City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, June 27, 2022 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Comment Public comment on individual agenda items will also be accepted following Council Q&A

▶ Watch from 0:37

Community Investment Strategy ID 1141

90 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.34

▶ Watch from 5:37 Open packet at p.34 ↗

Staff report:

4. What is the City Council feedback regarding spending down ending fund balance and the additional proposed positions?

3548 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ welcome everyone I council president

0:16 ↗ Walsh call the June 27th

0:20 ↗ committee meeting of the whole meeting

0:23 ↗ to order

0:25 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:26 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:28 ↗ is a general public comment opportunity

0:30 ↗ at the beginning of the meeting or you

0:33 ↗ can make comments after the presentation

0:35 ↗ and counsel question and answer period

0:37 ↗ on tonight's agenda items

0:39 ↗ members of the public May address

0:40 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:42 ↗ virtually those who signed up in advance

0:44 ↗ to make comments will be called on first

0:47 ↗ if you're joining us virtually and would

0:49 ↗ like to make comments please raise your

0:51 ↗ virtual hand if you're on the phone you

0:53 ↗ can press star 3. if you've joined by

0:56 ↗ computer or smartphone look for the hand

0:57 ↗ icon it can be in various different

0:59 ↗ areas one option could be to go to the

1:02 ↗ participant panel and choose the raise

1:04 ↗ hand icon in the lower right hand corner

1:08 ↗ we do not have anyone in the room

1:10 ↗ tonight but I will go ahead and wait a

1:13 ↗ moment to see if anybody wishes to raise

1:16 ↗ their hand virtually and clerk did

1:19 ↗ anyone sign up to speak or indicate a

1:21 ↗ desire to speak this evening

1:24 ↗ council president no one signed up in

1:26 ↗ advance and I'm monitoring we do have a

1:28 ↗ few members of the public on the line

1:30 ↗ with us I'm just taking a quick look

1:32 ↗ here but I'm not seeing that anyone's

1:34 ↗ indicating a desire to speak at this

1:35 ↗ time

1:37 ↗ okay thank you clerk Geezer

1:39 ↗ um as a reminder written comments can be

1:41 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

1:45 ↗ issaquah.gov and we will also have

1:48 ↗ another public comment period after our

1:50 ↗ question and answer period I did receive

1:54 ↗ two emails from the community on the

1:58 ↗ topic of tonight's agenda so I'll

2:00 ↗ summarize those quickly now one was

2:03 ↗ focused on the icap the Issaquah climate

2:08 ↗ action plan and wanted us to

2:13 ↗ basically use the funding and add some

2:17 ↗ funding to get the items done from the

2:19 ↗ Issaquah climate plan

2:21 ↗ and then another was supportive of

2:26 ↗ the proposal and very excited about the

2:31 ↗ I-90 under over Crossing and the related

2:33 ↗ Light Rail and appreciated the focus on

2:36 ↗ that and so those were the community

2:38 ↗ comments that we received for tonight's

2:42 ↗ agenda item

2:44 ↗ and let's see looking back up at the

2:48 ↗ agenda we have one other item on our

2:51 ↗ agenda tonight that is ID 1141 the

2:54 ↗ community investment strategy this will

2:56 ↗ be presented by Andrea Snyder Deputy

2:58 ↗ City administrator and mayor mayor Mary

3:01 ↗ Lou Polly will be introducing the topic

3:10 ↗ thank you council president Walsh

3:13 ↗ and good evening council members staff

3:15 ↗ and members of the community it's kind

3:18 ↗ of fun to address you from down here

3:19 ↗ instead of up there

3:22 ↗ tonight you will begin a very important

3:24 ↗ Dialogue on how the Issaquah Community

3:27 ↗ will invest the funds from the American

3:29 ↗ Rescue plan act this Federal allocation

3:32 ↗ does come with restrictions on how it

3:34 ↗ can be invested in brief they can apply

3:37 ↗ to projects or programs that have been

3:39 ↗ harmed by the covid-19 pandemic or to

3:42 ↗ advance lagging infrastructure needs

3:44 ↗ within our communities

3:46 ↗ as a community we have made some very

3:49 ↗ difficult decisions over the last two

3:51 ↗ years plus

3:52 ↗ and we have prudently invested the cares

3:55 ↗ act Federal funding in a manner that

3:56 ↗ provided stabilization during one of the

3:59 ↗ largest threats to health and life in

4:01 ↗ our community's history

4:03 ↗ I am proud of the hard decisions that

4:05 ↗ were made to ensure that we were staying

4:07 ↗ safe

4:08 ↗ and working to stay financially

4:10 ↗ sustainable

4:12 ↗ I am also proud that we were able to

4:13 ↗ partner with others in providing

4:15 ↗ life-saving vaccines and Recovery Care

4:17 ↗ directly in this city

4:20 ↗ the vaccine partnership with the

4:22 ↗ snoquami tribe and Eastside fire and

4:24 ↗ rescue provided easier access to those

4:28 ↗ in our community

4:29 ↗ to life-saving vaccines I'm proud of our

4:33 ↗ partnership with King County

4:35 ↗ on the covid recovery center that

4:37 ↗ allowed hundreds who could not

4:39 ↗ quarantine to have a place to isolate

4:41 ↗ and safely recover I know it feels like

4:44 ↗ a long time ago but the reality is that

4:46 ↗ the vaccine partnership started in

4:48 ↗ August of last year not even one year

4:50 ↗ ago and the covert Recovery Center wound

4:53 ↗ down last September it feels like a

4:56 ↗ lifetime ago

4:57 ↗ cities around the country will have

4:59 ↗ varying plans for the use of arpa funds

5:01 ↗ many will replace lost public sector

5:03 ↗ revenues use it for hazard pay hire back

5:07 ↗ employees that were laid off use it for

5:10 ↗ premium pay provision of additional

5:12 ↗ public health and safety activities or

5:15 ↗ capital and infrastructure expenditures

5:17 ↗ most cities will likely select a variety

5:19 ↗ of all of the above depending on their

5:21 ↗ City's particular needs

5:23 ↗ I'm proposing a list of items tonight to

5:25 ↗ council that invests in capital and

5:28 ↗ infrastructure projects plus one of the

5:30 ↗ major game changers in transportation

5:32 ↗ and mobility in Issaquah the addition of

5:34 ↗ Light Rail to our transportation choices

5:36 ↗ and an additional under Crossing of I-90

5:40 ↗ tonight the council will also discuss

5:42 ↗ how to spend down the ending fund

5:44 ↗ balance and make the investments in the

5:46 ↗ community's number one stated concern

5:47 ↗ transportation

5:50 ↗ later this summer Council will also

5:51 ↗ begin discussions on the 23-24 budget by

5:54 ↗ providing the administration with

5:55 ↗ recommend recommendations on how to

5:58 ↗ invest in all of our community

5:59 ↗ priorities and move the needle on the

6:02 ↗ city-wide strategic planning goals and I

6:04 ↗ believe this event is planned for July

6:06 ↗ your discussions tonight provide a

6:09 ↗ historical opportunity to give our

6:11 ↗ community a shot in the arm to move the

6:13 ↗ needle on capital projects and

6:15 ↗ infrastructure I am looking forward to

6:17 ↗ hearing the discussion and I'm available

6:18 ↗ tonight for any questions on the draft

6:20 ↗ investment plan I'll turn it now over to

6:22 ↗ Deputy City administrator Andrea Snyder

6:24 ↗ for the presentation

6:29 ↗ thank you mayor Polly a good evening

6:32 ↗ members of council

6:34 ↗ just one second while I share the

6:37 ↗ presentation

6:48 ↗ okay

6:53 ↗ good evening again I'm Andrea Snyder I'm

6:56 ↗ the deputy City administrator and

6:59 ↗ tonight we are talking about the

7:01 ↗ community investment strategy this is

7:03 ↗ also a follow-up to previous Council

7:05 ↗ discussions that we've had relating to

7:07 ↗ the Capital Finance Community task force

7:10 ↗ and their recommendations and how we can

7:12 ↗ Implement their recommendations they

7:14 ↗ provided

7:16 ↗ so we have a number of questions for you

7:18 ↗ tonight and seeking direction for a

7:21 ↗ number of policy decisions if we can't

7:24 ↗ get the through all of them tonight we

7:26 ↗ do have additional time on July 5th for

7:29 ↗ this conversation to continue but we'll

7:30 ↗ get as far as we can this evening so

7:32 ↗ there are quite a few questions

7:34 ↗ first does the city council approve of

7:37 ↗ the marriage proposal and spending

7:39 ↗ remaining arpa funds on infrastructure

7:41 ↗ including a focus on transportation and

7:44 ↗ parks and trails how does the city

7:47 ↗ council feel about spending the majority

7:50 ↗ of the remaining arpa funds on high

7:51 ↗ impact investment in one of the city's

7:54 ↗ anchor Parks we'll discuss all of these

7:57 ↗ more of course through the course of the

7:58 ↗ presentation but just want to give you a

8:00 ↗ preview of the type of direction we're

8:01 ↗ looking from you

8:02 ↗ a third question we'll be looking for

8:05 ↗ feedback on the community investment

8:07 ↗ fund concept

8:09 ↗ does the council agree to keep the focus

8:12 ↗ on small transportation and parks and

8:15 ↗ Trail projects for the community to

8:17 ↗ select and respond to through that

8:19 ↗ public engagement process mayor Paulie

8:20 ↗ discussed earlier

8:22 ↗ does the council have any changes they

8:24 ↗ want to make to the project selection

8:25 ↗ criteria

8:27 ↗ and does the council have any feedback

8:28 ↗ on the proposed next step of taking the

8:32 ↗ community investment Community

8:34 ↗ investment fund engagement plan to the

8:36 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

8:38 ↗ next month

8:40 ↗ what is the council feedback regarding

8:43 ↗ spending down ending fund balance and

8:46 ↗ the additional proposed positions and

8:49 ↗ finally fifth question I know it's a lot

8:51 ↗ uh what is the city council feedback on

8:54 ↗ the timing for medium-term actions

8:56 ↗ listed in the strategy including looking

8:59 ↗ at facility needs in 2023 and assessing

9:03 ↗ new Revenue sources for additional

9:05 ↗ investment in transportation and parks

9:07 ↗ and infrastructure

9:10 ↗ so that's some of the direction that

9:11 ↗ will be seeking from you tonight so now

9:13 ↗ a little bit of background uh

9:15 ↗ so as a reminder the the Capital Finance

9:19 ↗ Community task force provided several

9:21 ↗ recommendations to council and the

9:24 ↗ administration here's a summary high

9:26 ↗ level summary of some of those

9:27 ↗ recommendations so first they wanted the

9:30 ↗ city to focus on Transportation

9:31 ↗ infrastructure as the top priority

9:34 ↗ second they wanted the city to explore

9:36 ↗ additional funding to increase

9:38 ↗ investment in infrastructure including

9:41 ↗ the potential of a transportation

9:43 ↗ benefit district sales tax a levy lid

9:45 ↗ lift and or Parks District

9:49 ↗ uh the task force also recommended that

9:51 ↗ the city reduce the undesignated general

9:54 ↗ fund ending fund balance in order to

9:56 ↗ spend more annually on infrastructure

9:59 ↗ they also recommended that the city used

10:03 ↗ 9 million dollars of the city's

10:04 ↗ remaining arpa funds for immediate

10:07 ↗ infrastructure Investments and one thing

10:10 ↗ that they emphasize throughout their

10:11 ↗ conversations and recommendations was

10:13 ↗ they wanted to make sure that the the

10:15 ↗ infrastructure Investments the city made

10:17 ↗ had a really high impact on the

10:19 ↗ community and that was something visible

10:22 ↗ and bold even

10:25 ↗ so with that uh we will talk about how

10:28 ↗ this plan addresses those

10:30 ↗ recommendations

10:33 ↗ so first let's talk about the

10:35 ↗ administration's recommendations for

10:36 ↗ arba funds so the Administration has a

10:40 ↗ little bit more than nine million

10:41 ↗ dollars in arpa funds and what we're

10:44 ↗ proposing is that we would use those

10:46 ↗ funds on an anchor Park Improvement

10:50 ↗ phase one of that Improvement so that

10:52 ↗ would be a six million dollar investment

10:54 ↗ that really speaks to the task Force's

10:57 ↗ recommendation that we do something

11:00 ↗ immediate that's very high impact and

11:02 ↗ visible in the community

11:03 ↗ uh also that the arpa funds two million

11:07 ↗ dollars of the arpa funds go towards a

11:10 ↗ community investment fund where we have

11:13 ↗ projects that the community would then

11:15 ↗ through a public engagement process

11:17 ↗ select as their priorities that they

11:20 ↗ would like to see get done over the next

11:21 ↗ year or so

11:23 ↗ and finally uh with arpa funds

11:27 ↗ to invest one million dollars in the

11:31 ↗ I-90 Crossing and Light Rail station

11:33 ↗ planning study this is work that we can

11:36 ↗ do now and to help prepare us for light

11:39 ↗ rail coming in 2044.

11:44 ↗ so first let's talk about that anchor

11:46 ↗ Park project a little bit more we're

11:48 ↗ again talking about a six million dollar

11:50 ↗ investment in an anchor Park anchor

11:52 ↗ parks are identified in the park

11:54 ↗ strategic plan is including the Issaquah

11:58 ↗ Creek Corridor area the Tibbetts Valley

12:01 ↗ Park and a Veterans Memorial Field and I

12:05 ↗ have a Parks director Jeff Watling on

12:07 ↗ the line if there's any more specific

12:09 ↗ questions you may have for Parks tonight

12:10 ↗ but as you know we've been going through

12:14 ↗ a Parks Master planning process for some

12:16 ↗ of these areas and so this would be an

12:18 ↗ opportunity to complete that Master

12:20 ↗ planning process and then Implement

12:22 ↗ phase one of that Redevelopment or

12:26 ↗ investment in one of these major city

12:29 ↗ parks

12:31 ↗ so uh how this would look moving forward

12:35 ↗ is that 2022 we would complete the

12:38 ↗ vision and scope and do more public

12:41 ↗ engagement now through the end of the

12:42 ↗ year on again identifying the vision and

12:45 ↗ scope of that Phase One Park Improvement

12:48 ↗ in 2023 we would design and complete

12:53 ↗ permitting for phase one of the work and

12:56 ↗ that construction would occur in 2024

12:58 ↗ and this is something that would be on

13:01 ↗ our immediate steps for an immediate

13:03 ↗ investment and Improvement in the park

13:07 ↗ and so that is the first recommendation

13:09 ↗ for arpa funds

13:11 ↗ the second recommendation I'd actually

13:13 ↗ like to turn over to Jean Paul the

13:15 ↗ city's management analyst to talk about

13:17 ↗ the community investment fund

13:19 ↗ so Gene are you on the line

13:22 ↗ yes Andrew you can hear me yes

13:25 ↗ great thank you good evening members of

13:28 ↗ the council as Andrea indicated I'm Gene

13:30 ↗ Paul I'm the management analyst in the

13:31 ↗ executive office and for the second

13:33 ↗ component of the investment strategy

13:36 ↗ we're recommending creating a community

13:38 ↗ investment fund and allocating two

13:40 ↗ million dollars that will allow the

13:42 ↗ community to really help decide what

13:45 ↗ projects they'd like to see funded for

13:47 ↗ this we're proposing that the

13:49 ↗ administration will help identify a

13:51 ↗ short list of projects and as you can

13:53 ↗ see with the criteria there we're

13:55 ↗ recommending that those projects are

13:56 ↗ eligible for arpa funding and can be

13:58 ↗ completed by the deadline where arpa

14:00 ↗ funds need to be spent

14:02 ↗ that those projects focus on

14:03 ↗ transportation and parks and trails

14:05 ↗ projects which aligns with the task

14:07 ↗ force recommendation and really that

14:10 ↗ these projects have already been vetted

14:11 ↗ and approved by the council through the

14:13 ↗ capital investment plan or CIP process

14:17 ↗ if you could go to the next slide please

14:20 ↗ and once we identify those projects if

14:23 ↗ there are multiple projects where we

14:25 ↗ really need to prioritize and create a

14:28 ↗ shorter list we're recommending using

14:31 ↗ the criteria from the test force in

14:33 ↗ order to help prioritize and create that

14:35 ↗ short list the top criteria that the

14:38 ↗ task force identified for their

14:39 ↗ prioritization exercise included

14:42 ↗ addressing pain points across the city

14:43 ↗ seeing a higher return on investment or

14:46 ↗ having a high impact relative to the

14:47 ↗ costs of the project

14:49 ↗ addressing areas from the 2021 Community

14:52 ↗ survey that were identified as highest

14:55 ↗ importance but least satisfaction for

14:57 ↗ members of the community or projects

14:59 ↗ that really would improve life and

15:00 ↗ safety

15:02 ↗ so in terms of next steps for this

15:04 ↗ component of the investment strategy the

15:07 ↗ administration will develop that project

15:08 ↗ list we'd like to discuss both the list

15:11 ↗ and the engagement process with the

15:14 ↗ council mobility and infrastructure

15:16 ↗ committee beginning next month but we

15:18 ↗ look to launch that public engagement

15:19 ↗ process in the fall after summer

15:21 ↗ vacation where we can really maximize

15:23 ↗ the engagement with the community

15:30 ↗ thank you Gene

15:32 ↗ next and finally for arpa funds the

15:36 ↗ multimodal I-90 Crossing study this one

15:40 ↗ million dollar study would identify how

15:42 ↗ the crossing will incorporate sound

15:44 ↗ transit's Link light rail station with

15:46 ↗ that Crossing evaluate the land use

15:48 ↗ impacts of the different alternatives

15:50 ↗ for locations of the crossing and and

15:53 ↗ concepts for the crossing it would also

15:56 ↗ be the first step in helping us develop

15:58 ↗ a Project funding plan

16:00 ↗ would I identify potential environmental

16:03 ↗ impacts of the Alternatives that would

16:05 ↗ either need to be avoided or mitigated

16:07 ↗ and it would also uh develop a

16:11 ↗ preliminary construction phasing plan

16:16 ↗ so in addition to spending arpa funds

16:20 ↗ the task force had recommended spending

16:23 ↗ down the general fund undesignated

16:25 ↗ ending fund balance by investing in

16:27 ↗ infrastructure the latest projections

16:29 ↗ that we have from Finance show that we

16:32 ↗ anticipate a 25 percent

16:35 ↗ um

16:36 ↗ that that will have 20 25 of general

16:39 ↗ fund expenditures uh at the end of the

16:42 ↗ year this may change uh come in come

16:44 ↗ August when we do more forecasting and

16:46 ↗ have more information about our revenues

16:48 ↗ but the best information we have right

16:50 ↗ now is that we're looking at uh 25 uh

16:53 ↗ percent and uh currently the city

16:56 ↗ council policy is to have 15 to 20

16:59 ↗ percent of

17:01 ↗ um general fund expenditures as a

17:03 ↗ reserve or as an ending fund balance

17:05 ↗ and so the task force had actually

17:07 ↗ recommended that the city move away from

17:10 ↗ that 20 figure by policy and instead

17:13 ↗ make a policy change towards 15 percent

17:15 ↗ so that uh that

17:18 ↗ that money can be more invested in

17:22 ↗ infrastructure instead of kept in

17:24 ↗ reserves or an ending fund balance and

17:26 ↗ so for us to go from 25 of general fund

17:30 ↗ expenditures where we believe we are

17:32 ↗ today to reduce it to that task force

17:36 ↗ recommendation of 15 of general fund

17:39 ↗ expenditures that's about 5.8 million

17:42 ↗ dollars

17:43 ↗ and again it is subject to change

17:45 ↗ depending on how the forecast goes we'll

17:48 ↗ have more information in August as we

17:50 ↗ prepare for the budget but that's our

17:52 ↗ our best guess today

17:54 ↗ and so we have a a proposal on how to

17:57 ↗ spend down that general fund ending fund

18:00 ↗ balance Andrea we have a question

18:03 ↗ um council member D Michelle uh thank

18:06 ↗ you when we're talking about uh reserves

18:07 ↗ are we talking about undesignated

18:09 ↗ reserves or the oh yes undesignated

18:13 ↗ reserves all right I think that really

18:15 ↗ needs to be emphasized when we're

18:17 ↗ talking about this because we're not

18:18 ↗ talking about the whole general fund

18:21 ↗ Reserves that's correct yes just

18:23 ↗ undesignated thank you

18:26 ↗ thank you for the clarification

18:30 ↗ and so we have a proposal for how to

18:32 ↗ spend down those undesignated ending

18:36 ↗ fund balance and so while we think we

18:38 ↗ have about 5.8 million dollars that we

18:41 ↗ could spend down to get us to more to

18:43 ↗ that 15 percent number we're proposing

18:46 ↗ to spend 3 million of that until we have

18:49 ↗ more information as we get closer to the

18:51 ↗ budget process so those three million

18:53 ↗ dollars our proposal is to have more

18:58 ↗ positions we're at a point in the city

19:00 ↗ where our limitations and being able to

19:03 ↗ do more Transportation or other

19:05 ↗ infrastructure projects is really

19:06 ↗ limited by the staff that we have and

19:09 ↗ their capacity to manage these projects

19:12 ↗ and so we are requesting two additional

19:15 ↗ Transportation Engineers one of those

19:18 ↗ positions uh was reduced during covid

19:21 ↗ and has not been replaced so we're

19:23 ↗ asking for that position to be restored

19:25 ↗ plus an additional position we're also

19:28 ↗ asking for one administrative Specialist

19:30 ↗ or program coordinator to assist with

19:34 ↗ the implementation of the capital

19:35 ↗ projects our Engineers are doing a lot

19:37 ↗ of paperwork shuffling and not able to

19:41 ↗ spend as much time on what we've really

19:43 ↗ hired them for as their technical

19:45 ↗ expertise and so we'd like an

19:47 ↗ administrative Specialist or perhaps a

19:49 ↗ program coordinator will need to

19:51 ↗ finalize that classification

19:53 ↗ uh but um that would be about a hundred

19:57 ↗ and four thousand dollars per year

19:59 ↗ and they would be really supporting the

20:01 ↗ engineers and completing these projects

20:02 ↗ and doing a lot of the paperwork that's

20:04 ↗ required reporting Etc

20:07 ↗ then um we're also requesting one turn

20:10 ↗ limited Parks planner that would be a

20:13 ↗ term of two years to really assist in

20:15 ↗ this anchor project and as well uh with

20:19 ↗ some of the other Parks projects that

20:22 ↗ perhaps the public would

20:24 ↗ um

20:25 ↗ would select through the community

20:27 ↗ investment fund process

20:29 ↗ finally we're asking for 2.4 million

20:34 ↗ dollars of that ending fund balance to

20:37 ↗ be set aside for the budget process and

20:41 ↗ rolled over and to the to the 2023-2024

20:45 ↗ budget and set aside for as yet

20:48 ↗ unspecified infrastructure projects but

20:50 ↗ that's something that we can discuss

20:51 ↗ during the budget setting process

20:58 ↗ I have a question Deputy council

21:00 ↗ president Hull thank you super quick

21:02 ↗ clarifying question so each of these

21:04 ↗ positions are one FTE is that correct

21:07 ↗ yes that's correct so two

21:10 ↗ um full-time equivalent Transportation

21:12 ↗ Engineers one administrative specialist

21:15 ↗ those those we anticipate to be ongoing

21:18 ↗ needs the parks planner would be limited

21:20 ↗ to two years but still 40 hours a week

21:22 ↗ yeah but limited to two years

21:29 ↗ okay so that really covers more of the

21:32 ↗ immediate actions that we would start

21:34 ↗ this year in 2022

21:37 ↗ next I'd like to summarize the timeline

21:40 ↗ of the strategy for looking out ahead

21:44 ↗ through 2026 and so

21:47 ↗ as we discussed in 2022 just to review

21:50 ↗ we would invest in transportation by

21:53 ↗ adding staff capacity with the strategy

21:55 ↗ we would begin preparations for that

21:59 ↗ I-90 Crossing and Light Rail study we

22:02 ↗ would begin that Community survey and

22:04 ↗ engagement process to select additional

22:06 ↗ small capital projects through the

22:08 ↗ community investment fund that add up to

22:09 ↗ that two million dollars of arba money

22:11 ↗ and we would complete the visioning as

22:16 ↗ part of the anchor Park project phase

22:18 ↗ one you know we do that scoping exercise

22:19 ↗ that's all in 2022. in 2023

22:23 ↗ were proposing the administration come

22:25 ↗ up with a facilities financing plan

22:27 ↗ through the task force recommendations

22:30 ↗ they had said that transportation is the

22:32 ↗ number one priority but didn't select

22:35 ↗ after that what was number two or number

22:37 ↗ three they said parks and trails is

22:38 ↗ really important facilities is also

22:40 ↗ really important we don't want to

22:42 ↗ prioritize among those or choose among

22:43 ↗ those

22:44 ↗ and for facilities we do have some

22:48 ↗ urgent needs we have a fire station that

22:51 ↗ is needed to improve response time in

22:54 ↗ North Issaquah we have some needs here

22:56 ↗ in the municipal court and council

22:59 ↗ chambers and other needs that we would

23:01 ↗ like to discuss further and explore with

23:02 ↗ Council how best to fund those facility

23:05 ↗ needs so we'd like to come up with a

23:07 ↗ plan to finance those in 2023

23:11 ↗ we also in 2023 would be completing

23:14 ↗ those Community selected projects that

23:16 ↗ were voted on through that Community

23:18 ↗ investment fund process

23:20 ↗ we are starting the transit plan process

23:24 ↗ in 2022 and so 2023 we would complete

23:27 ↗ that Transit plan which would then

23:29 ↗ inform projects that would go on the CIP

23:31 ↗ we would update the CIP the capital

23:34 ↗ Improvement plan and the transportation

23:36 ↗ Improvement plan

23:38 ↗ and we would in 2023 begin that design

23:44 ↗ and permitting for the anchor Park

23:46 ↗ project while also

23:48 ↗ the parks department would be updating

23:51 ↗ the Strategic plan that work begins next

23:54 ↗ year as well so all those efforts would

23:56 ↗ then inform the next steps here we go in

23:58 ↗ 2024

24:00 ↗ uh we would of course act on what

24:03 ↗ facilities financing plan that we came

24:05 ↗ up with with the council pending Council

24:07 ↗ direction

24:08 ↗ we would also begin to have those

24:11 ↗ discussions about a transportation

24:13 ↗ ballot measure as a follow-up to the

24:16 ↗ task force recommendations and so that

24:18 ↗ means that we would be looking at what

24:21 ↗ is what is that Suite of projects that

24:23 ↗ the city should pursue through a ballot

24:25 ↗ measure that would be informed by that

24:27 ↗ work we conducted in updating the

24:29 ↗ capital Improvement plan and the tip the

24:31 ↗ the year before

24:34 ↗ um and we'd also discuss the timing of

24:36 ↗ that ballot measure and when the timing

24:38 ↗ would be best and you know whether we

24:40 ↗ should do a ballot measure at all right

24:42 ↗ so all those discussions would really

24:43 ↗ begin in 2024.

24:46 ↗ um the anchor Park

24:48 ↗ um would still be progressing along and

24:50 ↗ we would uh be constructing with that

24:53 ↗ big anchor Park investment in 2024 and

24:56 ↗ complete the park strategic plan and

24:58 ↗ through that Park strategic plan process

25:00 ↗ is also when we'd really begin exploring

25:02 ↗ the topic of a Parks District the park

25:05 ↗ strategic plan will have a lot of public

25:07 ↗ engagement

25:08 ↗ with the Parks Board and others and so

25:11 ↗ that's when we would like to begin

25:13 ↗ discussions about that and make some

25:15 ↗ progress on that recommendation

25:18 ↗ so moving along to 2025

25:20 ↗ we would be further develop the funding

25:25 ↗ recommendations from that Park strategic

25:27 ↗ plan

25:28 ↗ and we'd begin Transportation

25:31 ↗ improvements from a ballot measure if

25:32 ↗ applicable if that ballot measure if we

25:34 ↗ go forward with a ballot measure in 2024

25:36 ↗ then we would begin implementation in

25:39 ↗ 2025 if we determined that 2024 isn't

25:43 ↗ the time for a ballot measure then we'd

25:45 ↗ move that to the date that's decided so

25:48 ↗ these dates that anticipate the ballot

25:50 ↗ measure in this timeline are really just

25:52 ↗ the soonest possible we'd recommend

25:54 ↗ having those discussions and considering

25:57 ↗ a ballot measure those discussions are

25:59 ↗ really going to guide whether that

26:00 ↗ ballot measure is even occurs or when we

26:03 ↗ would do it in this timeline this is

26:05 ↗ really just to show here's the soonest

26:06 ↗ possible that we think that we would

26:08 ↗ recommend exploring those conversations

26:12 ↗ um and then in 2026 following that the

26:16 ↗ parks strategic plan uh conversation and

26:20 ↗ Parks funding conversations

26:22 ↗ um if we do anticipate a Parks District

26:24 ↗ ballot measure 2026 would be the soonest

26:28 ↗ possible we think we we would recommend

26:32 ↗ pursuing that so again these are kind of

26:34 ↗ the soonest possible dates there's a lot

26:36 ↗ of discussions that need to happen

26:37 ↗ before we get there a lot of community

26:39 ↗ conversations a lot of planning that

26:41 ↗ needs to get there this is really just

26:43 ↗ us trying to

26:45 ↗ anticipate when we would start those

26:47 ↗ discussions and and build out a plan

26:49 ↗ from there

26:50 ↗ okay and I see a question from council

26:53 ↗ member Martz thank you um Deputy State

26:56 ↗ administrator Snyder uh the I-90

26:59 ↗ Crossing and Light Rail study how long

27:02 ↗ will that take

27:04 ↗ I've been told that will take a year

27:07 ↗ all right that's what I uh kind of maybe

27:10 ↗ expected this makes it look like we can

27:12 ↗ get it done this year and I didn't think

27:14 ↗ we could spend anywhere near anything

27:16 ↗ near a million dollar study by the end

27:18 ↗ of this year so it would be it'd be next

27:20 ↗ year that's correct what we would get

27:22 ↗ started on is writing the RFP and trying

27:25 ↗ to select a consultant to help us with

27:28 ↗ that study so we can get started but we

27:29 ↗ don't we will not be able to complete

27:31 ↗ that this year got it thank you

27:35 ↗ and a question from Deputy council

27:38 ↗ president Hall

27:40 ↗ and it's been delayed go ahead

27:44 ↗ okay thank you so as far as next steps

27:47 ↗ go

27:48 ↗ in July we would be returning to the

27:51 ↗ council July 5th to complete this

27:53 ↗ discussion and whatever follow-ups come

27:55 ↗ out of this evening also in July there's

27:58 ↗ a council mobility and infrastructure

27:59 ↗ committee to discuss public engagement

28:02 ↗ and other topics related to the

28:04 ↗ community investment fund

28:05 ↗ in August we'd begin recruitment for

28:08 ↗ those authorized positions pending

28:10 ↗ Council Direction in September we would

28:13 ↗ deploy the Outreach and engagement plan

28:15 ↗ for that Community investment fund

28:18 ↗ so those are just some of the most

28:19 ↗ immediate next steps and public and

28:22 ↗ Council touches and that concludes my

28:25 ↗ presentation

28:28 ↗ any other questions

28:30 ↗ excellent okay

28:33 ↗ um go ahead

28:34 ↗ yeah

28:37 ↗ thank you

28:38 ↗ um in the executive summary so in the

28:41 ↗ memo it says that there's 4.5 million to

28:45 ↗ be determined by community outreach and

28:47 ↗ and the upcoming budgetary process so I

28:49 ↗ was trying to figure out what goes into

28:51 ↗ that 4.5 because it's actually on the

28:54 ↗ presentation 2 million for the Community

28:58 ↗ Fund and then there's some other

29:01 ↗ budgetary process funds but I couldn't

29:04 ↗ quite figure out what is going into that

29:06 ↗ bucket

29:07 ↗ yeah

29:09 ↗ um so that would be uh the 2 million

29:12 ↗ from the community investment fund as

29:14 ↗ you said as well as

29:17 ↗ um

29:17 ↗ it refers to this ending fund balance so

29:20 ↗ we have 5.8 that we've identified so far

29:22 ↗ and a recommendation to spend three

29:24 ↗ million of it so that leaves that leaves

29:27 ↗ some money or 2.4 right here I'm sorry

29:29 ↗ 2.4 of unspecified infrastructured

29:31 ↗ projects to be rolled over into the 2023

29:34 ↗ and 24 budget process

29:37 ↗ does that answer your question

29:39 ↗ okay so we are considering that 2.4 in

29:43 ↗ addition to the two from arpa that 2.4

29:46 ↗ million unspecified to again be a

29:48 ↗ Community Fund

29:50 ↗ because that's the part that I'm

29:52 ↗ wondering about community outreach so

29:54 ↗ the community outreach will largely be

29:56 ↗ around the community investment fund and

29:58 ↗ then the budget setting process is when

30:00 ↗ we'll discuss this 2.4 million

30:04 ↗ which is that so it's so it's

30:06 ↗ unspecified projects that still need to

30:09 ↗ be worked out through through a process

30:10 ↗ all right thank you okay

30:13 ↗ and council member Mertz

30:16 ↗ so

30:18 ↗ I'm trying to wrap my head around that

30:19 ↗ 2.4 million because if we don't spend it

30:24 ↗ and if we say okay it'll go into next

30:27 ↗ year and it'll be part of next year's

30:28 ↗ budget but then if at the end of next

30:30 ↗ year we're still at 25 ending fund

30:33 ↗ balance and we'll still have just always

30:35 ↗ been 25 ending fund balance like 25 or

30:38 ↗ 30 or 35 like we always do every year so

30:41 ↗ I'm just trying to understand if we're

30:44 ↗ trying to do that what what does that

30:47 ↗ actually do in the next year's budget

30:50 ↗ process do we go into the budget with

30:53 ↗ already a proposal in there for 2.4 more

30:57 ↗ than we would have if we hadn't put two

31:00 ↗ because there'll be other I mean

31:01 ↗ there'll be a budget right and it'll be

31:03 ↗ aiming to

31:05 ↗ uh get to a certain percentage I'm just

31:08 ↗ trying to understand how this what this

31:10 ↗ what this 2.4 actually does

31:13 ↗ thank you

31:14 ↗ um so we

31:17 ↗ um what the 2.4 does is it really

31:19 ↗ earmarks it for infrastructure projects

31:21 ↗ so the task force had recommended that

31:24 ↗ instead of having a planning for a you

31:26 ↗ know a large ending fund balance that we

31:28 ↗ try to spend it down and that we spend

31:30 ↗ it down specifically on infrastructure

31:32 ↗ and things that support infrastructure

31:34 ↗ investment and so that's what it does it

31:36 ↗ really tries to ensure that this money

31:38 ↗ that has generally been left over year

31:41 ↗ after year that we invest it more and do

31:44 ↗ more with it for the community and so we

31:45 ↗ would keep a really close eye on that

31:48 ↗ through the budget setting process for

31:49 ↗ 2023 24 and try to make sure that we are

31:52 ↗ with this money uh really investing it

31:56 ↗ in infrastructure versus other types of

31:58 ↗ City expenditures

32:04 ↗ anything else uh it it's just it's not a

32:08 ↗ mechanism I've seen used in previous

32:10 ↗ budgets so I'm just trying to understand

32:11 ↗ what as a policy decision it actually

32:16 ↗ does does it also commit us to shoot for

32:18 ↗ 15 instead of 15 to 20 would it change

32:21 ↗ our our financial uh

32:24 ↗ uh policies document yes and I think

32:29 ↗ that's that's a conversation that we

32:31 ↗ anticipate having in the 2023-24 budget

32:34 ↗ setting process is really contemplating

32:38 ↗ um a reduced ending fund undesignated

32:41 ↗ ending fund balance so not having that

32:43 ↗ 20 not planning for that 20 as we've

32:46 ↗ done in years past but planning for

32:48 ↗ something closer to the 15 percent

32:52 ↗ um that that would be the policy change

32:54 ↗ and council member marks members of the

32:57 ↗ council if I can just add uh we hear you

32:59 ↗ loud and clear that you're uncomfortable

33:01 ↗ with the large ending fund balance we've

33:03 ↗ had a number of years of as you have all

33:06 ↗ lived through it a whole variety of

33:08 ↗ different factors so we sit here at the

33:10 ↗ end of June we are in the process of

33:11 ↗ working on the operating budget

33:13 ↗ proposals uh for uh 23 24. so we already

33:16 ↗ know uh the administration that will be

33:18 ↗ coming to you to spend down those fund

33:20 ↗ balances I think as the deputy City

33:22 ↗ administrator is saying we want to

33:24 ↗ commit tonight the 2.4 of that we are

33:28 ↗ going to be putting toward capital

33:29 ↗ projects there's still additional

33:31 ↗ dollars we are still working on that

33:34 ↗ ultimately the council has to decide how

33:36 ↗ comfortable you truly are we are still

33:38 ↗ in a rebuilding uh mode with our staff

33:41 ↗ we you will hear from us in August that

33:44 ↗ we are still underspending the budget

33:46 ↗ because of the number of vacancies that

33:47 ↗ we have so that fund balance will

33:49 ↗ continue to grow at the same time

33:51 ↗ there's other needs in the community

33:53 ↗ that have nothing to do with with of the

33:55 ↗ capital infrastructure that we're

33:56 ↗ talking about that would be one-time

33:58 ↗ funding eligible so I think tonight the

34:01 ↗ message is 2.4 million dollars is what

34:04 ↗ we're looking at to put into the 2324

34:06 ↗ Budget on the capital side there'll be

34:08 ↗ additional expenditures recommended and

34:10 ↗ then ultimately the council will have to

34:12 ↗ decide how far down you want to go

34:14 ↗ thank you

34:17 ↗ councilmember Ray

34:19 ↗ thank you council president Walsh I have

34:21 ↗ so many questions

34:23 ↗ um most of them are interesting so the

34:25 ↗ number one priority coming out of the

34:26 ↗ investment task force was transportation

34:28 ↗ and depending upon how I choose to look

34:31 ↗ at it I can either get 11 or 33 percent

34:33 ↗ of the arbor funding is going into

34:35 ↗ Transportation with the Lion's Share

34:36 ↗ going to Parks how does that work

34:40 ↗ uh the other there's other ways that

34:43 ↗ we're implementing that recommendation

34:44 ↗ to focus on transportation and what we

34:47 ↗ also heard from Council with your

34:49 ↗ feedback is saying maybe

34:52 ↗ um a little bit of discomfort with

34:54 ↗ declaring Transportation as the number

34:56 ↗ one priority right now I think there

34:58 ↗ were concerns that we wanted to make

35:00 ↗ sure that we were picking the right

35:01 ↗ projects to invest in in the future so

35:04 ↗ what how this overall strategy responds

35:07 ↗ to the task force recommendation was

35:11 ↗ that we look at the any transportation

35:16 ↗ funding ballot initiative first before

35:20 ↗ we look at a Park's district for example

35:23 ↗ so that makes the timeline for looking

35:26 ↗ at additional revenues to provide

35:28 ↗ additional investments in transportation

35:31 ↗ doing that really starting that in 2024

35:34 ↗ before parks and so there's a number of

35:37 ↗ things that that

35:40 ↗ are in place that are underway right now

35:43 ↗ like the transit plan and other things

35:44 ↗ that will inform that discussion

35:47 ↗ um so so that's another way that the

35:49 ↗ strategy responds to that priority for

35:51 ↗ setting Transportation first perhaps

35:53 ↗ before some of these other conversations

35:56 ↗ I have more questions but council member

35:58 ↗ marks Did you want to respond to that I

35:59 ↗ thought you did

36:01 ↗ council member marks so as a former

36:04 ↗ member of the long-term uh task for a

36:06 ↗ financing task force I appreciate your

36:08 ↗ question and I appreciate the uh urge to

36:11 ↗ uh keep honest to other feedback that

36:14 ↗ that task force created

36:17 ↗ um I would I would say that the feedback

36:20 ↗ was nuanced because we broke things down

36:22 ↗ into three phases right and we said

36:24 ↗ things we could do near term

36:25 ↗ specifically with our dollars things we

36:28 ↗ could do medium term with certain

36:30 ↗ funding mechanisms and things that we

36:31 ↗ might do long term with yet different

36:33 ↗ funding mechanisms so in the spirit of

36:36 ↗ that I would say maybe at the point

36:38 ↗ where this bill comes or this this if we

36:41 ↗ if we get General agreement this evening

36:43 ↗ on what we want to do at the point where

36:44 ↗ it comes back maybe a re-resh of that

36:49 ↗ and understanding how this fits into

36:51 ↗ that sort of medium and long-term

36:53 ↗ conversation that was had because it was

36:55 ↗ really a lot of work went into

36:57 ↗ separating what would you do with

36:58 ↗ near-term dollars and what would you do

37:00 ↗ with longer term dollars thank you

37:02 ↗ all right picking back up

37:05 ↗ um I noticed that the in the plan

37:06 ↗ there's no contemplation of using any

37:09 ↗ debt was that the reason we're not

37:10 ↗ considering any debt for so we could

37:12 ↗ chunk off something bigger or faster

37:16 ↗ um we are contemplating using debt I

37:19 ↗ think especially as we talk about 2023

37:21 ↗ and that facilities uh financing plan

37:24 ↗ and debt will likely be related to our

37:27 ↗ conversations in 2024 regarding

37:30 ↗ transportation and whether or not the

37:32 ↗ city moves forward with a ballot measure

37:34 ↗ or any Revenue new revenues the city

37:37 ↗ would like to pursue to help pay off

37:39 ↗ debt related to increased investment in

37:42 ↗ transportation so we didn't list that uh

37:45 ↗ explicitly in the strategy but that's

37:47 ↗ certainly part of the conversations yeah

37:49 ↗ I'm just struck that um

37:52 ↗ we we're looking for ways to spend down

37:54 ↗ ending fund balance which is excess

37:56 ↗ Revenue which could then be used to

37:58 ↗ retire debt and so instead of doing a

38:00 ↗ bunch of little things you're using uh

38:03 ↗ ending fund balance we could take on

38:06 ↗ something big and impactful and

38:08 ↗ meaningful

38:09 ↗ um and do it with debt and then use

38:11 ↗ ending we wouldn't have any fund balance

38:13 ↗ because those additional dollars that

38:15 ↗ are Revenue in excess of expenses could

38:18 ↗ be used for Debt Service so just a

38:20 ↗ thought to look at that a little

38:22 ↗ differently I'm looking at the capital

38:24 ↗ Improvement plan from that we adopted in

38:26 ↗ 2021 April or May or something like that

38:28 ↗ last year and there's some really great

38:31 ↗ Transportation initiatives on here that

38:33 ↗ we could do

38:35 ↗ for instance you know the uh

38:39 ↗ non-motorized uh

38:41 ↗ access on East Sammamish and um so I'm

38:45 ↗ just kind of curious why we're not

38:47 ↗ looking at things that are on the

38:48 ↗ capital Improvement plan for ways to

38:51 ↗ invest in infrastructure

38:56 ↗ um so I think

38:58 ↗ great point about how we're using our

39:01 ↗ how we're proposing using arpa funds or

39:04 ↗ ending fund balance in relation to debt

39:06 ↗ and what that strategy is

39:08 ↗ as far as your question about why are we

39:12 ↗ not looking at the CIP

39:14 ↗ we are looking at the CIP based off of

39:18 ↗ the projects that are being proposed in

39:21 ↗ the community investment fund the I-90

39:23 ↗ Crossing study some of these projects

39:25 ↗ are really moving up from future years

39:27 ↗ into something that we can do more

39:29 ↗ immediately so these projects are really

39:33 ↗ derived from the CIP but you know I

39:36 ↗ appreciate your point about how we're

39:38 ↗ considering using debt in relation to

39:39 ↗ some of these other bigger project

39:40 ↗ options all right two more I'm almost

39:43 ↗ done I really am

39:44 ↗ um so when I look at the CIP and I look

39:47 ↗ at the I-90 Crossing which would have

39:48 ↗ been the study when we did the CIP we

39:51 ↗ estimated at 3.4 million not a million

39:53 ↗ so trying to rationalize the difference

39:56 ↗ between what we thought it was going to

39:57 ↗ cost in the CIP and what we think it's

39:59 ↗ going to cost now

40:01 ↗ it may be that additional study is

40:04 ↗ needed this is really going to get us

40:06 ↗ kicked off at make some progress right

40:09 ↗ now and there are going to be additional

40:11 ↗ Environmental Studies that are going to

40:13 ↗ be required after this this isn't this

40:15 ↗ isn't the last plan we'll see and then

40:17 ↗ be ready to build a light rail station

40:19 ↗ or a Crossing this really just gets us

40:21 ↗ started yeah I'm just thinking if we

40:23 ↗ have the funding and that was the

40:25 ↗ 2022-2023 time frame on that study why

40:29 ↗ not do the whole thing when we got the

40:30 ↗ money and then my final question is was

40:34 ↗ an anchor Park in the CIP because I

40:36 ↗ couldn't find it

40:38 ↗ uh there is a discussion about anchor

40:40 ↗ parks in the park strategic plan an

40:42 ↗ investment in those I would have to

40:45 ↗ phone a friend here and see if Jeff

40:46 ↗ Watling can speak directly to Anchor

40:49 ↗ parks and what's in the CIP so Jeff are

40:53 ↗ you he's not on the line okay I thought

40:55 ↗ he'd be here tonight

40:56 ↗ oh he is okay I understand he's double

40:59 ↗ booked so we'll have to come back to you

41:01 ↗ with an answer on that okay I'll look

41:02 ↗ for it thank you thanks

41:05 ↗ and Deputy council president Hull

41:08 ↗ thank you very much for the detailed

41:10 ↗ presentation

41:11 ↗ um piggybacking off a council member

41:14 ↗ Mart's earlier question on the I-90 uh

41:18 ↗ Crossing study so we think that's

41:21 ↗ something that can be accomplished in a

41:23 ↗ year

41:24 ↗ um do we have a good sense of what the

41:27 ↗ timeline is for Sound Transit to then

41:30 ↗ approach us about next steps from their

41:33 ↗ end and do we feel satisfied that if we

41:35 ↗ have a study after a year it'll still be

41:37 ↗ useful when Sound Transit comes forward

41:39 ↗ just genuinely asking

41:43 ↗ I'm going to be the blunt talker tonight

41:45 ↗ so I'll apologize in advance

41:47 ↗ um

41:48 ↗ if the council would like to see light

41:50 ↗ rail come to Issaquah we need to start

41:52 ↗ spending money now if we do not spend

41:54 ↗ any money we will get a call from Sound

41:56 ↗ Transit 15 years from now

41:59 ↗ and so we don't know all the parameters

42:01 ↗ here mayor Paulie I think has made it

42:03 ↗ very clear that this is a community

42:05 ↗ priority we also don't want to say let's

42:08 ↗ take all the arpa money because gosh we

42:11 ↗ could be studying this forever so what I

42:13 ↗ think we have put before you this

42:14 ↗ evening is our best estimate to what we

42:16 ↗ need to do to jump start this project to

42:18 ↗ get sound transit to pay attention that

42:21 ↗ we are serious in Issaquah about having

42:23 ↗ light rail come here we know what the

42:26 ↗ processes are between the Federal

42:28 ↗ Highway Administration

42:29 ↗ the transit funding we know what steps

42:32 ↗ we need to take we are saying the mayor

42:34 ↗ is saying we do not want to wait for

42:36 ↗ Sound Transit for that phone call 15

42:37 ↗ years from now we want to get started

42:39 ↗ now so a lot of what you're seeing

42:42 ↗ tonight is not in the easy buckets that

42:45 ↗ perhaps other CIP discussions have been

42:47 ↗ uh and I I I'm speaking for the mayor

42:50 ↗ and she's standing you know 10 feet from

42:52 ↗ me

42:53 ↗ um but but I think it's an important

42:55 ↗ point to make that this is meant to be

42:58 ↗ transformed this is meant to say the

43:01 ↗ pandemic has been horrible Scourge on

43:04 ↗ everyone this community the entire world

43:07 ↗ but we need to move on and we're ready

43:10 ↗ to move on we have these funding there

43:12 ↗ we need to give something back to our

43:15 ↗ residents in addition to Transportation

43:17 ↗ which is a much longer term piece that's

43:20 ↗ why you're hearing so much about the

43:21 ↗ anchor Park so mayor Paulie I apologize

43:23 ↗ I'll get off my soapbox for now but I

43:25 ↗ think it's really important

43:27 ↗ to put this in the proper light and that

43:30 ↗ this is a very different kind of

43:32 ↗ discussion this is not our regular CIP

43:34 ↗ what are we going to do this year how

43:36 ↗ are we going to move the deck chairs

43:38 ↗ around this is really a signal from the

43:41 ↗ administration that we need to take a

43:43 ↗ different approach we need to take the

43:45 ↗ dollars that we have use them as a

43:46 ↗ catalyst and move on near poly I'll shut

43:49 ↗ up hi it took my wind never mind I just

43:52 ↗ have a few details to add you know over

43:55 ↗ the last year or two talking with

43:57 ↗ washdot I've asked frequently when and

43:59 ↗ would they would be ready to sit and

44:01 ↗ talk with us about the big the

44:03 ↗ pre-planning for the Sound Transit Light

44:05 ↗ Rail station it very likely will be on

44:08 ↗ one side or the other or on top of that

44:10 ↗ right away and when that partner is

44:12 ↗ ready to come and talk with us I think

44:14 ↗ we begin the pre-planning if I were to

44:17 ↗ enhance on the narrative you've already

44:19 ↗ heard uh

44:21 ↗ the one million dollars is a down

44:23 ↗ payment it's the start of a process that

44:25 ↗ brings stakeholders through the tail

44:27 ↗ table that can then come back to council

44:29 ↗ enter their respective agencies and let

44:31 ↗ them know we have a 3.5 million dollar

44:34 ↗ process but we've invested one million

44:36 ↗ dollars in order to get washed.metro

44:38 ↗ sand Transit City of Issaquah and

44:41 ↗ whoever else we need at the table I've

44:43 ↗ sent uh information to both our state

44:47 ↗ senator the head of Sound Transit the

44:49 ↗ head of Metro

44:52 ↗ King County council member and a few

44:55 ↗ others to say that you would be having

44:57 ↗ this very important conversation over

44:59 ↗ the next two meetings and again to frame

45:01 ↗ it as this is the first step and we need

45:04 ↗ to take the first step in order to

45:06 ↗ figure out what the rest of them look

45:07 ↗ like stand transit's very unlikely to

45:09 ↗ assign us a project manager right now

45:12 ↗ but that does not mean they will not sit

45:13 ↗ at the table with us and talk about it

45:15 ↗ the one advice I got from the former

45:17 ↗ mayor of Redmond and former mayor of

45:19 ↗ Bellevue was they'll tell you when they

45:21 ↗ they want to start but you'll know when

45:23 ↗ you need to start and where the

45:25 ↗ conversation started on the sound

45:27 ↗ transit schedule they felt like they ran

45:29 ↗ out of time so it's not too soon to be

45:31 ↗ doing this this is a good investment

45:37 ↗ thank you one only one thing to add to

45:40 ↗ all of that which is that uh our

45:44 ↗ transportation staff have indicated that

45:46 ↗ this first step allows us to be really

45:49 ↗ competitive for future grants and so we

45:52 ↗ can start to leverage grant funding to

45:55 ↗ pay for additional steps in the process

46:00 ↗ all right uh well thanks that makes a

46:03 ↗ lot of sense so it's not necessarily

46:05 ↗ that the end of next year Council will

46:07 ↗ have it deliverable from this that we'll

46:09 ↗ see this is the start of a larger maybe

46:13 ↗ the beginning of stakeholdering and then

46:15 ↗ the start of a larger process

46:17 ↗ you yes and I think it's the start of

46:20 ↗ understanding what those future asks are

46:22 ↗ right so it's looking at project costs

46:24 ↗ funding plans I think there's going to

46:26 ↗ be a lot that we get out of this study

46:29 ↗ that will guide our next steps and so

46:31 ↗ that's that's really that's really the

46:34 ↗ goal

46:35 ↗ uh thank you and I had one more question

46:37 ↗ if that's okay

46:39 ↗ um

46:40 ↗ and I've been trying to think about how

46:42 ↗ to frame it so it doesn't sound

46:44 ↗ adversarial so let me just say that off

46:46 ↗ the bat it's not meant to do that I'm

46:48 ↗ just interested in exploring the

46:49 ↗ administration's thinking and how you

46:51 ↗ came about the thinking for the anchor

46:53 ↗ Park so

46:54 ↗ um when I think about arpa money in

46:56 ↗ general

46:57 ↗ um transformed is transformative is a

46:59 ↗ world that comes up a lot

47:01 ↗ um you know we tend to think about it on

47:02 ↗ the task force we tend to think about it

47:04 ↗ a lot as um

47:05 ↗ what qualifies as spending that we can

47:09 ↗ have for arpa

47:10 ↗ um but you know if we think about it in

47:12 ↗ its true form it's a stimulus right to

47:14 ↗ create economic prosperity in

47:16 ↗ communities to help lift you know the

47:19 ↗ American economy that's the reason why I

47:22 ↗ did that so from that lens I'm

47:24 ↗ interested in exploring why the

47:26 ↗ administration thinks

47:27 ↗ um an investment a

47:30 ↗ large investment in an anchor Park would

47:33 ↗ help create economic prosperity

47:36 ↗ in the community and if you can kind of

47:39 ↗ speak about it from from that lens it

47:40 ↗ would be really helpful for me

47:42 ↗ great I think that there's a couple of

47:45 ↗ responses we have

47:47 ↗ one is that we also know that during the

47:50 ↗ pandemic so you mentioned economic

47:52 ↗ Prosperity there's a lot of studies out

47:54 ↗ there that talk about the economic

47:55 ↗ effects of big Park Investments things

47:57 ↗ like that but also coming out of the

48:00 ↗ pandemic we heard from our community how

48:02 ↗ much they appreciated parks and it was

48:05 ↗ the only thing that was open to the

48:06 ↗ public that they could do for a long

48:08 ↗ time and so we heard more of an

48:11 ↗ importance and appreciation for our

48:12 ↗ parks and more of a desire to invest in

48:15 ↗ them and so we felt like this would be

48:17 ↗ an opportunity to have a big investment

48:19 ↗ with high impact high visibility that

48:22 ↗ would

48:24 ↗ um that would really uplift quality of

48:26 ↗ life and provide that great investment

48:29 ↗ for the community so those are some of

48:30 ↗ the the thoughts that we've heard based

48:32 ↗ off of the community feedback we'd had

48:34 ↗ it was also mentioned if you recall in

48:36 ↗ some of the task force discussions the

48:38 ↗ desire to have maybe a big impactful

48:41 ↗ Park project with arpa funds I am

48:44 ↗ looking at the city administrator I'm

48:46 ↗ wondering if he has something to ad he

48:47 ↗ looked like you did before

48:49 ↗ mayor Paulie does and also Jeff Watling

48:52 ↗ is on the line so council president

48:53 ↗ Walsh if you'd like to we can go back to

48:56 ↗ that question regarding the fun thing

48:58 ↗ for the anchor parks in the current

48:59 ↗ budget it's so nice that they're giving

49:01 ↗ me so much my time today this is fun

49:04 ↗ um for me the reason I was looking at an

49:07 ↗ impactful Parks project was because a

49:10 ↗ lot of the parks that we have in

49:11 ↗ Issaquah have not and council member

49:14 ↗ Mart knows this very well have not had

49:17 ↗ Investments over the long term if the

49:20 ↗ parks themselves are older and many of

49:22 ↗ our signature Parks such as Tibbetts and

49:26 ↗ Memorial Field really haven't changed in

49:28 ↗ decades and decades and the community

49:31 ↗ I think it's I'm going to phrase it this

49:34 ↗ way it is a impact to the community if

49:37 ↗ they could have a outdoor place with the

49:41 ↗ kinds of activities they've been asking

49:42 ↗ for that Issaquah has been yet able to

49:44 ↗ provide so for example looking at

49:47 ↗ Tibbetts park with grass fields which

49:49 ↗ probably was a great idea in the 80s we

49:52 ↗ all know that turf fields would turn

49:54 ↗ that park from a three-month a year park

49:56 ↗ into a 12-month year park it would

49:58 ↗ increase the diversity of activities and

50:01 ↗ provide opportunities for abled and

50:03 ↗ disabled and so we don't have a lot of

50:06 ↗ those components in our older city parks

50:08 ↗ so for me the impact was an outdoor

50:12 ↗ positive healthful place for all to

50:15 ↗ gather and the same with Memorial Park

50:17 ↗ it's got a lovely very fun old-fashioned

50:20 ↗ grass baseball field and a great play

50:23 ↗ structure but if you visited other

50:25 ↗ cities or even just the state park and

50:27 ↗ you see what improvements are being done

50:29 ↗ in the last decade for children with

50:32 ↗ disabilities adults with disabilities

50:34 ↗ and all the different kinds of uses that

50:36 ↗ people are now expecting from Parks you

50:38 ↗ don't see that in this park either I

50:40 ↗ feel like this is something that would

50:41 ↗ be highly visible quickly built and

50:44 ↗ widely enjoyed and that was how I

50:46 ↗ defined impact

50:48 ↗ [Music]

50:51 ↗ thank you and so we have director

50:53 ↗ Watling on the line

50:56 ↗ um

50:56 ↗ yes we do council president good evening

50:59 ↗ Jeff thank you for joining us the you

51:02 ↗ are double book tonight I know

51:05 ↗ there's some questions regarding anchor

51:07 ↗ parks and current budgeting for anchor

51:09 ↗ Parks it was noted they're not in the

51:11 ↗ CIP but I believe there are planning

51:13 ↗ dollars elsewhere could you give a

51:15 ↗ little bit of explanation there

51:18 ↗ sure you you bet

51:21 ↗ um I believe within the CIP there is

51:24 ↗ funding for Tibbetts Valley Park for

51:28 ↗ Memorial Park and Issaquah Creek

51:30 ↗ Corridor

51:32 ↗ um so I I'm I guess I'll pause there and

51:35 ↗ maybe seek clarification on what the the

51:38 ↗ question was uh Council chair

51:42 ↗ so I think the question was related to

51:45 ↗ whether the projects were in the CIP and

51:48 ↗ perhaps it was that we were looking at

51:50 ↗ it as anchor Park

51:53 ↗ improvements whereas you're saying that

51:57 ↗ the planning for those parks that had

52:00 ↗ done been done through the park

52:02 ↗ strategic plan was already listed

52:04 ↗ individually for each of the quote

52:07 ↗ unquote anchor parks within the CIP is

52:10 ↗ that correct

52:12 ↗ yes that's how it lives now and maybe I

52:15 ↗ can I could speak a little bit about the

52:17 ↗ the

52:18 ↗ etymology the the the how this

52:21 ↗ progressed from the park plan forward so

52:23 ↗ the park plan was adopted in 2018

52:26 ↗ um as the mayor said so well a lot of

52:28 ↗ the community feedback was hey we love

52:30 ↗ our Parks but they're tired

52:33 ↗ um and a lot of the the the the more

52:35 ↗ established Parks have not been invested

52:37 ↗ in a long time and so you might recall

52:39 ↗ before the pandemic we endeavored uh

52:41 ↗ I've met pretty big Master planning

52:43 ↗ effort uh that was all wrapped into one

52:45 ↗ master planning budget in the CIP and

52:48 ↗ that's what kicked off this anchor Park

52:50 ↗ discussion where in 2019 we went out and

52:53 ↗ had a lot of community engagement around

52:55 ↗ what we called the anchor Parks which

52:58 ↗ was

52:59 ↗ um Veterans Memorial Playfield and the

53:01 ↗ conglomeration of parks around it Depot

53:03 ↗ and pedestrian Park and then Tibbetts

53:06 ↗ Valley Park and the Issaquah Creek

53:07 ↗ Corridor so you saw within your

53:10 ↗ budgeting planning dollars for that work

53:13 ↗ that happened in 2019 as the pandemic

53:16 ↗ hit us in 2020

53:19 ↗ and I think the most recent CIP effort

53:22 ↗ during the pandemic we have now tried to

53:25 ↗ identify budget and planning for each of

53:27 ↗ those as separate Parks knowing as we

53:31 ↗ eventually continued in that work that

53:33 ↗ the actual

53:35 ↗ sort of finishing of the planning and

53:37 ↗ then the eventual design and

53:39 ↗ construction of those would need to be

53:41 ↗ have would need to happen as separate

53:43 ↗ separate Parks so

53:46 ↗ I hope that helps

53:49 ↗ thank you

53:51 ↗ and so do you want to follow up on that

53:54 ↗ yeah it was it was my question so I

53:56 ↗ think that's great and I I may have

53:58 ↗ confused some I was thinking anchor Park

54:00 ↗ was anic and anchor not ankors

54:05 ↗ um so so that that's helpful but when I

54:08 ↗ look at the and I guess if we we suck

54:11 ↗ everything forward so we can accelerate

54:13 ↗ it but if I look at the CIP for 2022 to

54:15 ↗ 2024 since that's our period I look at

54:18 ↗ Tibbetts alley I look at this um

54:21 ↗ uh Veterans Park and I look at the creek

54:24 ↗ Corridor I see about two million dollars

54:27 ↗ worth of uh planned expenditures so is

54:30 ↗ the plan then to accelerate some of

54:32 ↗ these things that we had in the 25

54:33 ↗ through 27 kind of time frame for those

54:36 ↗ parks

54:39 ↗ yes the six million dollars would be an

54:41 ↗ accelerated investment a lot of that

54:44 ↗ work

54:45 ↗ um

54:46 ↗ as well

54:48 ↗ um include some planning some planning

54:52 ↗ dollars as well and I I don't forgive me

54:54 ↗ I don't have the CIP in front of me I

54:56 ↗ was just coming from a park board

54:57 ↗ meeting I don't know if all that 2

55:00 ↗ million is actual funded or if some of

55:04 ↗ that is is unfunded at this time but the

55:07 ↗ goal would be identify identify one of

55:10 ↗ those anchor parks and accelerate an

55:14 ↗ initial phase one investment

55:18 ↗ great thanks Jeff

55:21 ↗ okay and our next question from council

55:24 ↗ member Joe

55:25 ↗ thank you council president

55:28 ↗ um

55:29 ↗ want to compliment the administration

55:30 ↗ for thinking a little bit outside the

55:32 ↗ box and trying to figure out ways that

55:34 ↗ we could creatively use our funds

55:36 ↗ um

55:37 ↗ Barbie Michelle councilmember D Michelle

55:39 ↗ went to the AWC conference and there was

55:42 ↗ an innovation section a class that she

55:46 ↗ went to and she commented to me this

55:48 ↗ evening that she was very excited that

55:50 ↗ the city was already doing many of the

55:52 ↗ things or almost all the things that

55:54 ↗ were in The Innovation conference and I

55:55 ↗ think this project as well the

55:57 ↗ undertaking that you've that you've

55:59 ↗ started here is part of that as well

56:02 ↗ I always look at you know what could

56:04 ↗ possibly go wrong as we look at these

56:07 ↗ big expenditures and and The Innovation

56:10 ↗ that we're trying to take on and I'm

56:12 ↗ looking at the the the new positions

56:14 ↗ that we have here and with the tight

56:16 ↗ labor market and and the conditions that

56:18 ↗ are out there

56:20 ↗ um if we're not able to fill either the

56:22 ↗ two Transportation engineer positions

56:24 ↗ the one program coordinator for public

56:25 ↗ works or The one-term Limited Parks

56:28 ↗ planner my question is if we don't fill

56:31 ↗ those positions will any of the projects

56:33 ↗ and things that we're talking about

56:34 ↗ tonight not be done or will we still be

56:37 ↗ able to to make them even though we're

56:39 ↗ not filling the pro the positions here

56:43 ↗ foreign

56:44 ↗ thank you councilmember Joe certainly we

56:47 ↗ need staff to complete the work and so

56:50 ↗ um I think we have been having a pretty

56:53 ↗ good track record of being able to hire

56:56 ↗ really qualified Engineers over the past

56:59 ↗ year and so we would need staff to

57:02 ↗ complete the work but certainly even

57:04 ↗ adding an additional

57:06 ↗ engineer and program coordinator or

57:09 ↗ admin assistant to support them would go

57:12 ↗ a really long way in being able to

57:13 ↗ implement some of these projects

57:16 ↗ thank you I know that when we discussed

57:18 ↗ the tip there were a couple of projects

57:20 ↗ that we wanted to do but we couldn't do

57:23 ↗ because we didn't have a staff for it

57:25 ↗ and I want to see us get as much done as

57:28 ↗ we possibly can and any innovative

57:32 ↗ new ideas that HR might have or the

57:35 ↗ administration might have to recruit and

57:36 ↗ find people to get these positions

57:38 ↗ filled I think the to get the positions

57:40 ↗ filled I think we'll go a long way to

57:42 ↗ getting us to the goal that I think we

57:44 ↗ all want to get to in terms of being

57:46 ↗ Innovative and using the city's funds

57:48 ↗ the funds and tax dollars that our

57:50 ↗ citizens have put in there to the best

57:52 ↗ use possible so thank you

57:56 ↗ and Deputy council president Hull did

57:58 ↗ you your okay

58:00 ↗ um councilmember D Michelle

58:02 ↗ thank you just to follow up on that

58:04 ↗ question I didn't notice that one of

58:07 ↗ those positions is term limited and the

58:10 ↗ others are not and uh could you just

58:13 ↗ explain uh why that one particular

58:16 ↗ position was designated that way

58:21 ↗ uh yes I think that we can see the need

58:23 ↗ for this position as maybe you recall we

58:26 ↗ had two parks planner positions before

58:28 ↗ the pandemic

58:30 ↗ that was one of those positions was

58:33 ↗ reduced uh during our expenditure

58:36 ↗ reductions during the pandemic we have a

58:39 ↗ term limited because we think that

58:40 ↗ there's certainly going to be enough

58:42 ↗ work for that position over the next two

58:44 ↗ years I think at that point then we'd

58:46 ↗ like to reevaluate as the park strategic

58:48 ↗ planning process has been completed and

58:50 ↗ as we consider what are the next steps

58:53 ↗ for a potential Parks district and so uh

58:56 ↗ but we're we're pretty sure we're

58:59 ↗ confident we have the work for that

59:01 ↗ position for the next two years and then

59:02 ↗ timing of additional resources and when

59:04 ↗ they would be needed we want to we want

59:06 ↗ to be able to evaluate within two years

59:08 ↗ to see if that would be a permanent need

59:09 ↗ or not

59:11 ↗ thank you

59:14 ↗ I'm gonna wait until Deputy council

59:16 ↗ president Hall decides whether or not

59:18 ↗ this is an actual question okay go go

59:21 ↗ redhead

59:23 ↗ sorry thank you I've been going back and

59:24 ↗ forth on this so I want to dig a little

59:26 ↗ bit deeper into into my last question

59:28 ↗ about thinking of ARP as a stimulus for

59:30 ↗ economic Prosperity so thank you all um

59:33 ↗ for responding to that

59:35 ↗ clearly parks are a great economic

59:38 ↗ investment in communities

59:40 ↗ um I guess I'm interested in exploring

59:42 ↗ the administration's admission

59:44 ↗ administration's decision making on that

59:46 ↗ though because

59:48 ↗ um I think we could all agree that

59:50 ↗ investment in Mobility especially you

59:52 ↗ know alternative and alternative you

59:55 ↗ know opportunities for Mobility

59:57 ↗ multimodal access is also a good

1:00:01 ↗ economic driver and would be a good use

1:00:03 ↗ of arpa dollars so I'm just curious if

1:00:05 ↗ the administration kind of went through

1:00:07 ↗ and exercise at all and said okay these

1:00:09 ↗ are both good economic engines for a

1:00:13 ↗ community but we believe this one rises

1:00:15 ↗ above and that's why we're proposing so

1:00:18 ↗ much of arpa funding for that one in

1:00:20 ↗ particular so I'm just curious if you

1:00:21 ↗ have that conversation through that ends

1:00:23 ↗ not necessarily because this is the best

1:00:25 ↗ impact project we can have but through

1:00:28 ↗ kind of an economic Prosperity lens if

1:00:31 ↗ you can speak to that

1:00:35 ↗ uh thank you Deputy council president

1:00:37 ↗ the short answer is yes

1:00:39 ↗ um you know I we spent a lot of time

1:00:41 ↗ myself Andrea mayor Jeff Watling who's

1:00:44 ↗ on line with us you know really thinking

1:00:47 ↗ about the future of this community why

1:00:49 ↗ do people want to be here do people want

1:00:52 ↗ to be here because there's Trader Joe's

1:00:55 ↗ and Target and every grocery store you

1:00:57 ↗ can imagine did they want to be here uh

1:01:00 ↗ because or near a hospital why do they

1:01:03 ↗ want to be here

1:01:05 ↗ um you know we keep coming back to one

1:01:07 ↗ thing it's the quality of life it's the

1:01:09 ↗ Outdoor Experience why do people spend a

1:01:12 ↗ million dollars for a condo in this

1:01:15 ↗ community it's because of those outdoor

1:01:16 ↗ experiences so as we look more broadly

1:01:19 ↗ at the future of Issaquah we really

1:01:22 ↗ believe we need to continue to make

1:01:24 ↗ those Park Investments so as you've

1:01:27 ↗ heard tonight the two existing Parks the

1:01:30 ↗ um the the the the the the golden

1:01:33 ↗ necklace the the along the Creek that's

1:01:36 ↗ what's going to keep this community

1:01:37 ↗ viable for the long term

1:01:39 ↗ and we really think that making those

1:01:42 ↗ Investments are really important

1:01:43 ↗ I'm disappointed tonight that we seem to

1:01:47 ↗ be thinking that we're spending no money

1:01:48 ↗ on transportation and that's not true

1:01:50 ↗ there are dollars spent here one of the

1:01:53 ↗ challenges with many Transportation

1:01:55 ↗ projects is that there's many many

1:01:56 ↗ partners we can't just go out and do

1:01:59 ↗ something because we want to we have to

1:02:01 ↗ work with state agencies we have to we

1:02:03 ↗ work with property owners on council

1:02:05 ↗ member hunting I had long talks today

1:02:07 ↗ about sidewalks on squawk Mountain I

1:02:10 ↗ mean it would be great if we could just

1:02:11 ↗ say okay we're going to do that but all

1:02:13 ↗ those properties and all the

1:02:14 ↗ right-of-way issues that we need to work

1:02:16 ↗ through and we're prepared to do that

1:02:18 ↗ but you're hearing tonight I think is

1:02:21 ↗ what can and this is Mayor Paulie's

1:02:23 ↗ Vision you know what can we do to ensure

1:02:26 ↗ that this community thrives and really

1:02:28 ↗ that quality of life piece we're not

1:02:30 ↗ going to get an Amazon headquarters you

1:02:33 ↗ know we're not and that's not what this

1:02:34 ↗ community needs we'll continue to look

1:02:36 ↗ at the central Issaquah plan as that

1:02:39 ↗ engine but people want to recreate here

1:02:40 ↗ they want to enjoy the outdoors here

1:02:42 ↗ they want to be have access to that and

1:02:45 ↗ if we as a community as a city

1:02:47 ↗ government continue to make those

1:02:48 ↗ Investments I mean I think that's where

1:02:50 ↗ some of our economic Prosperity comes

1:02:52 ↗ from you look at what's happening in

1:02:54 ↗ Bellevue

1:02:55 ↗ thousands and thousands of jobs where

1:02:57 ↗ are these people going to live

1:02:59 ↗ um you know many of them are going to

1:03:01 ↗ want to come here and we're going to

1:03:02 ↗ want them here because they're going to

1:03:03 ↗ have high paying jobs

1:03:05 ↗ they're going to want to enjoy those

1:03:07 ↗ those benefits and amenities so again as

1:03:11 ↗ many of you have said tonight this is a

1:03:12 ↗ very different kind of conversation but

1:03:14 ↗ we absolutely did think about these

1:03:16 ↗ things Parks can be an economic engine

1:03:19 ↗ Parks can be Economic Development and we

1:03:23 ↗ can invest in Parks but we can also make

1:03:25 ↗ the investments in the transportation I

1:03:27 ↗ mean we've got a strategic plan a master

1:03:29 ↗ Mobility plan and a and a climate action

1:03:34 ↗ plan all done in the last three years

1:03:37 ↗ there are many community members that

1:03:39 ↗ would like us to be done with all of

1:03:40 ↗ this by the end of next month that's

1:03:43 ↗ just not possible and so the mayor's

1:03:44 ↗ Vision here is let's let's do this in a

1:03:47 ↗ way that brings all of these things

1:03:49 ↗ together that works on all of them but

1:03:52 ↗ also be thoughtful about how we pay for

1:03:54 ↗ them because we do not have the money to

1:03:56 ↗ pay for new things we do not have the

1:03:58 ↗ money to pay for the maintenance of

1:03:59 ↗ things and we need to be thoughtful

1:04:01 ↗ about that in that long term

1:04:04 ↗ long answer to a short question I

1:04:06 ↗ apologize

1:04:10 ↗ um council member Martz

1:04:12 ↗ so when we talk about Park's investment

1:04:16 ↗ I remember when we put together the

1:04:19 ↗ three disparate pieces of real estate

1:04:22 ↗ that made Confluence part

1:04:24 ↗ and we had at the time

1:04:27 ↗ something like and it was the previous

1:04:29 ↗ it was a different Parks director but we

1:04:32 ↗ had something like a 15 million dollar

1:04:34 ↗ plan for that Park and for that to be

1:04:37 ↗ the Cornerstone for really all of our

1:04:41 ↗ Parks efforts at least in the valley and

1:04:44 ↗ I guess my question is

1:04:46 ↗ um how much of that 15 million have we

1:04:49 ↗ actually done

1:04:50 ↗ and it's this is a two this is a couple

1:04:53 ↗ partner how much have we done

1:04:55 ↗ um have has Council gotten sort of an

1:04:57 ↗ update on what still is the plan for

1:05:00 ↗ that park because I hear a six million

1:05:03 ↗ dollar potential Parks investment and

1:05:06 ↗ um it seems obvious to me that there's

1:05:07 ↗ still things we want to do with

1:05:09 ↗ Confluence but it doesn't seem like

1:05:11 ↗ Council has heard a lot about where

1:05:14 ↗ Confluence is at or where Confluence is

1:05:16 ↗ going for some time

1:05:20 ↗ thank you councilman Vermont

1:05:23 ↗ um I'm wondering uh Jeff you're still on

1:05:25 ↗ the line can you speak to that question

1:05:30 ↗ yeah it's a great question thank you

1:05:31 ↗ councilmember Marge I do not have

1:05:33 ↗ specific dollars but I can tell you I

1:05:36 ↗ know from that original Confluence Park

1:05:37 ↗ Vision a great vision a significant

1:05:40 ↗ amount of that investment required a

1:05:43 ↗ different city facility investment and

1:05:45 ↗ that is the the park operations and

1:05:48 ↗ Facilities Maintenance Shop moving

1:05:51 ↗ um that that obviously hasn't happened

1:05:54 ↗ yet and so

1:05:56 ↗ um I think to date you know with the

1:05:59 ↗ addition of the bridge in 2018

1:06:03 ↗ um some of the irrigation improvements

1:06:04 ↗ that were done in 2019 I can get you a

1:06:07 ↗ running total of what that is uh but I

1:06:10 ↗ know some of the the more expensive

1:06:12 ↗ future phases

1:06:13 ↗ um uh required in in essence replacing

1:06:17 ↗ the shop facility moving the shop

1:06:18 ↗ facility somewhere else and then

1:06:20 ↗ repurposing that shop facility as as

1:06:23 ↗ Future Park

1:06:26 ↗ and and with that with that six million

1:06:30 ↗ dollars if we said we wanted to go to

1:06:32 ↗ parks would that potentially could

1:06:36 ↗ uh is it is it something the city would

1:06:39 ↗ entertain having a fraction of that 6

1:06:41 ↗ million go towards moving that facility

1:06:44 ↗ such that uh we could commence with the

1:06:47 ↗ additional phases of that park because I

1:06:49 ↗ think if we dusted off the original plan

1:06:51 ↗ we would see there was a lot more to

1:06:53 ↗ Confluence that we wanted to do not that

1:06:55 ↗ Confluence isn't beautiful it really is

1:06:57 ↗ but it was a pretty ambitious plan back

1:07:00 ↗ in the day

1:07:02 ↗ very ambitious and in a great a great

1:07:05 ↗ Pearl on the necklace for certain

1:07:07 ↗ um you know project Readiness is a very

1:07:10 ↗ important goal with these arpa funds as

1:07:12 ↗ well and so we we could certainly dust

1:07:14 ↗ that off and take a look at it I would

1:07:17 ↗ um I would hesitate in saying moving

1:07:19 ↗ those two really important shop

1:07:23 ↗ maintenance groups

1:07:25 ↗ um is going to be a pretty expensive

1:07:28 ↗ Endeavor before we can even invest in

1:07:32 ↗ repurposing that place as Parks but we

1:07:34 ↗ can take a closer look at that

1:07:37 ↗ again just curious given that it is our

1:07:40 ↗ Premier uh Park in the valley and not

1:07:43 ↗ that I don't love the idea of of doing

1:07:45 ↗ something transformative with tidbits I

1:07:47 ↗ really do love the idea of of

1:07:48 ↗ transforming tidbits I was just curious

1:07:50 ↗ given that it is really the centerpiece

1:07:53 ↗ including centerpiece of our long-term

1:07:55 ↗ plans to transform the creek

1:07:57 ↗ thank you

1:08:03 ↗ council member says an excellent

1:08:05 ↗ question who's on the development

1:08:06 ↗ commission when the plan came through

1:08:08 ↗ and it is ambitious and there are some

1:08:09 ↗ elements to go

1:08:11 ↗ the point of the conversation tonight on

1:08:14 ↗ the arpa funds is that many of the

1:08:16 ↗ things you do are the pieces of a larger

1:08:18 ↗ puzzle and you've heard me many many

1:08:20 ↗ times talk about your inventory of

1:08:22 ↗ facility assets that needs to come back

1:08:24 ↗ to you so you can evaluate what you want

1:08:28 ↗ to keep where your needs are and how all

1:08:31 ↗ those shifting pieces will work some of

1:08:33 ↗ that work is happening this year under

1:08:35 ↗ director of administrative Services out

1:08:38 ↗ of Monahan

1:08:39 ↗ but that's just another one of those on

1:08:41 ↗ the list of where that goes may be

1:08:43 ↗ influenced by which pieces of land you

1:08:45 ↗ decide to keep and which pieces of land

1:08:47 ↗ you decide to dispose of and just for

1:08:50 ↗ council member or Deputy council

1:08:51 ↗ president Hall's question again we are

1:08:54 ↗ trying as an Administration to find

1:08:56 ↗ projects that are ready to go because

1:09:00 ↗ while two years may sound like a long

1:09:02 ↗ time it's absolutely not and so we're

1:09:05 ↗ doing a Transit study we'll get some

1:09:06 ↗ information from the transit study

1:09:08 ↗ you'll make some decisions you'll make

1:09:10 ↗ some recommendations not really sure we

1:09:12 ↗ can spend the money by then and so

1:09:14 ↗ really want to make sure that we have a

1:09:16 ↗ plan that we don't have to give back any

1:09:18 ↗ of our arpa dollars and I think if

1:09:20 ↗ you're not on Council people don't

1:09:22 ↗ realize how so many of the things you

1:09:24 ↗ work on are puzzles that have so many

1:09:26 ↗ pieces that are happening at different

1:09:28 ↗ times my last one is going to be a

1:09:30 ↗ council member Ray's question about the

1:09:32 ↗ CIP I think there's wide support that

1:09:35 ↗ the CIP process lists criteria area

1:09:39 ↗ everything be looked at

1:09:41 ↗ holistically with the climate action

1:09:44 ↗ plan and the master Mobility plan and

1:09:47 ↗ get all these documents and these The

1:09:49 ↗ Listener and the CIP coordinated and

1:09:52 ↗ that's a process you're all going to

1:09:54 ↗ have to go through with the community

1:09:55 ↗ and so the CIP is the best we have right

1:09:58 ↗ now but the CIP may not really look like

1:10:00 ↗ that in a couple of years once those

1:10:02 ↗ activities of coordinating them happen

1:10:04 ↗ so you guys are asking really great

1:10:06 ↗ questions I'm not sure if the public

1:10:07 ↗ understands how complicated your task is

1:10:09 ↗ tonight

1:10:14 ↗ okay so I'm going to take a look at the

1:10:16 ↗ council see if there are any other

1:10:18 ↗ questions okay then at this point I am

1:10:22 ↗ going to end our

1:10:24 ↗ um questions and ask the clerk if there

1:10:27 ↗ are any members of the public who

1:10:30 ↗ have indicated and desire to make a

1:10:33 ↗ comment

1:10:34 ↗ council president we do have a few

1:10:36 ↗ members of the public with us let's just

1:10:39 ↗ give them a moment if you have interest

1:10:40 ↗ in making comments please raise your

1:10:42 ↗ virtual hand

1:10:43 ↗ or send me the host a comment in the

1:10:46 ↗ chat

1:10:48 ↗ I'll monitor this for just a moment

1:10:59 ↗ all right I'm not seeing anyone indicate

1:11:01 ↗ desire to speak

1:11:05 ↗ hey that's fantastic then we are going

1:11:08 ↗ to move to council discussion and I know

1:11:12 ↗ everybody has been raising their mics

1:11:14 ↗ all over the place but the big question

1:11:17 ↗ is going to be do we want to give a

1:11:20 ↗ general sense of thoughts I know the

1:11:23 ↗ administration had five questions

1:11:26 ↗ um but I heard a lot of questions that

1:11:31 ↗ maybe everybody want to go through a

1:11:34 ↗ general sense before getting into those

1:11:37 ↗ five

1:11:38 ↗ or does anybody feel like we should just

1:11:41 ↗ jump into number one

1:11:45 ↗ I see one jump in one jump in okay then

1:11:49 ↗ you've got the questions up and so let

1:11:53 ↗ me see if I

1:11:55 ↗ so the first question is does the city

1:11:57 ↗ council approve of the mayor's proposal

1:11:59 ↗ to spend the remaining arpa funds on

1:12:01 ↗ infrastructure including the focus on

1:12:03 ↗ transportation and parks and trails

1:12:07 ↗ so

1:12:09 ↗ anyone for comments

1:12:13 ↗ council member Ray

1:12:15 ↗ I'll get us started

1:12:17 ↗ um I'm not sold that this is the right

1:12:20 ↗ set of priorities I mean I love our

1:12:22 ↗ Parks but my recollection is in the

1:12:25 ↗ community survey people said parks are

1:12:27 ↗ super important and then they said and

1:12:29 ↗ parks are super good and when we talked

1:12:32 ↗ did the survey people said

1:12:34 ↗ transportation is super important and

1:12:36 ↗ transportation is super bad and so I

1:12:39 ↗ would like to see us flip this around a

1:12:42 ↗ little bit I mean we've got the

1:12:43 ↗ non-motorized transportation Corridor on

1:12:46 ↗ Sammamish road that we've been talking

1:12:48 ↗ about for years and you know that's

1:12:50 ↗ something we could do

1:12:52 ↗ um and you know a couple years ago we

1:12:54 ↗ decided we were going to do a light at

1:12:55 ↗ Providence Point and we put all of our

1:12:58 ↗ investment for that year into that

1:12:59 ↗ project and you know what we got it done

1:13:01 ↗ and it's making a difference and so I

1:13:03 ↗ I'm not you know my colleagues could be

1:13:05 ↗ of a different mind I'm just not

1:13:06 ↗ convinced this is the community's

1:13:07 ↗ priority

1:13:10 ↗ thank you

1:13:12 ↗ um councilmember D Michelle

1:13:15 ↗ thank you

1:13:16 ↗ um I'd like to plan a lot and

1:13:19 ↗ um

1:13:20 ↗ I really

1:13:22 ↗ um

1:13:22 ↗ I want to Echo uh City administrator Bob

1:13:26 ↗ kowitz's thoughts about the over under

1:13:28 ↗ Crossing

1:13:30 ↗ um I think when we were at the Highlands

1:13:32 ↗ listening session I said at that time

1:13:34 ↗ that we're kind of waving our hands and

1:13:37 ↗ jumping up and down and trying to get

1:13:39 ↗ Sound Transit and Metro's attention

1:13:42 ↗ I absolutely agree that we have to start

1:13:45 ↗ spending the money now

1:13:47 ↗ we by investing 1 million in in the

1:13:50 ↗ design first of all we demonstrate the

1:13:52 ↗ city's commitment to long-term Transit

1:13:54 ↗ improvements

1:13:56 ↗ and that demonstration of commitment I

1:13:58 ↗ think is really important we position

1:14:01 ↗ ourselves much better to receive County

1:14:03 ↗ state federal support and engagement we

1:14:06 ↗ demonstrate to developers that the

1:14:08 ↗ city's commence commitment to densifying

1:14:10 ↗ Central Issaquah Israel so that's a

1:14:13 ↗ you know it's all part as as mayor

1:14:16 ↗ probably said it's all part of a big

1:14:17 ↗ puzzle and uh by taking some actions we

1:14:21 ↗ are signaling to a bigger Community what

1:14:25 ↗ we are really about when it comes to the

1:14:27 ↗ Light Rail station and then finally I

1:14:30 ↗ this is I love this proposal because it

1:14:32 ↗ helps us to take control of a project

1:14:34 ↗ that we've been waiting to for other

1:14:37 ↗ agencies to prioritize for other

1:14:40 ↗ agencies to recognize and by making this

1:14:43 ↗ investment we take control of this

1:14:45 ↗ project we move this project forward we

1:14:48 ↗ get it ready for

1:14:50 ↗ um for the next step and so I I think

1:14:53 ↗ it's it's absolutely a great idea to do

1:14:56 ↗ that

1:14:57 ↗ the community investment fund

1:15:01 ↗ I will try not to get too long-winded on

1:15:03 ↗ this one I love this proposal as well so

1:15:06 ↗ when I worked at King County Department

1:15:08 ↗ of Transportation they also had a

1:15:11 ↗ community investment fund like this I

1:15:13 ↗ was in charge of doing the community

1:15:14 ↗ engagement for it

1:15:16 ↗ it was so well received by the

1:15:19 ↗ communities that participated in it and

1:15:22 ↗ very much followed the guidelines this

1:15:24 ↗ is almost precisely exactly what we went

1:15:26 ↗ out and did we came up with we presented

1:15:29 ↗ the community with specific projects and

1:15:33 ↗ then engaged them in the process of

1:15:35 ↗ choosing which one and in that process

1:15:38 ↗ not only did the community become

1:15:41 ↗ engaged they became owners of that

1:15:43 ↗ project so it's it's brilliant

1:15:46 ↗ especially coming out of a covid to have

1:15:49 ↗ this proposal and then the the projects

1:15:53 ↗ themselves actually got better because

1:15:55 ↗ of the input that we received from the

1:15:57 ↗ communities I think it's a great way to

1:16:01 ↗ engage our community in discussing

1:16:03 ↗ Transportation

1:16:05 ↗ helping them to feel ownership of their

1:16:09 ↗ community and the way that we go forward

1:16:12 ↗ and and put some actual money behind

1:16:15 ↗ that a lot of times we go out for

1:16:16 ↗ engagement and then they say what

1:16:19 ↗ happened but this would be something

1:16:20 ↗ that would really happen so

1:16:23 ↗ um I don't know if you're ready for me

1:16:24 ↗ to talk about the parks that's question

1:16:27 ↗ number two should I go ahead

1:16:29 ↗ no I'd wait on that let's see what else

1:16:31 ↗ we can hear on question number one okay

1:16:34 ↗ um council member Joe and then council

1:16:36 ↗ member hunt

1:16:38 ↗ thank you council president

1:16:41 ↗ I think that uh

1:16:44 ↗ putting the one million dollars down for

1:16:46 ↗ the

1:16:47 ↗ um the Terminus in essence for Sound

1:16:50 ↗ Transit is an important stake in the

1:16:53 ↗ ground for us you know it says to the

1:16:56 ↗ transportation agencies whether they're

1:16:58 ↗ state or you know local or what have you

1:17:00 ↗ but we're serious about it enough to put

1:17:03 ↗ down this one million dollar down

1:17:04 ↗ payment as the mayor said and that we

1:17:07 ↗ want to start that discussion I kind of

1:17:09 ↗ think of it as coming to the poker table

1:17:11 ↗ so to speak and saying you know here's

1:17:14 ↗ my Annie and here's my stack let's start

1:17:16 ↗ talking about what's going to make it

1:17:17 ↗ work you don't get to the poker table

1:17:19 ↗ unless you put down the money to get to

1:17:22 ↗ the tournament we need to put the money

1:17:23 ↗ down to get to the tournament and start

1:17:25 ↗ talking about it so I'm wholeheartedly

1:17:28 ↗ in favor of the one million dollars arpa

1:17:30 ↗ funds for the Terminus project involved

1:17:33 ↗ in this and I also like the the

1:17:36 ↗ investment fund that that will get a

1:17:38 ↗ conversation going with our community we

1:17:41 ↗ have been talking about getting out in

1:17:42 ↗ the communities whether it's going up to

1:17:44 ↗ the highlands or having an events in a

1:17:47 ↗ park Park where we're inviting the

1:17:49 ↗ public to come and talk to us about

1:17:50 ↗ their issues and having transportation

1:17:54 ↗ as a primary issue out there for

1:17:55 ↗ discussion will get that feedback back

1:17:58 ↗ from the community that we need to make

1:18:00 ↗ those decisions otherwise we're making

1:18:02 ↗ decisions in a little bit of a vacuum

1:18:03 ↗ and we can get criticized one way or

1:18:06 ↗ another for not taking public input but

1:18:08 ↗ if we do this process and we carefully

1:18:10 ↗ listen to the community I think we're

1:18:12 ↗ going to get good projects out of it and

1:18:14 ↗ we're going to get some movement on

1:18:15 ↗ transportation and so I have to say at

1:18:18 ↗ this point thank you

1:18:20 ↗ councilmember hunt

1:18:23 ↗ thank you I agree with the comments that

1:18:25 ↗ have already been made on the over under

1:18:27 ↗ Crossing and I think that's a step in

1:18:29 ↗ the right direction and I am supportive

1:18:31 ↗ of that on the community investment fund

1:18:36 ↗ I

1:18:38 ↗ my my initial reaction is that we know

1:18:40 ↗ from many Community surveys including

1:18:43 ↗ the statistically valid Community survey

1:18:46 ↗ that's done every couple years what our

1:18:48 ↗ community's priorities are and that

1:18:51 ↗ survey in particular is done in a

1:18:54 ↗ randomized fashion and they collect

1:18:56 ↗ demographic information so I think that

1:18:58 ↗ that's really a good source of

1:19:00 ↗ information that we already have and I

1:19:02 ↗ think we can use that to put some

1:19:04 ↗ parameters around what this fund

1:19:07 ↗ um could could be to meet the needs of

1:19:10 ↗ the community

1:19:12 ↗ looking at that fund for again this

1:19:14 ↗ community investment I think the things

1:19:18 ↗ that rise to the top of that which also

1:19:20 ↗ rise to the top of the list in our

1:19:22 ↗ Master Mobility plan and in the climate

1:19:25 ↗ action plan because of the multimodal

1:19:27 ↗ aspect are things like sidewalk

1:19:29 ↗ improvements and Street repair so

1:19:32 ↗ actually in that Community survey the

1:19:34 ↗ infrastructure items that residents

1:19:36 ↗ thought should receive emphasis from

1:19:38 ↗ city leaders over the next two years two

1:19:40 ↗ of the top ones were Street repair and

1:19:42 ↗ the conditions of sidewalks so I I think

1:19:44 ↗ it could be a great way to engage the

1:19:47 ↗ community but I would think that we

1:19:49 ↗ should put some parameters around it and

1:19:50 ↗ say you know where are the sidewalks

1:19:52 ↗ that are the most important for these

1:19:54 ↗ connections of these tier one sidewalks

1:19:57 ↗ you know which are the ones that would

1:19:58 ↗ be most impactful and really make sure

1:20:00 ↗ that we are we are addressing those

1:20:03 ↗ long-standing Community concerns and

1:20:05 ↗ then I think this could be could be good

1:20:07 ↗ because we have these long-standing

1:20:08 ↗ Community issues that we haven't

1:20:10 ↗ especially in established neighborhoods

1:20:12 ↗ that we haven't been able to

1:20:14 ↗ um

1:20:15 ↗ that we have not been able to address

1:20:18 ↗ with with grant funding or other funding

1:20:21 ↗ I also think that

1:20:24 ↗ the approach here one of the one of the

1:20:28 ↗ top Community concerns from the

1:20:30 ↗ community survey and that we hear is

1:20:32 ↗ around congestion and I I recognize that

1:20:35 ↗ that isn't concern and I think we are

1:20:37 ↗ taking Smart Steps to do what we can

1:20:39 ↗ here with the traffic or the

1:20:41 ↗ transportation engineer position looking

1:20:44 ↗ to light rail looking to what we can do

1:20:47 ↗ for for projects that will improve the

1:20:49 ↗ quality of life because my concern is

1:20:52 ↗ that yes there is congestion and that is

1:20:54 ↗ a real issue but we could also spend a

1:20:56 ↗ lot of money and have induced Demand

1:20:59 ↗ with all of the regions around us

1:21:01 ↗ growing and just more cars going through

1:21:04 ↗ Issaquah which would be outside of our

1:21:05 ↗ control and and really that I think

1:21:08 ↗ would not then meet the

1:21:12 ↗ um intent of the arpa funds so I think

1:21:15 ↗ we I think that we avoid that outcome

1:21:18 ↗ with this and we take the steps that we

1:21:19 ↗ can to address congestion which is a

1:21:22 ↗ real concern and then we look to what we

1:21:23 ↗ can do to improve the quality of life

1:21:24 ↗ and transportation

1:21:26 ↗ um so that would be my one consideration

1:21:28 ↗ for that Community Fund is that we we've

1:21:30 ↗ heard time and time again pavement and

1:21:33 ↗ sidewalks and I would think that that

1:21:35 ↗ should be some parameters on that fund

1:21:40 ↗ council member marks thank you so uh I I

1:21:44 ↗ support the terminal study

1:21:48 ↗ uh the

1:21:51 ↗ um having a Community Fund I think is a

1:21:52 ↗ great idea coming back to the uh largest

1:21:57 ↗ use of the arpa fund you know I'm I'm

1:22:01 ↗ looking at the

1:22:03 ↗ Capital Finance Community task force

1:22:05 ↗ recommendations and I'm really struck by

1:22:08 ↗ in the short term there was much uh

1:22:11 ↗ there's not a consensus on exactly what

1:22:13 ↗ to do in the short term so the

1:22:14 ↗ recommendation is mix of projects across

1:22:17 ↗ categories per city council which is not

1:22:19 ↗ particularly helpful however a medium

1:22:23 ↗ term which they talked about Levy lid

1:22:25 ↗ lift and TBD sales tax was suggested

1:22:28 ↗ Transportation primarily and then the

1:22:31 ↗ long-term suggestion was for a Parks

1:22:33 ↗ district for parks and trails

1:22:37 ↗ and so

1:22:39 ↗ um I circled back to council member

1:22:41 ↗ raise concern and you know if

1:22:45 ↗ um if there was a suggestion of doing

1:22:47 ↗ something on the longer term with Parks

1:22:50 ↗ um you know using arpa dollars for that

1:22:54 ↗ um you know we recently reached out to

1:22:57 ↗ the public and had a listening session

1:22:59 ↗ and their concern wasn't with Parks

1:23:01 ↗ right their concern was with Public

1:23:03 ↗ Safety and it was almost exclusively

1:23:06 ↗ about public safety and the public felt

1:23:08 ↗ very very very very strongly about us

1:23:12 ↗ wanting us to do some more Public Safety

1:23:14 ↗ so if you said for instance if you did a

1:23:16 ↗ thought experiment and you said well

1:23:18 ↗ let's just take that 6 million and put

1:23:19 ↗ it into the 2.4 million and make 8.4

1:23:22 ↗ million and have a community outreach of

1:23:23 ↗ 8.4 which would be big I grant you

1:23:27 ↗ um I think the public would tell us

1:23:28 ↗ they'd want us to spend it on as you

1:23:30 ↗ mentioned roads and traffic and Public

1:23:33 ↗ Safety and um while Parks was listed in

1:23:37 ↗ the report in the quadrant that said

1:23:40 ↗ continued investment and continued focus

1:23:43 ↗ it to councilmember Ray's point it

1:23:46 ↗ wasn't in the quadrant of uh important

1:23:49 ↗ and uh broken right it was in the

1:23:51 ↗ category of uh important and and working

1:23:54 ↗ well so I continue to struggle with the

1:23:56 ↗ mix I guess is where I'm at

1:23:59 ↗ um I look at 2.4 million I look at the

1:24:02 ↗ terminal study absolutely 100 a

1:24:04 ↗ community engagement effort all for it I

1:24:06 ↗ think we're gonna hear a lot of Public

1:24:08 ↗ Safety and maybe some about social

1:24:10 ↗ services

1:24:11 ↗ if we go ask the public because that's

1:24:13 ↗ what they told us uh two weeks ago and

1:24:17 ↗ then I just don't know about 6 million

1:24:19 ↗ for Parks right now with the

1:24:21 ↗ recommendation that we got from the

1:24:23 ↗ Capital Finance Community task force I

1:24:25 ↗ just don't know with with the guidance

1:24:27 ↗ that it gave to make that a long-term

1:24:28 ↗ thing and look at a Parks District it

1:24:30 ↗ doesn't feel like uh we'd be focusing on

1:24:33 ↗ that so

1:24:34 ↗ that's where I'm at I I think parks are

1:24:37 ↗ super important and they're a critical

1:24:39 ↗ part of our quality of life here but

1:24:42 ↗ this mix of taking six million of the

1:24:44 ↗ nine and 9.4 and using it for Parks I'm

1:24:47 ↗ not sure I feel great about

1:24:50 ↗ I don't feel great about thank you thank

1:24:54 ↗ you and checking other council members

1:24:59 ↗ okay counts

1:25:01 ↗ we'll just go down the line

1:25:03 ↗ councilmember Joe and yeah yeah

1:25:06 ↗ um if I could just say a brief comment

1:25:09 ↗ on councilmember Martz

1:25:12 ↗ um I I think that

1:25:14 ↗ we all like would like to have the money

1:25:17 ↗ spent on particular things that that you

1:25:20 ↗ know Transportation what have you

1:25:22 ↗ we also need to think about the timing

1:25:25 ↗ of the spending though we have to spend

1:25:27 ↗ it within two years or we lose it I'm

1:25:29 ↗ not sure we can do a transportation

1:25:30 ↗ project bringing in dot or County or

1:25:35 ↗ whatever partner we need to bring in for

1:25:36 ↗ some of these projects to get them done

1:25:38 ↗ in two years it took us

1:25:41 ↗ you know how many weeks to get water to

1:25:43 ↗ New Orleans after the hurricane I mean

1:25:46 ↗ that's not that's the federal government

1:25:47 ↗ mind you but what I'm saying is

1:25:49 ↗ government moves slow and we have more

1:25:51 ↗ control over parks and what we can do

1:25:53 ↗ with them because all our property it's

1:25:56 ↗ our equipment that we're bringing in

1:25:58 ↗ it's our people that are doing it I

1:26:01 ↗ think we can spend that within the two

1:26:02 ↗ years I'm not

1:26:04 ↗ entirely certain that we have the

1:26:06 ↗ ability to spend the arpa funds and

1:26:07 ↗ tears on a transportation project but

1:26:10 ↗ you know I'd be happy to look at each

1:26:12 ↗ one of them as we kind of analyze them

1:26:13 ↗ and parse them out and if the

1:26:15 ↗ administration says yeah we can get that

1:26:17 ↗ done in the two years with the

1:26:18 ↗ Partnerships that we have and the

1:26:20 ↗ relationships that we have fantastic but

1:26:22 ↗ just a word of caution there

1:26:27 ↗ councilmember day Michelle

1:26:30 ↗ so uh to council member Mart's comments

1:26:33 ↗ as well when I read the proposal for the

1:26:37 ↗ community investment fund I didn't see

1:26:39 ↗ uh that that was a community engagement

1:26:42 ↗ process that was open-ended

1:26:47 ↗ I saw some very careful parameters

1:26:50 ↗ around how they were going to go out and

1:26:53 ↗ I really think we're going to ask the

1:26:55 ↗ community to choose between one two

1:26:57 ↗ three five you know whatever it may be

1:26:59 ↗ projects and to give input on those

1:27:02 ↗ projects which is again exactly what we

1:27:05 ↗ did at King County and we're not asking

1:27:07 ↗ for input on their other priorities or

1:27:11 ↗ other items and we're asking them to

1:27:14 ↗ engage

1:27:15 ↗ specifically on let's how do we

1:27:18 ↗ prioritize these set of projects which

1:27:21 ↗ isn't something that we've gone out and

1:27:23 ↗ asked them before so so I think that and

1:27:26 ↗ I think that's a very valid and very

1:27:28 ↗ useful parameters to put around that

1:27:31 ↗ Community engagement I think it yields

1:27:33 ↗ really good results

1:27:36 ↗ um

1:27:37 ↗ I also wanted to talk to the to the

1:27:39 ↗ parks issue I really I really like this

1:27:44 ↗ and I have now that visit Issaquah is

1:27:49 ↗ reinvigorated I've been following them I

1:27:52 ↗ get their newsletter and I am just

1:27:54 ↗ surprised I shouldn't be but I've been

1:27:56 ↗ surprised by how many times they are

1:27:59 ↗ touting our green our Parks our Trails

1:28:02 ↗ you know all of the recreational

1:28:05 ↗ facilities that we have so it's a real

1:28:07 ↗ tourist engine too and that brings

1:28:10 ↗ tourist dollars to US that's the

1:28:12 ↗ economic Engine That councilmember Hall

1:28:14 ↗ was talking about

1:28:16 ↗ and I also think the focus there is it

1:28:19 ↗ you know let's make an investment in one

1:28:21 ↗ of these anchors let's not spread the

1:28:24 ↗ money around let's make a six million

1:28:25 ↗ dollar high impact investment on one you

1:28:30 ↗ know and my only problem with that is

1:28:32 ↗ it's like deciding between three

1:28:34 ↗ beautiful kids and saying which one gets

1:28:36 ↗ to go to college you you know they're

1:28:39 ↗ all wonderful projects and they will all

1:28:41 ↗ be wonderful assets and they would all

1:28:42 ↗ bring Economic Development to Issaquah

1:28:45 ↗ so I'm struggling with with which one

1:28:47 ↗ would be but I think the idea of making

1:28:50 ↗ that strong investment not spreading

1:28:52 ↗ around our money so thinly that we don't

1:28:54 ↗ really get anything big out of it but

1:28:57 ↗ putting it into one project and making

1:28:59 ↗ that a really strong high impact project

1:29:02 ↗ is really a good idea and a good

1:29:05 ↗ proposal thank you

1:29:07 ↗ council member hunt

1:29:09 ↗ thank you

1:29:11 ↗ so I think the conversation has moved

1:29:13 ↗ into question two so I'm going to start

1:29:15 ↗ on the response as far as the parks and

1:29:19 ↗ um when I was looking at this the first

1:29:22 ↗ at first I I had I think some of the

1:29:26 ↗ similar concerns as far as lining this

1:29:30 ↗ up with long-standing community

1:29:32 ↗ community concerns for our

1:29:35 ↗ infrastructure I do think though after

1:29:39 ↗ thinking about this a lot and looking

1:29:42 ↗ back at the community survey I think

1:29:44 ↗ that

1:29:45 ↗ um arpa this funding really is a

1:29:48 ↗ provides a historic

1:29:52 ↗ time where we can fully fund some things

1:29:56 ↗ that we would not otherwise be able to

1:29:58 ↗ do in cities have these long-standing

1:30:01 ↗ lists of infrastructure issues and I I

1:30:04 ↗ think showing that this is what we would

1:30:07 ↗ do with this funding it's it is a really

1:30:09 ↗ unique opportunity and

1:30:11 ↗ focusing that funding will better allow

1:30:14 ↗ us to to show

1:30:17 ↗ um the results

1:30:19 ↗ and give something back to the community

1:30:21 ↗ so so that sort of central reason for

1:30:25 ↗ the focus of the funding in the Parks it

1:30:28 ↗ does resonate with me

1:30:30 ↗ um when I was looking at the specifics

1:30:32 ↗ of the parks

1:30:34 ↗ um you know I go back to this questions

1:30:36 ↗ in the community survey about the

1:30:38 ↗ infrastructure items that residents

1:30:39 ↗ thought should receive emphasis from

1:30:41 ↗ city leaders over the next two years the

1:30:43 ↗ first two I already talked about the

1:30:45 ↗ third one is actually walking and biking

1:30:46 ↗ trails so Parks does have high

1:30:50 ↗ satisfaction they are amazing our open

1:30:52 ↗ space is also amazing and we we do need

1:30:55 ↗ to maintain that there's High

1:30:56 ↗ satisfaction as well as high importance

1:30:57 ↗ for those in that quadrant where we

1:31:01 ↗ don't have as much

1:31:03 ↗ where one of the areas where we don't

1:31:05 ↗ have satisfaction is actually second in

1:31:08 ↗ terms of congestion and then the next

1:31:09 ↗ thing that's high in that high

1:31:12 ↗ importance low satisfaction quadrant is

1:31:14 ↗ planning zoning and growth and so when I

1:31:18 ↗ look at this list the one that stands

1:31:19 ↗ out to me on the anchor Parks is

1:31:22 ↗ potentially the creek Corridor because

1:31:25 ↗ we need to plan for growth that that

1:31:28 ↗ Corridor actually connects all the all

1:31:31 ↗ the parks including Confluence as well

1:31:33 ↗ as Tibbetts and Memorial so if we think

1:31:35 ↗ about it I you know which beautiful

1:31:37 ↗ child gets to go to college this I think

1:31:39 ↗ improves the potential for all of these

1:31:42 ↗ parks to thrive it connects them and we

1:31:45 ↗ actually don't own all the land on that

1:31:47 ↗ one so for that one it's it's more

1:31:50 ↗ unique to me it has some some

1:31:53 ↗ things that I think would resonate with

1:31:55 ↗ the community because it shows we're

1:31:56 ↗ planning for growth it shows that you

1:31:57 ↗ know now is the time these properties

1:31:59 ↗ will be more expensive in the future now

1:32:00 ↗ is the time to actually make this happen

1:32:02 ↗ we talk a lot about that we're planning

1:32:04 ↗ this connected

1:32:06 ↗ um

1:32:07 ↗ connected green necklace but really it's

1:32:09 ↗ it's on paper at this point and we do

1:32:12 ↗ expect growth and we expect this to be a

1:32:14 ↗ huge Community Asset so maybe this could

1:32:16 ↗ tie into that need and show that we are

1:32:20 ↗ planning for growth and planning to make

1:32:21 ↗ sure that as we grow we maintain this

1:32:24 ↗ very special quality of having these

1:32:26 ↗ Open Spaces that are so important for

1:32:28 ↗ quality of life here

1:32:31 ↗ um so I thought you know we also have

1:32:33 ↗ this unique opportunity with Title 18

1:32:35 ↗ where we're redoing our our code and

1:32:37 ↗ we're talking about how to make private

1:32:40 ↗ um private properties along this

1:32:42 ↗ Corridor uh work with this vision of the

1:32:45 ↗ green necklace and so it seemed to me

1:32:46 ↗ that this is one that lines well with

1:32:49 ↗ this long-standing issue that the

1:32:50 ↗ community does have that says important

1:32:52 ↗ and also low satisfaction which is

1:32:54 ↗ Planning and Zoning

1:32:56 ↗ um so that was that was my my thoughts

1:32:58 ↗ on those I I recognize that Parks

1:33:00 ↗ generally have this High satisfaction

1:33:03 ↗ but it seems to me that this is one area

1:33:05 ↗ where the community would like to see

1:33:07 ↗ more and we could take a big step and

1:33:10 ↗ and actually make this green necklace

1:33:12 ↗ come alive so

1:33:14 ↗ that

1:33:16 ↗ that ultimately is where I landed on if

1:33:18 ↗ this was addressing the needs of arpa if

1:33:21 ↗ it was supporting Community quality of

1:33:23 ↗ life and um if it was sort of rising to

1:33:26 ↗ the opportunity that we have for this

1:33:28 ↗ historic funding

1:33:32 ↗ council member Ray

1:33:34 ↗ thank you I I'm going to go back to one

1:33:36 ↗ for a second then I'll move on to two

1:33:38 ↗ since I think we're jumping ahead

1:33:40 ↗ um so I didn't comment on the funding

1:33:43 ↗ for the over underpass and Sound Transit

1:33:46 ↗ which I am completely supportive of the

1:33:48 ↗ million dollars but I actually think

1:33:50 ↗ it's probably more than that and I think

1:33:52 ↗ I would rather invest more and and to

1:33:55 ↗ steal from council member Joe I'd like

1:33:57 ↗ to bigger bring a bigger set of chips to

1:33:59 ↗ the party or to the game and uh

1:34:01 ↗ definitely um demonstrate commitment

1:34:03 ↗ because it's the best way to move

1:34:05 ↗ washdot and it's best way to move Sound

1:34:08 ↗ Transit and I think we can make a bigger

1:34:11 ↗ commitment there on to Parks I'm still

1:34:14 ↗ struggling with this one because I don't

1:34:16 ↗ know if it's a park or Parks because

1:34:17 ↗ when I look at question number two it

1:34:19 ↗ says invest in one of the city anchor

1:34:21 ↗ Parks so it's a singular not a plural so

1:34:24 ↗ I I don't and and it gets really to the

1:34:26 ↗ heart of my problem with with the anchor

1:34:30 ↗ Park thing is I don't know what it is I

1:34:32 ↗ don't know where it is I don't know what

1:34:33 ↗ it is I don't know what we're going to

1:34:35 ↗ do so I can't say yeah that's a great

1:34:38 ↗ investment because I don't have any idea

1:34:39 ↗ what we're going to do so without any

1:34:41 ↗ specificity about what that six million

1:34:43 ↗ dollars is going to do to some Park

1:34:45 ↗ which I don't know which it is or where

1:34:47 ↗ they are could be more than one I just

1:34:50 ↗ can't say yeah that's a great idea so

1:34:52 ↗ that that's my biggest problem there is

1:34:53 ↗ I just don't know what it is and so it

1:34:55 ↗ might be a great idea might be a

1:34:57 ↗ credible idea so help me understand what

1:34:58 ↗ it is

1:35:02 ↗ uh councilmember Mertz did you want to

1:35:06 ↗ nope okay Deputy council president Hall

1:35:09 ↗ uh thank you I have uh some very unbaked

1:35:13 ↗ unfinished and

1:35:15 ↗ raw remarks

1:35:18 ↗ um so just bear with me

1:35:20 ↗ um actually I guess the first remark

1:35:22 ↗ I'll make is I don't think the handful

1:35:24 ↗ of days that I spent preparing for this

1:35:26 ↗ was enough so I'm sure many of the

1:35:30 ↗ um

1:35:33 ↗ Direction neat you know many of the

1:35:35 ↗ areas that need direction will evolve

1:35:37 ↗ for me over time between now and the

1:35:39 ↗ July 5th meeting

1:35:42 ↗ um I just think these are

1:35:46 ↗ really important questions in a heck of

1:35:48 ↗ a lot of money that it's really hard to

1:35:50 ↗ make a decision in just a couple days if

1:35:52 ↗ yes I agree with this proposal or no I

1:35:54 ↗ don't so

1:35:56 ↗ um that being said the I-90 Crossing

1:35:58 ↗ Light Rail station planning definitely

1:36:00 ↗ in favor of that thank you um City

1:36:02 ↗ administrator Bob quits for letting me

1:36:04 ↗ ask the probing question to get that

1:36:06 ↗ that answer I think that was perfect and

1:36:07 ↗ exactly what we needed

1:36:09 ↗ the community investment fund

1:36:12 ↗ um

1:36:13 ↗ I think I'm I'm of two minds on this I

1:36:16 ↗ think in the perfect world it's great

1:36:18 ↗ you know I think you look at cities like

1:36:20 ↗ Seattle or other major cities that have

1:36:22 ↗ the kind of community-based budgeting

1:36:24 ↗ systems where they have kind of a pot of

1:36:26 ↗ money and then go out to a community to

1:36:28 ↗ say what is it that what are your needs

1:36:29 ↗ and what do you want you've seen it work

1:36:31 ↗ really well and successfully in these

1:36:33 ↗ communities

1:36:35 ↗ um and

1:36:37 ↗ how this is described with the

1:36:38 ↗ parameters parameters is I think

1:36:41 ↗ something I could I could live with and

1:36:43 ↗ be supportive of

1:36:44 ↗ we also have lists of projects with

1:36:47 ↗ Community significance already though so

1:36:50 ↗ you know I sometimes have conversations

1:36:52 ↗ with residents when I kind of probe this

1:36:55 ↗ question and say well you know when we

1:36:57 ↗ have money it's really good to go out

1:36:59 ↗ and kind of ask what you need and every

1:37:01 ↗ now and then someone says I've already

1:37:03 ↗ told you what I need like I've already

1:37:05 ↗ come to this meeting I've provided

1:37:07 ↗ Community engagement like we elect you

1:37:09 ↗ to make the decisions about what's best

1:37:11 ↗ for our community too so I'm kind of of

1:37:13 ↗ two minds there

1:37:15 ↗ um

1:37:16 ↗ and uh that is not very good direction

1:37:18 ↗ but I'm just going to leave it at as

1:37:20 ↗ that

1:37:22 ↗ um this will also not be very good

1:37:23 ↗ direction

1:37:24 ↗ um for the anchor Parks

1:37:25 ↗ um improvements

1:37:27 ↗ um I don't know yet

1:37:29 ↗ um it's clear to me that investments in

1:37:31 ↗ Parks have great benefit see Issaquah to

1:37:35 ↗ creating the kinds of economic

1:37:37 ↗ Prosperity that we want with arpa

1:37:39 ↗ funding to having something to point to

1:37:42 ↗ made possible by federal dollars in

1:37:45 ↗ historic Federal investment but I'm also

1:37:47 ↗ of a similar mind to

1:37:49 ↗ um

1:37:50 ↗ councilmember Ray I guess I'm just not

1:37:53 ↗ yet convinced that it's the best use of

1:37:56 ↗ arpa dollars I'm convinced it's a good

1:37:58 ↗ use of City dollars period but I'm not

1:38:01 ↗ convinced it's the best use of arpa

1:38:03 ↗ dollars yet I I

1:38:05 ↗ um am definitely pliable at this point

1:38:07 ↗ though I think um uh State administrator

1:38:09 ↗ Bob Quinn's made a pretty compelling

1:38:11 ↗ point for it I think um an emphasis on

1:38:14 ↗ our Creek Corridor is also interesting

1:38:16 ↗ and compelling point

1:38:18 ↗ um

1:38:20 ↗ yeah I think I think this is tough and

1:38:22 ↗ I'm going to need some more time to to

1:38:23 ↗ digest it

1:38:25 ↗ um because at if we were taking a snap

1:38:27 ↗ pull right now I I still think that

1:38:29 ↗ using all of all or the vast majority of

1:38:32 ↗ arpa dollars on Mobility projects would

1:38:35 ↗ be the best use of arpa dollars in my

1:38:37 ↗ mind but again I'm convincible the other

1:38:40 ↗ way

1:38:42 ↗ so I'm going to take a moment to comment

1:38:44 ↗ on one and two

1:38:46 ↗ um

1:38:47 ↗ I think I come to this knowing that our

1:38:51 ↗ budget season is just a few months away

1:38:54 ↗ and I approach any bucket of money

1:38:59 ↗ whether it's budget or arpa if you if

1:39:03 ↗ you gave me a bucket of money and you

1:39:05 ↗ said this has to be spent within two

1:39:08 ↗ years which is the same thing that

1:39:09 ↗ you're going to say for Budget season

1:39:12 ↗ um

1:39:14 ↗ if I'm going to evaluate the projects on

1:39:16 ↗ that I'm going to look back at the

1:39:18 ↗ community survey and I'm going to say

1:39:20 ↗ what does the community just satisfied

1:39:22 ↗ with what do we need to do if it is

1:39:26 ↗ one-time funds

1:39:29 ↗ um are there capital or infrastructure

1:39:33 ↗ or one-time spend that we can make or is

1:39:37 ↗ this something that's more up ongoing

1:39:40 ↗ revenue and operations costs and hiring

1:39:44 ↗ and things like that so when I go and

1:39:48 ↗ look at this in specific

1:39:52 ↗ if I was looking at this from a

1:39:53 ↗ budgeting standpoint I would never

1:39:56 ↗ propose putting forward six million

1:39:59 ↗ dollars to plan an anchor Park

1:40:04 ↗ I don't think that is what our community

1:40:08 ↗ has said

1:40:10 ↗ they need right now

1:40:12 ↗ and so I think if we are respecting what

1:40:16 ↗ the community has said they've said

1:40:18 ↗ infrastructure

1:40:21 ↗ um they've said transportation we have

1:40:25 ↗ certainly heard through the community

1:40:27 ↗ survey that funding for sidewalks and

1:40:29 ↗ Street Maintenance

1:40:31 ↗ um I just don't see

1:40:34 ↗ Parks a six million dollar Parks

1:40:37 ↗ planning project as

1:40:40 ↗ you want to correct

1:40:43 ↗ if if I may so the six million dollars

1:40:45 ↗ wouldn't be a six million dollar plan it

1:40:49 ↗ would be phase one of implementing the

1:40:52 ↗ master plan so we would finish that

1:40:54 ↗ visioning process this year and then

1:40:56 ↗ permitting and design would be next year

1:40:58 ↗ and then construction would be the year

1:41:01 ↗ following so it's not just a plan it

1:41:03 ↗ would be implementation of the plan an

1:41:05 ↗ actual Construction

1:41:07 ↗ can you tell me what the difference is

1:41:09 ↗ between phase one and just doing the

1:41:13 ↗ full thing what does that mean yeah it's

1:41:15 ↗ a great question I think we anticipate

1:41:17 ↗ that some of these anchor Parks they're

1:41:20 ↗ big they have big needs and the

1:41:23 ↗ community is going to be re-envisioning

1:41:25 ↗ them for future years to come so the six

1:41:27 ↗ million dollars likely wouldn't pay for

1:41:29 ↗ the entirety of the plan uh that is

1:41:33 ↗ envisioned by the community but would

1:41:34 ↗ get

1:41:35 ↗ um it make really good progress on the

1:41:39 ↗ first phase which is still be to be

1:41:42 ↗ determined from that Community

1:41:43 ↗ engagement process

1:41:48 ↗ there's a community engagement process

1:41:50 ↗ related to the Anchor parks are related

1:41:52 ↗ to

1:41:54 ↗ yes I'm sorry it's getting confusing but

1:41:57 ↗ we're talking about a visioning and

1:41:59 ↗ scoping process to kind of pick up where

1:42:02 ↗ we left off with that Master planning

1:42:03 ↗ process which began before the pandemic

1:42:06 ↗ so we'd pick up where we left off with

1:42:08 ↗ that process finish that visioning and

1:42:11 ↗ scoping process through more Community

1:42:13 ↗ engagement then once we've developed

1:42:16 ↗ that vision and scoping which again

1:42:18 ↗ should be by the end of this year next

1:42:20 ↗ year would be more about design

1:42:22 ↗ permitting and then the following year

1:42:24 ↗ construction so we we are proposing six

1:42:27 ↗ million dollars for those three years to

1:42:29 ↗ cover not only the finishing of the

1:42:31 ↗ planning process the permitting process

1:42:33 ↗ and design process but also

1:42:35 ↗ implementation

1:42:37 ↗ okay then I will take a bit of a step

1:42:40 ↗ back and say

1:42:42 ↗ gosh six million dollars is a lot but

1:42:46 ↗ I would really need to get a sense of

1:42:49 ↗ what

1:42:51 ↗ what that phase one would accomplish and

1:42:54 ↗ which of these anchor Park projects we

1:42:58 ↗ are ultimately talking about

1:43:01 ↗ um

1:43:01 ↗ so to continue on with the rest of my

1:43:04 ↗ comments on questions one and two

1:43:07 ↗ um

1:43:08 ↗ I

1:43:11 ↗ like focusing on infrastructure I

1:43:14 ↗ disagree with the prioritization of

1:43:16 ↗ parks I do support the I-90 over under

1:43:19 ↗ Crossing funding I agree that we might

1:43:22 ↗ need more than one million dollars on

1:43:25 ↗ that but I'm a little bit hesitant to

1:43:28 ↗ put a lot of money into that without

1:43:32 ↗ knowing that the other stakeholders are

1:43:35 ↗ actually willing to engage with us I

1:43:38 ↗ think yes we need to put money down to

1:43:41 ↗ get them to come to the table but

1:43:44 ↗ just like if I look at our park

1:43:46 ↗ strategic plan and all of the money that

1:43:48 ↗ we've put into that planning I get

1:43:50 ↗ really hesitant about putting a large

1:43:52 ↗ amount of money into planning something

1:43:55 ↗ that may not be something we have a

1:43:58 ↗ whole lot of control over

1:44:00 ↗ so those are my comments on one and two

1:44:04 ↗ I see a few mics up our responses or

1:44:08 ↗ okay

1:44:10 ↗ um council member Ray council member

1:44:11 ↗ hunt

1:44:13 ↗ so member marks

1:44:16 ↗ so uh Deputy City administrator when you

1:44:19 ↗ describe the process of doing some

1:44:20 ↗ Outreach to the community and then doing

1:44:23 ↗ planning next year and doing execution

1:44:25 ↗ the year after

1:44:27 ↗ um I I guess and I I want to say that I

1:44:30 ↗ would say this respectfully I I'm having

1:44:32 ↗ a hard time buying the argument that

1:44:33 ↗ it's a lot easier to do that with Parks

1:44:35 ↗ than it is to do with some

1:44:37 ↗ infrastructure improvements or

1:44:38 ↗ Transportation improvements if we're

1:44:41 ↗ talking the scope of six million dollars

1:44:43 ↗ and things that we might be able to do

1:44:45 ↗ to move the needle they seem about you

1:44:48 ↗ you step back and sort of squint and it

1:44:51 ↗ they're both you know call it 50 FTE

1:44:54 ↗ years worth of Staff right or maybe 30

1:44:57 ↗ to 50 FTE years worth of Staff right and

1:45:00 ↗ whether that's Park staff or whether

1:45:01 ↗ that's

1:45:02 ↗ you know engineering and Facilities

1:45:05 ↗ staff it seems six of one half dozen of

1:45:08 ↗ the other so you know when we come back

1:45:11 ↗ and talk further I mean that's a further

1:45:14 ↗ concern that I have why not you know one

1:45:16 ↗ not Transportation why not

1:45:17 ↗ infrastructure when you described that

1:45:19 ↗ process to me of what we would need to

1:45:21 ↗ do with Parks it's like yeah just take

1:45:22 ↗ the word Parks out and replace that with

1:45:24 ↗ transportation and infrastructure so and

1:45:27 ↗ if I may I I I can't get over the the

1:45:31 ↗ thought that we're not communicating

1:45:33 ↗ properly

1:45:35 ↗ transportation is really important we

1:45:37 ↗ have a master Mobility plan we've hired

1:45:39 ↗ staff at the council's direction and

1:45:41 ↗ funding to continue moving forward with

1:45:43 ↗ this we are working at the greatest

1:45:45 ↗ diligence and speed on these

1:45:48 ↗ Transportation projects if the council

1:45:50 ↗ says work with greater diligence and

1:45:52 ↗ speed we can do that with some projects

1:45:55 ↗ but not every project that is a part of

1:45:58 ↗ the master Mobility plan is within our

1:46:00 ↗ control and so as we talk with our

1:46:02 ↗ transportation engineers and we say the

1:46:05 ↗ city council wants you to work as

1:46:07 ↗ quickly as possible their response to us

1:46:09 ↗ is great we have a step here that we

1:46:11 ↗ have to spend a wash Dot and then we

1:46:13 ↗ wait

1:46:14 ↗ an undetermined period of time when that

1:46:16 ↗ happens and the city council still wants

1:46:19 ↗ us to move with diligence and speed but

1:46:21 ↗ we sometimes can't because of that so

1:46:24 ↗ work wanting to move forward we've heard

1:46:26 ↗ about the East lace to manage multimodal

1:46:28 ↗ the city council at your last budget

1:46:29 ↗ said get it done

1:46:31 ↗ find the money we will fund it get it

1:46:33 ↗ done and so our Engineers are working

1:46:35 ↗ with this and we're working with the

1:46:37 ↗ greatest diligence and speed but is not

1:46:39 ↗ all within our control

1:46:41 ↗ so that is part of the conundrum with

1:46:43 ↗ Transportation projects you could say

1:46:45 ↗ take six million dollars and spend it on

1:46:47 ↗ the transportation projects we could

1:46:48 ↗ staff up and some of them have other

1:46:51 ↗ stakeholders that are beyond our control

1:46:53 ↗ and so it's really important I think

1:46:55 ↗ from the administration's perspective

1:46:57 ↗ that you understand that's we're not

1:46:59 ↗ pushing back on Transportation we're

1:47:01 ↗ simply saying this is these are Big

1:47:03 ↗ questions these are Big projects and

1:47:06 ↗ some of them cost lots more than even

1:47:08 ↗ the six million dollars we have

1:47:10 ↗ available for arpa the community's done

1:47:13 ↗ a park planning project we have a park

1:47:15 ↗ master plan we have that if the council

1:47:18 ↗ says we want to do one Park not go out

1:47:21 ↗ look at all three that will speed things

1:47:23 ↗ up even further so I mean the the issues

1:47:27 ↗ with the transportation projects

1:47:29 ↗ are broader than just hiring up staff

1:47:31 ↗ and going because of those additional

1:47:33 ↗ stakeholders again we're prepared to go

1:47:36 ↗ as fast as we can but again some of

1:47:39 ↗ these projects ultimately once they're

1:47:40 ↗ designed will cost far in excess to six

1:47:42 ↗ million dollars

1:47:43 ↗ others require the the stakeholders so

1:47:46 ↗ Madam council president I think the

1:47:50 ↗ administration's I'm just concerned that

1:47:52 ↗ you're

1:47:53 ↗ not hearing the word full support of

1:47:55 ↗ moving forward as diligently as we can

1:47:57 ↗ and additional money is helpful but will

1:48:00 ↗ not get us to move fast as perhaps some

1:48:01 ↗ of you think we'll be able to move as

1:48:03 ↗ fast

1:48:04 ↗ mm-hmm so so are you saying that if we

1:48:08 ↗ said you must spend that six million on

1:48:10 ↗ Transportation in the next 24 months are

1:48:13 ↗ you saying that the administration there

1:48:14 ↗ just isn't a way to spend that money

1:48:17 ↗ intelligently is that is that what

1:48:19 ↗ you're saying

1:48:21 ↗ we may have difficulties and and council

1:48:23 ↗ president when you think appropriate

1:48:25 ↗ Robert Hamad the Chief Financial Officer

1:48:27 ↗ is on the line uh we'd like to talk a

1:48:29 ↗ little bit more about the time frames

1:48:31 ↗ associated with the dollars we've not

1:48:33 ↗ really dealt with that in particular

1:48:35 ↗ terms this evening but uh We've not we

1:48:38 ↗ believe there's some other flexibility

1:48:39 ↗ that we have with those dollars so that

1:48:41 ↗ that 24-month clock uh perhaps is not as

1:48:44 ↗ rigorous as we once thought through this

1:48:46 ↗ process so we'd like to share that

1:48:48 ↗ information as an appropriate point but

1:48:50 ↗ I think the short answer to your

1:48:52 ↗ question council member marks is forget

1:48:53 ↗ about our requirements just the college

1:48:56 ↗ courses spending the money we're not

1:48:58 ↗ convinced that we could spend it in 24

1:49:00 ↗ months or perhaps even 36 months because

1:49:03 ↗ of some of the other constraints and I'm

1:49:06 ↗ sorry my back is to you Andrea but uh

1:49:09 ↗ that's important to say we want to do

1:49:11 ↗ these things quickly we have the the

1:49:14 ↗ plan we want to implement it it's just a

1:49:16 ↗ matter of how and what are the

1:49:18 ↗ parameters in doing that

1:49:21 ↗ thank you

1:49:23 ↗ council member hunt

1:49:27 ↗ Q I wanted to respond to the

1:49:30 ↗ um the planning comments that you

1:49:33 ↗ council president Walsh made

1:49:35 ↗ um so I completely agree and had similar

1:49:38 ↗ concern about plan a plan is not in

1:49:41 ↗ itself transformative and is not in

1:49:43 ↗ itself delivering I think the

1:49:45 ↗ transformative improvements the quality

1:49:47 ↗ of life that we're looking for with this

1:49:50 ↗ again historical opportunity we have

1:49:52 ↗ with ARP funding so completely agree

1:49:54 ↗ with that and thought it might be

1:49:55 ↗ helpful to point or to to

1:49:58 ↗ um

1:49:59 ↗ quote some of the numbers from our last

1:50:01 ↗ CIP on cost so Confluence Park it it

1:50:04 ↗ says here 28 million dollar overall

1:50:06 ↗ project cost Veterans Memorial

1:50:09 ↗ Park 17 million and then Creek Corridor

1:50:13 ↗ is 6 million so for the for

1:50:16 ↗ implementation I do think if we're

1:50:18 ↗ talking about like wanting to get

1:50:19 ↗ something done which I think we do it

1:50:22 ↗ would be potentially a piece of one of

1:50:24 ↗ these projects unless somebody wants to

1:50:26 ↗ correct me but you know if we get into

1:50:30 ↗ implementation and wanting to prioritize

1:50:32 ↗ based on wanting to have on the ground

1:50:35 ↗ the projects done I think looking at the

1:50:38 ↗ size of these different projects and

1:50:40 ↗ completion would would then be good but

1:50:42 ↗ you know based on this conversation

1:50:43 ↗ first coming to an agreement about

1:50:45 ↗ about

1:50:47 ↗ um

1:50:47 ↗ is this the impact of the funds again is

1:50:50 ↗ this the impact we want to have with the

1:50:52 ↗ funds again I think there is an argument

1:50:53 ↗ to be made that it would really improve

1:50:56 ↗ the quality of life and would deliver on

1:50:58 ↗ our lagging Investments on

1:51:00 ↗ infrastructure which is what we what we

1:51:03 ↗ um are trying to do with arpa funds

1:51:06 ↗ um so I I think the argument is is there

1:51:09 ↗ and is solid but again just wanted to

1:51:11 ↗ point out the very different costs for

1:51:13 ↗ the different anchor projects at least

1:51:14 ↗ in our CIP

1:51:17 ↗ thank you

1:51:18 ↗ so we are at a point I think we've made

1:51:22 ↗ our comments on questions one and two

1:51:26 ↗ um is anybody ready to go on to question

1:51:29 ↗ number three which is about the

1:51:30 ↗ community investment fund concept

1:51:34 ↗ or might I propose a five minute break

1:51:38 ↗ because we've been sitting here for two

1:51:41 ↗ hours

1:51:42 ↗ that okay I'm gonna go with a five

1:51:45 ↗ minute break and so we will come back at

1:51:48 ↗ 8 57. thank you

1:58:16 ↗ okay we are back and I just want to take

1:58:19 ↗ a moment to talk to to the council and

1:58:22 ↗ try and figure out how we want to

1:58:25 ↗ approach these next three questions

1:58:27 ↗ because we will be coming back on July

1:58:31 ↗ 5th but I think we've we've taken a

1:58:34 ↗ little bit of a break we have a little

1:58:35 ↗ bit of energy to move on

1:58:38 ↗ do we want to have people address all

1:58:43 ↗ three questions so the questions are

1:58:46 ↗ Community investment fund another one

1:58:49 ↗ related to spending down ending fund

1:58:52 ↗ balance and additional proposed

1:58:54 ↗ positions and then the fifth question is

1:58:57 ↗ feedback on timing for medium term

1:58:59 ↗ actions so

1:59:02 ↗ any

1:59:05 ↗ comments any thoughts preferences on how

1:59:09 ↗ we approach

1:59:12 ↗ Deputy council president

1:59:14 ↗ um I think it might be best if we do

1:59:15 ↗ question three and four together maybe

1:59:17 ↗ each of us could provide feedback on all

1:59:20 ↗ of three and four and then five seems

1:59:22 ↗ like a good kind of separate enough

1:59:24 ↗ thing that we could then go back through

1:59:26 ↗ everyone else on that one

1:59:28 ↗ does that sound good

1:59:29 ↗ okay hearing no others

1:59:32 ↗ um so we're looking for feedback on the

1:59:35 ↗ community investment fund concept and

1:59:37 ↗ the question number four related to

1:59:40 ↗ spending down the ending fund balance

1:59:41 ↗ and additional proposed positions

1:59:45 ↗ I'm not seeing any mics jumping up all

1:59:48 ↗ at once so council member Ray oh yeah I

1:59:51 ↗ will jump in um Community investment

1:59:53 ↗ fund concept

1:59:54 ↗ um I think it's it's a great idea I like

1:59:56 ↗ the idea of Outreach I like sending out

1:59:57 ↗ setting aside a bucket of money to to do

2:00:00 ↗ that and focusing on smaller

2:00:02 ↗ transportation and Parks Trails projects

2:00:04 ↗ I think that's all great

2:00:06 ↗ um I think the criteria are good

2:00:08 ↗ um in terms of the positions the only

2:00:10 ↗ feedback I would have is we have the one

2:00:13 ↗ term limited position which makes

2:00:14 ↗ perfect sense it's for parks and if we

2:00:17 ↗ did that

2:00:18 ↗ um

2:00:19 ↗ what's the long-term funding plan for

2:00:21 ↗ the two new or the three new positions

2:00:23 ↗ in transportation would be the only

2:00:25 ↗ thing because if uh we're using a spend

2:00:28 ↗ down

2:00:29 ↗ um initially do we have

2:00:31 ↗ um you know what's our ending fund

2:00:33 ↗ balance look like I I have a suspicion

2:00:34 ↗ that we're probably good in the long run

2:00:36 ↗ but I just would like to see that played

2:00:39 ↗ out so that's my thoughts quickly

2:00:44 ↗ Deputy council president Hull uh sure

2:00:46 ↗ thanks I also have quick thoughts on

2:00:48 ↗ these uh two questions

2:00:50 ↗ um

2:00:51 ↗ um you know moving forward with the

2:00:53 ↗ community investment fund Pro concept I

2:00:56 ↗ agree that we should keep it in focus on

2:00:58 ↗ kind of smaller transportation of parks

2:01:00 ↗ and trails projects especially because 2

2:01:02 ↗ million is 2 million for the in the

2:01:05 ↗ grand scheme of things there's not a

2:01:07 ↗ whole lot of money so keeping it small

2:01:08 ↗ will actually make meaningful

2:01:10 ↗ deliverables for the community to

2:01:12 ↗ actually see that their decisions had an

2:01:15 ↗ impact right

2:01:16 ↗ um does council have any changes uh no

2:01:18 ↗ no changes to the selection criteria I

2:01:20 ↗ appreciate that it's you know really

2:01:22 ↗ focused on kind of timeline and eligible

2:01:25 ↗ eligibility but then also on the

2:01:28 ↗ categories that were already talked over

2:01:31 ↗ and over for a couple meetings I think

2:01:33 ↗ at the Capitol Finance Community task

2:01:34 ↗ force so I think those are good

2:01:36 ↗ um and then feedback on the proposed

2:01:39 ↗ next step of going to the committee

2:01:41 ↗ um is there anything in particular the

2:01:43 ↗ administration is looking for foreign

2:01:44 ↗ that item in particular I guess I don't

2:01:47 ↗ have any feedback on it going to a

2:01:49 ↗ committee meeting the next committee

2:01:50 ↗ meeting but

2:01:52 ↗ other options would be whether that

2:01:54 ↗ comes back to the committee of the whole

2:01:59 ↗ um well being biased as I'm on that

2:02:01 ↗ committee I'm perfectly fine with it

2:02:02 ↗ going to the mobility and infrastructure

2:02:04 ↗ committee

2:02:05 ↗ um oh yeah that got some mics up

2:02:09 ↗ I'm I'm still fine with it

2:02:12 ↗ um and then any feedback on spending

2:02:14 ↗ doubt no spending down fund balance I

2:02:16 ↗ was glad to see that that in this

2:02:18 ↗ proposal in line with the task force

2:02:20 ↗ recommendations

2:02:21 ↗ and

2:02:23 ↗ using it on

2:02:25 ↗ proposed new positions as well as a few

2:02:28 ↗ other things is certainly a great use

2:02:30 ↗ for those funds so thank you

2:02:33 ↗ council member March then council member

2:02:35 ↗ hunt

2:02:36 ↗ thank you uh

2:02:38 ↗ uh yes

2:02:40 ↗ no

2:02:42 ↗ no

2:02:43 ↗ and

2:02:45 ↗ uh yes

2:02:47 ↗ so uh yeah no I mean I uh yes uh it's a

2:02:52 ↗ it's a fine idea the focuses are fine

2:02:55 ↗ um uh send it to Mobility infrastructure

2:02:58 ↗ um why not bring send the fund into the

2:03:03 ↗ Committees but the uh going down to 15

2:03:06 ↗ we have ample evidence that using 15 to

2:03:09 ↗ 20 results in getting us 25 to 35 to 40

2:03:12 ↗ percent any fund balance so uh shooting

2:03:15 ↗ for 15 will maybe get us closer to

2:03:17 ↗ something like 20 which is what I really

2:03:19 ↗ like to see so yeah I I support all of

2:03:23 ↗ it thank you

2:03:25 ↗ councilmember hunt

2:03:28 ↗ yes so I agree with the community

2:03:31 ↗ investment fund concept I would add a

2:03:34 ↗ criteria

2:03:35 ↗ which you you kind of can get to from

2:03:39 ↗ the existing criteria because one of the

2:03:41 ↗ criteria is ability to be completed

2:03:43 ↗ within arpa timeline and then another is

2:03:44 ↗ to address pain points in the city but

2:03:46 ↗ from the community survey we do have

2:03:48 ↗ this

2:03:49 ↗ um infrastructure items that City should

2:03:52 ↗ focus on in the next two years and those

2:03:54 ↗ are Street repair and condition of

2:03:56 ↗ sidewalk at the top two so I would I

2:03:59 ↗ would add that criteria that they be

2:04:01 ↗ things that the community specifically

2:04:02 ↗ said we should focus on in the next two

2:04:03 ↗ years because that kind of encompasses

2:04:05 ↗ multiple

2:04:07 ↗ aspects of the challenge here and we

2:04:10 ↗ have Community survey data on what those

2:04:12 ↗ things are

2:04:13 ↗ um and then yes agree to the sending to

2:04:17 ↗ the mobility infrastructure committee

2:04:19 ↗ and

2:04:21 ↗ um

2:04:22 ↗ on the ending fund balance completely

2:04:24 ↗ agree with council member Martz

2:04:28 ↗ council member D Michelle and

2:04:30 ↗ councilmember Joe

2:04:32 ↗ um a very similar questions I agree with

2:04:35 ↗ Community investment fund I don't have

2:04:38 ↗ any suggestions for the project

2:04:39 ↗ selection criteria although I like

2:04:42 ↗ council member Hunt's thoughts

2:04:45 ↗ um yes please do send it to mobility and

2:04:48 ↗ infrastructure love to get my hands on

2:04:50 ↗ it thank you very much and

2:04:53 ↗ um yeah I agree with council member

2:04:54 ↗ Martz on the uh

2:04:56 ↗ taking down the ending fund balance so

2:04:59 ↗ that's it

2:05:05 ↗ I agree with counts council member Martz

2:05:08 ↗ thank you no

2:05:10 ↗ um that being said

2:05:12 ↗ um I I believe that number four spending

2:05:16 ↗ down the ending fund balance is is

2:05:17 ↗ pretty important because

2:05:19 ↗ the money is

2:05:21 ↗ our taxpayers money it's my they've

2:05:23 ↗ already given us and put in trust to us

2:05:27 ↗ to use you know and use wisely so

2:05:30 ↗ um putting that getting that fund

2:05:33 ↗ balance down to reasonable amount so

2:05:35 ↗ that we still plan for a rainy day

2:05:37 ↗ but are spending the money wisely I I

2:05:40 ↗ think that's a great thing to do and

2:05:41 ↗ then um

2:05:42 ↗ the small Focus the focus on small

2:05:45 ↗ Transportation projects that's fantastic

2:05:47 ↗ I don't have any suggestions for changes

2:05:50 ↗ in the selection criteria

2:05:52 ↗ and um yes I'm chair of the mobility and

2:05:55 ↗ infrastructure committee I would just

2:05:57 ↗ love to have this back in front of us

2:05:59 ↗ for additional discussion and maybe

2:06:02 ↗ members of the public will have some

2:06:03 ↗ time to digest this a little bit and

2:06:05 ↗ give us some other comments as well

2:06:07 ↗ thank you

2:06:09 ↗ okay I'm gonna dive into my comments

2:06:12 ↗ here

2:06:13 ↗ um on the community investment fund I

2:06:16 ↗ mean generally

2:06:20 ↗ generally I think we should be focusing

2:06:22 ↗ more on Transportation than parks and

2:06:26 ↗ trails so depending on if we go forward

2:06:30 ↗ with an anchor Park project that I am

2:06:32 ↗ absolutely in favor of a community

2:06:35 ↗ investment fund focused on

2:06:37 ↗ Transportation

2:06:38 ↗ but toward that idea I don't think two

2:06:41 ↗ million dollars is enough I don't think

2:06:43 ↗ it's enough to get much of anything done

2:06:45 ↗ and unless you can really give me a set

2:06:49 ↗ of proposals that actually get some

2:06:54 ↗ things done I think I'm going to come

2:06:56 ↗ back to this and say okay if you've got

2:06:59 ↗ a bunch of one million dollar projects

2:07:03 ↗ are we just gonna pick the top two and

2:07:04 ↗ just it feels a little bit light

2:07:08 ↗ um then on the next one I appreciate

2:07:11 ↗ what councilmember hunt said about the

2:07:13 ↗ project selection criteria and having it

2:07:15 ↗ be from a pre

2:07:18 ↗ set of list of community priorities

2:07:22 ↗ um that have already been indicated

2:07:24 ↗ and yes I agree it should go to the

2:07:28 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

2:07:31 ↗ on the topic of spending down ending

2:07:34 ↗ fund balance in the additional proposed

2:07:36 ↗ positions

2:07:38 ↗ um on the proposed positions like

2:07:40 ↗ council member Ray I just have concerns

2:07:43 ↗ and I would need addressed what the

2:07:46 ↗ continuing

2:07:48 ↗ positions what the funding mechanism is

2:07:51 ↗ going to be in the future because I

2:07:53 ↗ certainly wouldn't want to hire someone

2:07:55 ↗ on something that isn't term limited and

2:07:59 ↗ not have the funding I think that sets

2:08:01 ↗ us up for a problem in the future

2:08:04 ↗ but

2:08:06 ↗ um

2:08:07 ↗ I agree we should be spending down our

2:08:09 ↗ ending fund balance but I don't see how

2:08:13 ↗ this plan does this I think what

2:08:17 ↗ what you've shown here is 2.4 million on

2:08:20 ↗ unspecified infrastructure projects

2:08:25 ↗ is just earmarking dollars it's not

2:08:28 ↗ actually spending dollars and it's not

2:08:31 ↗ actually completing tasks and I think

2:08:34 ↗ what the

2:08:37 ↗ um Community task force

2:08:40 ↗ said was

2:08:42 ↗ you've got the money you should be

2:08:44 ↗ spending it and so toward what

2:08:46 ↗ councilmember Joe said

2:08:48 ↗ this is taxpayer dollars we have an

2:08:52 ↗ obligation to spend it out and I have a

2:08:56 ↗ really hard time looking at that

2:08:59 ↗ 2.4 million dollars is actually being

2:09:02 ↗ spent

2:09:03 ↗ um

2:09:04 ↗ so I don't know how to address that

2:09:08 ↗ um but I'm open to ideas

2:09:12 ↗ I'm confused as to how if it is budgeted

2:09:15 ↗ to be spent within a fiscal year how

2:09:17 ↗ it's not being spent

2:09:21 ↗ from that perspective it seems

2:09:25 ↗ it seems like you're basically just

2:09:28 ↗ putting a budget proposal in front of us

2:09:32 ↗ which doesn't change the fact that

2:09:35 ↗ you're still coming into a budget season

2:09:37 ↗ with

2:09:39 ↗ more than 25 percent undesignated fund

2:09:42 ↗ balance

2:09:45 ↗ I guess I just don't see how this is any

2:09:48 ↗ different from coming into budget with

2:09:50 ↗ the

2:09:51 ↗ that amount unspent

2:09:53 ↗ well I think the difference is the again

2:09:56 ↗ this is for fiscal year 2023. so

2:10:01 ↗ um we would budget it in 2023 using

2:10:04 ↗ those fund balance dollars so I as of

2:10:06 ↗ December 31 2023 would be what the

2:10:09 ↗ estimated fund balance would be after

2:10:11 ↗ those expenditures and the

2:10:12 ↗ administration is looking at additional

2:10:14 ↗ expenditures above and beyond

2:10:15 ↗ infrastructure spending

2:10:18 ↗ so we would anticipate that this would

2:10:20 ↗ be an Essence an earmark for the 2023

2:10:24 ↗ budget that we would put toward Capital

2:10:25 ↗ spending there are other recommendations

2:10:27 ↗ and proposals that we'll make for other

2:10:29 ↗ portions of the fund balance I think

2:10:32 ↗ we're trying to get a sense from the

2:10:33 ↗ council

2:10:34 ↗ um it's 15 too far

2:10:38 ↗ 15 is not too far

2:10:40 ↗ and I very much appreciate the focus on

2:10:44 ↗ infrastructure and you know capital

2:10:47 ↗ projects and spending

2:10:50 ↗ um so I'm generally in favor of that I

2:10:54 ↗ just I want to make sure we're actually

2:10:57 ↗ spending and not just earmarking

2:10:59 ↗ so and and just to finish the thought we

2:11:02 ↗ would propose it in the budget that it

2:11:04 ↗ would be spent

2:11:05 ↗ okay uh councilmember D Michelle follow

2:11:08 ↗ up

2:11:10 ↗ thank you

2:11:12 ↗ um I didn't comment on the additional

2:11:14 ↗ proposed positions and I really it's

2:11:16 ↗ more of a question than it is a comment

2:11:18 ↗ but

2:11:20 ↗ um

2:11:22 ↗ we there are a couple of positions that

2:11:25 ↗ I think it looks like these positions

2:11:27 ↗ that you are recommending are related

2:11:31 ↗ directly to the funds that are being

2:11:33 ↗ spent

2:11:36 ↗ um going forward there are a couple of

2:11:37 ↗ positions that I think would be really

2:11:39 ↗ important but I'm presuming that when we

2:11:41 ↗ have our Retreat we'll be able to

2:11:43 ↗ propose additional positions that could

2:11:46 ↗ be needed in other areas such as the

2:11:48 ↗ sustainability office and so so it looks

2:11:53 ↗ like these positions are you've selected

2:11:56 ↗ these positions based on their direct

2:11:58 ↗ relevance to the other expenditures is

2:12:01 ↗ that correct

2:12:03 ↗ that's correct this strategy is really

2:12:05 ↗ about infrastructure investment and how

2:12:07 ↗ the city can move the needle on

2:12:09 ↗ infrastructure investment it is not

2:12:11 ↗ meant to be an exhaustive proposal on

2:12:13 ↗ addressing all staffing needs there are

2:12:16 ↗ going to be more conversations about

2:12:17 ↗ that through the budget process and you

2:12:19 ↗ know we're we'd be eager to hear

2:12:21 ↗ council's feedback on that in terms of

2:12:23 ↗ other areas other positions Etc so that

2:12:27 ↗ would be the appropriate time would be a

2:12:28 ↗ retreat to talk about additional

2:12:30 ↗ positions that we're interested in in

2:12:33 ↗ considering

2:12:35 ↗ okay thanks

2:12:38 ↗ okay so I think we've heard everybody's

2:12:40 ↗ response on questions three and four so

2:12:43 ↗ moving on to the last question what is

2:12:45 ↗ city council feedback on the timing for

2:12:47 ↗ medium term actions including facilities

2:12:49 ↗ needs in 2023 and addressing new Revenue

2:12:52 ↗ sources for additional investments in

2:12:54 ↗ transportation and Parks infrastructure

2:12:56 ↗ council member marks

2:12:59 ↗ thank you

2:13:00 ↗ um I think that

2:13:03 ↗ um I I'm not a fan of looking at both

2:13:06 ↗ the transportation ballot measure and

2:13:09 ↗ exploring of Park District

2:13:10 ↗ simultaneously I think that the commit

2:13:13 ↗ the financial task force

2:13:16 ↗ considered the uh Transportation ballot

2:13:20 ↗ measure medium term item but it

2:13:23 ↗ considered the parks District a

2:13:24 ↗ long-term item and I think it was an

2:13:26 ↗ intentional separation of those two I

2:13:28 ↗ think talking about and considering

2:13:31 ↗ putting both of those in front of the

2:13:32 ↗ voters simultaneously

2:13:34 ↗ um would be a challenge

2:13:36 ↗ so I personally would like to see the uh

2:13:39 ↗ Parks District item moved out until

2:13:41 ↗ after resolution of a transportation

2:13:44 ↗ ballot measure

2:13:46 ↗ correct me if I'm wrong but I believe

2:13:48 ↗ the transportation was proposed for 2024

2:13:51 ↗ and the parks was proposed for 2026.

2:13:55 ↗ that's correct

2:13:58 ↗ yeah

2:13:59 ↗ so just

2:14:05 ↗ so um I can walk I can walk us through

2:14:07 ↗ this uh so

2:14:09 ↗ um in 2024 it anticipates the beginning

2:14:12 ↗ of the conversations regarding any

2:14:14 ↗ transportation ballot measure also in

2:14:17 ↗ 2024

2:14:18 ↗ um we would be completing the park

2:14:20 ↗ strategic plan and in the conversations

2:14:24 ↗ regarding the park strategic plan are

2:14:26 ↗ going to include you know how do we pay

2:14:29 ↗ for this and contemplate that Park

2:14:32 ↗ District that was recommended by the

2:14:34 ↗ task force so it's really the beginning

2:14:35 ↗ of those conversations and utilizing the

2:14:38 ↗ community engagement process for the

2:14:40 ↗ Strategic plan to begin some of those

2:14:41 ↗ conversations about a Park District but

2:14:44 ↗ but a ballot measure this is suggesting

2:14:47 ↗ would not be proposed until we've

2:14:50 ↗ figured out what we're doing for

2:14:51 ↗ transportation so we can kind of utilize

2:14:54 ↗ some of those processes that are

2:14:55 ↗ underway to start having conversations

2:14:57 ↗ about it but in terms of developing it

2:14:59 ↗ further getting it ready for a vote that

2:15:01 ↗ would occur after a transportation

2:15:02 ↗ ballot measure I think it's a huge stake

2:15:06 ↗ for us to even talk about a Parks

2:15:08 ↗ District while we're contemplating a

2:15:10 ↗ transportation ballot measure and you've

2:15:13 ↗ got complete Parks District proposal

2:15:15 ↗ ballot six years or four years from now

2:15:17 ↗ when the task force said six to nine so

2:15:19 ↗ I thank you for the explanation I feel

2:15:22 ↗ as strong I mean I feel really

2:15:24 ↗ personally very strong about this thank

2:15:26 ↗ you

2:15:29 ↗ Deputy council president Hull

2:15:31 ↗ uh thank you very much

2:15:33 ↗ um I guess respectfully I disagree I

2:15:35 ↗ think that this timeline meets the

2:15:38 ↗ Urgent needs of all three categories you

2:15:41 ↗ know we did vote as a task force to have

2:15:43 ↗ parks in the six to nine range this Park

2:15:46 ↗ District in the 69 range but there are

2:15:48 ↗ many task force members including myself

2:15:50 ↗ who advocated for you know ensuring that

2:15:53 ↗ we're doing the planning work very far

2:15:55 ↗ in advance so that way it doesn't sneak

2:15:57 ↗ up on us so I actually think that this

2:16:00 ↗ is in line with considering the urgency

2:16:03 ↗ of the needs and it makes a lot of sense

2:16:04 ↗ to me I hadn't really you know thought

2:16:06 ↗ deeply about what next steps for

2:16:08 ↗ facilities would be but

2:16:11 ↗ um you know starting next year on

2:16:12 ↗ engaging for that sounds right to me too

2:16:16 ↗ it actually seems pretty

2:16:17 ↗ um

2:16:19 ↗ what's the word I'm looking for

2:16:21 ↗ um it's a lot for next year so I wanted

2:16:23 ↗ to ask if the administration feels like

2:16:25 ↗ they can accomplish everything they need

2:16:27 ↗ to because 2023 is going to be a big

2:16:30 ↗ year with this plan so does the

2:16:32 ↗ administration have feel confident about

2:16:34 ↗ their ability to deliver you know good

2:16:37 ↗ progress next year

2:16:43 ↗ they're all big projects they're all

2:16:45 ↗ different people I mean so one of the

2:16:48 ↗ challenges as we look at next year's

2:16:49 ↗ budget is what else is there I mean this

2:16:52 ↗ this 2023 column is largely what we'll

2:16:56 ↗ be doing as a city in 2023

2:16:59 ↗ um with the possible additional

2:17:01 ↗ inclusion of next steps after Title 18

2:17:04 ↗ these are the big issues we have not

2:17:06 ↗ even talked about office facilities for

2:17:09 ↗ the city you know we're vacating a large

2:17:11 ↗ building what do we do with it

2:17:14 ↗ that's a big question and so there's a

2:17:16 ↗ lot of a lot of work to be done here I

2:17:19 ↗ think we feel there's a sense of urgency

2:17:20 ↗ to keep all of this moving we're coming

2:17:22 ↗ off of two years of not getting a lot

2:17:24 ↗ done because of the pandemic uh but

2:17:25 ↗ they're different people but this will

2:17:27 ↗ be the a real primary focus of the city

2:17:29 ↗ government

2:17:30 ↗ next year

2:17:36 ↗ well then yes supportive of the timeline

2:17:38 ↗ as presented thank you

2:17:42 ↗ anyone else

2:17:49 ↗ council member Joe

2:17:52 ↗ thank you

2:17:54 ↗ um I

2:17:56 ↗ I think the the feedback that I'd be

2:17:58 ↗ giving for the medium-term action the

2:18:02 ↗ facility's needs

2:18:03 ↗ are certainly important we want to take

2:18:06 ↗ care of our people

2:18:07 ↗ we want to make sure that they have a

2:18:09 ↗ safe working environment a working

2:18:11 ↗ environment that allows them to be

2:18:13 ↗ productive and conveys to them that the

2:18:18 ↗ leaders on the city council or just

2:18:20 ↗ speaking for myself as a leader on the

2:18:22 ↗ city council appreciate the hard work

2:18:24 ↗ they do

2:18:25 ↗ the long hours that they put in and we

2:18:28 ↗ want to have a nice facility for them to

2:18:30 ↗ work and we want our firefighters to

2:18:32 ↗ also have a great facility

2:18:34 ↗ now with respect to the court I'm a

2:18:37 ↗ little bit biased because I'm sat there

2:18:40 ↗ as the municipal court judge myself and

2:18:42 ↗ the the

2:18:44 ↗ improvements that they're talking about

2:18:45 ↗ here are the the improvements that'll

2:18:47 ↗ streamline things and allow

2:18:51 ↗ a smoother operation for the court it's

2:18:54 ↗ not they're going to have plus seats for

2:18:56 ↗ all the jurors or anything like that

2:18:58 ↗ along the way so I'm anxious or excited

2:19:01 ↗ to look at what that might involve just

2:19:04 ↗ to make sure we're moderate modernizing

2:19:05 ↗ our court making sure that we're able to

2:19:07 ↗ cut down on Transportation costs because

2:19:09 ↗ we have good video facilities and allow

2:19:13 ↗ for smooth operations

2:19:16 ↗ the the last thing that I had comment on

2:19:18 ↗ just I think that uh

2:19:21 ↗ the timing of the

2:19:25 ↗ um transportation and the parks

2:19:27 ↗ infrastructure

2:19:29 ↗ um you know votes I I would like to see

2:19:32 ↗ them a little bit farther apart I think

2:19:34 ↗ the transportation one does need to go

2:19:36 ↗ first but

2:19:38 ↗ um we want to just be very clear that we

2:19:40 ↗ want to get the transportation one done

2:19:42 ↗ first before we start having a

2:19:45 ↗ conversation that's too in-depth about

2:19:47 ↗ the parks one now that doesn't mean

2:19:49 ↗ we're not doing work as a council and

2:19:51 ↗ the staff is not doing work to figure

2:19:53 ↗ out how we're going to put that together

2:19:55 ↗ but the conversation that we're having

2:19:57 ↗ externally with the community I I just

2:20:00 ↗ don't want us to confuse the community

2:20:03 ↗ and get them to think about two projects

2:20:05 ↗ at once we really need to focus on the

2:20:07 ↗ transportation project first get it done

2:20:10 ↗ we can do all our internal stuff but

2:20:12 ↗ then roll it out after the their vote is

2:20:15 ↗ taken on on the transportation one would

2:20:18 ↗ be my preference

2:20:21 ↗ councilmember hunt

2:20:26 ↗ one thing I I think this is makes sense

2:20:29 ↗ as a strategy timeline but I know that

2:20:32 ↗ in the past we've had a start and then a

2:20:35 ↗ stop of a conversation around

2:20:37 ↗ Transportation ballot measure and

2:20:40 ↗ um I those things can happen there can

2:20:43 ↗ be you know things can be overtaken by

2:20:46 ↗ events or the needs could change and it

2:20:49 ↗ might this timing might not work out and

2:20:52 ↗ um it seems to me that as a strategy it

2:20:55 ↗ makes sense just recognizing that

2:20:58 ↗ it may not be possible on this timeline

2:21:01 ↗ it seems optimistic to me there are a

2:21:04 ↗ lot of a lot of things going on and a

2:21:07 ↗ lot of things could I think

2:21:08 ↗ change

2:21:10 ↗ um one other thought I had is I think

2:21:13 ↗ the the parks issue

2:21:16 ↗ matters uh the

2:21:19 ↗ mayor Polly talked about this being a

2:21:20 ↗ puzzle I think the parks District

2:21:22 ↗ proposal ballot measure that

2:21:26 ↗ um is related to what we decide to do as

2:21:28 ↗ far as the the investment right now in

2:21:31 ↗ Parks or not

2:21:34 ↗ um because we do have a number of parks

2:21:38 ↗ that I think ultimately the vision that

2:21:41 ↗ the community has is to

2:21:44 ↗ um to make

2:21:45 ↗ transformational improvements so I think

2:21:48 ↗ if we start that now then I think that

2:21:50 ↗ sets us up for a Parks measure that

2:21:52 ↗ could be further out and could take into

2:21:54 ↗ into account those changes that were

2:21:57 ↗ made using arpa funds but I think in the

2:22:00 ↗ in the puzzle of things that's how I'm

2:22:01 ↗ thinking about it so I'm not opposed to

2:22:04 ↗ um and I think it's it's actually

2:22:05 ↗ probably likely any way that the parks

2:22:07 ↗ District ballot measure would get pushed

2:22:09 ↗ further and there would be more

2:22:11 ↗ separation from the Transportation

2:22:12 ↗ ballot measure but I I also think

2:22:15 ↗ there's a relationship here with the

2:22:17 ↗ investment we make right now with parks

2:22:19 ↗ and again if we make that investment in

2:22:21 ↗ Parks maybe that sets us up for that

2:22:23 ↗ later decision but also gives the

2:22:25 ↗ community

2:22:26 ↗ a transformational change now

2:22:32 ↗ council member D Michelle

2:22:35 ↗ I don't have much in addition to ad

2:22:39 ↗ except that perhaps it would be easier

2:22:40 ↗ to look at this by what we're doing

2:22:42 ↗ externally and what we're doing

2:22:44 ↗ internally and the external

2:22:46 ↗ Communications does need to be really

2:22:48 ↗ clear and focused

2:22:51 ↗ but at the same time we're working

2:22:54 ↗ internally to prepare for the parks

2:22:58 ↗ um yeah sure and I I think we can do do

2:23:01 ↗ both of those but I do agree that uh the

2:23:04 ↗ conversation out to the community really

2:23:07 ↗ needs to be focused and clear

2:23:09 ↗ uh and other than that I think the

2:23:11 ↗ timeline looks really good and

2:23:14 ↗ um great job on the on the materials

2:23:16 ↗ that were presented tonight thank you

2:23:20 ↗ council member Ray no uh you've already

2:23:23 ↗ have you made your comments okay and

2:23:25 ↗ step back to me

2:23:27 ↗ um

2:23:28 ↗ I am very eager to explore facilities

2:23:32 ↗ and get a sense of what our facility

2:23:34 ↗ needs are as council member Joe said you

2:23:38 ↗ know Municipal Court fire station city

2:23:42 ↗ hall or workspace facilities those are

2:23:45 ↗ all very important I appreciate

2:23:49 ↗ exploring a funding plan

2:23:51 ↗ because those are big big dollars and I

2:23:55 ↗ think that's definitely an area where we

2:23:57 ↗ could look at some debt as an option

2:24:01 ↗ um

2:24:02 ↗ I still remain unsold that any of the

2:24:06 ↗ transportation needs that we have right

2:24:08 ↗ now would make a successful ballot

2:24:10 ↗ measure

2:24:12 ↗ um but I'm happy to explore it and I

2:24:17 ↗ think if we can come up with a good set

2:24:19 ↗ of items then I would put it ahead of a

2:24:24 ↗ Park District

2:24:26 ↗ but again I just I remain unsold that we

2:24:30 ↗ have

2:24:31 ↗ moved in a New Direction significantly

2:24:34 ↗ from the last time we did a

2:24:36 ↗ transportation ballot measure um that I

2:24:40 ↗ just

2:24:41 ↗ yeah I don't want to go down that road

2:24:42 ↗ again

2:24:43 ↗ um

2:24:45 ↗ and I do think that exploring whatever

2:24:48 ↗ we would for a Park District

2:24:51 ↗ um

2:24:51 ↗ requires internal and external

2:24:55 ↗ conversations and so we just need to be

2:24:58 ↗ aware of how that falls in between

2:25:01 ↗ things but generally and I guess the

2:25:03 ↗ other comment I have is all of this

2:25:06 ↗ seems fairly ambitious considering we're

2:25:10 ↗ we have the title 18 whiteboard list

2:25:13 ↗ considering we have our comprehensive

2:25:17 ↗ Plan update that has to come through

2:25:22 ↗ I mean more power to us if we can

2:25:24 ↗ accomplish it but I'll be looking for

2:25:26 ↗ what we're addressing in the budget as

2:25:29 ↗ ways to handle those things uh council

2:25:33 ↗ member marks

2:25:34 ↗ thank you

2:25:36 ↗ um so I have run successful Bond and

2:25:41 ↗ Levy campaigns as part of the volunteers

2:25:42 ↗ for Sequoia schools and I think we would

2:25:47 ↗ be in a very different position in a

2:25:50 ↗ couple of years to run a transportation

2:25:52 ↗ potential Transportation ballot than we

2:25:55 ↗ were last time I think we learned a lot

2:25:57 ↗ from the last time we tried to run a

2:26:00 ↗ bond and uh which again would have

2:26:04 ↗ passed had it been a levy

2:26:06 ↗ uh I think that we have a strategic plan

2:26:10 ↗ in place and we have now years of

2:26:13 ↗ community engagement on what our

2:26:15 ↗ priorities are that we didn't have the

2:26:17 ↗ last time we tried to run one so I think

2:26:20 ↗ it would be a very very different and

2:26:22 ↗ much more educated conversation with our

2:26:25 ↗ community than it was the last time and

2:26:28 ↗ so I'm eager to see where that

2:26:31 ↗ conversation goes as a as a city thank

2:26:34 ↗ you

2:26:37 ↗ okay as we near 9 30 I guess I would say

2:26:41 ↗ we have gone through all of the five

2:26:44 ↗ questions

2:26:46 ↗ um

2:26:46 ↗ can you talk through what the next steps

2:26:50 ↗ are what you've heard what do you plan

2:26:53 ↗ to bring back to us for the July 5th

2:26:56 ↗ meeting

2:26:58 ↗ sure thank you very much I am very

2:27:01 ↗ impressed because that was a lot to get

2:27:02 ↗ through so I really appreciate all of

2:27:04 ↗ that feedback so we are going to follow

2:27:08 ↗ up on July 5th at that meeting I think

2:27:11 ↗ that there's additional conversations

2:27:14 ↗ that we need to have regarding the parks

2:27:16 ↗ proposal for the anchor Park so we'll

2:27:19 ↗ put together some materials based off of

2:27:21 ↗ the questions we heard tonight

2:27:23 ↗ and also I think we'll be hearing a

2:27:26 ↗ little bit more from our Chief Financial

2:27:29 ↗ Officer Robert hamoud on debt and arpa

2:27:33 ↗ funds as well and so we'll prepare some

2:27:35 ↗ of that information take the feedback

2:27:37 ↗ that we heard from you this evening

2:27:38 ↗ regarding some of your concerns and

2:27:41 ↗ return for more discussion on July 5th

2:27:47 ↗ okay Deputy council president Hull uh

2:27:50 ↗ just really quick and generally

2:27:52 ↗ um but I just wanted to make sure

2:27:54 ↗ um Deputy City administrator Snyder

2:27:56 ↗ Andrea knows how much this Council

2:27:58 ↗ appreciates all the work that you've put

2:28:00 ↗ into this effort it's been a long time

2:28:03 ↗ now shepherding it from the beginning of

2:28:05 ↗ the task force all the way to coming up

2:28:08 ↗ with a proposal and now dealing with all

2:28:10 ↗ of our questions and comments up here so

2:28:12 ↗ really greatly appreciate all the work

2:28:14 ↗ that you've done to to bring this

2:28:17 ↗ Mammoth of infrastructure investment

2:28:21 ↗ strategy and vision from birth to here

2:28:25 ↗ and just thank you

2:28:31 ↗ councilmember hunt

2:28:32 ↗ thank you one suggestion for some other

2:28:35 ↗ information that I think would be

2:28:36 ↗ helpful so I I did have a conversation

2:28:38 ↗ with City administrator Bob quits before

2:28:40 ↗ the meeting about some of the

2:28:41 ↗ long-standing

2:28:44 ↗ infrastructure Transportation

2:28:46 ↗ infrastructure like sidewalks on squawk

2:28:48 ↗ and the

2:28:50 ↗ multimodal South Cove project and and

2:28:54 ↗ those and where they were and you know I

2:28:58 ↗ think that that information would also

2:28:59 ↗ be helpful because in reviewing this I

2:29:01 ↗ was looking at the CIP and the master

2:29:04 ↗ Mobility plan and then the community

2:29:07 ↗ survey and there's just a lot of

2:29:09 ↗ information that's in a lot of places

2:29:10 ↗ and so I think I think explaining the

2:29:12 ↗ timeline for those explaining the

2:29:14 ↗ funding strategy that is in place would

2:29:16 ↗ would be helpful and would also give us

2:29:18 ↗ a sense of the more holistic look at

2:29:21 ↗ what the administration is planning for

2:29:23 ↗ those long-standing projects so that

2:29:25 ↗ would be my information ask for you

2:29:28 ↗ thank you much appreciated summary

2:29:33 ↗ um I think at this point we can say we

2:29:36 ↗ are done and that is the only other item

2:29:40 ↗ on our agenda so at this point at 9 30

2:29:45 ↗ p.m we're adjourned thank you

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.