City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, June 12, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

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

packet pp.5–65

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · May 16, 2023

▶ Watch from 40:08 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

1. The Administration – with the support of the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee – recommends that the Council support the proposed councilmanic 0.1% TBD sales tax. 2. In addition, the Administration – with the support of the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee - recommends that the 0.1% TBD sales tax is used to fund ITS projects and the NW Sammamish Road Non-Motorized Improvements. 3. The Administration recommends – with the support of the Services, Safety, and Parks Committee – prioritizing Park and Trail projects in 2027 and beyond to allow further exploration of a new revenue source dedicated to Park & Trail projects.

2024-2029 Capital Improvement Plan - Feedback from Committees and City Council Deliberations ID 1344

90 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator Robert Hamud, Chief Financial Officer Susie Monsell, Budget Manager

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 44:50

Good of the Order

▶ Watch from 2:09:20

3270 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ so welcome everyone I'm calling the June

0:06 ↗ 12th special city council meeting to

0:08 ↗ order at 6 30 p.m uh council member Joe

0:11 ↗ has an excused absence this evening

0:13 ↗ the purpose of this special meeting is

0:15 ↗ to conduct a public hearing on the

0:18 ↗ 2024-2029 capital Improvement plan

0:20 ↗ including the transportation Improvement

0:22 ↗ program and following this meeting at 7

0:25 ↗ pm the city council will hold a

0:26 ↗ committee of the whole meeting to

0:28 ↗ further discuss the plan

0:31 ↗ ab8640 the 2024-2029 capital Improvement

0:34 ↗ plan is the only item for our meeting

0:37 ↗ and I'd like to invite our Chief

0:39 ↗ Financial Officer Robert hamoud to make

0:41 ↗ a presentation welcome Robert

0:51 ↗ thank you mayor members of the council

0:52 ↗ good evening members of the public as

0:54 ↗ well I'm here with Susie monsell our

0:57 ↗ budget manager and she was really the

1:00 ↗ one that kind of directed all the

1:01 ↗ traffic internally to put together the

1:02 ↗ CIP and the public hearing this evening

1:05 ↗ and just to recap what is the purpose of

1:08 ↗ a CIP and again we're in state code

1:12 ↗ requires cities to hear hearing for the

1:15 ↗ proposed Transportation Improvement

1:17 ↗ program that's part of the CIP

1:18 ↗ Transportation element of the CIP

1:20 ↗ tonight

1:21 ↗ and then also we have the public hearing

1:23 ↗ to inform the public of the CIP the CIP

1:26 ↗ process and the materials included in it

1:28 ↗ continue to public hearing will be on

1:30 ↗ June 26 2023 as well in two weeks three

1:34 ↗ weeks excuse me and so Susie is going to

1:38 ↗ continue the hearing

1:42 ↗ hello I'm short so I'm going to lower

1:44 ↗ that slightly so

1:46 ↗ um just starting off high level what is

1:49 ↗ the CIP and what does it do so it is

1:51 ↗ ultimately a six-year plan that is

1:53 ↗ updated every other year

1:55 ↗ it is a required element of the city's

1:57 ↗ comprehensive plan it informs the annual

2:00 ↗ Transportation Improvement program which

2:02 ↗ is really just the Transportation uh

2:05 ↗ section of the CIP and really the main

2:09 ↗ reason we have the public hearing this

2:10 ↗ evening is that is required for the tip

2:12 ↗ portion

2:14 ↗ um the CIP also allows projects to

2:16 ↗ utilize certain restricted Revenue

2:17 ↗ sources some require that a project is

2:20 ↗ included in the CIP before it can use

2:22 ↗ that Revenue source and uh really it's

2:25 ↗ also very subject to change it is

2:27 ↗ um as the final bullet point says it is

2:29 ↗ a plan it is not a budget it's the

2:32 ↗ budget itself which the next touch point

2:35 ↗ should be

2:36 ↗ the mid biennium budget update which

2:38 ↗ will come this summer fall that

2:40 ↗ um puts it into action so for now it's

2:42 ↗ just what is the city planning for the

2:44 ↗ next six years it is still very subject

2:46 ↗ to change but

2:48 ↗ um a required part of the process

2:51 ↗ um so I believe we've shown this graphic

2:54 ↗ before our friends in the parks

2:55 ↗ department help us develop this but it

2:58 ↗ really helps show how the CIP fits into

3:00 ↗ the city's larger planning Capital

3:02 ↗ planning process in particular so it

3:04 ↗ starts at the top of the funnel with

3:06 ↗ these 20-year assessments the 20-year

3:09 ↗ picture where it's a lot of those Master

3:11 ↗ plans that have also come before the

3:13 ↗ council including the master Mobility

3:15 ↗ plan the park strategic plan utility

3:17 ↗ system plans

3:19 ↗ strategic plan the city is Street

3:21 ↗ strategic plan the climate action plan

3:24 ↗ and a forthcoming facilities plan along

3:26 ↗ with some others that are being

3:28 ↗ discussed and those really look at

3:32 ↗ that long-term 20-year picture and those

3:35 ↗ are updated every five or six years or

3:37 ↗ so for example the park strategic plan

3:40 ↗ is due for an update in the next year

3:43 ↗ and a half or so

3:45 ↗ um and then they really look at the the

3:47 ↗ long-term needs within that asset

3:49 ↗ category then we near narrow that down

3:51 ↗ the funnel to the six-year CIP which

3:53 ↗ prioritizes that 20-year picture just to

3:56 ↗ that six-year window

3:57 ↗ it looks at what we can realistically

4:00 ↗ fund within that six year window based

4:02 ↗ on a revenue forecasting

4:04 ↗ it's updated every two years as opposed

4:07 ↗ to the five or six years of those

4:08 ↗ long-term plans and like I said it

4:11 ↗ really aligns that those big picture

4:13 ↗ needs with what current resources we

4:15 ↗ have available within those those next

4:17 ↗ six years

4:18 ↗ and then finally at the bottom well

4:21 ↗ almost to the bottom of the funnel

4:22 ↗ there's the biennial budget itself where

4:25 ↗ the council takes action on the items

4:28 ↗ proposed within the CIP the CIP itself

4:30 ↗ does not take budget action

4:32 ↗ and finally once it is approved in a

4:35 ↗ biennial budget then it becomes a funded

4:37 ↗ Capital project

4:40 ↗ um so high level overview of the CIP

4:43 ↗ itself is this 2024 to 2029 CIP

4:48 ↗ provides more funding for maintenance

4:50 ↗ programs than in the past especially

4:53 ↗ maintaining our current capital needs it

4:56 ↗ responds to feedback to make more

4:58 ↗ investments in our infrastructure while

5:00 ↗ also taking extra care to make sure that

5:02 ↗ the plan is achievable as we've heard

5:03 ↗ feedback in the past that we're perhaps

5:06 ↗ a little overly ambitious in our Capital

5:08 ↗ planning so we wanted to really make

5:10 ↗ sure that what we propose for the next

5:12 ↗ six years is something achievable

5:15 ↗ um and then finally that it anticipates

5:17 ↗ some new revenues for transportation

5:19 ↗ which will um address shortly

5:22 ↗ um some Public Safety facilities and

5:23 ↗ park and trails over that whole six-year

5:26 ↗ Horizon

5:27 ↗ so at that point speaking of Revenue I

5:29 ↗ will hand it back to Robert

5:37 ↗ thank you Susie the next part of the

5:38 ↗ presentation tonight is on the

5:40 ↗ transportation benefit district sales

5:42 ↗ tax and throughout the process of the

5:44 ↗ CIP we have been discussing with Council

5:47 ↗ the new as of 2022 the new tool

5:50 ↗ available to the City of Issaquah which

5:53 ↗ is a proposal of a councilmatic

5:55 ↗ transportation benefit district sales

5:58 ↗ tax which overlays the city and confers

6:01 ↗ the city boundaries of 0.1 percent

6:04 ↗ and

6:06 ↗ the next slide here

6:08 ↗ the TBD sales tax was actually

6:10 ↗ recommended originally by the capital

6:11 ↗ planning task force last year and the

6:15 ↗ stakeholders

6:16 ↗ and members of the community that has

6:17 ↗ first recommended this is one of the

6:19 ↗ options to fund capital projects in the

6:21 ↗ future for the city especially in the

6:22 ↗ transportation side

6:24 ↗ with the TBD Transportation benefit

6:27 ↗ district sales tax it distributes the

6:29 ↗ costs among all the transportation users

6:31 ↗ not just Issaquah residents so if you

6:33 ↗ imagine anybody shopping within the city

6:35 ↗ they drive their car or they take the

6:37 ↗ bus to the City of Issaquah from

6:39 ↗ elsewhere they're using the roads

6:40 ↗ they're using The Pedestrian facilities

6:42 ↗ they're using the services here when

6:43 ↗ they shop at Fred Meyer when they shop

6:45 ↗ at Target when they shop or even go to

6:48 ↗ the Front Street or restaurants so and

6:51 ↗ again when you look at the local

6:52 ↗ employers through the daytime population

6:53 ↗ is often is higher larger than the

6:56 ↗ population that lives here so part of

6:58 ↗ that is with the TBD you actually

7:00 ↗ generate sales tax from all the

7:02 ↗ businesses anybody doing business in the

7:04 ↗ City of Issaquah the burden doesn't just

7:05 ↗ fall in the residence for this tax

7:08 ↗ and 2.2 million dollars is anticipated

7:11 ↗ annually 4.1 percent Transportation

7:14 ↗ benefit District it would be the same

7:15 ↗ level of

7:17 ↗ the 0.1 percent affordable housing sales

7:19 ↗ tax that the city has in place right now

7:21 ↗ the proposal for this 0.1 percent TBD

7:25 ↗ would be to use towards the Northwest

7:27 ↗ sammamishan on motorized improvements

7:29 ↗ and also the multi-year intelligent

7:33 ↗ transportation system implementation

7:37 ↗ so the impact to Residents the average

7:40 ↗ annual impact of residents for household

7:41 ↗ would be less than one hundred dollars

7:43 ↗ per year based on current spending

7:45 ↗ habits and again this is a very rough

7:46 ↗ estimate

7:47 ↗ almost everybody even

7:49 ↗ heard of my wife and I have different

7:51 ↗ spending habits from each other so it

7:53 ↗ could be higher for some residents it

7:54 ↗ could be lower for some residents it

7:55 ↗ also depends if they're making most of

7:57 ↗ their purchases either online or within

7:59 ↗ the city limits at retail facilities or

8:02 ↗ in Bellevue or in Seattle or elsewhere

8:04 ↗ so we calculated based on an average

8:06 ↗ household about two and a half residents

8:09 ↗ that would be about a hundred dollars a

8:11 ↗ year based on the spending habits so for

8:13 ↗ example a forty thousand dollar car the

8:15 ↗ purchase price for the 0.1 TBD would

8:17 ↗ increase forty dollars

8:19 ↗ if it's a 500 television it'd be 50

8:22 ↗ cents

8:23 ↗ and gas and grocery items and you think

8:25 ↗ of the things you buy the most the store

8:27 ↗ most gas is a fixed exercise Taft from

8:29 ↗ the state there's no sales tax applied

8:31 ↗ to gas in Washington state so that's not

8:33 ↗ impacted and most grocery items eggs

8:36 ↗ dairy non-perishable perishable food

8:39 ↗ even most non-perishable food products

8:41 ↗ are not subject to sales tax either so

8:43 ↗ it's not hitting everything you're

8:44 ↗ buying on a daily basis

8:47 ↗ and this is a comparison table of local

8:49 ↗ sales tax rates and you can see actually

8:52 ↗ the

8:54 ↗ the comparison between

8:55 ↗ Issaquah and many of the East Side

8:57 ↗ cities Compared to North Bend Snoqualmie

8:59 ↗ and Covington what that is is Sound

9:01 ↗ Transit so those cities are outside the

9:04 ↗ Sound Transit

9:05 ↗ planning area so as parts of Redmond as

9:08 ↗ well but you could see we're we're about

9:10 ↗ 10.1 percent Shoreline is 10.3 Seattle

9:13 ↗ is 10.25 Bellevue is the same as this

9:17 ↗ across 10.1 there's some areas that are

9:20 ↗ outside the soundtrack Sound Transit

9:21 ↗ project area not a lot of retail in

9:24 ↗ those areas but the areas of those

9:25 ↗ cities including Issaquah that have some

9:27 ↗ households outside they're not subject

9:29 ↗ to that sound transit but then again

9:31 ↗ that's not the entire city

9:34 ↗ so the sales tax breakdown you can see

9:36 ↗ that the state share

9:38 ↗ right off the top for every

9:40 ↗ one dollar resident pays in Issaquah

9:42 ↗ sales tax the city receives

9:43 ↗ approximately 10 cents and then putting

9:45 ↗ it into the total of the 10.1 percent

9:47 ↗ sales tax applied in the City of

9:49 ↗ Issaquah I can see the state share alone

9:51 ↗ is 6.5 percent

9:53 ↗ and the county actually gets a 0.15 of

9:56 ↗ the local share of one percent so you

9:58 ↗ can see that our base rate is 0.85

10:00 ↗ percent our affordable housing is 0.1

10:02 ↗ percent so it's a very small portion of

10:04 ↗ what you pay at the stores here very

10:05 ↗ smart portion actually comes back to the

10:07 ↗ City of Issaquah the residents and

10:09 ↗ businesses here

10:12 ↗ the proposed projects to be funded by

10:15 ↗ the 0.1 percent TBD sales tax the

10:17 ↗ intelligent transportation system

10:18 ↗ improvements and also the Northwest

10:20 ↗ Sammamish Road non-motorized

10:22 ↗ improvements right now the its plan and

10:24 ↗ development aims to

10:27 ↗ make traffic flow more efficiently and

10:29 ↗ more safely and for pedestrians so

10:31 ↗ mobility within the city would be

10:32 ↗ focused on uh with upgrading Loops

10:35 ↗ signals at intersections and traffic

10:37 ↗ flow within the community Northwest

10:39 ↗ Sammamish Road non-motorize improvements

10:42 ↗ it's also been called pinch point at

10:43 ↗ times it aims to provide pedestrian

10:45 ↗ bicycle infrastructure to better connect

10:47 ↗ South Lake Sammamish neighborhoods

10:48 ↗ amenities and services in Issaquah

10:53 ↗ any questions on the sales tax

11:01 ↗ next slide here was a request to show

11:04 ↗ what the property section excuse me

11:06 ↗ property tax and sales tax per household

11:08 ↗ impact is the residents here at the City

11:11 ↗ of Issaquah and before I show some

11:13 ↗ charts on the following Pages I'm just

11:15 ↗ going to go through some assumptions so

11:16 ↗ first of all proposed options assume

11:19 ↗ that we're going to show is what happens

11:21 ↗ in 2027 during the CIP during the full

11:24 ↗ implementation of many of the elements

11:27 ↗ of the CIP you can see that the

11:28 ↗ councilmatic point one percent TBD sales

11:30 ↗ tax this scenario and again it's a

11:32 ↗ scenario only no action has been taken

11:34 ↗ assumes a

11:36 ↗ 2.1 TBD approved by 2027 voter approved

11:41 ↗ property tax revenue for New City

11:43 ↗ facilities new voter approved Parks

11:45 ↗ revenues assuming 2 million per year

11:50 ↗ and that is again just an assumption

11:52 ↗ just if certain options are taken this

11:54 ↗ is what the scenario would look like

11:56 ↗ the cost for new facilities are in the

11:58 ↗ median ranges that were presented to

12:00 ↗ council during the cap process and that

12:02 ↗ includes the city hall campus fire

12:05 ↗ station relocation court and police

12:07 ↗ upgrades as well

12:09 ↗ and inflationary increases are not

12:11 ↗ factored into the estimated tax data and

12:14 ↗ so you're also going to see comparisons

12:15 ↗ to other cities but it's very difficult

12:16 ↗ because the city's economic bases are

12:20 ↗ different if you think of Bellevue and

12:21 ↗ all the high density construction going

12:23 ↗ on it's a different comparison than our

12:25 ↗ city

12:26 ↗ but so is a city such as Snoqualmie that

12:28 ↗ is dependent on property tax that

12:30 ↗ doesn't have a lot of local retail and

12:31 ↗ it's not growing so some of these

12:33 ↗ comparisons are a little different we're

12:35 ↗ just looking at property and sales tax

12:36 ↗ with these assumptions we're not with

12:38 ↗ facility tax or fees or other Revenue

12:40 ↗ sources

12:43 ↗ and so this chart stacked graph I know

12:46 ↗ for some members of the audience this

12:48 ↗ might be a little hard to see on this

12:49 ↗ chart so I apologize on the screen the

12:51 ↗ estimated average household property in

12:54 ↗ sales taxes by 2027. you could see when

12:57 ↗ we talk about the base

13:00 ↗ property tax you can see current and no

13:03 ↗ change that base property taxes Below in

13:06 ↗ blue eight hundred and fifty dollars and

13:08 ↗ then you see

13:10 ↗ excuse me that's the 0.85 base sales tax

13:12 ↗ so that's the base sales tax you pay

13:14 ↗ that's everybody paid then you see the

13:15 ↗ gray

13:17 ↗ so people pay a little bit more on the

13:18 ↗ property tax the sales tax side than the

13:20 ↗ actual property tax the property tax

13:22 ↗ right now again this is an average house

13:25 ↗ approximately 1.2 million dollars or so

13:27 ↗ is the current estimated median home

13:29 ↗ price in the City of Issaquah it's about

13:31 ↗ 688 dollars

13:33 ↗ per household but again it depends on

13:36 ↗ certain factors depends when you moved

13:37 ↗ in the house depends if you have a

13:38 ↗ senior exemption or not so there's a lot

13:40 ↗ of a lot of ifs to this but this is just

13:42 ↗ showing trying to show a comparison

13:44 ↗ you can see with the 0.1 percent

13:46 ↗ affordable housing is talked about a

13:48 ↗ hundred dollars per household for that

13:49 ↗ point one percent

13:51 ↗ you can see the current no change just

13:53 ↗ money coming to the City of Issaquah not

13:55 ↗ your total tax bill just money coming

13:57 ↗ from sales tax and property tax is about

14:00 ↗ one thousand six hundred and thirty

14:02 ↗ eight dollars per household again

14:03 ↗ assuming an average household assuming a

14:06 ↗ median home price about 1.2 million

14:08 ↗ dollars

14:09 ↗ if we looked at the median comparison of

14:13 ↗ the the low estimates we've shown for

14:16 ↗ City properties and the high estimates

14:17 ↗ we come up with an average of about two

14:20 ↗ thousand four hundred and sixty nine

14:21 ↗ dollars if you factor in Parks revenues

14:23 ↗ we talked about so a levy that would

14:26 ↗ equate to approximately 2 million a year

14:29 ↗ in new revenue for parks by 2027.

14:32 ↗ and I also break out you could see just

14:34 ↗ an estimate and these can be

14:36 ↗ interchangeable of course because all

14:37 ↗ the estimates will change when we have

14:38 ↗ different plants for buildings but we're

14:40 ↗ estimating in this case

14:42 ↗ you can see red and fire for example 211

14:45 ↗ dollars

14:46 ↗ each category is color-coded has

14:50 ↗ their total amounts they're the

14:51 ↗ estimates so you can see that if you

14:53 ↗ went so to speak all in with the median

14:56 ↗ price for new city facilities

14:58 ↗ plus again the TBD of 0.1 percent and

15:01 ↗ plus Parks revenue is a two million

15:02 ↗ dollars a year you're looking at

15:05 ↗ 2469 and you have a question yes

15:10 ↗ thank you so just to clarify because

15:15 ↗ right now the public hearing is about

15:17 ↗ the CIP yes which doesn't necessarily

15:21 ↗ make any of these decisions and what

15:25 ↗ you're presenting here is what I would

15:28 ↗ count as three separate decisions one

15:31 ↗ for the TBD correct one for all of the

15:36 ↗ facilities which includes the city hall

15:37 ↗ the fire station police and court and

15:40 ↗ then another even further in the future

15:42 ↗ potential decision on Parks Revenue yes

15:46 ↗ so even though we're presenting all of

15:48 ↗ this none of those decisions have been

15:50 ↗ made and none of them are being made

15:53 ↗ tonight is that correct that is correct

15:55 ↗ okay thank you

15:57 ↗ and once the capital Improvement plan is

16:00 ↗ proved approved that does not mean that

16:03 ↗ those decisions have been made either no

16:05 ↗ it does not

16:10 ↗ so again we were trying to show

16:12 ↗ scenarios just a what if scenario where

16:14 ↗ this came from and so also if you apply

16:16 ↗ to the what-if scenario to

16:18 ↗ our neighboring some of our neighboring

16:20 ↗ communities we were trying to see where

16:22 ↗ we stand right now so if it's about 1

16:24 ↗ 638 dollars is the average a household

16:27 ↗ pays what does that look like for an

16:29 ↗ average household of

16:31 ↗ essentially the same assessed value of

16:33 ↗ Home in Bellevue and Kirkland Snoqualmie

16:35 ↗ you can see interestingly enough that

16:37 ↗ Snoqualmie is the highest that's because

16:39 ↗ they do not have a very they do not have

16:42 ↗ a sales tax base so they're very

16:44 ↗ property packed tax base dependent so

16:46 ↗ Sammamish so because of that they've had

16:48 ↗ lid lifts and other increases in their

16:50 ↗ property taxes over time

16:52 ↗ Bellevue you could see it's about 1900

16:55 ↗ so we are actually the lowest on this

16:57 ↗ list right

17:01 ↗ we have a question

17:02 ↗ go back one slide just for a second

17:04 ↗ absolutely

17:05 ↗ um can you on the slide on the right can

17:07 ↗ you remind me which part of that is

17:10 ↗ essentially sales tax base and which

17:13 ↗ part is essentially property tax right

17:15 ↗ so the blue the blue is sales tax base

17:18 ↗ so that's the base and then the 0.1 TBD

17:23 ↗ is the yellow on the right and then the

17:26 ↗ dark red or the the burgundy is the 100

17:28 ↗ that's the affordable housing sales tax

17:31 ↗ so one so 1050 out of that notional

17:36 ↗ 2469 would be set it would be I'm just

17:40 ↗ going to say regressively sales tax and

17:42 ↗ the other 1400 uh

17:46 ↗ 1419 would be progressively uh property

17:51 ↗ tax base that's correct okay thank you

17:53 ↗ in this scenario that we're trying to in

17:55 ↗ this notional scenario that involves

17:57 ↗ three decisions in the future

17:59 ↗ thank you have to add that to every

18:01 ↗ answer yes

18:06 ↗ and Susie did you want to talk about the

18:07 ↗ project aspect was there any more

18:09 ↗ questions about this chart here

18:19 ↗ close this out real quick so

18:22 ↗ um this uh this chart summarizes the

18:25 ↗ um by asset category so by the different

18:27 ↗ buckets of projects the total proposed

18:30 ↗ project so active here refers to if it

18:33 ↗ has cost anticipated between 2024 and

18:37 ↗ 2029 and then the total proposed future

18:40 ↗ year project count so those are just

18:42 ↗ projects identified beyond that six year

18:45 ↗ Horizon and there's an appendix of those

18:47 ↗ in the back of the document and then

18:49 ↗ finally the total proposed cost of those

18:52 ↗ projects just the total buy asset

18:54 ↗ category to give you an idea of the

18:56 ↗ grand scheme

18:58 ↗ and with that

19:00 ↗ um we are happy to turn it back to the

19:02 ↗ mayor to open the public hearing

19:03 ↗ first I'm actually going to see if

19:06 ↗ Council has any questions before we do

19:08 ↗ the public hearing

19:09 ↗ that's council member would it be

19:13 ↗ appropriate to ask a question about one

19:15 ↗ of the proposed uh expenditures that you

19:18 ↗ had in there

19:20 ↗ yes so the uh traffic Improvement system

19:24 ↗ uh is this yet the the one that we would

19:28 ↗ be able to get that would uh tie us to

19:30 ↗ the states uh light system such that we

19:33 ↗ could sequence our lights off of the

19:34 ↗ lights that are controlled by the state

19:36 ↗ around the various exits

19:41 ↗ um hi this is Andrea Snyder Deputy City

19:43 ↗ administrator the intelligent

19:44 ↗ transportation system for its system is

19:46 ↗ what you're referring to I think and yes

19:48 ↗ there's a number of different

19:49 ↗ Technologies under that umbrella and one

19:52 ↗ of those Technologies would better allow

19:54 ↗ us to coordinate with Washington State

19:55 ↗ okay because that has been something

19:57 ↗ that I've been asking this question for

20:00 ↗ the last 14 years I'm very excited to

20:02 ↗ hear that that would be potentially part

20:04 ↗ of that because my understanding is that

20:06 ↗ is as

20:07 ↗ I want to set people's expectations too

20:09 ↗ high but that really is a sea change for

20:11 ↗ what we can do in terms of traffic

20:12 ↗ management if we off of that system

20:14 ↗ thank you any additional questions of

20:17 ↗ council members before I open the public

20:19 ↗ hearing we do have a few people signed

20:20 ↗ up to speak

20:23 ↗ it doesn't look like it so I will now

20:25 ↗ open the public hearing at 6 51 pm

20:29 ↗ and if you are joining us virtually and

20:31 ↗ would like to make comments please raise

20:33 ↗ your virtual hand or send the host a

20:35 ↗ chat message if you're on the phone you

20:37 ↗ can press star three and if you've

20:38 ↗ joined by computer or smartphone you can

20:40 ↗ look for the hand icon

20:42 ↗ uh if you're in the room and did not

20:44 ↗ sign up I will ask for other I will ask

20:47 ↗ for other speakers before I close this

20:49 ↗ portion of the meeting and so city clerk

20:51 ↗ has anyone signed up to speak or

20:53 ↗ indicate a desire to speak this evening

20:54 ↗ no one signed up at this time

20:58 ↗ um but we do have people in the room

21:00 ↗ so I'm going to assume that there will

21:03 ↗ be some comments made

21:05 ↗ um

21:06 ↗ if you would like to speak you want to

21:09 ↗ raise your hand and when you come to the

21:11 ↗ microphone please identify yourself and

21:14 ↗ your relationship to the city and five

21:16 ↗ minutes for me comments who would like

21:18 ↗ to go first we have four people in the

21:20 ↗ room

21:23 ↗ good

21:25 ↗ come on up Connie

21:32 ↗ hi Connie Marsh live up on squawk and

21:36 ↗ I've been to several of the meetings

21:38 ↗ that toured from community meeting to

21:41 ↗ community meeting and

21:44 ↗ um

21:44 ↗ the new what you're calling Public

21:47 ↗ Safety

21:49 ↗ stuff was not within those meetings so I

21:52 ↗ have to tell you

21:54 ↗ they were not prioritized we there was

21:56 ↗ no scanning to understand whether the

21:59 ↗ community liked the concept or not so I

22:02 ↗ find it odd that we're having the public

22:06 ↗ hearing and then we're going to have the

22:07 ↗ conversation about that what you're

22:11 ↗ calling safety improvements after the

22:14 ↗ beginning of the public hearing when

22:16 ↗ there was an opportunity to talk about

22:18 ↗ it each at each of these Community

22:21 ↗ meetings that was not taken up

22:24 ↗ so

22:26 ↗ I was just rereading the list that was

22:29 ↗ provided as a link in the

22:31 ↗ oddly placed area of the website for

22:35 ↗ this public hearing and it also did not

22:37 ↗ include that so I sort of call foul on

22:42 ↗ that because that is a big conversation

22:44 ↗ that I feel is being sort of slid in

22:47 ↗ sideways to this uh conversation I'm

22:50 ↗ going to stay and talk about that a

22:51 ↗ little more in the next section where

22:54 ↗ that's sort of the topic as compared to

22:56 ↗ now which is mostly the tip so

23:00 ↗ the one funding question that I was not

23:02 ↗ able to ascertain from the presentation

23:05 ↗ was how we use the CIP in the tip for

23:10 ↗ impact fees

23:12 ↗ which now we're finding that the people

23:15 ↗ who want to not build here do want to

23:18 ↗ build her but don't are complaining

23:20 ↗ about the size of our impact fees now in

23:24 ↗ the past City councils have decided not

23:28 ↗ to put things in the capital Improvement

23:30 ↗ plan

23:33 ↗ so that they wouldn't be added to impact

23:35 ↗ fees

23:37 ↗ or they decided not to include them in

23:41 ↗ the studies for some reason because they

23:43 ↗ wanted the town to be affordable to

23:45 ↗ build

23:46 ↗ so which of these items that are going

23:51 ↗ in the CIP

23:53 ↗ potentially are going to be added to

23:56 ↗ impact fees when are those fee schedules

23:59 ↗ going to be updated so that the people

24:03 ↗ who are moving in are going to be paying

24:06 ↗ for these new things that we're supposed

24:08 ↗ to be doing and

24:11 ↗ how does

24:13 ↗ deficit for example of administrative

24:17 ↗ buildings and safety improvements

24:19 ↗ because you call it that

24:21 ↗ going to fit in with our ability to have

24:24 ↗ New Growth Fund those things what

24:26 ↗ happens when we get rid of an older

24:29 ↗ building that we had been using to serve

24:32 ↗ the purpose and we sell it now where

24:36 ↗ does deficit fall in one of those

24:38 ↗ studies

24:39 ↗ I don't understand I do know that the

24:43 ↗ community

24:44 ↗ is carrying a burden already of how much

24:48 ↗ it costs to live in Issaquah

24:50 ↗ and uh there's going to be other fees

24:54 ↗ and charges from other places than

24:55 ↗ Issaquah that are going to build upon

24:58 ↗ this funding

24:59 ↗ I think we want to be very careful of

25:02 ↗ what we want to add how much we want to

25:07 ↗ develop what we want to give away to

25:10 ↗ make people want to develop here who say

25:13 ↗ it's too expensive and I don't think

25:16 ↗ that you're that this presentation is is

25:20 ↗ allowing for sort of that public comment

25:23 ↗ on the complexity of it all so those are

25:26 ↗ mainly questions and then maybe in the

25:30 ↗ next public hearing I can sound a little

25:31 ↗ more coherent and educated on what

25:34 ↗ projects I think should be in the CIP in

25:36 ↗ the tip thank you thanks Connie next

25:51 ↗ you're fine

26:01 ↗ there's a little button on the pad that

26:03 ↗ has to turn the light red

26:05 ↗ that little button okay and I'm sure

26:08 ↗ Wendy we do have two public hearings so

26:11 ↗ if it's confusing

26:13 ↗ um the clerk will let us know if she

26:15 ↗ thinks it's a good opportunity for you

26:16 ↗ to do well I'll tell her that okay my

26:19 ↗ husband Mark hofto and I are here

26:21 ↗ basically to talk about

26:23 ↗ um

26:24 ↗ walking around Issaquah and downtown

26:27 ↗ Issaquah and I looked at the

26:30 ↗ the whole packet on Transportation

26:32 ↗ because I

26:35 ↗ as from the perspective of pedestrians

26:38 ↗ and some of the hot spots that we

26:41 ↗ encounter quite a lot and so I don't

26:42 ↗ know if if that seems relevant or not

26:45 ↗ getting some good head knots all right

26:47 ↗ well we're daily Walkers and like a lot

26:49 ↗ of people we love the walkability of

26:51 ↗ Issaquah but and like a lot of people we

26:53 ↗ have a dog and we are out every single

26:56 ↗ day

26:57 ↗ um

26:58 ↗ we just live over here on Second Ave

27:00 ↗ Northeast and we walk over here to the

27:04 ↗ trails but large a lot of the times we

27:06 ↗ go through Confluence and head and do

27:08 ↗ errands and head over to

27:11 ↗ you know like the REI area we head over

27:13 ↗ to all the best pets and we head over to

27:16 ↗ the the post office where we have a post

27:19 ↗ office box and we cross a lot of streets

27:22 ↗ and we've been doing this for years and

27:25 ↗ we have kind of come up with a short

27:27 ↗ list

27:28 ↗ of some specific places that are really

27:33 ↗ repeatedly

27:36 ↗ um

27:37 ↗ dangerous to us as as pedestrians just

27:41 ↗ trying to walk around town

27:43 ↗ and I had spoken with with mayor Paulie

27:47 ↗ about this and that's and she encouraged

27:49 ↗ us to you know come come and let you

27:52 ↗ know about that so that's why we're here

27:54 ↗ okay well

27:56 ↗ um I do have some specific ones if you

27:58 ↗ want to hear about them

27:59 ↗ but I could also write something up and

28:01 ↗ email it to you as well and there would

28:03 ↗ be more than I just have kind of our

28:06 ↗ three top uh danger zones

28:09 ↗ that we encounter on a regular basis and

28:13 ↗ so

28:14 ↗ we go to the Post Office a lot and we

28:17 ↗ often cross through the Gilman Village

28:20 ↗ area on our walk and then need to cross

28:24 ↗ the street at that four-way Inner Light

28:27 ↗ intersection at I think it's Fourth

28:29 ↗ right there that kind of heads on up

28:31 ↗ North Juniper and Gilman and fourth yes

28:35 ↗ yeah okay and

28:38 ↗ um

28:39 ↗ we run into this a lot

28:42 ↗ um

28:43 ↗ as we're on that West Side crosswalk

28:46 ↗ going north

28:49 ↗ um

28:50 ↗ the

28:52 ↗ walk sign is on

28:54 ↗ but the car's coming down forth

28:57 ↗ actually have green light

29:00 ↗ to turn right or go straight

29:04 ↗ and I can't tell you how many times

29:05 ↗ we've just about been run over and have

29:08 ↗ had our lives Flash before our eyes

29:11 ↗ um with cars just doing that and being

29:14 ↗ very unaware of

29:17 ↗ the fact that there's a walk sign on for

29:19 ↗ the pedestrians they're in a big hurry

29:21 ↗ they Rush up they turn right really fast

29:24 ↗ and this happens both ways when we're

29:26 ↗ standing on that that other Corner

29:28 ↗ waiting to come back

29:31 ↗ the exact same thing happens and one

29:33 ↗ thing that's true there is that the post

29:36 ↗ office big sign on that corner does

29:40 ↗ block the view of the drivers that are

29:42 ↗ coming down forth

29:44 ↗ and I stand out on the corner and act

29:47 ↗ like a maniac because I want people to

29:49 ↗ see us but if you're just kind of

29:51 ↗ standing there on the corner they don't

29:52 ↗ even necessarily see you and they just

29:55 ↗ see that green light

29:57 ↗ and that's all and they don't see the

30:00 ↗ fact that the walk sign still has 20 30

30:03 ↗ seconds on it and that is also

30:06 ↗ we've nearly gotten run over and I'm not

30:09 ↗ exaggerating when I say that it's really

30:12 ↗ dangerous

30:14 ↗ so even if you cross over to the other

30:18 ↗ side and cross it's a little better but

30:20 ↗ all the directions people want to turn

30:23 ↗ right really quick people want to come

30:25 ↗ and turn left and they're really not

30:27 ↗ paying attention to pedestrians at all

30:31 ↗ so if we feel a lot like

30:35 ↗ there's a certain ambigua ambiguity to

30:37 ↗ those lights

30:39 ↗ um

30:40 ↗ because they're not tuned in as

30:43 ↗ non-pedestrians and drivers at that

30:45 ↗ moment

30:47 ↗ to the fact that the pedestrian light is

30:49 ↗ going they're tuned into the green light

30:51 ↗ and

30:54 ↗ I don't know how I mean it seems like it

30:56 ↗ wouldn't have to be that hard to somehow

30:58 ↗ either not let that be a green light or

31:01 ↗ a change you know what they're seeing or

31:05 ↗ you know have a much more prominent

31:09 ↗ um you know yield to pedestrians like

31:11 ↗ massively prominent way of getting

31:14 ↗ people's attention because we're all

31:16 ↗ aware of the distracted driving

31:19 ↗ and people going too fast especially on

31:21 ↗ Gilman

31:22 ↗ it's pretty crazy is that me did I do

31:24 ↗ something in my time up you can wrap up

31:27 ↗ okay so that's the number one and and

31:30 ↗ then there's you know a couple others

31:32 ↗ the other one I just want to bring in

31:33 ↗ though really is the Front Street

31:38 ↗ um what is it Dogwood and where Rainier

31:41 ↗ comes in because there's another

31:43 ↗ ambiguous light

31:44 ↗ and when cars are on Dogwood they're

31:47 ↗ going to turn left or right there really

31:49 ↗ is no light for them they're just kind

31:50 ↗ of guessing Okay do I go now and we

31:54 ↗ don't have a light in that direction

31:55 ↗ either as Walkers so people are turning

31:58 ↗ in front of us and it's kooky and if

32:01 ↗ there could be some clarity around the

32:04 ↗ lights it would be great thank you Wendy

32:07 ↗ and I would encourage you if you've only

32:09 ↗ seen I can write a top two then send

32:11 ↗ them your list

32:12 ↗ okay I have more than two no I was gonna

32:15 ↗ say send them your entire list and thank

32:17 ↗ you for coming to do that

32:24 ↗ looking at Mark looking at Corey would

32:26 ↗ anybody else like to come up come on up

32:27 ↗ Corey

32:32 ↗ Corey Christensen squawk Mountain a

32:34 ↗ quick comment about this the

32:37 ↗ presentation sort of follow-up

32:40 ↗ councilman Mark's comments about the

32:43 ↗ taxes

32:44 ↗ um

32:45 ↗ personally I don't really like any new

32:47 ↗ taxes that said one thing about the

32:50 ↗ sales tax is there's a regional element

32:52 ↗ to that and I think I think that's

32:54 ↗ important to consider and then on the

32:58 ↗ current slides in the past when we've

33:00 ↗ looked at

33:01 ↗ tax increases for homeowners we've taken

33:05 ↗ sort of the mythical whatever the value

33:07 ↗ average value of a home is and so when I

33:10 ↗ look at those numbers the 1600 and

33:13 ↗ something I don't quite understand that

33:15 ↗ that number I do understand the mythical

33:19 ↗ whatever the whatever the home value

33:22 ↗ number is because then somebody can do

33:24 ↗ the math pretty quickly to see how much

33:26 ↗ they're going to pay so I think you need

33:28 ↗ to be presenting whatever you're doing

33:30 ↗ in those terms and also something that

33:33 ↗ equates to the cost for people that live

33:35 ↗ in apartments because the all these

33:39 ↗ taxes trickle down and especially

33:41 ↗ property taxes and so I think that's

33:44 ↗ important consider duration thank you

33:46 ↗ thank you Corey

33:48 ↗ I'm just going to check with the city

33:49 ↗ clerk to see if anyone is online

33:52 ↗ now maybe maybe wishing to make a

33:54 ↗ comment

33:55 ↗ we have one person oh actually hold on

33:58 ↗ here might have had someone else oh we

33:59 ↗ only have one member of the public

34:01 ↗ online and they're not indicating a

34:03 ↗ desire to speak at this time

34:06 ↗ okay thank you very much

34:08 ↗ um the administration is recommending to

34:10 ↗ the council that we continue the public

34:12 ↗ hearing to the June 26 city council

34:14 ↗ meeting given that the city council is

34:17 ↗ still deliberating the plan that they

34:19 ↗ are you are reviewing

34:21 ↗ and is there somebody that is able to

34:23 ↗ make a motion

34:32 ↗ um I would make a motion to continue the

34:34 ↗ public hearing to the June 26 2023 city

34:37 ↗ council meeting

34:39 ↗ is there a second second

34:41 ↗ so it's been moved and seconded is there

34:43 ↗ any discussion

34:45 ↗ uh seeing none all those in favor please

34:48 ↗ signify by saying aye aye

34:52 ↗ those opposed

34:54 ↗ that carries a six to nothing

34:57 ↗ unanimously

34:58 ↗ um so just as a reminder the city

35:00 ↗ council will be convening a committee of

35:02 ↗ the whole meeting here in council

35:04 ↗ chambers at 7 pm tonight or 706 p.m

35:07 ↗ tonight to deliberate the capital

35:09 ↗ Improvement plan and so for our virtual

35:12 ↗ attendees we will use the same WebEx

35:14 ↗ meeting for this next meeting as well

35:17 ↗ there being no further business this

35:19 ↗ meeting is adjourned at 706 pm and we

35:22 ↗ will take a couple minutes to shuffle

35:24 ↗ some chairs

35:28 ↗ foreign

36:26 ↗ are we ready I see the light on there

36:29 ↗ but I'll give you a second to trigger us

36:31 ↗ all onto camera again

36:35 ↗ okay thank you welcome everyone I

36:38 ↗ council president Walsh called the June

36:40 ↗ 12th Committee of the whole meeting to

36:42 ↗ order at 707 PM I would like to note

36:45 ↗ that council member Joe has an excused

36:47 ↗ absence this evening uh there are going

36:49 ↗ to be multiple public comment

36:50 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

36:53 ↗ will be a general public comment

36:54 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

36:56 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

36:59 ↗ the presentation and counsel question

37:01 ↗ and answer period on tonight's agenda

37:03 ↗ items

37:04 ↗ so

37:06 ↗ um just to give a quick overview of what

37:08 ↗ is on our agenda we just have the one

37:10 ↗ item which is the

37:13 ↗ um

37:14 ↗ they call it id1344 2024 2029 Capital

37:18 ↗ Improvement plan feedback from

37:20 ↗ committees and city council

37:21 ↗ deliberations but we're going to start

37:23 ↗ with a public comment so members of the

37:27 ↗ public May address council at this time

37:28 ↗ in person or virtually those who signed

37:31 ↗ up in advance to make comments will be

37:33 ↗ called on first if you're joining us

37:34 ↗ virtually and would like to make

37:35 ↗ comments go ahead and raise your virtual

37:37 ↗ hand you're on the phone you can press

37:39 ↗ star three you're on a computer

37:41 ↗ smartphone you're going to look for that

37:42 ↗ hand icon or you can send the host a

37:44 ↗ chat message to indicate you'd like have

37:46 ↗ a desire to speak here in the room and

37:49 ↗ did not sign up I'll ask for other

37:50 ↗ speakers before closing the portion of

37:52 ↗ the meeting and so clerk do we have

37:55 ↗ anyone signed up

37:56 ↗ no one signed up and we still just have

37:59 ↗ one member of the public on virtually

38:01 ↗ and they are not indicating a desire to

38:03 ↗ speak

38:04 ↗ I believe there are members of the

38:06 ↗ public in person who would love to speak

38:09 ↗ come on up thank you

38:15 ↗ hi Connie Marsh again and this is a cow

38:17 ↗ so I can talk at this point about

38:19 ↗ anything and I'm going to talk about

38:21 ↗ your website

38:24 ↗ and your multiple calendars that don't

38:27 ↗ agree

38:28 ↗ and so you have to toggle back and forth

38:31 ↗ to the two calendars so I spend an

38:35 ↗ unreasonable amount of time trying to

38:37 ↗ figure out when meetings are so that I

38:39 ↗ think this is my third weekend recently

38:41 ↗ that I have had to try to

38:44 ↗ figure out what meeting is what so this

38:47 ↗ is the special counsel of the whole the

38:50 ↗ prior meeting was the

38:53 ↗ special counsel meeting yet the special

38:56 ↗ counsel meeting was not linked into the

38:59 ↗ bottom calendar where most of the events

39:02 ↗ and meetings are linked into and I don't

39:06 ↗ know how to get it solved because I

39:08 ↗ I've made people answer me on weekends

39:11 ↗ and if you want people to actually know

39:13 ↗ when meetings are have to get them in

39:16 ↗ all of the calendars and it has to be

39:18 ↗ easy and this again was was not even

39:22 ↗ though the subject matter was really dry

39:23 ↗ and they probably don't care I would

39:26 ↗ like to get it fixed so that

39:30 ↗ I don't have to try to do that again and

39:34 ↗ I don't know how I've tried several

39:37 ↗ different ways so if Council would ask

39:41 ↗ for it to be fixed then maybe

39:44 ↗ it can get fixed thank you

39:50 ↗ okay anyone else like to speak nope and

39:55 ↗ nobody else online

39:57 ↗ at that point

39:58 ↗ okay

40:01 ↗ um so looking at anything

40:04 ↗ else yeah I think at this point we have

40:08 ↗ our agenda items so calling up we've got

40:12 ↗ Andrew Schneider Deputy City

40:14 ↗ administrator Robert mood our Chief

40:16 ↗ Financial Officer and Susie monsell our

40:18 ↗ budget manager which one of you wants to

40:20 ↗ start us all off

40:22 ↗ okay thank you

40:24 ↗ round two tonight with you good evening

40:26 ↗ again

40:53 ↗ so tonight's meeting

40:56 ↗ we're going to provide some questions on

40:58 ↗ Direction needed and then an update

40:59 ↗ process and feedback

41:02 ↗ Direction needed

41:04 ↗ these are four key points uh tonight

41:06 ↗ that we are asking the direction of

41:08 ↗ council for

41:09 ↗ first point is the council generally

41:11 ↗ supportive of taking the next steps to

41:13 ↗ pursue a councilmatic 0.1 percent

41:16 ↗ Transportation benefit district sales

41:18 ↗ tax

41:20 ↗ number two is the council supportive of

41:22 ↗ the projects to be funded by the new

41:24 ↗ Revenue stream includes intelligent

41:26 ↗ transportation system projects in

41:28 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road non-motorized

41:30 ↗ improvements or should other unfunded

41:33 ↗ projects be considered instead

41:35 ↗ number three does the council concur

41:38 ↗ with the administration's recommendation

41:39 ↗ to prioritize parks and Trail projects

41:42 ↗ in the later year of the CIP

41:45 ↗ 2027-2029 in anticipation of a new

41:47 ↗ Revenue source

41:49 ↗ and number four does the proposed CIP

41:51 ↗ reflect the council's desire to uphold

41:54 ↗ long-standing infrastructure commitments

41:56 ↗ they feel the city has made to the

41:58 ↗ community

42:01 ↗ just a review or a summary of the CIP

42:04 ↗ updates first the boards and commissions

42:07 ↗ refine the criteria for the CIP we

42:10 ↗ received more feedback in of how the

42:12 ↗ draft CIP met the criteria and we really

42:14 ↗ appreciate that feedback it really

42:16 ↗ helped to drive this process Council

42:18 ↗ committees reviewed sections of the CIP

42:21 ↗ and then the committee of the whole

42:22 ↗ where we're at tonight discusses the

42:24 ↗ entire CIP and deliberates and then

42:26 ↗ Council adoption at this point

42:28 ↗ tentatively slated for the 26th

42:33 ↗ so the feedback from Council committees

42:35 ↗ all Council committees generally agree

42:38 ↗ to the proposed CIP response

42:40 ↗ to the council goals and outcomes

42:44 ↗ excuse me the council goals and outcomes

42:47 ↗ the SSP was generally in support of how

42:50 ↗ Parks Trails priorities were shown in

42:52 ↗ the CIP the several council members did

42:53 ↗ request extensive community outreach and

42:56 ↗ engagement as Future Park funding

42:58 ↗ mechanisms are explored

43:00 ↗ the m i committee generally supported

43:02 ↗ pursuing a 0.1 percent councilmatics TBD

43:05 ↗ sales tax

43:06 ↗ the requested robust Community

43:08 ↗ engagement prior to a council vote in

43:10 ↗ the fall if pursued the staff would

43:12 ↗ return to m i with the public engagement

43:14 ↗ plan as soon as possible

43:16 ↗ and M and I also

43:18 ↗ was in support of proposed projects to

43:20 ↗ be funded by the 0.1 percent tpd sales

43:23 ↗ tax and I'll take this time to ask the

43:25 ↗ council if any members of the committee

43:27 ↗ wanted to

43:28 ↗ wanted to make comments

43:32 ↗ I'm not seeing any so you can go ahead

43:41 ↗ still short

43:43 ↗ um apologies that this says additional

43:45 ↗ the main the first two policy questions

43:47 ↗ or around the TBD sales tax those slides

43:51 ↗ were shifted to the earlier presentation

43:53 ↗ this evening

43:55 ↗ um so for that next policy question

43:57 ↗ around prioritizing parks and Trail

43:59 ↗ projects in the final half for the

44:02 ↗ second half of the proposed CIP that the

44:05 ↗ near-term priorities

44:07 ↗ um for Parks parks and Trail projects in

44:09 ↗ particular particular are still focused

44:12 ↗ on those arpa funded projects so there's

44:14 ↗ the Confluence Park project

44:16 ↗ um and then there's the uh the larger

44:19 ↗ one the Veterans Memorial Field Depot

44:21 ↗ Park pedestrian Park project

44:23 ↗ along with some of some smaller project

44:25 ↗ Park priorities the more robust focus on

44:28 ↗ Park and trail projects is in the late

44:30 ↗ the latter half of the CIP which is in

44:34 ↗ alignment with the task force

44:35 ↗ recommendation of um of pursuing uh of

44:39 ↗ exploring pursuing an additional Parks

44:41 ↗ funding source following the pursuit of

44:45 ↗ a transportation path as well in

44:47 ↗ Mobility

44:49 ↗ um and then finally

44:50 ↗ um we uh we look for feedback on

44:53 ↗ beginning those discussions of that new

44:55 ↗ Park and trail dedicated funding source

44:57 ↗ such as a park bond for example

45:00 ↗ um beginning really in 26 27 which again

45:03 ↗ is in alignment with that task force

45:06 ↗ recommendation

45:09 ↗ um we're gonna tee up this question

45:11 ↗ um here but um ask for feedback a little

45:13 ↗ bit later so I'm a long-standing

45:15 ↗ commitment Criterion which we added

45:18 ↗ based on Council feedback was intended

45:21 ↗ to honor infrastructure commitments the

45:22 ↗ city may have made in the past

45:25 ↗ um and to uh you know call those out

45:28 ↗ then um we did provide a list of active

45:32 ↗ projects

45:33 ↗ um and the number of cips in which each

45:36 ↗ project has been identified those are

45:38 ↗ provided in tonight's packet materials

45:41 ↗ um and we heard some board feedback that

45:43 ↗ we did want to bring to your attention

45:45 ↗ which was also provided in the packet

45:47 ↗ but most of the boards that we discussed

45:49 ↗ did have some concerns around

45:51 ↗ transparency of this Criterion and the

45:54 ↗ potential lack of equity considerations

45:56 ↗ but some still thought this to be an

45:59 ↗ important to be an important Criterion

46:02 ↗ and that it should apply to all project

46:04 ↗ phases

46:06 ↗ um so finally the proposed CIP includes

46:08 ↗ many long-standing commitments which

46:10 ↗ have been evaluated with equity and

46:12 ↗ other criteria in mind so we wanted to

46:15 ↗ um to for this Criterion in particular

46:17 ↗ ask for Council feedback later

46:20 ↗ um this evening

46:22 ↗ so bringing it back as Robert mentioned

46:25 ↗ we are in that dark blue stage or the

46:27 ↗ dark black stage pardon me of the full

46:30 ↗ Committee of the whole discussing the

46:31 ↗ full CIP and pending Council feedback

46:34 ↗ this evening on these policy questions

46:36 ↗ will return on the 26th for um to

46:38 ↗ continue the public hearing as well as

46:41 ↗ anticipated adoption

46:44 ↗ um and with that we have the policy

46:45 ↗ questions back but we're also happy to

46:46 ↗ take any questions at this point

46:49 ↗ okay so we'll start with questions

46:51 ↗ before public comment uh councilmember

46:53 ↗ Mart

46:54 ↗ what what does the answer to question

46:56 ↗ number four mean what would what's the

46:59 ↗ net

47:00 ↗ possible impact of a yes versus no one

47:04 ↗ question number

47:13 ↗ uh councilmember marks uh we would be

47:16 ↗ seeking feedback from the city council

47:18 ↗ if the answer uh so if the answer is yes

47:21 ↗ that the proposed CIP reflects the city

47:23 ↗ council's desire to uphold long-standing

47:25 ↗ infrastructure commitments they feel the

47:27 ↗ city has made to the community then uh

47:29 ↗ then we would anticipate Council would

47:32 ↗ be satisfied generally with a mix of

47:35 ↗ projects reflected in the CIP and we

47:38 ↗ would not anticipate changes

47:41 ↗ um based on that one Criterion if we

47:44 ↗ heard that Council was

47:46 ↗ um did not feel that the CIP in its

47:49 ↗ proposed format reflected the council's

47:50 ↗ desire to uphold long-standing

47:52 ↗ infrastructure commitments then we would

47:54 ↗ ask Council how would Council like to

47:58 ↗ change the CIP to ensure that it does

48:01 ↗ reflect what you would like to see

48:05 ↗ thank you

48:08 ↗ any other questions at this point

48:13 ↗ okay so I'm going to take a moment get

48:17 ↗ some public comment and

48:20 ↗ put anyone in the audience like to make

48:22 ↗ public comments

48:25 ↗ take it away

48:29 ↗ uh Corey Christensen again I wanted to

48:32 ↗ comment on the eckhouse Confluence Park

48:35 ↗ section first I think there's some good

48:38 ↗ progress in in the the in the packet but

48:42 ↗ there's still some

48:44 ↗ um

48:45 ↗ of the same what I call errors

48:49 ↗ misconceptions uh in there the first

48:52 ↗ part in the first part in the first

48:54 ↗ section on the eckhouse the eckhouse is

48:57 ↗ being lumped in with the the projects

49:01 ↗ um on the where the new parks

49:03 ↗ Maintenance Shop the bridge all of these

49:05 ↗ things and those those projects that

49:07 ↗ phase of the park is so far out in the

49:09 ↗ future so far past 2027 that it's really

49:13 ↗ unfair to put the eckhouse in there

49:14 ↗ that's basically Parks Purgatory because

49:17 ↗ it's going to require so much to happen

49:20 ↗ that it's it's unfair so please pull it

49:23 ↗ out of there the the other part

49:25 ↗ the it's back to the funding and the

49:28 ↗ landmarking and the timeline I think if

49:32 ↗ you were to say that we were actually

49:33 ↗ going to start construction on the

49:35 ↗ eckhouse in 2026 that's fine the but we

49:39 ↗ need to be starting the process of the

49:42 ↗ grant funding excuse me the landmarking

49:45 ↗ process because that's the key to the

49:47 ↗ grant funding one of the errors in this

49:50 ↗ still is that the two sources of grant

49:54 ↗ funding

49:54 ↗ the King County Historical preservation

49:57 ↗ people which is true and the Issaquah

50:00 ↗ History Museum history museum is not a

50:02 ↗ grant funding funder there are somebody

50:04 ↗ that asked for money though they are an

50:07 ↗ important partner in this project where

50:09 ↗ money comes from is the state they have

50:12 ↗ a archaeological and historical

50:15 ↗ preservation division that then has a

50:17 ↗ whole host of different Grant grants and

50:21 ↗ funding sources some matching some not

50:23 ↗ and and many that the eckhouse

50:26 ↗ eventually would qualify for and some of

50:28 ↗ those are fairly substantial some are

50:31 ↗ small like an educational or

50:33 ↗ interpretive sort of element and then

50:36 ↗ the third area or excuse me Grant funder

50:38 ↗ is or culture and those essentially are

50:42 ↗ are the three and if you if you take a

50:45 ↗ look at the King County Historical

50:47 ↗ preservation website basically

50:50 ↗ and you read about landmarking and all

50:52 ↗ this it's a big collaborative effort

50:54 ↗ where the grant funding

50:58 ↗ comes from the landmarking commission

51:01 ↗ the historical preservation people all

51:03 ↗ of them working on projects just like

51:05 ↗ the eckhouse and the eckhouse is a very

51:08 ↗ high value project to them because it is

51:11 ↗ on public land

51:13 ↗ it's publicly owned and it's going to be

51:15 ↗ publicly used and that is not something

51:19 ↗ that many things that are Landmark are

51:23 ↗ there they can being all sorts of

51:25 ↗ different things but not something

51:27 ↗ that's going to have that huge a public

51:28 ↗ benefit and so all I ask you to do is

51:31 ↗ pull down the part about just getting

51:34 ↗ started because

51:36 ↗ I think it's it's so important and I

51:39 ↗ kind of still have this question I keep

51:41 ↗ asking myself and that is why is the

51:43 ↗ parks department so afraid of moving

51:45 ↗ forward with the landmarking I could

51:47 ↗ even see that if they're so afraid of

51:50 ↗ moving forward that we could hold off

51:52 ↗ landmarking until 2024 the actual push

51:55 ↗ the button and it happens but we still

51:57 ↗ do all the homework up to that point so

52:00 ↗ that in 2024 then we're we're getting

52:04 ↗ in the competition for all the potential

52:07 ↗ grants and all of that so then by 2026

52:10 ↗ we could actually be doing something the

52:12 ↗ current trajectory sort of puts us on

52:15 ↗ this timeline where we don't even start

52:17 ↗ for however many three years and the

52:19 ↗ problem that that I have is that we need

52:22 ↗ to actually start we need to be moving

52:24 ↗ forward the process to doing this with

52:27 ↗ public money bringing back King County

52:29 ↗ and state money to our to the little old

52:31 ↗ Eck house and to have this funded not by

52:34 ↗ the citizens of Issaquah solely but by

52:37 ↗ money that we've all put in it's going

52:39 ↗ to be a long process but please let's

52:41 ↗ let's start this process and let's not

52:43 ↗ be afraid of collaborating with the

52:45 ↗ state and the historical preservation

52:47 ↗ people thank you

52:54 ↗ our other esteemed member

52:56 ↗ [Music]

53:02 ↗ so I have a specific ask to bounce on

53:04 ↗ off of Corey I think we need a work

53:08 ↗ plan item

53:10 ↗ required for eckhouse in order to get

53:14 ↗ the grant funding in place by the time

53:16 ↗ they say they're going to do something

53:17 ↗ with it right now they just have magic

53:20 ↗ money but at this point in time we don't

53:23 ↗ have a work item to require the work to

53:26 ↗ get that money which I see that a lot

53:30 ↗ throughout the CIP you have money and

53:32 ↗ it's sort of

53:33 ↗ pops up which

53:37 ↗ so looking at a CIP without them the

53:41 ↗ matching work item is confusing so then

53:43 ↗ the next one I'm going to go to is what

53:47 ↗ you're calling safety which really

53:51 ↗ uh I guess I find that term disingenuous

53:55 ↗ because it's really more about getting a

53:57 ↗ new city hall

53:58 ↗ and less about safety I know safety is

54:01 ↗ going to get people to potentially vote

54:03 ↗ because people like the term safety but

54:06 ↗ people also like the truth and they

54:09 ↗ don't like the idea that they're being

54:10 ↗ manipulated by by words so I'd be super

54:14 ↗ cautious about that the other thing that

54:17 ↗ freaks me out is there is no dollar

54:19 ↗ amount in the

54:22 ↗ um this campus line item and when I go

54:25 ↗ back to impact fees I don't understand

54:27 ↗ impact fees with no no dollar amount on

54:32 ↗ a huge thing

54:34 ↗ uh and so it doesn't seem to me to be

54:37 ↗ working like a CIP is supposed to work

54:41 ↗ given that so my response would be to

54:45 ↗ just say okay we want to do

54:49 ↗ City Hall we want the fire station we

54:53 ↗ want a better Court we don't know how

54:55 ↗ this is our estimated amount and have it

54:58 ↗ be as big as you're comfortable with

55:01 ↗ and put it in the CIP

55:04 ↗ and you have future conversation you

55:06 ↗ don't look like you've already somehow

55:08 ↗ negotiated it to particular options

55:11 ↗ without including the public in those

55:14 ↗ negotiations

55:15 ↗ which you actually sort of have but you

55:19 ↗ can start anew by just saying okay we

55:22 ↗ think we need these things and now we're

55:24 ↗ going to go from here we have a gross

55:26 ↗ estimate that it's going to cost this

55:27 ↗ much and that is where you start the

55:30 ↗ public conversation and

55:32 ↗ um so I

55:38 ↗ I guess I'm going to

55:42 ↗ stop because anything else might

55:44 ↗ actually help you get more money which

55:45 ↗ I'm not sure that I am on board with

55:50 ↗ helping you ask the community to give

55:53 ↗ you more money

55:56 ↗ thank you and just do a last check in

56:00 ↗ online

56:01 ↗ no one else okay fantastic so

56:06 ↗ this is where we get to have our whole

56:09 ↗ Committee of the whole thing and talk

56:12 ↗ through all of this so I I think we've

56:15 ↗ been asked for four particular points of

56:19 ↗ Direction needed

56:21 ↗ um but I think I would almost add in a

56:24 ↗ fifth or a 0.5 which is are we feeling

56:28 ↗ about the CIP process are there you know

56:31 ↗ how do we feel toward our goals and

56:33 ↗ outcomes are we moving in that direction

56:38 ↗ um because this would obviously be that

56:40 ↗ moment that if something isn't working

56:43 ↗ out that we want to make sure we're

56:45 ↗ giving back to the administration so

56:49 ↗ I will open it up I don't know if

56:52 ↗ anybody wants to talk about any

56:54 ↗ particular area I can go down the line

56:56 ↗ or I can ask each individual all of the

57:00 ↗ questions or

57:06 ↗ are you reaching for it Barb go for it

57:09 ↗ you know I just uh I was slow on the on

57:12 ↗ the button

57:14 ↗ um because uh the the question about the

57:17 ↗ long-standing commitment

57:19 ↗ number four is to me is slightly

57:22 ↗ different than whether or not we want

57:24 ↗ the Criterion

57:26 ↗ if I read it does the proposed CIP

57:28 ↗ reflect the city council's desire to

57:31 ↗ uphold long-standing infrastructure that

57:33 ↗ could be true whether or not we have a

57:37 ↗ Criterion in place for a long-term

57:41 ↗ commitment so could we go back to that

57:43 ↗ are we being asked to comment on whether

57:47 ↗ we want that long-standing um

57:51 ↗ commitment Criterion or are we just

57:53 ↗ being asked

57:54 ↗ if we think the CIP reflects our desire

57:58 ↗ to do that

58:03 ↗ uh Council memory Michelle thank you for

58:05 ↗ the question this is Andrea Snyder

58:07 ↗ um we are wanting to hear what council's

58:10 ↗ feedback is so if you have strong

58:12 ↗ feelings on either of the questions that

58:14 ↗ you raised then we would like to hear

58:16 ↗ that I think

58:17 ↗ um what we're trying to do with this

58:19 ↗ question is try to get to

58:21 ↗ um the the heart of the matter what we

58:24 ↗ think was council's intent during the

58:27 ↗ discussions in January that led to the

58:28 ↗ creation of this Criterion

58:31 ↗ um so we we would want to have that

58:33 ↗ conversation and understand are we

58:35 ↗ meeting the intent of those January

58:37 ↗ discussions in the retreat and the

58:39 ↗ intent of council with the the CIP as we

58:42 ↗ have it

58:43 ↗ um if uh you know the discussion of a

58:46 ↗ criteria as we've talked about in our

58:48 ↗ committees and the council committees

58:50 ↗ this really is an art uh more than it is

58:53 ↗ a science and applying these criteria

58:55 ↗ and

58:57 ↗ um there's a lot of really important

58:58 ↗ things we wanted to discuss tonight and

59:00 ↗ we didn't want to uh get two caught up

59:05 ↗ about criteria and how we Define

59:07 ↗ criteria at this stage knowing the

59:10 ↗ process that we followed and we really

59:12 ↗ were trying to get to does this meet the

59:16 ↗ intent of those original discussions

59:17 ↗ back in January

59:19 ↗ foreign

59:20 ↗ thank you

59:23 ↗ so I'm gonna take a moment and ask a

59:26 ↗ question

59:27 ↗ um

59:29 ↗ I'm going to reflect back some of what I

59:30 ↗ heard from Connie's questions about the

59:33 ↗ impact fees

59:35 ↗ can you talk about how the tip CIP

59:40 ↗ H impacts impact fees

59:44 ↗ um

59:44 ↗ which items might qualify when they

59:47 ↗ would start to apply to developers and

59:49 ↗ then particularly

59:52 ↗ if we were to sell an existing building

59:54 ↗ if that would have any effect on impact

59:58 ↗ fees and then

1:00:00 ↗ are there any concerns with the

1:00:03 ↗ public facilities project the fc050 not

1:00:08 ↗ having a named price does that matter

1:00:10 ↗ for impact fees

1:00:17 ↗ all three of you we can just just have a

1:00:20 ↗ great group conversation thanks

1:00:23 ↗ we're going into the weeds so that's uh

1:00:25 ↗ my territory a little bit so

1:00:27 ↗ um generally speaking when we mentioned

1:00:30 ↗ the the CIP tip is a mechanism by Way by

1:00:35 ↗ which some projects get a funding source

1:00:37 ↗ mitigation and impact fees are the prime

1:00:39 ↗ example of that that a project is

1:00:41 ↗ included in the CIP or it has to be

1:00:45 ↗ included in the CIP

1:00:46 ↗ to be eligible for mitigation and impact

1:00:50 ↗ fees so generally when those fees get

1:00:53 ↗ updated which is activity led by our

1:00:56 ↗ community Planning and Development

1:00:57 ↗ Department that they take into account

1:01:00 ↗ the projects that are included in the

1:01:01 ↗ CIP especially in those that near-term

1:01:03 ↗ Horizon as those are within the CIP as

1:01:06 ↗ those are firmer and then they speak

1:01:09 ↗ with us again on longer term priorities

1:01:11 ↗ and then that's what gets fed into the

1:01:13 ↗ larger formula for calculating impact

1:01:15 ↗ fees so that's at least the first part

1:01:17 ↗ of the question

1:01:18 ↗ um and uh in terms of when those fees

1:01:20 ↗ next come up I look over to the deputy

1:01:23 ↗ City administrator for that piece

1:01:26 ↗ so we are starting the process for the

1:01:30 ↗ concurrency update which uh will be

1:01:33 ↗ important for uh setting some of our

1:01:36 ↗ impact fees and so that process we've

1:01:39 ↗ been Gathering data over the past year

1:01:41 ↗ to update our model and we will be

1:01:43 ↗ looking to get a consultant to help us

1:01:45 ↗ with that concurrency update in a matter

1:01:48 ↗ of weeks and so that work is beginning

1:01:51 ↗ that concurrency update will help

1:01:54 ↗ establish some of our transportation

1:01:56 ↗ impact fees and other fees and so the we

1:01:59 ↗ would be looking at the rest of the

1:02:00 ↗ impact fees after the concurrency study

1:02:03 ↗ is complete

1:02:05 ↗ and then dovetailing on that for the

1:02:08 ↗ other parts of that question as well

1:02:10 ↗ um as the council continues to

1:02:12 ↗ deliberate the larger facilities

1:02:15 ↗ questions

1:02:16 ↗ um I don't think we're ready I look in

1:02:18 ↗ case anyone disagrees with me I don't

1:02:20 ↗ think we're ready to

1:02:22 ↗ um speak to the other parts of that

1:02:23 ↗ question just yet I think we need to see

1:02:25 ↗ which paths the council is considering

1:02:27 ↗ for those facility planning as well as

1:02:29 ↗ the funding mechanisms that are being

1:02:31 ↗ contemplated so there's still a lot of

1:02:33 ↗ question marks in place on that item

1:02:36 ↗ in just a

1:02:37 ↗ piggyback off those comments one of the

1:02:39 ↗ funding sources when we talked about

1:02:41 ↗ cash funding or at least a cash

1:02:42 ↗ contribution to New City facilities that

1:02:45 ↗ I would would include the sale the

1:02:48 ↗ future sale of City Hall Northwest

1:02:50 ↗ properties but also we do have about 4.7

1:02:54 ↗ million dollars remaining from the

1:02:57 ↗ Lakeside development agreement that

1:02:58 ↗ would be dedicated for public facilities

1:03:00 ↗ so that would be part of the cash source

1:03:04 ↗ of that particular project now not

1:03:05 ↗ having a dollar assigned to it doesn't

1:03:07 ↗ impact anything else just because again

1:03:09 ↗ council could take action on obviously

1:03:11 ↗ that dollar

1:03:12 ↗ dollar amount in the future when we have

1:03:14 ↗ plans and options that are more concrete

1:03:18 ↗ so to follow up does that suggest that

1:03:21 ↗ in some ways setting impact fees

1:03:24 ↗ isn't just about 100 pulling numbers for

1:03:27 ↗ the short-term period out of the CIP it

1:03:31 ↗ also includes considerations for some of

1:03:33 ↗ those

1:03:34 ↗ other items that might be a little bit

1:03:36 ↗ more long-term a little bit more fuzzy

1:03:38 ↗ and so it's okay that

1:03:41 ↗ fc50 doesn't have a specific

1:03:45 ↗ line item for price

1:03:49 ↗ at this point this would not have an

1:03:50 ↗ impact

1:03:52 ↗ let me try to answer that

1:03:55 ↗ um so we're not setting impact fees with

1:03:58 ↗ this CIP that would come from a separate

1:04:00 ↗ process we hope uh one we anticipate

1:04:04 ↗ being able to uh develop that concept

1:04:08 ↗ that option for City facilities before

1:04:11 ↗ we would establish impact fees so we

1:04:14 ↗ wouldn't be trying to establish impact

1:04:16 ↗ fees on a very

1:04:17 ↗ um you know nebulous number that we have

1:04:20 ↗ right now for trying to plan ahead for

1:04:23 ↗ these needed City facilities

1:04:25 ↗ I I guess my thing there is are we

1:04:28 ↗ causing any problems by not having a

1:04:30 ↗ specific number in there but it sounds

1:04:32 ↗ like future conversation decisions will

1:04:34 ↗ give us that future number which will

1:04:37 ↗ go into the impact fees so that's

1:04:40 ↗ correct fantastic

1:04:44 ↗ um

1:04:44 ↗ I just went off on a tangent of

1:04:46 ↗ questions and all of that trying to

1:04:49 ↗ understand some of the areas that our

1:04:51 ↗ community brought up

1:04:53 ↗ we still need to get into all of the

1:04:55 ↗ direction needed

1:04:57 ↗ um you have a OS okay go ahead a quick

1:05:01 ↗ follow-up to that answer that you just

1:05:03 ↗ gave Deputy City illustrator so when

1:05:05 ↗ you're talking about when and your most

1:05:07 ↗ recent comments when we're talking about

1:05:09 ↗ like future decisions will impact

1:05:12 ↗ um how we're thinking about impact fees

1:05:13 ↗ with regard to the new city hall

1:05:16 ↗ um we're talking about like this year

1:05:18 ↗ next year when you mean future like in

1:05:21 ↗ the coming months not like

1:05:24 ↗ years talking about like very soon

1:05:29 ↗ um it's it's correct that we base our

1:05:31 ↗ impact fees off of the project that are

1:05:33 ↗ within the CIP

1:05:36 ↗ um what we would be doing when we would

1:05:37 ↗ establish impact fees for City

1:05:39 ↗ facilities or government

1:05:41 ↗ um

1:05:42 ↗ forgetting exactly the title government

1:05:44 ↗ mitigation fees would be uh would we

1:05:48 ↗ would take into account what that dollar

1:05:50 ↗ amount is our best estimate is for a

1:05:52 ↗ city facilities and so and that includes

1:05:55 ↗ all of our city facilities needs not

1:05:57 ↗ just a new municipal court or other

1:05:59 ↗ things but maintenance of our existing

1:06:01 ↗ facilities Etc and so

1:06:03 ↗ um so we would base the impact fee off

1:06:06 ↗ of what is within the CIP but also our

1:06:09 ↗ best estimates at the time that we

1:06:11 ↗ established those impact fees

1:06:15 ↗ does that answer your question I think

1:06:17 ↗ so yeah all right the gears are just

1:06:18 ↗ spinning on

1:06:20 ↗ if there's something that could be

1:06:22 ↗ provided written on that too and this

1:06:24 ↗ comes back at the next meeting

1:06:26 ↗ also to the

1:06:28 ↗ sure we can do that

1:06:33 ↗ councilmember hunt

1:06:35 ↗ thanks uh on the public safety space

1:06:38 ↗ needs page which was provided as part of

1:06:41 ↗ our packet but is currently separate

1:06:43 ↗ from the CIP

1:06:46 ↗ it doesn't have a timeline most Pages do

1:06:50 ↗ maybe all the other Pages do

1:06:53 ↗ um will this have a timeline

1:06:55 ↗ when it goes into the CIP assuming that

1:06:58 ↗ Council feels it should go in the CIP

1:07:10 ↗ yes it will have a timeline and again

1:07:11 ↗ there's a lot of factors to it but once

1:07:13 ↗ a program or a plan is devised and

1:07:17 ↗ supported by Council we go back to

1:07:19 ↗ council we get seek Council Improvement

1:07:21 ↗ we can do an amendment to the CIP at

1:07:23 ↗ that time too

1:07:26 ↗ okay so but my question is when we have

1:07:30 ↗ the CI this CIP for adoption would it

1:07:33 ↗ have a timeline associated with it or

1:07:34 ↗ that would come later that would come

1:07:35 ↗ later

1:07:38 ↗ okay thanks

1:07:42 ↗ council member a hey just a quick

1:07:44 ↗ question

1:07:45 ↗ um I'm kind of binding up on number four

1:07:48 ↗ there the long-term commitments so I was

1:07:50 ↗ looking at the chart that you provided

1:07:52 ↗ that shows the 2024-2029 active project

1:07:56 ↗ inclusion history and so there's a whole

1:07:58 ↗ bunch of things that are new there's a

1:08:00 ↗ couple that have been in one CIP and

1:08:02 ↗ there's a bunch that have been in two

1:08:03 ↗ cips is there anything that's been in

1:08:06 ↗ either the previous or one back CIP

1:08:09 ↗ that's not in the CIP

1:08:12 ↗ that like a long-standing commitment

1:08:14 ↗ that we dropped because that's that I

1:08:16 ↗ can't prove the negative I can't find

1:08:17 ↗ the negative so there were some things

1:08:18 ↗ that we dropped

1:08:23 ↗ detailed person

1:08:27 ↗ um

1:08:28 ↗ we did not go that deep into

1:08:31 ↗ um their well one step back yes there

1:08:33 ↗ were some projects that were included in

1:08:35 ↗ the past two cips that are not included

1:08:37 ↗ in this one in most cases that's going

1:08:40 ↗ to be because they were completed

1:08:42 ↗ um or they were anticipated to be

1:08:43 ↗ completed by the end of 2023 this year

1:08:46 ↗ um we did not go through all of them

1:08:48 ↗ though

1:08:49 ↗ um to know you know definitively all of

1:08:52 ↗ them are because they're completed but I

1:08:54 ↗ would say that's the vast majority

1:08:57 ↗ so there there could be some that we

1:08:59 ↗ dropped

1:09:01 ↗ um because we don't think they're

1:09:02 ↗ priorities anymore and then there's the

1:09:04 ↗ rest which are done are going to be done

1:09:06 ↗ and and then the rest are kind of

1:09:08 ↗ carried forward I don't know if I'd

1:09:10 ↗ phrase it as they're not a priority

1:09:12 ↗ anymore necessarily but um I can't think

1:09:15 ↗ of any off the top of my head where

1:09:16 ↗ that's the case where we pulled them out

1:09:18 ↗ because

1:09:19 ↗ um they just weren't a priority anymore

1:09:21 ↗ or because we weren't proceeding with

1:09:22 ↗ them in most cases in fact every case

1:09:25 ↗ that I can think of it was because

1:09:27 ↗ they're they're completed or anticipated

1:09:29 ↗ to be completed without funding well you

1:09:31 ↗ know it's a big difference and and if

1:09:33 ↗ you did say

1:09:34 ↗ um this was in the CIP last time and

1:09:36 ↗ we're not including it and it's not done

1:09:38 ↗ then that is really saying it's not a

1:09:40 ↗ priority so

1:09:41 ↗ um and I'm just trying to get to because

1:09:43 ↗ the question is

1:09:45 ↗ um you know are we um

1:09:48 ↗ the desire to uphold the long-standing

1:09:50 ↗ commitment to the city made in the

1:09:52 ↗ community in in the CIP and so I'm just

1:09:54 ↗ trying to figure out what's been dropped

1:09:56 ↗ and and being completed is not being

1:09:58 ↗ dropped that's being completed that's a

1:09:59 ↗ good thing but if there's anything

1:10:01 ↗ that's been completed or um has we are

1:10:04 ↗ not moving forward with I'd kind of like

1:10:05 ↗ to know

1:10:06 ↗ um because I think that's that's an

1:10:08 ↗ important

1:10:10 ↗ um data point yeah we can we can do some

1:10:13 ↗ more digging that'd be awesome

1:10:17 ↗ so let's stick on number four

1:10:21 ↗ um we've had some questions and we'll

1:10:23 ↗ get some more data on that but

1:10:25 ↗ definitely want to get into this I saw

1:10:28 ↗ councilmember hunt then councilmember

1:10:30 ↗ Martz

1:10:31 ↗ okay so on number four we

1:10:34 ↗ um council member Ray we just we had a

1:10:36 ↗ similar discussion about the

1:10:38 ↗ having trouble proving what was missing

1:10:41 ↗ or seeing what was missing in the CIP in

1:10:44 ↗ our

1:10:45 ↗ um in our committee discussion on the

1:10:48 ↗ CIP so I think that would be helpful and

1:10:50 ↗ that would help us

1:10:52 ↗ um grapple with this question number

1:10:54 ↗ four about whether the CIP is reflecting

1:10:57 ↗ this long-standing commitments the other

1:11:01 ↗ thing that I think

1:11:02 ↗ would help is we do have the city

1:11:06 ↗ council the city council president's

1:11:09 ↗ letter that is with the CIP and so last

1:11:12 ↗ time for example with that letter there

1:11:15 ↗ is mentioned there of the squawk

1:11:17 ↗ Mountain

1:11:19 ↗ sidewalks uphill bike lane at the time

1:11:21 ↗ now the name has changed

1:11:24 ↗ um but so that was in the prior CIP if

1:11:26 ↗ you include that letter and I think

1:11:28 ↗ that's another option that Council can

1:11:30 ↗ use to single single out things that

1:11:35 ↗ have been brought forward by the

1:11:36 ↗ community that are these long-standing

1:11:37 ↗ commitments and so then we can also

1:11:40 ↗ track those over time as a council

1:11:43 ↗ and I think that could also help us with

1:11:46 ↗ this criteria and it's nice because it's

1:11:48 ↗ transparent it's part of the document it

1:11:51 ↗ explains our rationale for why we think

1:11:54 ↗ that those are the

1:11:56 ↗ um long-standing commitments and it will

1:11:59 ↗ move forward with the document and and

1:12:01 ↗ be with the document for for the future

1:12:03 ↗ and I know the equity board had concerns

1:12:07 ↗ about this criteria being not very well

1:12:09 ↗ defined so I think if we have if we also

1:12:12 ↗ include that letter as one of if things

1:12:14 ↗ are mentioned in the letter if we

1:12:15 ↗ include that I think that will help with

1:12:17 ↗ that transparency issue

1:12:21 ↗ that's my remarks

1:12:23 ↗ thank you so I want to address the the

1:12:26 ↗ broad question of the long-standing

1:12:28 ↗ equipment criteria and you know I've

1:12:31 ↗ said in the past I've sort of been

1:12:32 ↗ philosophical and said it's about honor

1:12:35 ↗ and one's word given as a guarantee of

1:12:37 ↗ performance by definition of honorable

1:12:40 ↗ um but let me just focus on the

1:12:41 ↗ Practical here for a second if you don't

1:12:44 ↗ have something like a long-standing

1:12:47 ↗ criteria what you do is you basically

1:12:50 ↗ break the ability for a council to defer

1:12:54 ↗ something totally let's use the EC

1:12:55 ↗ houses right first off we should just

1:12:58 ↗ Landmark it right now we should Landmark

1:12:59 ↗ it 15 years ago but the money side of it

1:13:02 ↗ okay we don't want to spend the money

1:13:04 ↗ right now the administration is arguing

1:13:06 ↗ we'll spend the money later if we didn't

1:13:09 ↗ have a long-standing commitments

1:13:11 ↗ criteria I would just be like no you got

1:13:13 ↗ to spend it right now because I don't

1:13:15 ↗ know what account future council is

1:13:16 ↗ going to do but I feel strongly about it

1:13:19 ↗ I I wouldn't be able to accept arguments

1:13:21 ↗ from the administration to defer things

1:13:23 ↗ till later so there's an extremely

1:13:25 ↗ practical pragmatic reason to have

1:13:28 ↗ long-standing commitments be part of our

1:13:31 ↗ process it really breaks our ability to

1:13:33 ↗ defer things the later so I I don't know

1:13:35 ↗ if we're actually debating whether or

1:13:36 ↗ not uh it's unclear to me the

1:13:38 ↗ administration keeps asking whether this

1:13:39 ↗ is a criteria we care about but I think

1:13:41 ↗ there's again one doesn't have to be

1:13:43 ↗ philosophical and promised pain you know

1:13:46 ↗ to argue why this is important this is

1:13:48 ↗ important for us to do the business of

1:13:50 ↗ the council before us thank you and yes

1:13:53 ↗ I do think through CIP reflects the

1:13:55 ↗ council's desire to upheld long-standing

1:13:57 ↗ infrastructure commitments but as a

1:14:00 ↗ long-standing and probably till the day

1:14:01 ↗ I die resident of squawk Mountain I want

1:14:03 ↗ sidewalks

1:14:06 ↗ councilmember D Michelle

1:14:10 ↗ all right well I hate to disagree with

1:14:12 ↗ council member Moritz but I will on this

1:14:14 ↗ on this one first of all I take uh take

1:14:16 ↗ the note that the equity board was

1:14:19 ↗ concerned about the transparency of the

1:14:22 ↗ Criterion and

1:14:25 ↗ um so I for that reason I think we

1:14:28 ↗ should take a look at it and see how

1:14:29 ↗ it's written in so forth but you know

1:14:32 ↗ since I've been on the council and even

1:14:34 ↗ before I was on the council there were

1:14:36 ↗ two major projects that the council said

1:14:39 ↗ gosh darn it we're going to get those

1:14:41 ↗ done one was the Providence Point

1:14:43 ↗ the light and uh the you know the

1:14:46 ↗ reconfiguration of that whole area and

1:14:49 ↗ another one is this wonderful project

1:14:51 ↗ that we're working on right now uh for

1:14:54 ↗ the Lake Sammamish Parkway

1:14:57 ↗ neither one of those is was put did the

1:15:01 ↗ council pound their the desk on because

1:15:03 ↗ there was a Criterion

1:15:06 ↗ there was no Criterion it was the will

1:15:08 ↗ of the council to get it done and so uh

1:15:11 ↗ if if the council has a long-term

1:15:14 ↗ commitment to a project I'm not sure

1:15:16 ↗ that having a Criterion especially one

1:15:18 ↗ that people have questions about

1:15:22 ↗ is necessary because the council can

1:15:24 ↗ make a decision

1:15:26 ↗ to emphasize a project anytime that they

1:15:28 ↗ want to

1:15:30 ↗ so

1:15:31 ↗ um I just take to heart the fact that

1:15:33 ↗ the equity board has some concerns about

1:15:35 ↗ that in terms of uh the transparency and

1:15:38 ↗ the equity

1:15:40 ↗ and I think that the council can make up

1:15:43 ↗ its own mind about what it wants to

1:15:45 ↗ emphasize at any time

1:15:46 ↗ and if this is causing this much

1:15:49 ↗ discussion is this a criteria that we

1:15:52 ↗ actually need to have well I guess I'm

1:15:54 ↗ on the other side of that thank you

1:16:00 ↗ Council membrane

1:16:01 ↗ I'm a little confused

1:16:04 ↗ um but I'm also sleep deprived so um

1:16:07 ↗ work with me

1:16:08 ↗ um I don't think the question has

1:16:09 ↗ anything to do with criteria it says did

1:16:11 ↗ we

1:16:12 ↗ did we uphold the long-standing

1:16:14 ↗ infrastructure commitment and you know

1:16:16 ↗ did we deliver on it so

1:16:19 ↗ criteria or not

1:16:21 ↗ um what I want to know is what aren't we

1:16:24 ↗ doing that's a long-standing commitment

1:16:25 ↗ so I can answer your question so I'm

1:16:27 ↗ just kind of baffled I I everything

1:16:30 ↗ that's in there looks good but I don't

1:16:32 ↗ know what's not in there I can't prove

1:16:33 ↗ the negative so if I had that

1:16:35 ↗ information then I could give you a

1:16:36 ↗ thumbs up and say yeah you don't you've

1:16:38 ↗ done good with making our long-standing

1:16:40 ↗ commitment so

1:16:42 ↗ um I'm going to defer for me personally

1:16:43 ↗ on four until I have a little more data

1:16:50 ↗ council member Dean Michelle

1:16:52 ↗ just thanks council member Ray I did not

1:16:54 ↗ conclude my statement correctly which is

1:16:57 ↗ yes I do believe that the proposed CIP

1:16:59 ↗ reflects the city council desire to

1:17:01 ↗ uphold long-standing infrastructure

1:17:03 ↗ commitments so so again I think that's

1:17:05 ↗ separate

1:17:07 ↗ the CIP can reflect that intent without

1:17:10 ↗ necessarily having that Criterion

1:17:16 ↗ so I'll just throw my comments in here

1:17:20 ↗ um having watched the boards who did

1:17:22 ↗ excellent work on all of this

1:17:25 ↗ um I appreciate that they're concerned

1:17:28 ↗ that this particular area isn't very

1:17:31 ↗ transparent I think we also

1:17:36 ↗ you know

1:17:37 ↗ we've created a bunch of new boards who

1:17:40 ↗ have a bunch of new plans which are very

1:17:43 ↗ forward-thinking which are fantastic You

1:17:46 ↗ Know Tab Equity environmental boards all

1:17:49 ↗ have these plans and

1:17:52 ↗ I don't

1:17:54 ↗ think that

1:17:56 ↗ the community

1:17:58 ↗ would want us to ignore that new

1:18:02 ↗ information

1:18:04 ↗ and so I think my preference would be

1:18:08 ↗ and I don't know whether this blocks me

1:18:10 ↗ from really supporting the CIP or not

1:18:12 ↗ but I would like to include project

1:18:15 ↗ inclusion history as a component of the

1:18:17 ↗ community priority criteria because

1:18:21 ↗ ultimately we are as

1:18:24 ↗ council members Arbiters of the

1:18:27 ↗ community's perspective and so I think

1:18:31 ↗ it's more important that this has been a

1:18:33 ↗ community priority than it has been a

1:18:35 ↗ council priority so that's where I think

1:18:38 ↗ it would go

1:18:40 ↗ um that being said I think this is one

1:18:43 ↗ of several criteria and I think even

1:18:45 ↗ without that being a thumb necessarily

1:18:50 ↗ on the scale the crate the rest of the

1:18:53 ↗ criteria did a great job of getting us

1:18:56 ↗ to where we need to be unless that

1:18:59 ↗ question to council member Ray's uh

1:19:02 ↗ thing of not being able to prove the

1:19:03 ↗ negative shows that something fell off

1:19:06 ↗ but all of the ones that I was looking

1:19:07 ↗ out for are on there

1:19:10 ↗ anyone else

1:19:13 ↗ no okay

1:19:16 ↗ um so I'm gonna say we have some

1:19:19 ↗ questions but generally I've heard

1:19:21 ↗ feedback that it's appearing and no big

1:19:26 ↗ agreement one way or another about

1:19:27 ↗ removing or keeping the criteria

1:19:30 ↗ all of that

1:19:33 ↗ um I'm gonna go let's see the other

1:19:37 ↗ three kind of all mix in together so

1:19:40 ↗ one's about a TBD sales tax the other is

1:19:45 ↗ about what you would fund with that

1:19:48 ↗ Revenue stream and then the third one is

1:19:50 ↗ uh Park and trail projects

1:19:53 ↗ later as a new reference news source I

1:19:57 ↗ would again say we are just providing

1:19:59 ↗ Initial Ideas there is no decision on

1:20:03 ↗ any of these with the CIP if we want to

1:20:06 ↗ just take this really quick I think this

1:20:08 ↗ is mostly just a

1:20:10 ↗ does the administration have what it

1:20:12 ↗ needs to do more research so that we can

1:20:15 ↗ have full conversation so does anybody

1:20:17 ↗ have anything on one through three

1:20:21 ↗ okay I so council member votes then

1:20:25 ↗ council member Ray

1:20:26 ↗ uh I think what we've heard from the

1:20:29 ↗ public on landmarking of the eckhouse

1:20:32 ↗ reflects my own view I've said for a

1:20:35 ↗ long time that uh I want to see more

1:20:38 ↗ done with the Confluence Park I think

1:20:39 ↗ the eckhouse is a treasure and I think

1:20:42 ↗ if we if we don't have the money to do

1:20:44 ↗ it right now if we want to come up with

1:20:45 ↗ other funding mechanisms down the road

1:20:47 ↗ sure but I have not been given a reason

1:20:49 ↗ why we shouldn't Landmark the eckhouse

1:20:51 ↗ and I think we should have done it 15

1:20:53 ↗ years ago so I would like to see that

1:20:55 ↗ the money stuff we can do the money

1:20:58 ↗ stuff when we have the money stuff once

1:20:59 ↗ it's landmarked it's at least preserved

1:21:01 ↗ thank you

1:21:03 ↗ that's my right so I'm going to take

1:21:06 ↗ questions one through three but not in

1:21:08 ↗ order I'm going to start with number two

1:21:10 ↗ um we absolutely have to do its and we

1:21:13 ↗ absolutely have to do Northwest

1:21:14 ↗ Sammamish Road non-motorized

1:21:16 ↗ improvements as council member D

1:21:19 ↗ Michelle was mentioning just moments ago

1:21:21 ↗ when we decide we're going to do

1:21:22 ↗ something like the Providence Point

1:21:25 ↗ light we can do it and I think I put

1:21:27 ↗ these two initiatives in the same kind

1:21:29 ↗ of bucket so

1:21:31 ↗ um so we have to do these

1:21:33 ↗ um I'm not a big fan of the increase in

1:21:36 ↗ sales tax because I'm just not a big fan

1:21:37 ↗ of of increasing taxes but I I could be

1:21:40 ↗ swayed if that's the only way we can

1:21:43 ↗ accomplish what we want to do so

1:21:46 ↗ um squarely on the fence there

1:21:48 ↗ um and then I don't like the word

1:21:51 ↗ prioritizing parks and trails projects

1:21:53 ↗ to later years because there were

1:21:55 ↗ actually not prioritizing that we're

1:21:57 ↗ de-prioritizing them so I think if you

1:21:59 ↗ use the word either plan or schedule or

1:22:01 ↗ something like that because I was very

1:22:02 ↗ confused about what what we were driving

1:22:04 ↗ out there but I think it's appropriate

1:22:06 ↗ that we scheduled those Parks

1:22:09 ↗ initiatives for later in this CIP

1:22:12 ↗ planning site

1:22:18 ↗ council member D Mitchell followed by

1:22:20 ↗ councilmember hunt all right thank you

1:22:22 ↗ so much I'll just take them in order

1:22:25 ↗ um I generally support uh taking the

1:22:28 ↗ next steps to pursue pursue the 0.1

1:22:31 ↗ Transportation benefit district sales

1:22:33 ↗ tax

1:22:35 ↗ um we had an excellent presentation at

1:22:38 ↗ the mobility Committee in mobility and

1:22:40 ↗ information

1:22:41 ↗ infrastructure

1:22:43 ↗ and I think that uh I generally am not a

1:22:49 ↗ fan of sales tax as well I came into

1:22:51 ↗ that being very skeptical

1:22:53 ↗ but it is uh I think a manageable tax

1:22:59 ↗ and will provide us with some benefits

1:23:02 ↗ that our community is asking us to come

1:23:05 ↗ up with some solutions that they're

1:23:07 ↗ asking us to to find

1:23:09 ↗ um Solutions too

1:23:12 ↗ um absolutely supportive of the projects

1:23:14 ↗ the intelligent transportation system in

1:23:16 ↗ the Northwest Sammamish road now

1:23:17 ↗ motorized improvements and I want to

1:23:21 ↗ speak to the intelligent transportation

1:23:22 ↗ system I think was just about the time I

1:23:25 ↗ came on the council that we had the

1:23:27 ↗ report about how the system was out of

1:23:31 ↗ date and how many cameras we needed and

1:23:33 ↗ that the programs were not being funded

1:23:36 ↗ or supported anymore by their companies

1:23:39 ↗ and and on and on and on in our

1:23:42 ↗ community really wants that intelligent

1:23:45 ↗ transportation system so we need to

1:23:47 ↗ invest in that and that is something

1:23:50 ↗ that we get a big bang for our buck in

1:23:53 ↗ terms of

1:23:54 ↗ moving the mobility in our community

1:23:58 ↗ into a better place so I absolutely

1:24:01 ↗ support both of those projects but I did

1:24:04 ↗ want to say a few kind words about its

1:24:06 ↗ and then finally yes and I think the

1:24:11 ↗ the task force that we had correctly

1:24:15 ↗ prioritize parks and trails as our

1:24:17 ↗ second priority after transportation and

1:24:20 ↗ so I support number three as well thanks

1:24:23 ↗ councilmember hunt

1:24:26 ↗ thank you

1:24:28 ↗ um so in the letter from the mayor which

1:24:32 ↗ is in the CIP document it does also list

1:24:36 ↗ that the CIP as proposed the TBD as

1:24:40 ↗ proposed would support the squawk

1:24:43 ↗ Mountain multi-modal improvements TR 068

1:24:47 ↗ no

1:24:51 ↗ no okay oh that's from the okay so that

1:24:55 ↗ is from then the other the other mayor's

1:24:57 ↗ letter from last year 2023.

1:25:00 ↗ um I

1:25:02 ↗ I would like to propose putting that in

1:25:05 ↗ so I wasn't sure if it was because of

1:25:08 ↗ this but I wasn't sure if that would be

1:25:10 ↗ covered or not under the QD but

1:25:13 ↗ um I I would like to make sure that we

1:25:16 ↗ have funding for that project and I

1:25:18 ↗ would like to

1:25:20 ↗ um

1:25:20 ↗ that's that is a long-standing

1:25:22 ↗ commitment that is important to the

1:25:24 ↗ community it's been in plans for a long

1:25:26 ↗ time

1:25:27 ↗ um and there's a real need there are

1:25:30 ↗ kids that have grown up without

1:25:31 ↗ sidewalks on squawk

1:25:33 ↗ um and it's a big safety concern that I

1:25:38 ↗ have

1:25:39 ↗ um I think it will make that

1:25:40 ↗ neighborhood much more

1:25:42 ↗ um you know easier to get around and

1:25:43 ↗ there are many sidewalks in other

1:25:45 ↗ neighborhoods but that neighborhood is

1:25:47 ↗ is not is underserved by sidewalks so

1:25:49 ↗ I've my whole time on Council talked

1:25:52 ↗ about that project and I think if

1:25:54 ↗ they're and it apparently you know this

1:25:55 ↗ was in the plan as of a year ago to have

1:25:57 ↗ the TBD funds that project I would like

1:26:01 ↗ to consider I would like to have Council

1:26:04 ↗ consider if we do go forward with the

1:26:06 ↗ TBD to put that

1:26:08 ↗ um

1:26:08 ↗ have that be one of the projects that's

1:26:10 ↗ funded by that

1:26:11 ↗ uh on the second question

1:26:16 ↗ um on oh that sort of is the second

1:26:19 ↗ question

1:26:20 ↗ um other unfunded projects to be

1:26:22 ↗ considered as that squawk Mountain

1:26:25 ↗ multi-modal improvements would be one

1:26:28 ↗ um and then

1:26:30 ↗ with the prioritization to prioritize

1:26:32 ↗ them later I will note that we are doing

1:26:36 ↗ a lot of project

1:26:39 ↗ um projects on our parks and trails

1:26:41 ↗ currently especially with the arpa

1:26:43 ↗ funding that is being used for Veterans

1:26:45 ↗ Memorial

1:26:46 ↗ Field and the area around the senior

1:26:50 ↗ center so I it's not that we aren't

1:26:54 ↗ I would say we it's not that we aren't

1:26:56 ↗ prioritizing those Park and trail

1:26:58 ↗ projects it's

1:27:00 ↗ um

1:27:01 ↗ I think more the way it's written I

1:27:04 ↗ think it's more addressing the

1:27:06 ↗ recommendations of that capital

1:27:09 ↗ capital task force that you know

1:27:12 ↗ recommended looking for other Revenue

1:27:15 ↗ later so that we weren't seeking Revenue

1:27:17 ↗ to do both parks and transportation

1:27:21 ↗ projects at the same time

1:27:22 ↗ um but I just wanted to fact that I

1:27:24 ↗ don't think we're I don't think that the

1:27:26 ↗ CIP is the prioritizing Parks we are

1:27:29 ↗ doing a lot of work

1:27:31 ↗ um to revitalize our parks in this CIP

1:27:36 ↗ um

1:27:39 ↗ I think those are my big comments and

1:27:42 ↗ then I have

1:27:43 ↗ um

1:27:43 ↗ some Project Specific questions but I'll

1:27:46 ↗ hold those

1:27:48 ↗ yeah and I will come back for other

1:27:50 ↗ comments and everything

1:27:52 ↗ um before I go on to Deputy council

1:27:54 ↗ president Hall I did just want to note

1:27:55 ↗ that I looked up the mayor's letter on

1:27:58 ↗ the CIP and it does include the multi

1:28:01 ↗ squawk multimodal

1:28:02 ↗ 12 Mountain multimodal improvements as

1:28:05 ↗ part of the

1:28:07 ↗ proposed pbd so I just want to note that

1:28:11 ↗ to the administration that depending on

1:28:13 ↗ how everything comes out May want to

1:28:15 ↗ make an adjustment on that uh or if if

1:28:20 ↗ that is something that we decide not

1:28:23 ↗ um so Deputy council president Hull

1:28:30 ↗ thank you and just to be clear it very

1:28:33 ↗ well could be still by the DVD sales tax

1:28:35 ↗ and part of the memo talks about after

1:28:38 ↗ one-time projects are done this frees up

1:28:41 ↗ capacity for more

1:28:43 ↗ um

1:28:46 ↗ projects that are currently in the cap

1:28:47 ↗ because uh so that very well could be

1:28:49 ↗ next up

1:28:50 ↗ in terms of sales tax and I agree I

1:28:53 ↗ found it in the letter too so I guess I

1:28:55 ↗ would plus one that that would be a good

1:28:57 ↗ Revenue source for for that in addition

1:28:58 ↗ to I think what's contemplative right

1:29:00 ↗ now is the school safety fund or those

1:29:03 ↗ things

1:29:05 ↗ um anyways okay so let's take a step

1:29:07 ↗ back

1:29:08 ↗ um you know like I said at the mobility

1:29:10 ↗ and infrastructure uh committee meeting

1:29:12 ↗ I do feel

1:29:15 ↗ hesitant but generally supportive of our

1:29:18 ↗ next steps for the council manic

1:29:22 ↗ um sales tax

1:29:23 ↗ um as long as there is this robust Union

1:29:25 ↗ engagement plan we're able to tell that

1:29:27 ↗ why story that that we were talking

1:29:29 ↗ about and but I I also want to be clear

1:29:32 ↗ that I

1:29:34 ↗ um also feel very on the fence here

1:29:36 ↗ because the Capital Finance Community

1:29:38 ↗ task force did a lot of work and their

1:29:40 ↗ recommendation was this as a ballot

1:29:43 ↗ measure and it seems like

1:29:46 ↗ that would give us the best opportunity

1:29:48 ↗ to really ask the community if they

1:29:51 ↗ think that our why for additional

1:29:53 ↗ infrastructure needs here in Issaquah is

1:29:56 ↗ sufficient

1:29:58 ↗ um so I am supportive of continuing to

1:30:02 ↗ go down this path but I also don't want

1:30:05 ↗ that path to be

1:30:08 ↗ not available to us and I don't

1:30:10 ↗ necessarily know how how we go about

1:30:12 ↗ that I would like the ballot measure DVD

1:30:15 ↗ sales tax which I think is is it by the

1:30:17 ↗ way is it 0.2 for about or is it up to

1:30:20 ↗ point two for ballot it's actually up to

1:30:22 ↗ point three so you could actually go to

1:30:24 ↗ voters for up to point three but if we

1:30:26 ↗ wanted to it could be a point one ballot

1:30:28 ↗ okay so I just want to make sure that

1:30:30 ↗ this option is still on the table of

1:30:32 ↗ something we're considering because it

1:30:33 ↗ does feel like it would be more genuine

1:30:35 ↗ to like asking the community hey we've

1:30:37 ↗ done all this all this work now what do

1:30:39 ↗ you think

1:30:40 ↗ um

1:30:41 ↗ and especially because right now as at

1:30:42 ↗ this point the closest thing that we

1:30:44 ↗ really do have to genuine Community

1:30:45 ↗ dialogue around this is the Capital

1:30:48 ↗ Finance Community task force and that

1:30:49 ↗ was their recommendation

1:30:52 ↗ um so that's how I've been thinking

1:30:53 ↗ about that

1:30:54 ↗ um I do agree that its and Northwest

1:30:58 ↗ smash Road are the most pressing needs

1:31:01 ↗ for those um dollars if we go down that

1:31:03 ↗ path I had um during the mobility and

1:31:06 ↗ infrastructure committee meeting asked

1:31:08 ↗ for a little bit more information see if

1:31:09 ↗ we could potentially do strategic small

1:31:11 ↗ capital projects or pavement management

1:31:13 ↗ project payment Management program to

1:31:15 ↗ kind of fill in kind of what we're

1:31:17 ↗ missing from the downturn in three right

1:31:21 ↗ um

1:31:22 ↗ I do feel satisfied with the information

1:31:24 ↗ that we got back from director Moon

1:31:26 ↗ though that that these are especially

1:31:28 ↗ its aren't one-time project I also just

1:31:30 ↗ want to unless counsel uh or just in

1:31:32 ↗ case Council listened to my comments

1:31:34 ↗ during the meeting I said something to

1:31:35 ↗ the tune of the its was a one-time

1:31:37 ↗ project and I would rather us you know

1:31:40 ↗ look into things that are ongoing

1:31:41 ↗ projects director Moon later made the

1:31:43 ↗ point that actually no these are

1:31:45 ↗ definitely ongoing projects because

1:31:46 ↗ we're learning more from it and we're

1:31:48 ↗ constantly doing maintenance and

1:31:49 ↗ improving systems and stuff too so it

1:31:51 ↗ does seem like a very important thing to

1:31:53 ↗ be doing an important thing to have an

1:31:56 ↗ ongoing funding source

1:31:58 ↗ um of course so I'm satisfied with that

1:32:02 ↗ that's question two and then

1:32:04 ↗ recommendation to prioritize yeah again

1:32:06 ↗ this seems to be aligned with the

1:32:08 ↗ recommendations that we were getting

1:32:09 ↗ from the Capital Finance Community task

1:32:11 ↗ force

1:32:12 ↗ um and I appreciate it I guess it feels

1:32:15 ↗ disingenuous to say their work because

1:32:17 ↗ we were on it I appreciated our work on

1:32:19 ↗ that

1:32:20 ↗ um so other than that I I just want to

1:32:23 ↗ Echo what council member hunt said

1:32:25 ↗ earlier I think the council president

1:32:27 ↗ letter could be in perfect tool for us

1:32:29 ↗ to every year or every couple years say

1:32:30 ↗ these are the long-standing commitments

1:32:33 ↗ that we want to make sure don't fall off

1:32:36 ↗ and also to Echo councilman Ray would

1:32:39 ↗ definitely like to get that data around

1:32:41 ↗ did anything fall off that wasn't

1:32:42 ↗ because it was complete

1:32:44 ↗ um

1:32:49 ↗ I

1:32:51 ↗ um I agree with our public comments or I

1:32:53 ↗ I think we're being just a tad

1:32:55 ↗ disingenuous about the title of the city

1:32:57 ↗ hall CIP project page

1:33:00 ↗ um I mean even just eliminating and

1:33:02 ↗ eliminating the first part of that page

1:33:04 ↗ see where was it

1:33:07 ↗ um right now it says Public Safety space

1:33:09 ↗ needs Police Court and City Hall option

1:33:11 ↗ A or B

1:33:13 ↗ I think even just saying Police Court in

1:33:15 ↗ City Hall space needs would be more

1:33:16 ↗ genuine than just starting with Public

1:33:18 ↗ Safety space needs especially because

1:33:20 ↗ when you look at the breakdown of the

1:33:22 ↗ costs it the law the vast majority isn't

1:33:25 ↗ going to be in in the public safety

1:33:27 ↗ space so

1:33:29 ↗ um perhaps there's a small tweak there

1:33:30 ↗ that's just some feedback for the

1:33:31 ↗ administration to think over and then

1:33:34 ↗ also I really

1:33:36 ↗ don't think I'm fully understanding what

1:33:39 ↗ is going on with the eckhouse so I I

1:33:42 ↗ need to get a better sense from the

1:33:44 ↗ director what

1:33:47 ↗ um if he could kind of take the feedback

1:33:48 ↗ that we got tonight and respond to it

1:33:50 ↗ ahead of that so that we can kind of

1:33:51 ↗ have a discussion at the next meeting

1:33:54 ↗ about that I'm not certain I'm

1:33:57 ↗ understanding the pros and cons to

1:33:58 ↗ Landmark Now versus later

1:34:00 ↗ so kind of a

1:34:03 ↗ I'll go back also and review our first

1:34:05 ↗ meeting on this but I would like to kind

1:34:08 ↗ of have a more specific conversation

1:34:10 ↗ about that at our next

1:34:12 ↗ perhaps

1:34:13 ↗ other council members have more

1:34:16 ↗ um I think that's everything

1:34:21 ↗ um I think before going to Second

1:34:22 ↗ comments I'm just going to throw mine in

1:34:24 ↗ and then we can go through

1:34:26 ↗ um for that so for question number one

1:34:30 ↗ I'm willing to have the conversation on

1:34:34 ↗ it but I really want to have the bigger

1:34:35 ↗ conversation about how much does this

1:34:37 ↗ actually move the needle because you've

1:34:39 ↗ thrown out this number of 2.2 but then

1:34:42 ↗ there was also the concept that we were

1:34:43 ↗ going to use that for borrowing so I

1:34:46 ↗ really need to know how much potential

1:34:49 ↗ money that gives us for what period of

1:34:53 ↗ time because right now if I'm just

1:34:55 ↗ talking about 2.2 million that's like a

1:34:59 ↗ tiny tiny drop in the bucket compared to

1:35:01 ↗ the 137 million dollar six year total

1:35:04 ↗ for the transportation section

1:35:06 ↗ um so I think those are the types of

1:35:10 ↗ questions and it looks like there might

1:35:12 ↗ be an answer before I go into the next

1:35:13 ↗ part

1:35:14 ↗ just specifically on the 0.1 percent TBD

1:35:18 ↗ it's 2.2 annually you would factor in

1:35:21 ↗ maybe you know we could do a forecast

1:35:22 ↗ for 10 years but each every 10 years the

1:35:25 ↗ council would have to reauthorize that

1:35:27 ↗ TBD or voters would have to re-authorize

1:35:29 ↗ if it's approved by voters so if it's a

1:35:31 ↗ point one percent that's Council Matt it

1:35:32 ↗ would come back so it'd be 10 years

1:35:33 ↗ worth of that Revenue starting at 2.2

1:35:36 ↗ and then growth factors based on

1:35:38 ↗ inflation based on economic factors from

1:35:41 ↗ that so one of the questions I had asked

1:35:43 ↗ by email was hey if you're that goes

1:35:47 ↗ toward this second

1:35:49 ↗ question

1:35:50 ↗ um around which projects you know when I

1:35:54 ↗ look at the project page for the

1:35:56 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road non-motorized

1:35:58 ↗ improvements it asks for like 13 million

1:36:02 ↗ but that's only four years from now so

1:36:05 ↗ even if we got the 2.2 million that

1:36:09 ↗ would only be 8.8 and so you would talk

1:36:11 ↗ something about there's some borrowing

1:36:14 ↗ involved so what we could do and we talk

1:36:17 ↗ about the project mix and we talk about

1:36:19 ↗ future projects funded by the tbds

1:36:21 ↗ actually expanding your base so if you

1:36:23 ↗ look at it with the revenue sources now

1:36:25 ↗ are limited when we're talking about

1:36:27 ↗ we're talking about even grants outside

1:36:29 ↗ funding state and local this is

1:36:31 ↗ increasing our capacity for

1:36:33 ↗ transportation projects by 2.2 million a

1:36:35 ↗ year going up from there so what that

1:36:38 ↗ does is that also increases our

1:36:39 ↗ borrowing capacity so it would give us

1:36:41 ↗ more room for Debt Service so you could

1:36:44 ↗ do a combination of a small issuance for

1:36:47 ↗ a couple projects or multiple issuances

1:36:49 ↗ and for a bond and because the bond

1:36:51 ↗ would actually be on the general

1:36:52 ↗ obligation it could actually go beyond

1:36:54 ↗ the 10 years but say even if you did a

1:36:56 ↗ 10-year issue you could do multiple

1:36:58 ↗ projects up front rather than each year

1:37:00 ↗ just depending on what the council

1:37:01 ↗ strategy wants to be

1:37:03 ↗ great so those are the types of

1:37:05 ↗ questions I need answered as we go into

1:37:08 ↗ this conversation about TBD because if

1:37:11 ↗ it was just it's going to give us 2.2

1:37:13 ↗ million dollars worth of cash and

1:37:16 ↗ projects that are valued at 2.2 million

1:37:18 ↗ dollars that's really really tiny and

1:37:22 ↗ I'm really concerned with the idea of

1:37:25 ↗ both adding to people's sales tax or

1:37:28 ↗ even going to voters to ask for sales

1:37:32 ↗ tax revenue it it's very difficult

1:37:35 ↗ unless you really get into this to

1:37:37 ↗ understand the scope of the need and if

1:37:40 ↗ people are looking at this and going

1:37:42 ↗ okay if we give them this it will make a

1:37:46 ↗ difference in all of our transportation

1:37:47 ↗ woes will go away

1:37:49 ↗ and that's not the case so just letting

1:37:54 ↗ you know those are the types of

1:37:56 ↗ questions I want to talk about when

1:37:58 ↗ we're having that conversation not just

1:38:00 ↗ are we ready to ask voters to add to

1:38:04 ↗ sales tax it's like and what will this

1:38:06 ↗ do and what will it not do

1:38:09 ↗ so right this pros and cons to each

1:38:11 ↗ approach and there's mixtures of

1:38:12 ↗ approaches so we can certainly come back

1:38:14 ↗ in Future months with the details on

1:38:17 ↗ that with the advantages disadvantages

1:38:18 ↗ that even project scenarios as well yeah

1:38:21 ↗ and one of the ways I'm looking at this

1:38:23 ↗ is here's the pie of all of the things

1:38:27 ↗ that we've said are needed that's

1:38:29 ↗ basically what the tip is and if we have

1:38:33 ↗ you know cash funding and funding from

1:38:36 ↗ all of these other sources what

1:38:39 ↗ percentage of the pie does this increase

1:38:41 ↗ and what percentage is still out there

1:38:44 ↗ unfunded so I berated that one

1:38:49 ↗ um toward that idea I'm really unsure if

1:38:52 ↗ its and Northwest Sammamish Road nor

1:38:55 ↗ non-motorized improvements are the right

1:38:57 ↗ places if we went for a TBD sales tax to

1:39:02 ↗ invest the money right of way right away

1:39:05 ↗ particularly because we have this whole

1:39:07 ↗ question mark on our heads around when

1:39:10 ↗ washdot is going to be done with the

1:39:14 ↗ culverts and so if we can't utilize

1:39:18 ↗ those funds for potentially like four or

1:39:21 ↗ five years

1:39:23 ↗ um that would feel particularly

1:39:25 ↗ difficult to get all of that money from

1:39:27 ↗ the community and just sit on it

1:39:31 ↗ um so I would like to better understand

1:39:34 ↗ how those funds get used and if there

1:39:39 ↗ are any other smaller projects that we

1:39:41 ↗ can do in the meantime because one of

1:39:44 ↗ we tried doing a traffic Levy or

1:39:49 ↗ whatever that was

1:39:50 ↗ um before I was on Council and one of

1:39:53 ↗ the difficulties there is like

1:39:55 ↗ you're not seeing projects get completed

1:39:59 ↗ and so if we're going for a sales tax

1:40:01 ↗ and we don't end up seeing projects

1:40:03 ↗ completed for five six years and then

1:40:07 ↗ we're looking at this future idea of

1:40:09 ↗ going out for a Park and trail

1:40:11 ↗ projects a new Revenue Source we're

1:40:13 ↗ shooting ourselves in the foot

1:40:15 ↗ if we're going to say here we're going

1:40:17 ↗ to take this money we're going to hold

1:40:19 ↗ on to it not complete anything and then

1:40:22 ↗ right about the time we're going to

1:40:23 ↗ complete something we're going to ask

1:40:24 ↗ for more money for a different type of

1:40:26 ↗ thing so I just want to be really smart

1:40:28 ↗ about thinking about all of that so I

1:40:30 ↗ guess my answers to one two and three

1:40:33 ↗ are it really darn depends what we can

1:40:36 ↗ actually accomplish with that money and

1:40:39 ↗ so I need to have a whole conversation

1:40:42 ↗ around that

1:40:43 ↗ okay that being said councilmember Mertz

1:40:47 ↗ then council member hunt

1:40:48 ↗ thank you madam council president um in

1:40:50 ↗ my Zeal to discuss uh landmarking the

1:40:53 ↗ eckhouse I did not answer the questions

1:40:55 ↗ so on question two yes uh its yes of

1:41:00 ↗ course North Sammamish Northwest

1:41:02 ↗ Sammamish Road uh does the council

1:41:04 ↗ concur with the administration's

1:41:05 ↗ recommendation yes I chaired the

1:41:07 ↗ committee that this initially makes

1:41:08 ↗ sense question one first off I want to

1:41:11 ↗ mention you said Levy it was actually a

1:41:13 ↗ bond oh that it had been a levy because

1:41:16 ↗ had it been a levy it would have passed

1:41:18 ↗ by a healthy margin but in fact it was a

1:41:20 ↗ bond it did not

1:41:22 ↗ um so with all due respect to the

1:41:23 ↗ Capital Finance community tax task force

1:41:25 ↗ I am completely opposed uh to creating

1:41:28 ↗ another sales tax I was opposed to

1:41:29 ↗ adding sales taxes in 2009 when I first

1:41:32 ↗ ran for Council I was opposed to new

1:41:35 ↗ sales taxes five years ago and uh I

1:41:37 ↗ expect I'll be opposed to sales taxes

1:41:39 ↗ for this foreseeable future not because

1:41:42 ↗ all regressive taxes are completely bad

1:41:44 ↗ if we only had Progressive taxes if we

1:41:47 ↗ only taxed the rich uh there would be an

1:41:50 ↗ argument that uh we are unfairly taxing

1:41:52 ↗ people so in the real world we look at

1:41:55 ↗ the combination of progress Progressive

1:41:57 ↗ and bless you Progressive and regressive

1:41:59 ↗ taxes and we tried to decide uh whether

1:42:01 ↗ they are fair or not and this state has

1:42:04 ↗ long known that it had

1:42:07 ↗ massively too regressive if you compare

1:42:10 ↗ us to the rest of the states that invest

1:42:12 ↗ in their communities uh we are far more

1:42:15 ↗ regressive unfortunately we're more

1:42:17 ↗ aggressive than Idaho uh which Prides

1:42:19 ↗ itself on being a conservative tax state

1:42:21 ↗ whatever that means so uh I am opposed

1:42:25 ↗ to increasing that we are one of the

1:42:27 ↗ richest communities and one of the

1:42:28 ↗ richest states in the richest country in

1:42:30 ↗ the history of the world uh let's not

1:42:33 ↗ make our taxes more regressive let's

1:42:35 ↗ find other Solutions thank you

1:42:38 ↗ thank you uh councilmember hunt followed

1:42:40 ↗ by council member D Michelle

1:42:43 ↗ um so on the Eck house

1:42:46 ↗ um I I like councilmember Hall would

1:42:48 ↗ like more information I will say

1:42:52 ↗ um when we first had this conversation I

1:42:55 ↗ about including it with arpa funding my

1:42:59 ↗ intent really was to make sure that that

1:43:02 ↗ um because that building currently

1:43:04 ↗ serves no public function

1:43:07 ↗ um it and it also is damaged it has fire

1:43:10 ↗ damage on the back side of that building

1:43:12 ↗ and so

1:43:14 ↗ um my My Hope was that we would use this

1:43:16 ↗ funding because we have to

1:43:18 ↗ um we have to spend this money quickly

1:43:21 ↗ there is a project there's a you know

1:43:23 ↗ damaged building that needs uh work

1:43:26 ↗ clearly it is on city property so my

1:43:29 ↗ Hope was that we could quickly address a

1:43:32 ↗ known issue in one of our very beautiful

1:43:34 ↗ parks that is one of our most beloved

1:43:37 ↗ parks and there's a playground right

1:43:39 ↗ next to a building that has fire damage

1:43:41 ↗ on the backside on facing the playground

1:43:44 ↗ so

1:43:45 ↗ um I I My Hope Is that we can accelerate

1:43:49 ↗ at least some of that

1:43:52 ↗ um

1:43:52 ↗ some of that restoration and safety work

1:43:55 ↗ and use use funding for that I would I

1:43:58 ↗ would like to make sure that we're

1:43:59 ↗ taking care of that building putting off

1:44:02 ↗ the entire project which seems it seems

1:44:05 ↗ like the timeline

1:44:07 ↗ um because we're we're contemplating

1:44:10 ↗ um a larger project which I can get

1:44:12 ↗ behind but I I would like to understand

1:44:15 ↗ if we can't

1:44:17 ↗ um do something to to help uh restore

1:44:21 ↗ that building or

1:44:24 ↗ um in the meantime

1:44:26 ↗ um

1:44:27 ↗ help because right now it's a damaged

1:44:29 ↗ building and we are not taking action on

1:44:32 ↗ that which doesn't doesn't feel right

1:44:34 ↗ and doesn't really line up with my

1:44:36 ↗ intent at least with um making sure that

1:44:38 ↗ it was

1:44:39 ↗ that that work was addressed with arpa

1:44:42 ↗ funding

1:44:45 ↗ council member T Michelle oh thanks I

1:44:48 ↗ just wanted to share that at the

1:44:50 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee uh

1:44:53 ↗ uh director of hamoud brought us three

1:44:56 ↗ scenarios uh one was the one that's in

1:44:59 ↗ front of us the its and the Northwest

1:45:01 ↗ Sammamish Road another one was its pair

1:45:04 ↗ paired with uh the squawk Mountain

1:45:07 ↗ multimodal project and the other one was

1:45:10 ↗ its paired with something that I've

1:45:12 ↗ forgotten so

1:45:14 ↗ um which we uh I think we rated in the

1:45:18 ↗ third place so you know that might be a

1:45:21 ↗ really good

1:45:22 ↗ table to bring back to the whole Council

1:45:25 ↗ because within the parameters of what we

1:45:29 ↗ are anticipating that we could raise

1:45:33 ↗ um it did not make sense to pair for

1:45:35 ↗ example the Northwest Sammamish road

1:45:37 ↗ project with the clock Mountain

1:45:39 ↗ multimodal it just was too much and so

1:45:43 ↗ there is sort of a finite

1:45:46 ↗ parameter there however

1:45:48 ↗ I think we were doing that assuming if

1:45:52 ↗ I'm I'm correct that that was the 0.1

1:45:55 ↗ percent sales tax I didn't know that we

1:45:57 ↗ could do 0.3

1:46:00 ↗ so that parameter maybe is a little bit

1:46:03 ↗ more flexible than we thought it was or

1:46:05 ↗ am I incorrect on that so the point what

1:46:07 ↗ councilmember D Michelle very good

1:46:09 ↗ questions the 0.1 percent TBD is the

1:46:12 ↗ councilmatic authority so the council

1:46:14 ↗ only has 0.1 percent now voters can

1:46:17 ↗ approve up the capacity is 0.3 percent

1:46:19 ↗ so voters can approve up to point three

1:46:20 ↗ percent or if the council approved 1.1

1:46:24 ↗ percent councilmatically then you can

1:46:26 ↗ still go to voters for an additional 0.2

1:46:27 ↗ percent

1:46:30 ↗ at any rate I if the council wanted to

1:46:33 ↗ have you know take a look at that table

1:46:35 ↗ that we looked at

1:46:36 ↗ um at the mobility and infrastructure

1:46:38 ↗ committee and talk that through I think

1:46:42 ↗ that might be a good thing and then I

1:46:43 ↗ think that

1:46:45 ↗ um Deputy council president Hall always

1:46:48 ↗ it's a long title uh was saying was we

1:46:52 ↗ had talked about that squawk Mountain

1:46:54 ↗ would be the next the next project up

1:46:59 ↗ um so it doesn't when we were deciding

1:47:02 ↗ that these two were our top priority it

1:47:05 ↗ wasn't saying that we didn't want to do

1:47:07 ↗ that project as well it's just it it

1:47:10 ↗ fits the criteria that we were being

1:47:13 ↗ given at that point

1:47:15 ↗ so that was the discussion that we had

1:47:17 ↗ and maybe we want to have a discussion

1:47:18 ↗ about that at the full Council so

1:47:23 ↗ okay so

1:47:25 ↗ um I think we've gone through all four

1:47:27 ↗ of the questions there

1:47:30 ↗ um just want to check in with Council if

1:47:32 ↗ there are any Project Specific any

1:47:35 ↗ general any anything else to make

1:47:39 ↗ comments on councilmember Hunt

1:47:42 ↗ uh thank you this is a small dollar

1:47:44 ↗ amount but I think an important item to

1:47:48 ↗ flag there was previously in the 2020 to

1:47:53 ↗ 2022 operating budget for replacement

1:47:56 ↗ there was a

1:47:59 ↗ safety device that's necessary for the

1:48:02 ↗ trolley to run it's 15 estimated fifteen

1:48:06 ↗ thousand dollars so it's very small

1:48:08 ↗ amount

1:48:09 ↗ um but relative to most of these

1:48:12 ↗ projects if not all of these projects in

1:48:15 ↗ the CIP but I did want to flag it

1:48:17 ↗ because though it is uh

1:48:20 ↗ and it was it was removed during the

1:48:23 ↗ covet related budget cuts and because at

1:48:28 ↗ the time the trolley was also not

1:48:29 ↗ running and it's still not running

1:48:32 ↗ um I flagged that for council's

1:48:34 ↗ consideration because it is important I

1:48:37 ↗ understand that it is important from the

1:48:38 ↗ perspective of the isqua history museums

1:48:41 ↗ to know if that will be covered by the

1:48:44 ↗ city and I think that given given that

1:48:48 ↗ we have this city piece of equipment

1:48:52 ↗ um I I do believe that we should make

1:48:54 ↗ sure that we do indicate through our

1:48:57 ↗ planning process that we do plan on

1:48:59 ↗ funding that so that that's not a

1:49:03 ↗ barrier to the squad history museums

1:49:05 ↗ while they're considering the

1:49:07 ↗ feasibility and I understand from

1:49:09 ↗ talking to Paul winter sign that they're

1:49:12 ↗ currently working through that

1:49:13 ↗ feasibility of how how they could resume

1:49:16 ↗ the trolley and he's come to this

1:49:18 ↗ Council as well and spoken about that so

1:49:21 ↗ I wanted to flag that because it did

1:49:23 ↗ kind of fall off of the the

1:49:25 ↗ um budget previously and seems like this

1:49:29 ↗ could be a good opportunity to indicate

1:49:31 ↗ that in our plans we do plan on

1:49:33 ↗ upholding that equipment need in the

1:49:36 ↗ future

1:49:41 ↗ okay

1:49:42 ↗ um I'm gonna give just a little bit of

1:49:45 ↗ feedback seeing nobody else

1:49:48 ↗ um all of that so I think we jumped

1:49:51 ↗ right into the direction needed but it's

1:49:54 ↗ really important for me as we're looking

1:49:56 ↗ through all of this just to appreciate

1:49:58 ↗ what the process has been we had some

1:50:01 ↗ excellent feedback from the boards and

1:50:04 ↗ commissions and I just really really

1:50:07 ↗ want to appreciate that

1:50:09 ↗ um I think there were a lot of comments

1:50:11 ↗ there about hey we should make sure to

1:50:12 ↗ revisit the criteria and kind of where

1:50:15 ↗ things are set for each color area after

1:50:18 ↗ we've used this the first time so I want

1:50:20 ↗ to reflect that back I will absolutely

1:50:21 ↗ put that in the council president letter

1:50:24 ↗ um just as a understanding of hearing

1:50:27 ↗ that and it's something that we need to

1:50:29 ↗ look at as we start to utilize this

1:50:33 ↗ um

1:50:34 ↗ I appreciated having the active product

1:50:36 ↗ project inclusion history added to our

1:50:40 ↗ packet I think it should be added to the

1:50:42 ↗ CIP I think it's a really important

1:50:44 ↗ reference and keeping it with the

1:50:46 ↗ document is really important

1:50:49 ↗ um I also agree with council member

1:50:52 ↗ Ray's request for any projects that were

1:50:54 ↗ dropped

1:50:55 ↗ I similarly had a hard time with not

1:50:58 ↗ being able to prove a negative when I

1:51:00 ↗ was going back to the goals and outcomes

1:51:02 ↗ chart on this

1:51:05 ↗ number one

1:51:09 ↗ I

1:51:11 ↗ still don't for goal number one I still

1:51:14 ↗ don't know

1:51:16 ↗ if we have proven that

1:51:21 ↗ any new plan

1:51:24 ↗ is going to get those items added to a

1:51:27 ↗ future CIP

1:51:29 ↗ and from my perspective that was what I

1:51:32 ↗ meant with the number one I think we've

1:51:34 ↗ done a lot of other things on number one

1:51:39 ↗ um but I'd like so number one is

1:51:41 ↗ projects have a clear path to inclusion

1:51:43 ↗ in the CIP you've gone through a lot of

1:51:45 ↗ information about criteria and all of

1:51:48 ↗ that what I want to make sure is when a

1:51:51 ↗ plan is created all of the items are

1:51:54 ↗ being put into a hopper and considered

1:51:57 ↗ and all of that because one of the

1:51:59 ↗ things we had heard from the community

1:52:00 ↗ was we make all these plans

1:52:03 ↗ and then they either don't appear in

1:52:04 ↗ code or they don't appear in the CIP

1:52:07 ↗ and again I can't prove a negative there

1:52:10 ↗ on that

1:52:11 ↗ um so I'll put that as a question mark

1:52:14 ↗ on my side as I'm trying to determine

1:52:16 ↗ have we satisfied our goals and outcomes

1:52:19 ↗ um and then on the number three criteria

1:52:23 ↗ or goal which is projects have an

1:52:26 ↗ accountable path toward execution and or

1:52:28 ↗ completion I think we still need a

1:52:31 ↗ little bit more work on understanding

1:52:34 ↗ where a project is on the project page

1:52:38 ↗ on its way to completion are we in

1:52:41 ↗ design phase are we in construction you

1:52:45 ↗ know are we waiting to gather money

1:52:50 ↗ um I think that level Clarity on a

1:52:53 ↗ specific project page is

1:52:56 ↗ really important for a future Council

1:52:59 ↗ that might come in or for the community

1:53:00 ↗ that's trying to understand oh this is a

1:53:03 ↗ plan this is an item in the plan and

1:53:08 ↗ they're trying to figure out funding for

1:53:10 ↗ it or the design work was done 10 years

1:53:13 ↗ ago and there hasn't been any work on

1:53:17 ↗ construction because

1:53:19 ↗ there isn't funding there yet so those

1:53:22 ↗ are two things that I'm going to look at

1:53:23 ↗ when I'm trying to

1:53:26 ↗ see whether we have accomplished what we

1:53:28 ↗ set out to I think we've done amazing

1:53:31 ↗ things and if we didn't have the goals

1:53:33 ↗ and outcomes chart it would be really

1:53:34 ↗ easy for me to say yay criteria yay we

1:53:38 ↗ went towards the commissions yay we've

1:53:40 ↗ um

1:53:41 ↗ we've rethought what some of the things

1:53:43 ↗ are

1:53:44 ↗ but because we have those goals and

1:53:47 ↗ outcomes I want to make sure that those

1:53:49 ↗ two are satisfied as we go into it

1:53:53 ↗ um so that's some of my feedback I'm

1:53:55 ↗ going to give Council any other thoughts

1:53:58 ↗ questions councilmember hunt

1:54:01 ↗ um so before we had this meeting I did

1:54:04 ↗ go back and read the prior council

1:54:06 ↗ president Council president's letter

1:54:08 ↗ from the last CIP

1:54:10 ↗ um because I I find that helpful and you

1:54:13 ↗ know I think one of the things that we

1:54:15 ↗ need to do is just track these projects

1:54:19 ↗ that have taken

1:54:21 ↗ um for various reasons a long time have

1:54:23 ↗ been in plans a long time so

1:54:25 ↗ um the sidewalks on squawk is still a

1:54:27 ↗ few years out I I would like to make

1:54:30 ↗ sure that we have a dedicated funding

1:54:32 ↗ source for that and so that that does

1:54:34 ↗ begin

1:54:36 ↗ um so I think it'd be great if we can

1:54:38 ↗ move up the timeline and currently

1:54:39 ↗ starting in 2026 but in any event that

1:54:43 ↗ was flagged in that last letter as as a

1:54:45 ↗ project that we need to prioritize as a

1:54:50 ↗ council to move forward so I will I will

1:54:52 ↗ flag that it is in the plan it's not not

1:54:56 ↗ starting quite yet

1:54:58 ↗ um

1:55:00 ↗ on another thing in the plan as as you

1:55:03 ↗ mentioned is that

1:55:05 ↗ um we had

1:55:07 ↗ felt like the uh commissions were

1:55:11 ↗ brought into the process but they could

1:55:12 ↗ be brought in earlier to have a bigger

1:55:14 ↗ impact and I think we did see that so I

1:55:16 ↗ wanted to complement the administration

1:55:19 ↗ um they were brought in earlier and I

1:55:20 ↗ think in a meaningful Way by including

1:55:23 ↗ their feedback into the criteria that

1:55:25 ↗ were applied so that allows allowed for

1:55:28 ↗ this engagement at a high level across

1:55:31 ↗ the whole plan which I think is really

1:55:33 ↗ the the way that our boards and

1:55:36 ↗ commissions are able to have

1:55:38 ↗ um have that big impact and I think they

1:55:41 ↗ they were able to

1:55:43 ↗ engage this year and we really benefited

1:55:45 ↗ from having that feedback a lot both of

1:55:48 ↗ the Committees Council committees and um

1:55:51 ↗ and as we are considering the whole plan

1:55:53 ↗ so they did a great job and I think the

1:55:55 ↗ the process also facilitated that

1:55:59 ↗ um

1:56:00 ↗ and then one other thing from that

1:56:02 ↗ letter uh somewhat miscellaneous but we

1:56:05 ↗ had

1:56:06 ↗ flagged the large increase in the way

1:56:08 ↗ finding and signage project and I I it

1:56:14 ↗ it still does have a large future years

1:56:17 ↗ spend on it

1:56:19 ↗ um and so I think that's one that we

1:56:21 ↗ should it's a PK 44 I believe

1:56:27 ↗ um and so I think

1:56:28 ↗ as we go forward just flagging those

1:56:31 ↗ things that we have discussion about and

1:56:33 ↗ making sure that we understand why those

1:56:35 ↗ are large projects even if they're in

1:56:39 ↗ the future years and I think that's part

1:56:41 ↗ of our responsibility as a council so I

1:56:44 ↗ wanted to flag that one overall I think

1:56:46 ↗ the process is much improved I think the

1:56:49 ↗ council president's letter is a great

1:56:51 ↗ way to flag things that don't make it in

1:56:54 ↗ that are long-standing commitments or

1:56:56 ↗ something that council grappled with

1:56:58 ↗ that we want to make sure we pick up in

1:57:01 ↗ the next or that the future Council will

1:57:03 ↗ want to pick up in the next iteration

1:57:05 ↗ but this overall is a much more

1:57:08 ↗ transparent process than last time which

1:57:10 ↗ has been great and I think sets us up

1:57:13 ↗ well for success as we consider as we

1:57:17 ↗ continue to deliberate

1:57:21 ↗ I will throw one more thing back

1:57:24 ↗ um as well I think we probably need to

1:57:27 ↗ have a conversation about the pavement

1:57:29 ↗ Management program which is tro30 based

1:57:32 ↗ on the memo the funding level that is

1:57:36 ↗ proposed in the CIP is from before

1:57:40 ↗ receiving that memo

1:57:42 ↗ um and so I'd like to understand what

1:57:46 ↗ the administration's approach to having

1:57:49 ↗ that conversation whether you feel

1:57:51 ↗ comfortable having the CIP continue at

1:57:54 ↗ that level and then we will have a

1:57:56 ↗ policy conversation about what levels we

1:57:59 ↗ want to fund arterials versus connectors

1:58:02 ↗ Etc

1:58:03 ↗ um and when that would happen

1:58:10 ↗ um

1:58:10 ↗ so uh thank you for that question I

1:58:14 ↗ think

1:58:15 ↗ um what uh

1:58:17 ↗ what we're talking about and what we had

1:58:19 ↗ indicated in the materials for this

1:58:21 ↗ evening is that we are seeing a decline

1:58:24 ↗ in our real estate excise tax revenues

1:58:27 ↗ and because of that decline we're

1:58:31 ↗ forecasting out for the period of the

1:58:33 ↗ CIP

1:58:34 ↗ and what we anticipate given that

1:58:37 ↗ decline in revenues is uh we have to we

1:58:40 ↗ have to balance that out somewhere in

1:58:41 ↗ our expenditures and so we proposed uh

1:58:45 ↗ in the CIP a reduction of expenditures

1:58:48 ↗ towards PMP versus what was approved for

1:58:52 ↗ the budget this year and what was

1:58:54 ↗ approved for the budget in 2024.

1:58:57 ↗ um we also don't that's what our

1:59:00 ↗ forecast is now I think as we look at

1:59:02 ↗ our mid biennium adjustment for our

1:59:05 ↗ budget as we keep an eye on those

1:59:08 ↗ forecasts it may be that that Revenue

1:59:10 ↗ exceeds our forecast expectations at

1:59:13 ↗ this point in time and so while the CIP

1:59:16 ↗ is a planning document and not a budget

1:59:18 ↗ we look forward to having more of those

1:59:21 ↗ budgetary conversations on how to fund

1:59:24 ↗ the PMP as we learn more about our

1:59:28 ↗ anticipated revenues and as we get to

1:59:30 ↗ that part of the process of actually

1:59:32 ↗ budgeting we did want to flag that in

1:59:35 ↗ the materials tonight that we are seeing

1:59:38 ↗ a decline in these revenues and that

1:59:40 ↗ means we have to balance it out with how

1:59:43 ↗ we apportion that to the expenditures we

1:59:46 ↗ anticipate

1:59:48 ↗ so the email that I got back to asking

1:59:50 ↗ questions about this is that the

1:59:54 ↗ estimated Revenue in the CIP is still

1:59:57 ↗ showing the four million dollars per

1:59:59 ↗ year so it hasn't been adjusted

2:00:03 ↗ um what I was asking about is more

2:00:07 ↗ in the

2:00:09 ↗ so the the amount of expenditure that we

2:00:14 ↗ are recommending in the CIP has not

2:00:17 ↗ changed for the pavement Management

2:00:19 ↗ program

2:00:21 ↗ I think I'll ask that as a question and

2:00:25 ↗ then

2:00:27 ↗ the need seems to be increasing based on

2:00:31 ↗ this memo so as far as I understand it

2:00:34 ↗ then we're basically

2:00:36 ↗ reporting in the CIP under what we might

2:00:40 ↗ think there is a need because we really

2:00:42 ↗ haven't had the policy conversation

2:00:44 ↗ around what level of

2:00:48 ↗ pavement scores should we

2:00:51 ↗ set

2:00:53 ↗ CeCe is going to speak a little bit

2:00:54 ↗ about the specific changes but I just

2:00:56 ↗ wanted to talk about the what we're

2:00:58 ↗ seeing with Reed and where are the kind

2:01:00 ↗ of the benchmarks we're going to see in

2:01:02 ↗ the future so right now we're seeing a

2:01:04 ↗ trend of read decreasing month over

2:01:06 ↗ month for the first several months of

2:01:11 ↗ this year of 2023 and we were seeing it

2:01:14 ↗ try to slow down now we saw large

2:01:16 ↗ commercial transactions the past few

2:01:17 ↗ years those have diminished rapidly

2:01:20 ↗ we're not seeing that that same level of

2:01:21 ↗ commercial activity in the city right

2:01:23 ↗ now and it's the same thing with

2:01:25 ↗ residential residential has decreased

2:01:26 ↗ significantly in median home sales

2:01:29 ↗ prices have dropped off their peaks

2:01:31 ↗ they're still higher than they were in

2:01:31 ↗ 2019 but they dropped over the peaks of

2:01:34 ↗ the past two years so is this a trend is

2:01:37 ↗ it six months I know I went to a

2:01:38 ↗ presentation by the King County

2:01:39 ↗ Economist a few weeks ago that said that

2:01:42 ↗ there's still you know a lot of the

2:01:43 ↗ forecasts are still showing kind of a

2:01:45 ↗ dip bounce where re kind of bottoms out

2:01:47 ↗ in the summer then it starts recovering

2:01:48 ↗ so it's too soon to tell what 2024 is

2:01:51 ↗ going to be it's actually too soon to

2:01:53 ↗ tell what 2023 where it's going to land

2:01:54 ↗ I think the June July August are kind of

2:01:57 ↗ those critical months to see

2:01:59 ↗ uh really where where this year is going

2:02:01 ↗ to land right now so that being said

2:02:03 ↗ that's what we're still looking at 24.

2:02:04 ↗ it's just uncertain so we are being

2:02:06 ↗ conservative in the budget in the CIP

2:02:08 ↗ that you're seeing we're being

2:02:09 ↗ conservative because Reed of all the

2:02:11 ↗ revenue sources in the city is the most

2:02:12 ↗ volatile it's based on

2:02:14 ↗ the behavior of the real estate market

2:02:17 ↗ because there's so many different

2:02:18 ↗ factors in and especially here because

2:02:19 ↗ we have such large commercial Parcels

2:02:22 ↗ that tend to flip over a lot and turn

2:02:24 ↗ over year over year that also drives our

2:02:27 ↗ reads so it's it's actually more

2:02:29 ↗ has more fluctuations and than other

2:02:32 ↗ cities have in that Revenue source and

2:02:34 ↗ then Susie's going to talk to the

2:02:35 ↗ specifics

2:02:37 ↗ a lot quicker so

2:02:40 ↗ um so for what's proposed in the CIP for

2:02:43 ↗ pavement Management in 2024 compared to

2:02:46 ↗ what's in the budget so to clarify one

2:02:49 ↗ point

2:02:50 ↗ um we're not proposing an adjustment to

2:02:52 ↗ the 2023 budget

2:02:54 ↗ um I mean now that we've done a biennial

2:02:56 ↗ budget technically it's both years but

2:02:58 ↗ for the purposes of planning for

2:03:00 ↗ contract purposes 2023 is what it is

2:03:03 ↗ um that is what's adopted for 2024 we're

2:03:06 ↗ proposing at least for planning purposes

2:03:09 ↗ in the CIP of reduction

2:03:11 ↗ um that uh the 2024 budget anticipated

2:03:14 ↗ about 2.7 million the proposed CIP takes

2:03:17 ↗ it down to about 2 million

2:03:20 ↗ um and as Robert mentioned we will see

2:03:22 ↗ how Reit plays out over the course of

2:03:24 ↗ this year and certainly into next year

2:03:26 ↗ and if we're able to add funding back

2:03:28 ↗ to that we can certainly look at you

2:03:31 ↗ know where that Revenue goes and discuss

2:03:32 ↗ that with the council but for now based

2:03:34 ↗ on the Reit revenues that we're seeing

2:03:36 ↗ so far at least for the next year what

2:03:38 ↗ we're forecasting at least for now for

2:03:40 ↗ the next couple years we have reduced

2:03:42 ↗ down what's anticipated for 24 and 25

2:03:45 ↗ but just for planning purposes in the

2:03:47 ↗ CIP if we do take it back to reduce it

2:03:49 ↗ that would be part of the biennial

2:03:51 ↗ budget process the mid biennium update

2:03:53 ↗ later this fall this CIP would not

2:03:56 ↗ um codify that reduction that would come

2:03:59 ↗ as part of the mid biennium update

2:04:03 ↗ so to answer the council president's

2:04:05 ↗ question about when we would have this

2:04:07 ↗ conversation what I heard you say is

2:04:10 ↗ um that you would like to have a

2:04:12 ↗ conversation about

2:04:14 ↗ um what what score do we want our roads

2:04:17 ↗ to have we talk about the pavement

2:04:19 ↗ condition index and what our overall

2:04:20 ↗ score is what is our goal and let's set

2:04:24 ↗ our um our our budget to that goal to

2:04:28 ↗ try to help us achieve that goal so when

2:04:30 ↗ would we have that conversation I think

2:04:32 ↗ what you just heard uh budget manager

2:04:34 ↗ Susie moncella say is that we would have

2:04:36 ↗ that we can have that conversation

2:04:37 ↗ during the mid biennium budget update

2:04:41 ↗ thank you appreciate it now I'll ask you

2:04:44 ↗ a question did you get what you needed

2:04:47 ↗ for the four questions is there anything

2:04:50 ↗ else you need from us before we have

2:04:52 ↗ that next conversation about the CIP

2:05:00 ↗ I have just one quick question just to

2:05:02 ↗ clarify on

2:05:03 ↗ the for the information for

2:05:07 ↗ number two and actually combined with

2:05:09 ↗ number one

2:05:10 ↗ is the council looking for different

2:05:12 ↗ scenarios for

2:05:13 ↗ you know multiple projects with an

2:05:15 ↗ issuance up front you're looking for

2:05:17 ↗ kind of like we presented to the m i

2:05:19 ↗ committee where we had a few different

2:05:20 ↗ scenarios or do you want a concrete

2:05:22 ↗ recommendation on how those funds

2:05:29 ↗ I'm not sure I understand the difference

2:05:32 ↗ between this

2:05:34 ↗ there was we presented options at the m

2:05:36 ↗ i committee a few weeks ago that showed

2:05:39 ↗ different scenarios a scenario one we'd

2:05:41 ↗ fund these projects over this time

2:05:42 ↗ period Senator gratuity fund another

2:05:45 ↗ group of projects over this time period

2:05:47 ↗ are you looking for recommendations from

2:05:49 ↗ Administration specifically on which

2:05:51 ↗ projects we put in terms of a bond

2:05:53 ↗ issuance if we did that up front are you

2:05:54 ↗ looking at a couple different options

2:05:56 ↗ for the council to decide on

2:05:58 ↗ with that funding source

2:06:04 ↗ so I guess the big question is does the

2:06:07 ↗ council need anything different than

2:06:10 ↗ what was presented here which is just

2:06:14 ↗ this as a potential sales tax and those

2:06:19 ↗ specific projects that would utilize

2:06:21 ↗ that funding source uh councilmember

2:06:24 ↗ hunt

2:06:26 ↗ well um I had raised that the letter

2:06:28 ↗ does have the squawk Mountain

2:06:31 ↗ um multi-modal project and

2:06:35 ↗ um I think that would be good to clarify

2:06:39 ↗ um I I think that it would be good to

2:06:42 ↗ have a funding source that is

2:06:44 ↗ specifically designated for that project

2:06:46 ↗ so that we can be sure to do it

2:06:49 ↗ um so I that information would be

2:06:52 ↗ helpful it sounds like there was a

2:06:53 ↗ little bit of a lack of clarity about

2:06:56 ↗ around that so it so I would like that

2:06:59 ↗ information to be brought back

2:07:02 ↗ Council membrane

2:07:04 ↗ and I think the other thing and I forgot

2:07:06 ↗ who it is that brought it up it was a

2:07:08 ↗ really good point the Sammamish

2:07:10 ↗ multimodal transportation is out a few

2:07:13 ↗ years and so that's not going to be

2:07:15 ↗ something with the council president

2:07:17 ↗ um we're going to get to so I'd like to

2:07:19 ↗ actually see kind of the timing of when

2:07:21 ↗ we're gonna if we do the sales tax when

2:07:25 ↗ we would start to see the revenue and

2:07:27 ↗ then

2:07:28 ↗ um superimpose that over the various

2:07:29 ↗ initiatives so we can kind of

2:07:32 ↗ map those together because I think if

2:07:35 ↗ there is a delay in most Sammamish

2:07:37 ↗ multimodal we might be able to Pivot and

2:07:40 ↗ go in a New Direction so

2:07:42 ↗ um so I don't know that we need

2:07:44 ↗ Alternatives I think it's really trying

2:07:45 ↗ to

2:07:46 ↗ um

2:07:47 ↗ to map the cash flows to the initiatives

2:07:50 ↗ to the schedule all those external

2:07:52 ↗ factors that are driving the schedule

2:08:00 ↗ um yeah no I agree that would be good

2:08:02 ↗ information no and I think that

2:08:03 ↗ Alternatives were so option one was

2:08:04 ↗ Northwest Spanish Road and its option

2:08:07 ↗ two was black nugget retaining wall on

2:08:09 ↗ its right and then option three was

2:08:12 ↗ squawk mountain multimodal tonight right

2:08:14 ↗ okay so yeah that information would be

2:08:16 ↗ good to hear and I think the other thing

2:08:18 ↗ you had heard from Council earlier was

2:08:20 ↗ that like oh well if we have the

2:08:22 ↗ authority to go up to 0.3 including the

2:08:24 ↗ ballot measure like what mix of products

2:08:26 ↗ can we do that may be more

2:08:28 ↗ transformative with our entire earth

2:08:31 ↗ authority and I don't think there's

2:08:32 ↗ necessarily an interest to get into that

2:08:34 ↗ right now especially because it seems

2:08:36 ↗ like most of us want to go down this

2:08:39 ↗ path first and see where that takes us

2:08:41 ↗ and there's a limited bandwidth for just

2:08:43 ↗ the point one percent councilman

2:08:45 ↗ Authority that we have so I don't think

2:08:47 ↗ we necessarily need unless anyone else

2:08:48 ↗ feels differently I don't think we

2:08:50 ↗ necessarily need to get into what would

2:08:51 ↗ we do with point two or point three

2:08:55 ↗ and Deputy council president Hall just

2:08:57 ↗ to clarify if we came back to you in I

2:09:00 ↗ guess two weeks with

2:09:02 ↗ a proposal that shows different

2:09:04 ↗ scenarios to fund those three main

2:09:05 ↗ projects the Sammamish Road

2:09:08 ↗ multimodal project the squawk Mountain

2:09:11 ↗ sidewalk and Trail project and the its

2:09:15 ↗ or did you want to see those previous

2:09:17 ↗ scenarios too

2:09:19 ↗ I think we so let me chime in here so

2:09:23 ↗ what I heard Council suggest is the

2:09:25 ↗ timing to that the administration return

2:09:27 ↗ with more details showing the timing of

2:09:30 ↗ when the city would begin to collect

2:09:33 ↗ these revenues and how that timing

2:09:35 ↗ matches up with the proposed projects

2:09:37 ↗ and timelines so that if there's

2:09:39 ↗ flexibility within the timing of when we

2:09:41 ↗ receive those revenues and perhaps a

2:09:43 ↗ project gets delayed what are our

2:09:45 ↗ options and what other projects might be

2:09:48 ↗ funded so we we can certainly come back

2:09:50 ↗ with more detail on the timing of

2:09:53 ↗ receiving the revenue our options within

2:09:56 ↗ our financing options including issuing

2:09:58 ↗ debt in order to pay for these projects

2:10:00 ↗ and then the timing of the the project

2:10:02 ↗ so we can come back with more

2:10:04 ↗ information on all of that next time

2:10:06 ↗ Council memory Michelle

2:10:09 ↗ I was just going to make the point that

2:10:11 ↗ Andrea just did and that is if I'm if

2:10:15 ↗ I'm correct the money coming in is not

2:10:17 ↗ necessarily the timeline that we're

2:10:19 ↗ going to have that timeline will be

2:10:21 ↗ determined by how we go out and get

2:10:23 ↗ financing based on

2:10:25 ↗ the revenue that we're anticipating

2:10:28 ↗ that's my understanding of it and so but

2:10:31 ↗ it would still be helpful for us all to

2:10:33 ↗ understand that and what's possible

2:10:36 ↗ under those potential

2:10:38 ↗ um timelines so I think it would be

2:10:40 ↗ really helpful if we could see all of

2:10:43 ↗ that laid out uh and what are our

2:10:45 ↗ options and um

2:10:50 ↗ do we want to go out to the public or do

2:10:53 ↗ we want to just do cancel manic or and

2:10:58 ↗ so forth I wanted I want to go back to

2:11:01 ↗ something that Connie Marsh said though

2:11:02 ↗ and that is we need to bring the public

2:11:06 ↗ along with us

2:11:08 ↗ and if we get two

2:11:12 ↗ uh what would the word be

2:11:14 ↗ two sold on one particular way to get

2:11:18 ↗ the money or how we're going to handle

2:11:21 ↗ it without any input from the general

2:11:24 ↗ public I think we're also shooting

2:11:26 ↗ ourselves and so it's good for us to

2:11:29 ↗ know what the options are I think we

2:11:32 ↗ need to be really careful about how much

2:11:34 ↗ we get committed to a certain path

2:11:36 ↗ before we have gone out in NASA public

2:11:39 ↗ their opinion so I just think we need to

2:11:42 ↗ be walk a very fine line there making

2:11:45 ↗ sure that we are leaving options open to

2:11:47 ↗ to hear from our community about what

2:11:50 ↗ they want

2:11:54 ↗ councilmember hunt

2:11:56 ↗ I have um one more information ask for

2:11:59 ↗ the next time which is on the

2:12:03 ↗ um on the public safety space needs

2:12:05 ↗ project which currently has a and b

2:12:09 ↗ um

2:12:10 ↗ it is

2:12:12 ↗ has a starting year of 2025 and

2:12:14 ↗ completion year of 2028 so that is

2:12:15 ↗ completely within this CIP time Horizon

2:12:19 ↗ I think it is

2:12:22 ↗ um

2:12:23 ↗ I I think this the value of the planning

2:12:27 ↗ document is to see how these different

2:12:29 ↗ timelines interact and to plan out for

2:12:31 ↗ these different expenses and to see what

2:12:33 ↗ the entire

2:12:34 ↗ um what the entirety of all of these

2:12:36 ↗ different projects is going to be over

2:12:38 ↗ the next couple years and so I think we

2:12:41 ↗ should have a timeline for that one I

2:12:43 ↗ think I um it I think in my review it

2:12:47 ↗ would be the only project that doesn't

2:12:48 ↗ have a timeline if we don't include one

2:12:50 ↗ so between it having two options and

2:12:53 ↗ having no timeline

2:12:55 ↗ um I think I think for our planning

2:12:58 ↗ purposes we should have that timeline

2:13:00 ↗ there again especially because it's in

2:13:02 ↗ completely within this time Horizon that

2:13:04 ↗ rcip is covering

2:13:06 ↗ um so I would like that to be brought

2:13:08 ↗ back and I understand that there are two

2:13:10 ↗ options and so it's a bit more

2:13:13 ↗ complicated probably with those options

2:13:15 ↗ but as it says many times over in this

2:13:18 ↗ document it's not

2:13:20 ↗ um it's not a budget commitment it is

2:13:22 ↗ for planning and so I think we would be

2:13:25 ↗ better served and we would also it would

2:13:28 ↗ be more transparent for the public if we

2:13:30 ↗ have the timeline as it stands now for

2:13:33 ↗ that project laid out and I suppose

2:13:36 ↗ since we have both options they wouldn't

2:13:38 ↗ have to include

2:13:39 ↗ both of those options in there

2:13:45 ↗ okay

2:13:47 ↗ you have what you need

2:13:50 ↗ I I believe we do thank you

2:13:53 ↗ okay fantastic

2:13:56 ↗ great feedback everyone

2:13:58 ↗ um much appreciated and so at this point

2:14:01 ↗ I think do we have a good of the order

2:14:03 ↗ on

2:14:05 ↗ the agenda likely anybody have anything

2:14:09 ↗ for good of the order

2:14:12 ↗ uh Deputy council president Hall

2:14:15 ↗ uh announcement on thinking boards and

2:14:18 ↗ commissions from Council leadership so

2:14:19 ↗ first and foremost thank you to

2:14:20 ↗ councilmember hunt for sharing our

2:14:22 ↗ thanks with uh planning policy

2:14:24 ↗ commission

2:14:25 ↗ um as promised I just want to list out

2:14:27 ↗ some upcoming meetings again see if

2:14:29 ↗ anyone wants to

2:14:30 ↗ take any assignments on and so the

2:14:34 ↗ lodging Tax Advisor committee meeting is

2:14:35 ↗ this Thursday but I do hope that council

2:14:38 ↗ member Joe who's out there somewhere can

2:14:40 ↗ pass along our thanks to that script

2:14:42 ↗ that group I'll follow up with a phone

2:14:43 ↗ call to him tomorrow to make sure he's

2:14:45 ↗ okay with that environmental board is

2:14:47 ↗ this Wednesday evening I volunteered to

2:14:50 ↗ take that on unless anyone else feels

2:14:52 ↗ strongly that they'd like to

2:14:54 ↗ um the sister cities commission is also

2:14:56 ↗ this Wednesday evening if anyone would

2:14:58 ↗ like to thank that commission the

2:15:00 ↗ economic Vitality

2:15:02 ↗ um commission is is next Wednesday and

2:15:04 ↗ council member D Michelle

2:15:05 ↗ potentially

2:15:08 ↗ oh that's right okay so we will oh well

2:15:12 ↗ then oh yeah both of us will be at AWC

2:15:14 ↗ so if anyone wants to take that one on

2:15:16 ↗ please let me know I'll send out a

2:15:17 ↗ follow-up email of course as well Human

2:15:19 ↗ Services Commission is next Wednesday

2:15:21 ↗ the Civil Service Commission is next

2:15:23 ↗ Thursday and then tab is the last

2:15:26 ↗ Wednesday of the month on June 28th

2:15:29 ↗ um so just a reminder for that in effect

2:15:32 ↗ um calendar invites coming up but if

2:15:34 ↗ you'd like to participate in any of this

2:15:35 ↗ just let us know thanks

2:15:38 ↗ okay and and that we are adjourned at 8

2:15:42 ↗ 46 pm thank you everyone

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Excused

Russell Joe

Motions and votes (1)

Continue the public hearing to the June 26, 2023 City Council meeting. .

Moved by WALSH · seconded by HALL

Carried 6-0

In favor: Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall, Victoria Hunt, Tola Marts, Chris Reh, Lindsey Walsh