walking distance from basically the best
uh transit that we have in the entire
city and everyone on Squawk Mountain is
every anywhere from 500 to,300 ft
vertically uh from transit. Um it it
we're not going to ask our residents to
climb a,000 feet um for uh transit. I I
will agree that Squawk Mountain has not
used this service as much thus far as uh
I would have expected, but the
fundamental nature of transit options on
Squawk makes it the only option for us.
So, I would I would I would oppose
getting rid of the only transit option
available to Squawk Mountain residents.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Deputy Council President D.
Michelle.
>> Thank you. Um I uh support support um
changing the uh service area to include
the highlands. Um I took a look at the
metro uh equity
priorities areas uh and we have three of
them in Esqua which is kind of
interesting. Um two of them are in the
highlands and one of them is Squawk
Mountain. And uh we know from the uh the
real effort in the Highlands to
distribute affordable housing units that
um they are dispersed throughout the
Highlands. Um the map that we've been
shown would cover a good percentage of
those. And I I'm going to speculate and
hopefully I'm not stereotyping too much,
but I think that our high equity
priority areas in the Squawk Mountain
area are really gathered very close to
the Newport Way uh Sunset um exchange to
there, the Hutcherson House and and um
the uh apartment buildings. They're up
and down Newport Way. all of which would
have access to Metroflex by simply
walking a couple of blocks down to the
down to uh the Sunset U Newport Way
area. So, I I feel like we're not taking
away from our high priority areas if we
expand that service up into the
Highlands. Um, and I'd be glad to share
this map with anybody that wants to take
a look at it, but um,
we really need to think about uh,
getting the writership in on Metrolex
up. Um, it's going to benefit us. It'll
benefit our community and hopefully will
make it a much more sustainable service
if we can get that up. We have a prime
market of people that have already been
identified as being high uh transit use
people and those are uh lowincome uh
people with disabilities, seniors and
immigrants and that is a good chunk of
the population that are in the
highlands. So, I think this will be a
highly used addition to uh the folks in
the Highlands and I think that there
will be uh options to use Metroflex for
the people that really need it who live
in Squawk Squawk Mountain. Um I also
wanted to add uh not particularly on the
topic, but I'll just add it. Um we are
continuing to have Metrolex discussions
at the regional transit committee and
there'll be another one uh this
Wednesday. Um and our uh staff person at
Sound Cities Association did a review of
how much it's costing per passenger ride
in other um areas where Metroflex is
running. We're really kind of in the
middle with that $40. There is one area
where it's $140 per ride.
Yes. And I I said to him, "That's a
typo, right?" and he said, "No, there is
an area, I won't identify it here, but
so, uh, there are other communities that
are spending $55 per ride and, uh, $45
per ride. So, we are not the most
expensive place for Metro."
>> Council President, did they talk about
subsidy by Metro or not? Like, Smamish
pays zero.
>> Yes.
>> King County pays for it, but here we
pay. Did they also talk about how much
is a King County dollar versus an Isiqua
dollar?
>> Yes. And I don't know exactly what the
That would be super interesting.
>> Yeah, it would be. So anyway, I thought
it was very interesting research that uh
as much as that $40 is sounds
impossible, it really is not the highest
in uh in King County. So at any rate, um
looking at the map where we're looking
at equity priorities, I sus I would
support um changing the uh service
boundary and opening up that new market
in the Highlands. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council President.
I don't know if I have all that much to
add other than I think the areas up in
the highlands that are um especially
affordable housing um and things like
that are
very useful. Um I appreciate that we
didn't attempt to add all of the
highlands. I think it's perfectly
reasonable for people to walk in certain
areas, but um to be able to add access
to Central Park and um the elementary
school and um others like that. I think
it's really a good addition for this.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Andrea, do you have
everything you need?
>> I do. Thank you very much.
>> Awesome. Thank you.
>> Mayor Paulie, I'm sorry. Can I just ask?
>> Sure. Go ahead. So, just so I I'm
pulling a Zach only a few more times
[laughter] left in my career. So, um
just so I understand since several of us
mentioned wanting to go kind of back to
problem statement, definition, goals,
outcomes,
what I thought we had agreed to earlier
was there is no budget for
[clears throat] in this P benium to do
any of kind of the actual evaluative
work of different options or anything,
right? What what what
the next step here is that council only
council themselves would have a
discussion about okay using the
information and the data that we already
have
>> y
>> at our fingertips to have a discussion
about goals and outcomes problem
statement and then have that be a body
of work that we can reference in the
future when we want to allocate money to
re-evaluate what our options are. Is
that correct?
>> Thank you. Yes. Let me let me reiterate
next steps. So for the purposes of the
contract, what I heard from council
feedback today was large majority
support to revise the service areas as
we have mapped out for this evening. So
it would be to add that portion of the
Isiqua Highlands and then subtract uh
coverage from the majority of Squawk. So
that's the that's the direction that we
heard from council today. Um, so I will
go back to our partners at Metro and
we'll revise that contract. Um, should
then uh council approve funding tonight
with the midband adjustment, then the
mayor would sign that contract and the
contract would go into effect on January
1st. What we've also heard from council
from the last meeting where we discussed
metrlex and a little bit from tonight is
the desire to evaluate these services
more um earlier on uh than what we've
done this with this pilot project and
more continuously. And so we've also
talked about the desire to do a um more
in-depth discussion on what are the
goals for this service, maybe some
targets for the service, and then we can
use those to evaluate the metroflex
services or evaluate other options if
there are other options that meet those
goals better. And what we had talked
about um in the October discussion with
council was the ability to have that
conversation early on uh next year in
2026. Uh the the issue that we have
tonight is that this contract expires in
December 31st of this year. So um those
would be the next steps. again, um,
revising the contract with a new service
area, adding on the Isiqua Highlands,
uh, subtracting Squawk, and then, uh,
coming back to council early on in 2026
once we have, uh, data from Q1 as to how
this new service area is operating and
also be able to have a conversation on
what those goals are for this service
that that council has.
>> Andrea, one thing to clarify, I think
council member Hall was getting at the
2026 budget. Does it have a allocation
for studying other alternatives? Is
there staff resources coming in to do
that study as well or is it just goals
and outcomes for this extension of the
pilot? Is that all that we're committing
to in 2026?
>> Um I think what we had in so there is no
additional funding for study of transit
services or additional transit services
>> in this budget
>> in this budget. There's no additional
funding. I think what we had talked
about last time was um that we could use
existing staff resources to have the
conversation with what are your goals
and objectives for additional transit
services. So um and then use that
discussion to figure out is Metroflex
services the correct one or do we want
to evaluate other options. At that point
we depending on the results of that
conversation we may need to come back
and seek additional staffing resources.
But I think for the first couple of
steps, I think we can handle that with
the resources we have on hand.
>> That's clear. Okay. Um, so any other
final clarifications? Otherwise, I'm
going to let Andrea
to leave the microphone.
So, thank you, Andrea. Uh, the next item
is the 2025 2026 midbian budget
adjustment. This is the second year of
our two-year budget and the request
before council this evening is to adopt
the ordinance
and uh it says is there anyone wanting
to make a motion?
>> Do you have it?
>> Yeah.
>> And is it both of the um motions also
for the property tax as well or
>> Yeah. I think we want to do discussion
after each motion. So one motion and
then discussion.
Okay. So, I move to adopt ordinance
number
>> 3125
amending the 202526 budget as set forth
in ordinance number one. Okay.
>> Continue. Yeah. Ordinance number 3083
and amended an ordinance number 3090
concerning revenues, expenditures, and
fund balance for various funds.
>> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded. Uh, is
there any council discussion?
>> Madam Mayor,
>> um, uh, city administer.
>> Um, as we ended the last portion of this
discussion, there was some questions
from council member Hall uh, regarding
uh, the the planning contracts.
>> I have Kristen Le on the the line now.
>> Oh, fantastic. Okay, that's great. You
called a friend.
>> Is it [clears throat] appropriate at
this point or
>> Yeah, I think let's get that information
out on the table and then we'll move
into council discussion.
>> Very good. Thank you. U, Kristen, you're
there. Also,
that is staff dedication right there to
jump on the council meeting. So, thank
you for being with us.
>> She was there. There she
>> There we go. Good.
>> There we go. Thanks, Kristen.
>> You're welcome.
>> Perhaps could you repeat the question,
Council Member Hall?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
>> Oh, sure. Yeah. Thank you. So, I was
hoping to get a better sense of scope of
work for um we've allocated $150,000
for the Eco Eco Northwest report
implementation. And so, I was asking um
I know we've done the courtyard and
cottage housing kind of element of the
recommendations. There was another
strategy around condominiums that we
couldn't it's a little outside our lane
as in the here at the municipal level.
And then the other part was like
inclusionary zoning and there were a
couple elements of that and then there
was like a list of like other things to
consider like the development bonus
program and structured parking. So I was
just curious if we had kind of thought
through how much could we accomplish
with that 150,000.
>> Of course. So Kristen Leon, planning
manager and we
have talked about it and other things
that were included in the Eco Northwest
report. There was inclusionary zoning.
Our original request from Eco Northwest
was to help us expand the program and
they said you can't expand a program
that isn't working. So we needed to
re-evaluate that.
We also as a part of that study started
looking at multif family tax exemptions
to see if that would help. That was a
part of it as well. The density bonus
program, development bonus program. Now
we also wanted to expand that and so we
need to look at that. That was another
situation said where they said it's not
really that successful now. Let's see if
we can fix it first. densities allowing
for different densities partic um more
likely more density in our multif family
zones where we have actual density
numbers. So multif family high we allow
for 29 dwelling units per acre and we
allow for 14.52 in our multif family
medium perhaps allowing for more
densities in those zones as well or
moving to F. And then there was the
parking that was a struggle and
requiring structured parking which is no
longer require
parking with multif family structured
parking with multif family developments.
But all of that meant moving adjusting
levers to see what what exactly do we
need to adjust and how much to make it
work now and then hopefully expand it as
well.
>> What do you think, Council Member Hall?
Thank you. Yeah. Um, so do we feel
I guess I what I want to just make sure
I'm clear on is the $150,000
would that would it allow us to have all
of these discussions in 26 or get
started
and maybe be able to talk about how we
revamp the inclusionary zoning
bits or um I mean this might be
something We we we kind of figure out as
we get into 2026, too. But I'm just
curious if we thought about how much of
that list cuz it's a lot. It's a good
amount.
>> It's a lot.
>> Yeah.
>> But they all work together. Yeah.
>> So, you have to look at them at once.
>> Whether or not that moves into 2027, I
don't know. I would imagine that we can
get consulting work done in 2026 and
then it would be up to staff to actually
do the implementation of the rest of it
through the code and programs.
>> Okay.
Okay. Well, thank you very much. I
appreciate you um jumping on to answer
this question. and council member Shang.
>> Um, just to clarify, so the 150,000 that
we're proposing on spending on this is
doing another consultant study, not
hiring an additional staff person to
work on this.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you for
that, Kristen. Thank you, city
administrator. Um, where we left off is,
uh, moved and seconded to adopt the
ordinance for the 2025 2026 budget. Um
so uh council discussion council
president
>> thank you. Um so first of all just very
much appreciate the work that has gone
into this. Um, we have tried to be very
practiced as a council as we have
started in on these bienium budgets not
to make a lot of adjustments in the
midyear and I think we're still trying
to hold to that but there were certain
things here that had to be adjusted and
so this is maybe a bigger lift than we
would have otherwise anticipated. I
really appreciate the work in getting us
up from a 7% undesated fund balance to a
13%. I think that feels comfortable for
me at the end of um this 2026 year. Um
that being said, um I am particularly
concerned about the street fund. Um
street operating is kind of my baby. Um
I really like making sure that our
pavement management and everything are
taken care of. Um and so seeing both the
you know the chart that showed how much
behind we are getting on maintenance of
our streets in 2025 2026 and then
looking ahead and going okay well that
means we're going to have to spend more
in future years both for emergency
repairs and just to play catchup a
little bit Yet, we're also proposing a
decrease in the fund balance by not
transferring in 250,000 from the general
fund and asking the street operating
fund to absorb the 130,000
of um operations overages. I I just
think we're putting ourselves into a
really difficult situation. I would be
interested uh from my council colleagues
if there was any interest in changing
that decrease in 250,000
from
street operating to a decrease in the
fleet fund considering fleet fund has
added 300,000 from the public safety
sales tax. And so they're actually going
up with this budget versus
um going down or rather our general fund
is not adding to it. Um so I would be
curious about that from other council
members. And then um one thing I was
realizing as I was looking over it um
I'm not seeing a proposed decrease or
change to the downtown isqua association
funding. Um though I know there have
been some issues there. Is there
anything that is changing in our general
fund for 25 or 26 compared to our
budget?
>> There there weren't any changes um
included in the mid banium adjustments
for funding.
No reductions or no changes
>> from what's already currently budgeted.
City administrator, could you speak to
that? Based on the letter we received,
is there any general fund savings that
we are seeing because of changes
proposed to that program in 25 or 26?
>> No. The the money that Dia received
otherwise goes to the state of
Washington.
>> Okay.
>> And it's and just because something's
budgeted doesn't need mean it's
necessarily allocated.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Deputy Council
President,
>> we're just doing comments now for past
questions. So, oh, council member Ray.
>> Thanks. Because I have to finish my
thoughts from earlier. So, um, going to
be a little bit of a Danny Downer here.
Um,
we're not meeting the the provisions of
our financial policy. We set the policy.
Um and it's really an important thing um
to have a sound financial policy and to
have sound financial discipline. And
when we put this policy together uh 15%
was a floor not a ceiling. It was if you
read the policy it says 15 to 20% is
what the ending fund balance should be.
It doesn't say and you should just make
sure you get to 15%. Um and we're not
even getting to the 15% um by the end of
the bianium. Um which is um super
disappointing. And as I was mentioning
earlier, um
the tactics we used feel a lot like
moving um chairs around on uh on the
Titanic and and we're not addressing the
problem which is the iceberg ahead of
us. So we can move dollars from this
fund to that fund to this one and defer
that. But that doesn't solve the problem
that we're facing which is um we really
have a structural budget problem. And I
really um appreciate the idea of doing a
long-term um financial planning and
modeling because I think we have to
understand how real this cliff is and
that way we can start to have some um
make those hard decisions. But it's
really um there is no optimism in this
budget and um as Mayor Paulie said, we
this is a scraping by which is is really
disheartening to me. And fund balances
are really really important because we
don't know when we're going to have that
next unexpected uh expense. Oh, bomb
cyclone, you know, something like that.
Those happen and we can continue to chip
away at those balances and all of a
sudden we're in a financial crisis. And
the other thing that I worry even more
about than an unexpected expense because
I think we have more um buffers for
those is an unexpected drop in revenue.
And we are very like we are very blessed
in this town to have a robust uh sales
tax revenue base. And we are you know
all the all the models all the pundits
we are on the precipice of some sort of
a recession and we're going to see a
drop in sales tax revenue. We've been
we've been riding the sales tax uh
revenue for a long time. So we don't ha,
you know, we're not going to see that
going on. So, I'm I'm concerned um going
forward how we can continue to spend uh
without the revenue to back it up and um
and recognizing that in periods of
really high inflation where we've got
costs that are tied to CPI and we have a
1% property tax escalator. Uh how are we
going to balance this budget? So, um,
not super excited about the budget
amendments as presented. Not super
excited about the mid buy true up and
really not excited about the prospects
for the end of the bienium.
>> Thanks, Council Member Ray. Council
member Mertz.
>> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um,
[clears throat] not for the first time
will I say I will miss Chris Ray on this
council. And no, I mean it really
seriously. I I love how honest um he
always is on the particularly on these
financial matters. And I I completely
understand um his concern. I this whole
subject of aiming for uh this 15% and
having it be a floor and not a ceiling
has has has been a a point of mine for
oh gosh at least 10 years. Um but I'm
I'm going to support uh the bill that's
in front of us this evening for a couple
of reasons. Um, one is that uh I think
that we have reserve capacities in in
places that we didn't um 15 years ago.
So to the question about another bomb
cyclone um I think we actually have some
resiliencies built into the system um
that would allow us to respond to um
heaven forbid something like another
bomb cyclone. The other thing is I think
it's important to take small steps
first. I think that we are all saying
here today that it's not good to get
below 15%. And if in 12 months um we're
still below 15% uh we will probably have
to make take larger steps than we're
taking this evening. But I do think it's
important to try to maintain
um the systems that you have in place
and the people that you have in place
and the services that you have in place
as a community. And so I think I don't
know maybe there's an element of um
intuition to it um for having done this
a number of times this feels like the
right step but I think everybody here on
the deis understands that if this
continues if if the uh you know the next
time we see it below 15%
um uh we may have to take larger steps
that involve um more painful cuts than
than we're looking at today. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, next speaker, uh, Council
Member Jen.
>> Yeah, I generally agree with, um, what
council member Mart said. I think this
is definitely a big improvement over the
first uh, budget forecast that we were
presented. Um, you know, the fact that
it is balanced largely with one time
basically, you know, just moving funds
from one bucket to another is not
definitely not something we want to keep
doing. Um, I will say though, I think
and I think, you know, it's going to
when we're developing the 2027 to 28
budget, I think that's going to be
something where, you know, we're going
to I think this financial conversation
next year, like we need to start in
January of, you know, the strategic
conversation because I think what we do
in 27 to 28 is going to be very
different than what we've done thus far.
you know, there's been many years of
spending down fund balances and now
we've gotten to the point where we
really can't do that and we need to
backfill our um ending fund balances. Um
I do think, you know, from the
perspective like one of the things that
I was originally concerned about was,
you know, if your fund balance gets too
low, then that can start to affect your
credit rating, but we do have that, you
know, restricted fund balance that's
from the sale of facilities. So that,
you know, from a credit rating
perspective, they count that. So, I
think that kind of assaged my concern on
that piece. Um, you know, and we do have
that flexibility with that $9 million
from the sale of City Hall Northwest
that we can use as a reserve if things
really go sideways. Obviously, we don't
want to do that, but that is something
that, you know, makes me more tolerant
of the fact that we technically for our
own internal purposes only have a 13% uh
expected fund balance at the end of
2026. Um, one thing I am concerned about
just like as a general concept is with
this affordable housing study spending
another $150,000 on consulting fees. I
don't really, you know, I I do think
that we do need to, you know, figure out
how to um, you know, get housing built
in central Isiqua. just remain skeptical
that you know continually like bringing
on consultants to do these things is
especially I mean especially on the
inclusionary zoning piece you know we
did the pioneer program in 2023 I don't
think we're at the point yet where we
you know strongly believe at least for
me that we need to you know rejigger
that whole thing and so spending 150,000
on that doesn't seem like something that
we should be doing in um 2026 and also
just like philosophically
I I have this belief that we should be,
you know, striving to develop expertise
in-house with staff on these types of
issues. And so, you know, spending
$150,000 on a consultant to me, again,
especially given the budget situation
that we're in doesn't seem like a great
use. So, um, but other than that, I
think the other amendments are fine. I
think the the other thing that I am a
little bit concerned about is the
expected you know 500,000 in uh
estimated you know general fund
underspend like that is a significant
portion of how we're getting our
estimated fund balance up. Um, so and I
think, you know, I certainly trust
Director Garcia's judgment that this
might be something, you know, these are
all things given new information. We
actually expect that to happen. But I do
think that
relying on underspending in the budget,
you know, underspending our budget as a
way to balance the budget doesn't seem
like a good best practice. So, you know,
something to keep in mind moving forward
into future bayania.
>> Thanks. It also falls in the category of
a scrape to be honest. Um, next speaker,
>> council member Hall.
>> Um, yeah, sure. Another very difficult
year for budget development. So, I think
first and foremost, um, like some of the
other council members have done, we
first we've got to thank staff for their
tremendously hard work. We give you a
lot of feedback, mostly in terms of
areas where we shouldn't look for cost
savings. And so, you had to do all this
creative work. we had staff going line
by line trying to find underspend as
well. So I appreciate the due diligence
that you've done and the proposal that
we have here before us. Um I also feel
comfortable with uh ending fund balance
of 13% by the end of the benium. In
fact, I think my feedback few weeks ago
was 12% seemed realistic. So I was
actually pleasantly surprised that we
could get to 13 by the end of the
bienium. um especially recognizing we've
identified a problem mid bienium and we
need to build ourselves a ramp into the
next bianium. So um I I also agree u
with other council members that there
are some challenging um budget
discussions ahead that council should
welcome as we head into budget
development for the new benium. It
sounds like the council is going to get
a great retreat early next year. Isn't
that right, city administrator? So um I
I would imagine what's that
>> you can join. I I will plan on um tuning
in on YouTube. How that? [laughter]
Um so um anyways, I look forward to um
seeing what council priorities are there
to um figure out next steps. Um I think
I am okay with um street fund impacts
because I was looking through the I mean
when we were studying the financial
policies um there's a bit on the reserve
level target for special revenue and for
capital projects and this does seem to
align with our um financial policies
around these kinds of funds. You had
described you described kind of like
monitoring it to stay consistent with
need and use of of specific purpose of
that fund which is in here. And then one
other thing that's that strikes me in
this policy is that special revenue
funds by their nature are funds used for
specific purposes and the corresponding
fund balance will be used to solely
support that purpose. So it's also and
maybe this is a conversation council
wants to have around setting policies um
specific targets for these different
funds, but it seems like the intent in
this language is that we shouldn't be
collecting money just to collect money
and fund balance. We should be spending
it on public priorities as much as
possible. So, um I think you've aligned
that well with the proposal that you
bring um before us today. Um
I also um one shout out um assistant to
the city administrator Dale Marky Crimp.
I just want to thank you for drafting
the the memo on the public safety sales
tax. I think it captures very well um
the problem um our need in public safety
and how um expenses have outpaced our
ability to meet those need. Um, and so
this is a fantastic document for council
to base future decision-making on, a
fantastic document for communicating
with the public, and really explaining
our rationale for why we felt it was
necessary to do this, recognizing this
is a tool that is challenging to use um
when our hands are tied on on other
tools. So, uh, thank you very much. I
appreciate the work that went into that
as [cough] well. And um, those are my
remarks.
>> Great comments. Thank you, Council
Member Joe, followed by Deputy Council
President. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Director Garcia.
>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. [laughter]
Director Garcia, fantastic work on this
uh budget. I just remember that I I
don't want perfect to be the enemy of
good. And I think that you worked and
the city administration worked very hard
to get to uh something that is workable
and getting us a ending fund balance
that is moving up over time to 13. Um I
remember council member Hall saying 12
and we got to 13 which is fantastic. So
thank you. Um I'll be supporting the
motion in general. I you know there are
always things that uh we can I could
nitpick at so to speak but again I'm not
going to let uh perfect be the enemy of
good because this is about as good as we
can get at this time and I'll be
supporting the motion this evening.
Thank you.
>> Thank you deputy council president.
>> Thanks. Um, I first of all, I want to
join council member Mars in saying I'm
going to very much miss Council Member
Ray. It's uh always uh good to hear his
analysis and even when it's it's uh sort
of sad and depressing. [laughter]
So, and thanks to Director Garcia,
wonderful job that you did. Um, you
know, it's really I I appreciate Council
President Walsh bringing up the the uh
street fund and but you know what? I
think a year from now we're going to be
facing even harder decisions that are
going to be even bigger than that and um
we'll be looking at some really
significant losses in some of the
favorite things that we do. Um so it's
going to be a tough year ahead of us.
So, uh, I think right now we've got the
best thing that we can do and, uh, I too
will be supporting this. Uh, I also want
to say that I agree with Council Member
Jiang and say we should start in January
on this. Uh, we need to be setting what
our priorities are. We really need to be
thinking through. Uh, it's like
choosing, like the old saying goes,
between your favorite kids, you know,
which one do you choose? And and, uh,
that's going to take some really hard
thinking. um and also a lot of listening
to our community. So, um uh good job and
I will be supporting this, but I agree
with council member uh Ray that um that
uh we are heading on a cliff here and
we're going to have to do some really
hard work this coming year. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Deputy Council President. So,
we have gone once around the room. I'm
not sure if there's any additional
my script back up here.
Any additional comments? And if there is
not an additional discussion, then oh,
Council Member Jen,
>> um, could I propose an amendment to
remove the 150,000 for the consultant
for implementing the Eco Northwest
report so that we can discuss?
>> You absolutely could. And whether folks
support you or not, someone can second
it just so we can have a discussion
about it. Great. So, go ahead, make a
motion. Uh, I move. Okay. I I guess I
move that we remove the um budget
amendment to add $150,000
um for uh consultant fees to implement
the Eco Northwest report.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded. Um Council
Member Jen, why don't you start off and
tell us why you proposing the motion?
>> Yeah. So as I mentioned earlier, I think
just from a cultural perspective, I
think, you know, being overly reliant on
consultants to implement some of these
changes is problematic. I think we
should be cultivating internal
expertise. I also believe that, you
know, some of these changes um that we
are considering exploring, you know,
things like reevaluating inclusionary
zoning. I mean, we just redid the
Pioneer program in 2023 and I don't
think we're at the point where we need
to spend, you know, tens of thousands of
dollars reevaluating that. Um, so I'm
proposing removing it and just given the
budget situation that we're in, you
know, that could be some I'm it's also
something where if we decide we really
need to do it, I'm fine pushing it to
2027 or beyond. and city administry. I
will allow a staff component uh at that
to dis you know concerns that staff may
want to talk about it but I'd like to
get the council to all kind of talk it
through first growing whether or not we
can grow the expertise that the
consultant service would actually
provide.
>> Are you looking for a comment now? You
want to wait for comments?
>> Not looking for comment now. I just
wanted to let you know I heard you
talking and I think if you want to talk
about uh whether or not that expertise
could be grown within the staffing that
we have or not that would be a good
piece of information to add further
discussion but I would like to go
through we have several council members
that want to speak.
>> Got it. Got it. Um Counciloman March you
seconded.
>> I did. Um I find council member Jen's
argument compelling. I also have had a
I've had a growing concern about the
amount that we spend on consultants in
general um over time and I think that uh
we may be entering a phase where we need
to be more uh cautious about um
consultant spend. Thank you,
>> Council President.
>> Thank you. Um I am generally not a fan
of producing additional reports and so
generally I think I I agree with the
idea that I don't know that we
necessarily need to produce another
report in order to implement the changes
that we have in the other report. That
being said, I'm not sure I'm ready to
remove $150,000 that was allocated
toward a fairly significant
area of interest for council that we've
been trying to get accomplished for
many, many years. Um, I think we have
flexibility in how that money gets
spent.
um as we come on board with a new me uh
new mayor and two new council members.
So I think I would prefer to keep it in
the budget and I think we we have a
a diligent council that if after we come
back with those new members and the
January retreat, if we're just not
feeling like that's going to accomplish
what we want, I don't think we need to
spend it. Um, but I think it would be
more difficult to put something in in
2026
that's not in the midbian budget. Um, so
I think my preference would be to keep
it, but I share many of the concerns um
and would absolutely be willing to strip
that money out if we can find a way to
accomplish the shared goals of the
council toward that idea. Additional
comments.
Council member Joe.
>> Thank you. Um
I'm going to be uh not supporting the
amendment. Uh Eco Northwest um does some
very fine work in the area of housing
inclusionary zoning density bonuses. Uh
I think we heard from Kristen Leon that
our programs are not working right now
and we don't know what the answer is.
And frankly, it I don't a lot of
different people don't know what the
answer is out there, but Eco Northwest
has the ability to look at a number of
cities at the same time, do the research
for us, take a wider view, see what
might be working in other cities, and
bring it to us as we look at
inclusionary zoning, density bonuses
along the way going forward. This is not
a topic that will be solved
with Isiqua staff solely looking at it.
Um, this is something that's going to be
solved on a regional basis. Nico
Northwest can bring that view to us. I
do have some concerns about having staff
do this as we turn over staff all the
time and we might invest a great deal of
time and effort in training one staff
member on these subjects that are quite
complex and then that person will leave
and then we'll have to start again from
zero. By having Eco Northwest as kind of
our knowledge bank or our uh information
bank, we're able to retain that
knowledge and keep that knowledge for us
through reports going forward. So, I
would not be supporting the stripping
out of $150,000 from the budget. Thank
you.
>> And are there um additional commenters
before I do a second round? Council
member Ray.
>> Oh, you want
>> question?
>> Clarifying question that um I believe we
already received the Eco Northwest
report. Is the concept here that we
would be re-engaging them specifically
with the 150,000
Kristen's still on the line. Uh Kristen,
>> that's an option to re-engage Eco
Northwest. We can also go out for with
an RFP, an RFQ. However, Eco Northwest
already knows the information. They know
that they've already presented. They
don't have to research again. So, that
is absolutely an option to go back out
to them.
>> Okay. Thank you. Now that you're online,
there were two parts to um Council
Member Jen's comments. One was could we
cut the money and can we do this work
internally? Um what is this work and why
don't we do it internally?
>> Um because this is not planning work.
This is economics.
And I'm not an economist. I don't know.
I don't do marketing. I don't do
building. None of us do. We know how to
plan. We know how to work with
developers. We know how to do long range
planning. We know what regional issues
are. We do not do economics.
>> Okay.
>> So, we need someone to come in and do
the economics for us and say this is
what's economically what is going to
work with builders more likely with
developers and that's not something we
do.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Um we
have not gone all the way around the
dis. So, Council Ray and then anybody
else who hasn't spoken.
>> Thanks. Um, thanks Kristen for that
because I was uh I was kind of thinking
um I have a different view of
consultants and it might be just my own
bias and background
>> but um
>> they they they are not a panacea and
they don't solve all all ills but um
there are pl times when used effectively
they are the most cost-effective way to
solve um a problem or answer a question.
So, not opposed to um to spending the
money on consultants and it would
probably not be practical to build all
of the potential skills that we might
need in house. We would need a staff of
500 and and so that doesn't resonate
with me. That being said, is this the
most important $150,000 we can spend
this year? And I don't know that anybody
here has convinced me that it is the
most important $150,000 we could spend.
>> Um going all the way around. Council
Hall, have you spoken already? No.
Council member Hall.
>> Um
yeah, I I mean I I I'll I'm going to be
voting against the amendment to you. I
mean, it just seems counter to this was
the number one priority of the entire
council when we were doing the planning
um kind of the long range planning
prioritization exercise of the work
plan. Um we've been saying we want to
implement this report for years now.
Council member Hunt was here with us and
chair of the planning committee when we
were doing this. So, um I also think
like the pioneer project
while while important is a a very small
element of some of this work and in re
um doing the economics of kind of the
inclusion and zoning as as you mentioned
director Leon um
>> um
by the way did I just promote you to
director but [laughter] Nice, Chris.
Congratulations.
>> A lot of money.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> All right. That's 150 right there.
That's Yeah, that's um
Well, now I've lost where I was going
with that. But, um I I'm going to Yeah,
I I still think it's important um to
have this in our budget. There's a lot
of elements in here um even outside of
um the inclusionary zoning bits um that
are independent from the pioneer program
and some of the work that we've done
that which is still underutilized
um that are really important again has
been our top priority and so I'm going
to vote now. Thanks.
>> Anyone who has not spoken yet that would
like to speak to the amendment
otherwise I'll call for the amendment.
Kelly. Um, Council Mor Shang, did you
write it down?
>> Was it just to remove the $150,000 for
additional housing study?
>> Okay. Can I use that or do we have more?
Okay. So, it has been moved and seconded
to amend to move that line item of
$150,000 for additional housing work.
Um, all those in favor signify by saying
I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> That's uh three. Um, all those opposed?
>> Nay.
>> Nay.
>> The amendment fails four to three. We go
back to the main motion. Is there any um
>> mayor?
>> Yes.
>> Can I ask to get some clarity on that um
vote count? I trust the total, but I
could use um to see hands.
>> So the eyes first, hands, the nays.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Excellent. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Motions. We'll go to the main motion.
It's been moved and seconded to adopt
ordinance number
sorry 3125.
>> 3125 amending the 2025 budget as set
forth in ordinance number 3083 and
amended in ordinance number 3090
concerning revenues expenditures and
fund balances for various funds. All
those in favor signify by saying I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed?
>> No.
>> That carries six to one with council
member Ray in opposition.
The next item also related to budget is
AB9052, the 2026 property tax levy. And
the ask before council this evening is
to adopt the ordinance. And again, we
have finance director Kristen Garcia to
present this item.
Thank you, mayor. Um, as the mayor
mentioned, administration is seeking
authorization for the city council to
[clears throat] adopt the 2026 property
tax levy ordinance. A public hearing on
the proposed ordinance was held on
October 20th, 2025. Uh, state law allows
the city to increase the property tax by
1% plus new construction and the
proposed ordinance reflects the increase
of 1%. Um, the increase is about 108,000
from the prior year. The total levy is
estimated to be about 10.9 million in
2026. Um, in terms of impact to the
taxpayer, a taxpayer with a property
value of $800,000 could pay about $475
in 2026 with the proposed increase of
1%. A taxpayer with the property value
of 1.1 million would pay about 652 in
2026. So, administration is recommending
adoption of the property tax levy
ordinance reflecting the 1% increase.
Thank you, mayor.
>> Thank you, Kristen.
my place. Uh, does council have any
questions for our director? Seeing
headshakes, no. Not seeing any
questions. Could somebody please make a
motion? Council President, I move to
adopt ordinance number. 3126
levying property taxes for the city of
Isqua for the fiscal year commencing
January 1, 2026 on all property both
real and personal in said city which is
subject to taxation for the purpose of
paying sufficient revenue to carry on
the services of said city for the
ensuing year as required by law.
>> Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you. It's been moved and seconded.
Is there any council discussion?
I am not seeing any positive head nods.
So if there's no further discussion, um
all those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> All those opposed. That carries
unanimously. Seven and no. Um I'm just
going to check with the council to see
if you'd like to have a fivem minute
break before we move into the last item.
Sorry, Council Member Joe. There's more
yeses than no, so we're going with the
yeses. It's five minutes.
Wait for Tisha to come back
Once you're settled, let's give Wes a
call.
Welcome back. We took a short break.
We're still on regular business. The
next item is AB917, the Central Isqua
Multimmodal I90 Crossing Study Update.
The action before council this evening
is to approve it. And I'd like to get uh
invite deputy city administrator Andrea
Andrea Leonard and senior transport and
transportation engineer Greg Lucas to
present this item. Welcome both.
Thank you, Mayor Paulie. I'm back again.
Andrea Leonard, deputy city
administrator. And I wanted to uh talk
about this project and kick it off and
then I'm going to turn it over to Greg
for the bulk of the presentation. I want
to make it clear about what we're asking
for tonight when we ask you to accept
the study and approve of the preferred
alignment. That's what we're asking for
you to do tonight. And by accepting this
study and approving the alignment, we're
hoping to put a bookmark in place for
this project, acknowledging all the work
that has been performed and um also
knowing that we have many decisions
ahead of us, including
uh whether or not we're going to move
forward with finding the funding to
implement this project. Um whether or
not we're going to build it as conceived
in the study. So there's a lot of
decisions ahead. Approving uh the
accepting the study and approving of the
preferred alignment is not a commitment
to build this project as it's conceived
in the study. It's merely acknowledging
the work that has been done that we've
been answering that the study answers
the questions that we wanted answers to
as part of the scope of the study. And
we're going to get into that a little
bit.
I want to take a step back
from uh I want to take a little step
back about this project because this is
a long-term project that we have been
talking about a new crossing of I90 and
it's a very visionary project a project
that uh we have been contemplating for
over 10 years as we considered what the
growth of central Isiqua and the entire
city is going to look like. So when we
adopted the central Isiqua plan, this uh
a new crossing was contemplated in the
environmental impact statement in
addition to many other streets, new
streets that we would be adding to
complete our transportation grid in uh
along the valley floor in central
Isiqua.
So this new crossing contemplates not
the isiqua we see today but a future
isqua that [clears throat]
is 8 to 10 8 to 12 stories tall which is
what our current zoning allows in
central Isiqua. So it anticipates a lot
of growth and again this is a longterm
project
and it's really in response to concerns
that we heard at the time with a central
isiqua upzoning that occurred. How are
we going to accommodate this growth? how
are we going to get people around and
improve those north south connections
knowing that I90 really is a big barrier
to travel? So at the time uh the
community wanted us to look at a
multimodal crossing that includes a
connection for cars, bikes and
pedestrians alike.
And we didn't know what kind of crossing
this would be. So, as we started this
study, we considered, okay, if we were
to have a new crossing of I90 to better
connect the community in the future, um,
is that an overcrossing or an
undercrossing? As we started the study,
we had no idea what that was going to
be. If we were going to do another
crossing, where would it be? especially
given critical areas, growth patterns,
uh properties that would be suitable uh
for this, how it would affect traffic
patterns, um and what the community
would like to see for where this would
be. So, all of those questions we
contemplated at the start of this study,
and we believe the study answers those
questions, um but raises quite a few
other questions.
So, more in the background. Um in 2019
we completed the interchange
justification report the JR which looked
at could we have another uh crossing and
entrance and exit from I90 and isqua
that from that study we said well we
need to figure out where exactly that
would be is it feasible what would it
look like um and then in July 5th 2022
council directed uh the administration
to provide budget for this project using
American Rescue Plan Act funds. So, we
had ARPA funds. Director Garcia talked
about some of those ARPA funds earlier
and how they have now been spent. Um,
and this is one of the projects that was
funded by that extra funding.
And so, we have here uh the consultant
contract has been approved. Um, we've
done more outreach uh with the community
and more study and Greg is going to get
into that. Um, and so again, what I
wanted to stress was that the action for
council tonight is to accept the study
um, and uh, approve of that preferred
alignment. And what that means is not a
commitment to build the project as is,
but just acknowledging that we've done
this work uh for the project as
conceived, which is a multimodal
crossing that we um that this is
probably the best alignment. We've
turned over every rock we can for this
scope of the project um to find the best
alternative that we can. So, Greg's
going to go over more details about
that, but again, it's not a commitment
to build. Um and we did anticipate a
multimmoal crossing because uh the ST3
package in their base project for light
rail and Isiqua includes a bike ped
bridge. And so we're so part of the
discussion tonight is just looking at
what is the scope of this project and
then we're going to talk about next
steps and where we're headed at the end
of the presentation and how we would use
this report in our work with uh the
light rail station sighting. So before
we get there though, I just wanted to
clarify what we're talking about
tonight. And now Greg will get into the
details.
>> Thanks, Andrea.
Um so my name is Greg Lucas. I'm a
senior transportation engineer in the
public works department.
And I guess we'll start with the
existing conditions. Um this was the
consultant's first task was to look at
existing conditions both you know for
the transportation network but the uh
region or the growth area as a whole. Um
the existing conditions from a
transportation p perspective has limited
options for uh north south crossings uh
due to the I90. Uh only one of the
crossings that exists is in the
designated growth center that is the uh
SR900 or 17th a northwest crossing. Uh
the fourth a northwest crossing and
front street crossings are east of the
growth center. Um the SR900 crossing is
owned and operated by the state and
shares traffic uh with other cities and
is it has a non-motorized portion uh of
the crossing adjacent to it. However,
it's a little difficult to get to and
from it due to all the existing traffic
within the interchange.
Um to provide an overview of the project
um the initial concept includes two
vehicular lanes, one in each direction
with a third lane added where necessary
to accommodate uh turning movements. Uh
the scope also incorporates bike lanes
protected by landscape strips and 8 foot
wide sidewalks on both sides of the
street. Uh this is consistent with the
street standards adopted uh for a core
street in central Isiqua. Um the
cross-section could be refined in the
future, but the street standards are
what was used for the purposes of the
study. Um and the crossing would be
located within the designated uh
regional growth center.
On the slide, you'll see the outline of
the growth center in white, which I'm
sure you've seen plenty of times. And I
added a few concentric circles in there
to help
illustrate where the center of the
growth center is, which helps with
transportation.
And the benefits of the project include
improved north south mobility and
stronger connections for both vehicles
and non-motorized users. And it supports
the vision outlined in the central plan
in creating a thriving sustainable
commercial core. Um, additionally, the
crossing is anticipated to support local
mobility to the future light rail
station, uh, which is also anticipated
to be in the growth center.
Purpose of the study was to identify the
preferred crossing location for a
multimodal crossing of I90. Um, at a
high level, the process began with a
broad exploration of concepts.
Essentially, all ideas were considered
valid starting points.
Um from there the study conducted a high
level feasibility analysis.
Uh this included considerations such as
the groundwater conditions, geotechnical
challenges, elevation differences
or the lack thereof. Um Gilman, I90, and
Pickering Place are all at similar
elevations. So getting the grade
necessary to go over um is challenging.
Um
after ruling out the unfeasible options,
the remaining viable options were
evaluated against the project goals and
criterias
uh by last summer when uh the study was
presented at aformational update. That
process had been completed. I think they
were down to we were down to five
concepts at that time. Two of which were
pretty burdensome and didn't really meet
the goals and were eliminated. and three
advance to the evaluation stage.
Throughout the course of the study, the
administration has engaged with the
community throughout several efforts.
The first step was a a high level online
survey designed to gather input and help
identify priorities.
Uh as the study progressed into um
exploring the options, the
administration began meeting with
property owners within the area. Uh
these meetings provided an opportunity
to explain uh the study and collect
feedback on what the property owners
would like to see in a crossing.
In December of last year, the
administration hosted a public open
house at Tibbitz Manor. I think we had
about 20 to 30 boards there and about al
about 25 members of the community showed
up which were um we had pretty long
in-depth conversations with those who
were able to make it um which was right
after the bomb cyclone
we had to push it back due to that and
finally a project website is on on the
city's website um and it would be
updated again at the conclusion of the
study to reflect the final outcome.
comes.
All right. Next for um community board
engagement, the administration has met
twice both with the transportation
advisory board as well as the economic
vitality commission. Uh the first
discussions took place in the summer of
2024 when the study was introduced and
project goals and evaluation criteria
were presented for feedback. And then
early this year in the spring, the
administration returned to share the
recommended crossing location. Uh the
proposal ultimately received support and
we received some feedback emphasizing
the importance of reaffirming the
crossing uh location before getting too
far ahead and particularly considering
the station uh area planning. And board
members also highlighted uh the need to
ensure that non-motorized connections
are thoughtfully designed and fully
incorp and and are incorporated as a
project advances into an engineering
phase.
All right. I guess the video plays
automatically.
Um, for this item, the administration is
proposing that the council approve the
study's preferred crossing location of
11th A Northwest to 11th A Northwest.
Um, at a high level, the crossing
concept involves elevating uh, Gilman
Boulevard to achieve the necessary grade
diff difference to span over the
freeway, ultimately connecting into the
existing 11th ABN Northwest on the north
side in Pickering Place.
And while 11th AB Northwest does not uh
exist today on the south side of I90, it
is part of the planned future street
grid as development occurs in the growth
center
to minimize impacts on the adjacent
parcel to the south of Gilman. The
concept was modified from the initial
concept. Um this was to include the
eastbound bypass lane which does not get
elevated.
The video shows it. I'll highlight it
once it gets back to it.
There's the eastbound bypass lane on the
along Gilman. That's what that's
referring to. Um and similarly the
frontage along the southside will not be
elevated allowing pedestrians and
cyclists to travel without navigating up
and down an elevated uh Gillan
Boulevard.
Um the initial planning level cost
estimate for the full project
approximately 110 million. That figure
represents engineering, property
acquisition, permitting and
construction. However, it is not
adjusted for inflation due to
uncertainty on when or if it advances.
uh but actual costs uh would be
significantly higher over time. A 2040
uh construction cost could see maybe a
50%
increase in that. Um
so my next plan was to go through the
video, but it's been plain. Um
[laughter]
if there's any questions about that, let
me know. Um
let's see.
Um
proposal continued. The 11th AV
Northwest uh to 11th A Northwest
crossing best met the project goals and
evaluation criteria of the study. Um
some key [clears throat] advantages of
this concept were the proximity to Sound
Transit's representative project. What
that means is what was voted upon. Um
while Sound Transit has not began their
stationary planning, they indicated to
us in conversations
uh that extending the project further
east will increase costs and giving
their current bud budget challenges they
face, they recommended using the voter
approved representative project as a
baseline uh which is a station that is
located
near the I90 corridor uh near 17th
Northwest.
Um by elevating uh this crossing it
avoids many of the challenges posed by
the ground conditions and high water
table.
This alternative is considered the most
uh feasible to build and fund with the
lowest cost estimate among the options.
It also could be phased if needed. Build
part of Gilman first for example as a
separate contract from the rest of it.
Um
it also yeah um and it also provides the
best balance between vehicular um adding
vehicular um capacity as well as
non-motorized access due to the location
and shorter length of it. Um with
limited existing connections, the
crossing would enhance access to and
from picker and place area just north of
I90.
And a drawback of this alternative is
the need to uh carefully design
non-motorized uh connections to make it
easily uh accessible and safe to
navigate due to the elevation of
northwest uh Gilman Boulevard.
Um,
you know, each alternative has offers
benefits and drawbacks. Uh, none of them
are are perfect. However, this one
performed the best um in terms of
meeting the the project goals and
evaluation criteria.
Uh, the study also dug a little deeper
into two other crossing alternatives.
I'll start with the alignment um from
11th AB Northwest on the north side to
12th A Northwest on the south side. How
this concept works is to achieve the
grade necessary, I guess we'll flip to
the south side, you'd have to raise
Gilman up a couple feet and um as you
move north along the alignment, it
shifts a little bit west. that is to
extend the runway length, ensuring
sufficient elevation to span the
freeway. From there, it ties back into
11th avenue northwest on the north side
while attempting to minimize impacts to
the adjacent properties. However, it
results in a fairly lengthy crossing.
Benefits of this concept. Uh, similar to
the previous one, it aligns well with
the representative project of Sound
Transits supporting potential stationary
planning. Perhaps less options for the
parking ride due to the span length, but
there'd be some options still for that.
It also reduces the impacts from the
existing ground conditions and
essentially located in the growth
center. Um, some drawbacks for this one,
uh, it's it's positioned nearest to an
existing crossing. However, there is
five block lengths between 12th and
17th. Uh, so it it didn't feel too close
um and to remove it from consideration.
However, we get asked that question
quite a bit. Um, and the crossing length
is the greatest of all the options,
which will feel burdensome for the
non-motorized users.
It' be hard to, you know, once you're on
there, you kind of might feel trapped if
you're going somewhere in Pickering from
from the south or something like that.
Um,
and it has a greater impacts to the
property owners, reducing
uh some future development potential,
and it's got a higher cost estimate at
127 million.
Moving [snorts] east, uh, the final
alternative evaluated was the Northwest
Maple to Lake Drive crossing. Uh, this
alternative works is on the south side.
The alignment would begin at the
existing intersection of Maple and
Gilman. From there, it would lower
slightly, although only a few feet
because it's got a raised I90. So,
getting it as low as we could would help
minimize the amount of I90 that would
need to be elevated. Uh, the alignment
would then connect to the existing
roundabout at 62nd A in Lake Drive,
which was recently constructed as a part
of the with the Costco development. Um,
however, initial traffic modeling
indicates intersection would perform
better if signalized with an added
crossing.
So, we're shown here to replace that
roundabout with the the traffic signal.
Um, in terms of pros, it it moves
vehicles well. It moves the greatest
number of vehicles compared to the other
options. Um, however, it's not a huge
difference and perhaps um moving traffic
to areas um less than ideal with the
many roundabout on Maple Street and the
accurate crossings through the Costco
campus.
Um but the greatest risk with this um is
securing the approvals from outside
agencies. Um state DOT officials uh
indicated that the existing traffic on
90 would need to be maintained
throughout the construction. In order to
do this, they'd have interim
construction phases um similar to the
ongoing covert replacement in Factoriia
and the ones will have coming up.
And so that would be a burdensome and
costly and uncertain. Uh there's not a
lot of space through this area and
there's also horizontal curves to
consider uh which you can't really play
around with too much on freeways.
Um the state staff also noted that no
other local agency that they had worked
with has attempted a project of this
complexity.
uh which to us meant there was no
precedent for reference for how to get
that approved or cost estimates or
design approaches for that. Um all the
state ones are generally done with
design build contracts
and this cost estimate is about 116
million.
Um while feasible um there's a lot of
you know challenges with this one. Um
however it did perform second best um in
our evaluation. Um however the 11th
avenue northwest to 11th a northwest uh
emerged as the clear front runner.
Um so the study was presented to
mobility and infrastructure committee
twice this year. uh first in June, study
uh findings were shared and committee
members expressed support for the
concept and acknowledged the future need
while also raising concerns about costs
and grant funding opportunities that may
change. Um the item remained in
committee for a second meeting on
September 16th.
At that section, the presentation was
more narrowly focused on the study
itself rather than the larger project as
a whole. And at that time the committee
agreed to move the item to a regular uh
city council meeting for potential
action. And then in addition to that uh
the study was shared at a booth at the
farmers market at the picker and barn in
August. Um this provided an opportunity
for shorter more informal conversations
with about a 100 members or 100
visitors.
So for timing and next step.
>> Uh hi it's me again Andrea Leonard. Want
to talk about next steps. So again uh
we're hoping to close out the consultant
contract acknowledging the work that has
been done and examining alternatives. Uh
then um this is where that point in time
where we want to put a bookmark in the
work that we've done so far. Uh we are
moving forward with a light rail uh
station alignment planning. That study
is um already underway to look at what
our preferred alignment alternatives are
and then be able to provide that
information to Sound Transit. So one of
our original goals was to look at how
these two giant pieces of infrastructure
can complement each other, can be uh
colllocated perhaps. So we've looked at
where could an I90 crossing be. Now the
next question we need to answer is light
rail station. What would be our
preferred um location for that? And so
once we have that location and begin
those communications with sound transit
and wash then we can look at these two
studies together and see are there
efficiencies that we can gain with a
crossing and a light rail station um and
how can these really be forward
compatible with each other. So, there's
a lot more questions to answer, a lot
more to discover, and that's really
where we see this headed and relating to
the light rail work, um, which is, as I
said, underway right now.
Um, and so again, for, um, just to
clarify what we're asking of council
tonight, we're not asking for any
immediate action that would advance this
project. We're not asking for funding
for this project. Um just that we
recognize the work that was done and the
study that was done to determine
possible alignments and um that the
administration would return to council
prior to initiating any further
development of of this project or any
crossing of I90.
And so at this point, the administration
recommends approval of the 11th A
Northwest to the 11th A Northwest
Crossing uh alternative and uh for
council to conclude and accept the
study.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Andrea, and thank you, Greg,
for the presentation. I'm going to turn
it over to our esteemed council member
Joe, chair of the mobility and
infrastructure committee. So, if you
want to summarize the committee's
recommendation on this item, that'd be
great.
>> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Uh, this was
kind of a a mid early peak, so to speak,
at at uh what might be possible for us
with this crossing. I do appreciate all
the hard work that was done by staff and
the consultant crew to put this study
together. Um, it's uh just want to point
out that it does align with our
transportation goals in the comp plan.
Um, transportation goal C uh outlines
that we should develop a multimodal
balanced transportation system that will
support increased transportation options
for the Isqua community. And then later
in transportation policy C5, it asks we
partner with Sound Transit in bringing
light rail service to Isiqua by adopting
supportive land use policies and
creating safe multimodal connectivity to
the new station. So just putting that
work in the time in the frame of the
comp plan that we approved earlier. Um
we approved last year 2024 and um the
committee took a close look at this.
There were some hard questions that were
asked and we know it's not perfect but
it is as as uh deputy administrator
points out a bookmark to accept the work
that has been done up to this point. Um,
it will need to be paused until more
information can come forward both from
the location of the station itself,
funding issues, work with all of our
other partners in um, making this
project possible. Um, so it is a
bookmark. It's been some good work from
the committee. I'll open it up to my
fellow committee members because there
was some added uh discussion and
questions that were going on there and I
want to give them each an opportunity to
have those aired in a in this forum.
Thank you.
>> Other committee members,
Council Member Bray,
>> I always have a point of view. Um and it
seems like it's always the same one. Um
I think this is interesting. I think
this was a fascinating project. I think
it was incredibly opportunistic to use
the ARPA funding to fund this project.
Um I just don't and I understand that
it's aspirational and we're we're we
want something big and bold to do. Um I
just don't see how ever this gets built
um given the cost of construction, given
the complexity of building something
like this. And so I think it's very
interesting.
But beyond that, I my concern about this
in every meeting we had is this is
absolutely beautiful. I wish we could do
it, but I sure don't know how.
>> Deputy Council President.
>> Uh
that's a good summary. Um [laughter]
uh I raised a number of questions about
this project as well. Um my concern was
um uh the engagement with the council.
It's a big project. Um I didn't think
that we had had enough time to really
talk about it and and understand it. You
look at it goes through a couple of
shopping malls right now. The alignment
is is kind of interesting. Uh but I was
glad to hear that we've done outreach to
the property owners. Um so I had all
kinds of questions about it. I think
that the idea that this is a bookmark.
Uh we've done a lot of work. Um at this
particular time in history, we are
facing some headwinds that are
completely out of our control. One of
them is uh the probably impossibility of
getting a federal uh grant that would
help us help us build this at this
point. Uh but things will change in the
next 10 to 15 years while we're working
on the light rail station. um and uh the
general economic outlook that we've
already talked about as we were talking
about the the budget um the uh
willingness of the community to support
it as well. I think the community um and
I do appreciate the outreach that was
done. I attended the open house. Uh when
I attended the open house, I picked this
alignment. I was one of the people that
put the little button on this alignment
because it it does, you know, it meets
all of the goals of the project. Um, and
yet, uh, there were only 25 people
there. And, uh, so again, does the
community understand the changes that
would happen if this alignment went in?
I wasn't clear about that at all. Um, I
think it's been, um, I think it was
summarized very well that it's a
bookmark that acknowledges here. We've
got a body of research sitting here and
that will be useful when we talk with
Sound Transit and maybe useful in the
future. Um and uh we've got the study
and we need to accept it and so that we
can close that out. Um it does not
obligate us uh to uh the other thing I
had my other concern again was that $110
million um you know budget. Uh
>> uh so we've done this great amount of
work. Let's accept it. Let's put it
somewhere where it's going to be useful.
uh and then we can come back to it when
circumstances have changed or when it's
more uh as council member Ray said where
it's more opportunistic for us to
actually use this information to
possibly build this project. But right
now it's it's we're not going to build
it now and uh we need to uh take some
kind of formal action to close this out
and then move on. So um and appreciate I
do appreciate all the work that staff
has done. It's really an amazing body of
work. So, thank you so much.
>> Thank you. That sounds like a couple of
very interesting committee meetings. Um,
so we are in the council question
portion and council member Mart has his
microphone up.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Madame Mayor. A
couple questions. Um, I recall an
overcrossing study that we referenced at
one of our legislative
meetings one January a few years ago.
What was the relationship between that
overcrossing study and this overcrossing
study?
>> I believe the study that you're
referencing was work done by Rowley
Properties. That was a concept of what
it could look like and where it could
be. Um, so it was very uh very high
level. This one is a much more in-depth
study um that that looked at all all
kinds of factors. [snorts] Greg went
over a few of them, but this one is is a
much bigger study, much more in depth.
Of course, the rallies as a property
owner in the area um were um a part of
the outreach process and um we took
their feedback, but their study was I
think very um high level and conceptual
in nature and this one um takes in many
more factors.
>> Got it. Um second question is what kind
of traffic studies were done as part of
this?
Oh, we got Jacobs. This is John
McKenzie. He's uh worked with Jacob's
engineering. Um and they also happen to
do the concurrency modeling. So,
>> and it might be great. Thank you for
coming up and please identify yourself
for the council, but also just tying in
why concurrency and this project mesh in
any way, shape, or form. Not everybody
is as familiar with that uh those two
items.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, John McKenzie with
Jacobs. Um, I'm the been the the project
manager working with Greg and the city
on this project. Um, so I'm not the
technical expert on the traffic
analysis, but um, we did perform the
traffic analysis for the study. Torston
Lenau who also serves as
>> really the city's you know traffic
engineer is on our team and he um he
developed uh synchro analysis models for
both the AM and the PM peak and off peak
um and so he so he used those models to
study uh within within the network
within the central regional growth
center and um intersections around that.
Um how the different alignments would
impact traffic both you know along the
um SR900 and Front Street alignments and
what kind of traffic it would be pulling
from those
um and I can't really provide more
detail than that other than um with the
the traffic report is within the study
that we can make available for you. So
did so I'm very familiar with Torston's
work. Um did he do a full nodal
analysis? Like did he
>> full nodal analysis? Yes.
>> Because I'm really getting at page 284
of the packet the trade study that's in
there. Um and it's specifically around
benefit
um
3.2
and it's uh vehicle you know uh
congestion relief basically. And this
has a this has sort of a qualitative,
you know, Consumer Reports kind of
looking uh vibe to it. But I'm I'm
curious. Um I guess greater than 1,200
vehicle per hour reduction would be the
would be like the the the Consumer
Reports best on that. So I I I would
love to see the the numbers
specifically. Uh it looks like all these
options had a significant reduction in
vehicles per hour in the other
intersections. Is that correct?
>> I would I would have to follow up.
>> Okay. Because it's I mean it's one of
the core benefits of Yes. of doing this,
right? So I just wanted to make sure
that there was the math behind it.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um couple more couple
more questions. Um
how did what was these seem to all these
options seem to have non-trivial impact
potentially on Costco. How was the
conversation? I mean, they they seem
more impacted by this than maybe, you
know, I mean, guess if I guess if
somebody has a business that goes away
that they're impacted, but how was the
conversation with Costco given that um
these options potentially have a
significant impact on um some of some of
the the development agreement area?
>> Yeah. So, we met with them uh kind of
beginning, middle, and end. Um pretty
succinct response to that would be
they're in favor of the crossing. They
see the need for it. They kind of don't
really want it going through their
campus like the the Maple Lake does due
to the pedestrian conflicts, but they
kind of supported the when we shared our
recommended alternatives, they they were
on board with that one.
>> Would this recommended alternative
require any revisions in our development
agreement with Costco?
>> You know, I I don't know the answer to
that. However, um
I don't know. I don't think so. I don't
believe so.
>> I'm seeing some head shaking. No,
>> no, we we don't no we don't foresee any
amendments to the development agreement
with Costco if this was to move forward.
I'll I'll add a finer point to um what
Greg said about feedback that we heard
from Costco. I think they recognize the
benefits of having another crossing for
their employees to get to and from
campus, especially if it facilitates
that connection to light rail. They are
concerned about walkability of their
campus area. Um they've just opened up
their new buildings. There's a lot of
folks that you can see walking um
between the buildings and that's an
environment that they really like and
their employees feel is safe and so
they're concerned about any alignment
that would funnel a lot of vehicular
traffic through their campus. So um so
we were um as Greg said uh that was some
of their main comments which um made
this one of the preferred alternatives.
>> And and the last question thank you for
that. The last question that I have is
there was there were emails going around
earlier today um associated with this
and I think council member Jen had a
question and one of the answers that
came back um mentioned something that
that sort of caught my attention about
an associated public structure. Um and
that's not language that's in the report
at all or at least in the packet for us
today. Um, so I'm wondering,
you know, I have I have
I there are questions about what
associated parking structures.
>> I assume associated public structure
means associated parking structure.
>> Yes, I'm sorry. I maybe I was typing
that a little too fast. I did mean
parking structure and not public
structure. Um, so I think I was talking
about uh the the ST3 project that um the
representative project contemplates not
only a light rail station but also a
parking structure with 500 stalls as
well as a pedike bridge.
>> I see. Thank you.
>> Additional questions.
Uh, Chair Joe, would you like to make a
motion?
>> I would move to accept the Central Isqua
multimodal I90 crossing study and
approve it as preferred crossing
location of 11th Avenue Northwest to
11th Avenue Northwest.
>> Second.
>> It's been moved and seconded. Council
discussion.
Council Jang.
>> Yeah. First off, I want to thank the
staff and the consultant team for all
the work that's been done on this, you
know, with doing like engineering
studies and figuring out, you know, how
exactly the angles need to go and, you
know, lift I I mean to me the cost is
eyepopping, you know, cuz you have to
raise Gilman or raise I90 or all that.
But, um, you know, so I appreciate all
the detailed engineering works that's
gone into this. Um, so you know, in my
thinking about this specific project, I
went back and looked at the central
Isiqua plan because this was part of the
plan. So, um, just, uh, there's three
different crossings of I90 that are
mentioned in the Central Isqua plan. So,
uh, it included multimodal crossing from
12th Avenue to 11th Avenue. We changed
it to 11th and 11th, which I believe
makes sense given, you know, what we've
seen here. um a pedestrian crossing of
I90 at Maple Avenue, which is one of the
multimmoal options that we assessed. You
know, given Costco's perspective, I
think doing a bike ped crossing there
would make a lot of sense. And I think
given that in the Sound Transit plan,
they claim they have funding for a
pedestrian bridge. I think that's
something we, you know, in our work with
Sound Transit really need to have as an
absolute non-negotiable. Like if they
get rid of a parking garage, fine. if
they get rid of pedestrian bridge over
I90. No, I will fight them on that. Um,
and then another thing that was
mentioned in the central Isqua plan was
a pedestrian crossing from the West
Newport neighborhood to Lake Spammer
State Park. So, I guess, you know, one
of the things that I think potentially
could have been a little bit of a missed
opportunity with the study is, you know,
studying what some of those pedestrian
uh bike pedestrian overpass options
could have looked like cuz just in terms
of the cost, those are so much less
costly. Um, and I looked up, you know,
oh, Redmond recently built some bike
pedestrian bridge crossings associated
with their light rail. For example, they
did a bike pedestrian overpass at the
Overlike Village light rail station,
which cost $10.4 $4 million compared to
$110 million for the lowest cost option
here. Um they also there was the new
fancy one with the little tents on it
and that crosses 520 the light bridge
and 156 and it's diagonal so it's very
very long and that was 33.3 million and
that was actually fully funded by
Microsoft because it connects two halves
of the Microsoft campus. So just like
looking at that data where you can build
a you know bike pedestrian crossing for
literally 10% of the cost of building
the least cost crossing that allows
cars. I just I struggle to see how this
will ever get built. I mean I do think
it was useful for us to do this study.
Um I wish that we had assessed some you
know bicycle pedestrian options as well
including the ones that were uh included
in the central Isqua plan. Um, but you
know, I think given what we've seen,
like I think it's I'm happy to accept
the results of this study with the
understanding that uh we probably
are going to have to figure out how this
fits in just given the astronomical
price tag.
Thank you, Council Member Jen. And the
answer is kind of we need all three of
those things. It's not just one
replacing the other. So, we still need a
place for buses, delivery vehicles, all
kinds of different things. And they use
pavement, too. And so do electric
vehicles. So, there's it's kind of an
all, not just a or um and let's go to
comments. I think it's council president
next.
Thank you. Um appreciate this work. It's
beautiful. It's lovely to dream and see
things in,
you know, color and video and all of
that. Um, I have a lot of concerns about
this. I think when I initially saw the
idea of this 11th to 11th Avenue
Northwest connection and the placement
of it, it made sense to me. um seeing
the more 3D images now and what that
would look like with a 26 foot height of
Gilman Boulevard and all of that. I am
no longer sure that that meets our needs
as a community. Um,
if I think about this as a potential
connection location for Sound Transit,
either in the middle or on one side or
whatnot, I really want something that is
walkable and bikable. And the idea that
a 26 foot high
location would be walkable or bikable
just does not compute in my mind. So I
think we have missed the mark on this
unfortunately. Um
I yeah I I just don't see how this takes
the future of the central Isiqua plan
area into consideration. I know there
are limited areas where we can do a
crossing and I know that there are
there's a need for more connectivity and
mobility, but I don't think we should do
that
while sacrificing the connection of
Gilman Boulevard as a street to the
businesses and property that is next to
it.
It just seems like a sacrifice that we
shouldn't spend $100 million or more to
do. So, I don't think I support this at
this point.
>> Um, any other comments?
Council member Marts,
>> unfortunately, I'm not able to support
it this evening. My concern is um
continues to be around parking
structures and uh I just look at again I
use MARTA as an example. Uh MARTA's end
of line uh are all 30 acre parcels. Um
that's the equivalent of Tibets Valley
Park. And so I look at the options that
we've seen this evening and I ask myself
where we could put a Tippets Valley
Parkized parking lot um associated with
that and I don't like any of the
answers. Thank you. Any other comments?
>> Council member Hall, Deputy Council
President.
>> Yeah, clarifying question. Can you talk
to us about what would happen if we
voted no as a council tonight on this? I
mean, it's just an official action to
like accept that the report is complete,
right? I mean, if we if we vote no, is
it the same outcome?
Um we
are asking council to accept the project
which would help us conclude the work in
the way that um you accept capital
projects when they're done and complete.
Um and so it would be helpful to have
that mark this point in time as we're
we're done with this study. um that the
study that we're presenting
uh accomplish the goals of the study. Um
if council chooses to not accept the
preferred alignment, um then it it also
doesn't sound like they prefer the other
two options that Greg presented,
right? because that could be that could
be feedback we get from you tonight that
you don't agree with the
administration's recommendation but you
prefer the two other alternatives that
we presented or one of the two
alternatives that was presented. So it
I'm not hearing that from council
either. So um what I if council does not
accept the study and does not approve of
the preferred alignment then I think we
um without any other feedback or
direction from council I think we uh
close the matter. The reason why we are
hoping for council's acceptance is to be
able to keep this study and use it to
inform future decisions and say we know
that this isn't a perfect alignment. We
know that we have concerns, but uh we
have a light rail study coming and we'll
be able to use some of the information
um received in in the pro in the process
of the study to help inform future
decisions. One of those is if a council
10 years from now says, you know, it' be
a great idea. We should really get a
crossing of I90. We could dig up this
study and say, "Well, we have a study
and here's what that would entail." Um,
instead of having to redo the work
because if we did the work over again,
we believe we would come up with the
same results for a multimodal crossing
of I90. So, that's why we're asking
council to accept the project. Um that's
why we have a recommendation for the
preferred alignment because we don't
believe that we can do much better uh
given the conditions and the factors
that we have if we were to repeat the
study and do it again. It does not mean
that we're going to go ahead and build
this project.
>> Um city administrator, you look like you
wanted to chime in.
>> Yes. U Madam Mayor, members of the
council, um I think the council does
have a few alternatives here. the the
motion on the floor is to uh accept the
administration's recommendation uh for
the crossing alternative. Uh an
alternate motion could be merely to
receive the report.
>> Right.
>> Thanks for that, Deputy Council
President.
>> Yeah, thank you. That is what I was uh
thinking as well is um or that we could
um close out this project with uh maybe
a letter from the council or a list of
concerns that we have about this and
attach that because basically I hate to
characterize it like this but it's going
to be put on a shelf and it will be used
at some future point and maybe at that
point it would be very useful for future
people to know exactly what the concerns
of this council were at the same time
that we just close this project out and
just say we're done right now. So that
would be my recommendation. Um,
you know, I've used this analogy before
and may not work with some of the
younger folks, but it's like a Polaroid
camera picture that comes into focus
slowly but surely. And you start one of
these big projects and it's very dim and
it's kind of like murky and then you get
a little bit more clarity and a little
bit more clarity. That's we're in the
stage right now where it's still murky.
Uh it's just we're just doing
preliminary research and uh there, you
know, the concerns about um the bikeways
and the pedestrian crossings and things
like that are really legitimate
concerns. It I don't think that we're
quite ready to have done the research on
that. So um there are really legitimate
concerns here, but we're not in the
process where those would be addressed
anyway. So, um, I I I would think that
perhaps we could close this project out,
do a motion like that and have a letter
or some kind of memorandum that
expresses our concerns to the future
people that will be using this study.
So, that would be my idea.
>> Good suggestion. Also, just wanted to
point out too, I mean, we're talking
about the retail and properties.
Sunransit hasn't defined which
properties they're going to use as part
of their project. They're going to be
buying out property owners that are
there. New property owners will be
coming in trying to build the 10 12story
buildings that we're talking about.
There are opportunities for partners on
this project. There may be somebody who
wants to build a structure over I90 that
includes this crossing. So, this really
isn't uh much of anything except uh a
feasibility feasibility study with very
little um details right now and all it's
being asked is to accept it. I think
council deputy council president's
suggestion if she were to put it in a
motion would be a good one to receive
and provide a council summary with the
filing of the document. Um but you'd
have to make a motion.
>> Uh would it be So there's already a
motion on the floor, right?
>> Uh would it be an amendment to the
motion?
>> Yep. Um,
see, I move that we uh um accept the
>> Okay, go ahead.
>> report.
>> Well, maybe just a comment here. Um, so
the maker of the motion could request
that it be withdrawn and if there was um
unanimous consent or a majority agreed,
you could withdraw the current motion
and then uh
>> motion withdraw motion. [laughter]
>> Okay,
>> you made the motion.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Second. And so, um, mayor, maybe just
confirm there's no objection to
withdrawing the motion. No objection.
Not seeing an objection. And then now we
can have a new motion.
>> Deputy Council President,
>> uh, I move that we, uh, we conclude this
study, um, and prepare a, um,
memorandum of concerns to be included
with the study. Um,
period.
>> Is there a second? So,
>> are you trying to accept the report?
>> Yes, accept the report.
>> Are you and receive the central
>> second?
>> There we go.
>> Second. Um, [laughter]
>> thank you.
>> Looking at the deputy administrator,
that makes sense. You have enough
information. That's great. Council, did
you raise your hand? W
>> would u mayor, would you mind just con
confirming the motion on the floor and
maybe giving us a a clear statement? And
can I also have a confirmation who was
the seconder?
>> Russell. Thank you,
>> Russell. Um, I'm sure you wrote it down,
Debbie. Council President,
>> just wing it and this time we'll get the
city clerk to write it down.
>> Okay. Uh, oh, help me, council member.
>> Um,
>> move to receive. Move to receive the
>> central isqua multimodal
>> I90 crossing project report
and
>> creation of a a memo to reflect staff
concerns with the project.
>> I I I move that. [laughter]
>> I'm sure it was exactly those words.
>> Yes.
>> And the second. Do you agree with that
verbiage?
>> Second.
>> Okay. Council discussion.
>> Council member Jen. Um just quick
clarification on the language. Do we
need to cuz on the slide I saw conclude
the study. Do we need to say that in the
uh up in the okay receive report and
then um issue a uh statement of council
concerns. Okay.
>> I I think we'll use different words.
We're you know Sound Transit is
following the work that we're doing and
so far we are committed to continuing
that good work to get through the
station design and station location. So
it would be
>> it maybe additional information required
prior to a decision but it will list
everything I we want to sound like we
are in a positive frame of mind as we
move forward so it'll be worded
appropriately.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Um yeah I mean I
think the motion as proposed makes a lot
of sense. I think, you know, we should
receive the study and close this out and
also, you know, for the benefit of
future council members, have a clear
memo that outlines, you know, the
summary of this discussion. Um, cuz
there's been a lot of times when I've
wondered, you know, oh, what happened in
this thing in the past and having to
like watch a council meeting from 2015
or whatever, you know, we don't want to
make future council members do that. So,
I think, um, that's a really good way of
doing this. Um, I think in general, you
know, I I also agree that given that we
didn't, you know, we we haven't even
figured out where a preferred light rail
alignment is. I think, you know, saying
that we need more information to decide
which of these alignments is preferred
given where we're going to put light
rail makes a lot of sense. Um, I'm glad
we have the study that has studied all
of these options so that we have the
information we need to make this
decision in tandem with the light rail
study that's happening later this year
or early next year. Uh, council
president,
>> thank you. I appreciate this adjustment.
I think this makes me a lot more
comfortable with the idea when we are
addressing um, you know, some of our
thoughts on this. I I appreciate that
many of the goals of creating an I90
over under crossing included
traffic mobility. Um, I really hope we
would recognize that particularly with
an integration with a light rail station
and with our central Isqua plan having
the idea of creating a more walkable
area that recognizing that height um is
really important and wanting to ensure
that we have connectivity to businesses.
um after seeing these and not even
businesses,
property um that lines up to this I
think would be a really important um
piece for me.
>> Council member Mertz.
>> Thank you. I'll [clears throat] be
supporting this new measure. Um
I I want light rail in this community. I
believe this community wants light rail
in this community, but it's not a blank
check. And so I'm just I continue to be
extremely concerned about what a new
parking structure will look like given
that we will be the end of the line for
this. And so um you know I want sound
transit. I understand the mayor's point
about um you know continuing to be a
community that is welcoming to the idea
of uh light rail and I want us to be
that. But I continue to have serious
concerns about uh just from having seen
other other metropolitan areas and how
the parking situation works. Um and I
believe folks in our community will have
concerns about such a parking structure.
I don't know how to solve that. I can't
solve it today. Um but I just I want to
put that marker out there. Um, I really
I really want to get to yes on light
rail, but I'm I'm not a blank check on
whatever parking structure somebody
wants to put into the heart of our city.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Additional council
discussion.
Deputy Deputy Council President.
>> Yes. And as long as we're discussing our
concerns, I I will I would also like to
say that uh the community engagement was
my major concern. And um I think if that
could be included in our the memor
memorandum that we prepare um this
really changes the character of that
whole street. Uh so the impact to the
community, the culture, um everything
along that street would be immense. And
so uh I would like to see uh a robust
discussion and information
included in whatever next steps we do
with this particular project. So and I
would ask if there's any other
considerations that we want to be sure
we have in that memorandum from the rest
of the council. Thanks.
>> Additional discussion.
>> Okay. The uh council.
>> Yeah. I mean in terms of concerns you
know reiterating the concerns about cost
um also disappointment that this study
didn't include any study of a you know
what the designer cost of some of these
potential pedestrian overcrossings would
be um and uh I think you know some of
the stuff on integration with light rail
which is probably something that we're
going to continue discussing as we do
more studies in the coming years.
>> Thank you. Additional discussion.
Okay. It has been moved and seconded to
receive the central multimodal I90
crossing report and prepare a memorandum
of concerns to be included with the
study. All those in favor say I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> Those opposed
that carries seven and no. Thank you.
And thank you both all three of you for
your uh comments and information this
evening. So, that passed unanimously and
we're going to move into the next
section of our meeting, which is
committee and regional reports. And
we'll start with council member Jiang.
Uh,
>> no report from me this evening. Thanks,
>> Council Member Joe.
>> Thank you, Madame Mayor. The, uh,
mobility and infrastructure committee
meeting scheduled for November 24th will
need to be cancelled. We do not have a
quorum for that meeting. The we'd ask
the administration to [cough] take the
street standards landscaping update and
reschedule for January 26.
Cascade Water Alliance will be meeting,
the board will be meeting on November
19th at 3:30 in the afternoon. Uh, our
mayor, Mayor Paulie, will be honored for
her service on that committee and her
years of dedication to big issues such
as PAS and getting the Tacoma water line
to our fair city in the future. The
public affairs committee meeting uh is
scheduled for December 3rd.
lodging tax advisory committee met
today. We went over the criteria for
applications for um funding for next
year and uh we are having another
meeting on December 8th. It's a special
meeting from 2 to 3:30 at Pickering uh
for the public and we'd ask that uh
anyone interested in the criteria come
on over and give us your opinions. Thank
you. It's 10 o'clock. Good night,
>> Council Member Hall. Thanks. Uh, East
Side Fire and Rescue. Our last board
meeting was last Thursday, November
13th. Uh, approved apparatus financing
agreement with Fire District 10. So,
you'll see some new apparatus in 3 to 5
years, three years if we're super lucky,
but probably five plus years. Um, we got
an update on our interim agreement with
Fire District 27, that's Fall City for
Fire Admin Services. um uh approved the
firefighter collective bargaining
agreement which was a huge um huge
effort on behalf of Chief Lane. Um so we
appreciate that. Approved outgoing Chief
Lane's final performance eval. And then
we approved the incoming fire chief Will
AO's uh employment agreement with us. Um
it was also my last board meeting as
chair. So Council Member Pam Stewart
from Samish has officially taken over.
She's chair of ESA Fire and Rescue right
now. So, um I would also like to
officially request a demotion
to the alternate position um to promote
our current alternate to my voting um
position for next month's meeting in
December.
>> Um so, I'll maybe ask the three of you
to to figure that out. I was kind of
looking through section 2.04 of the
rules and procedures and I don't know,
it seemed like maybe there had to be
like a survey sent out to the council
congress, but maybe there's a way to get
around that. It's just important we
>> we can we can do the shifting before the
December meeting. So
>> that sounds great.
>> Um
>> anyways, thank you. And then um also Ry
8 Sam recovery council. Um our next
meeting is this Thursday on the agenda
is previewing 2026 grant opportunities,
approving other grant funding
recommendations, our 2026 state
legislative priorities, and a success
story, the lower Isqua Creek restoration
project, which I toured. That was very
cool. Uh after that, the next meeting
will be on January 15th. So I hope we
can appoint someone new cough cough um
to represent his class soon after I
leave. And that concludes my report.
>> I neglected to mention that you were
recognized at the meeting with a brand
new type of uh epher recognition plaque
that I hadn't seen before. Very very
impressive.
>> Yeah. Thank you. It was very
embarrassing. I told them to stop. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
Um, before we get to Council Member Ray,
I'm just going to let you all know that
this is Council Member Ray's last
council meeting. And so I am [laughter]
not going to completely call him out on
all of this, but I did want you all to
know that this is his last meeting. And
tomorrow night at the committee meeting,
I hope to come by and uh provide uh some
words about the service that Council
Member Ray has brought to our community.
And how about your report? [laughter]
>> I really want to say no report after
that.
Um, but the Fourth of July commission
did meet today and when we were
introduced to our new executive
director, uh, Wally pulled a uh, a
rabbit out of that hat to find somebody
to do that role on a volunteer basis.
So, kudos to the, uh, city
administrator, uh, Janie Bube,
>> we got it right. Um, anyway, the
commission is continuing to make
progress on planning events to celebrate
the country's uh, semiquincential.
>> Thank you, Council Member Mertz. Thank
you, Madame Mayor. The Sound Cities
Association Public Issues Committee met
last Wednesday, November 12th, at 7 p.m.
It was an online meeting. No action was
taken. Um, I want to point out that
SCA's annual meeting is going it it's
actually it's after our our next council
meeting, but only just. It's Wednesday,
December 3rd at 5:30 p.m. And it's
really important that we have good
attendance at it because it's going to
be at Pickering Barn here in Isiqua. So,
we are going to be the host city for the
annual meeting. Uh, very exciting. Uh,
the food is always delicious.
Uh, services, safety, and parks will be
meeting tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. here in
council chambers. We only have one
issue, but it is COOM0182
e motorcycle and ebicycle ordinance.
This concludes my report.
>> Thank you, deputy council president.
>> Thank you. Um, on Friday I attended the
East Side Transportation Part
Partnership meeting and we adopted the
2026 state legislative agenda for ETP
and I sent copies of that to everyone on
the council. Uh, we also received a
report on the repair schedule for the
ship canal bridge. Uh, and if you're
wondering what that is, it is that big
huge I5 bridge that takes you to the
University of Washington. Uh, it's been
60 years since its last major repair.
Repairs will be conducted over the next
three years. They will resurface the
entire bridge, do joint repair and
install drains to carry away carry away
standing water more efficiently than is
occurring right now. Uh the bridge
currently carries 240,000 vehicles each
day. So it's going to be a major
disruption to uh traffic when they are
working on the project. But um they have
a robust community engagement plan to uh
help people find different ways of
getting to work and so forth. Um and
that's um the only other thing that's on
my calendar is the regional transit
committee meets this Wednesday and the
board of health uh meeting is on
Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council President Walsh. No
report.
So, for the mayor's report this evening,
there will not be an executive session.
I also wanted to remind the council
about former Isiqua City Council member
Eileen Barber's memorial. Um, Eileen
recently passed away and a celebration
of life to honor her will be held on
November 22nd at Flint's Isqua Funeral
Home beginning at 11:00 a.m. Eileen will
be remembered for her independence,
strength, and unwavering [snorts]
devotion to her family and community. In
lie of flowers, the family encourages
donations to organizations supporting
dementia research or local community
causes in Isiqua in recognition of
Irene's lifelong spirit of giving. We
have some upcoming events. 9 to5 the
musical is going to be open at Village
Theater on November 18th. The Village
Theat's production of 9 to5 the musical
opens tomorrow. The high energy show
brings the beloved 1980 film to life
along with Dolly Parton's iconic tunes.
Get ready to clock in for outrageous
fun. This hilarious and heartfelt
musical runs through January 4th, 2026,
including an American Sign Language
performance on December 6th, and a
captioned show on December 20th. To
learn more about the shows and buy
tickets, visit the Village Theat's
website. And a holiday popup event will
take place at Blakeley Hall this Sunday,
November 23rd, from 11 to 3. Local
artisans and vendors will offer unique
gifts, crafts, and decor to help you
find the perfect gift. Stop by this
holiday popup to support your local
artisans and vendors. And the annual
turkey trot returns to downtown Isco on
Thanksgiving morning. The fun and casual
5K runwalk trot is a beloved local
tradition that brings the community
together to fundra for the Isqua food
and clothing bank. Register early to
beat the long lines on race day and
don't forget to wear your Thanksgiving
costumes and accessories.
Uh that concludes the mayor's report and
the next item we have is good of the
order. Does anybody have items? Council
member Joe.
>> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank
you for uh attending and speaking at the
Veterans Day event on Tuesday. Um your
words were uh inspiring to those of us
that haven't served and I hope an
inspiration to those that that have
given to their country. Um Sarah Perry
was also there and gave some remarks and
uh it's um a really nice event to attend
to honor uh those that have served our
country. Uh I also attend the leadership
east side 20th anniversary emerald gala
on Saturday night. Um, as many of you
know, cities have sent many of their me
their staff to lead Leadership East
Side. Christopher Wright, a former
planner of ours, was a person that went
through that program as well. It was
nice to see that leadership east side
has achieved 20 years of of uh training
leaders uh in the area and many of them
have gone on to serve as mayors and
council members and other influential
people in our community. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council Member Joe. Any other
good of the orders?
If not, I will do a few meeting
announcements. The next regular city
council meeting and the first one
without uh council member Ray is
December 1st.
The anticipated agenda items include
anformational update on the asset
management system, acres of diamonds
affordable housing covenants and the
city council vacancy process for council
position number two. So there being no
executive session this evening, we are
adjourned at 10:15. Thanks.