City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, February 12, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

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

packet pp.5–33

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Receive project overview from Cascade and ask questions. Provide input to the City of Issaquah’s Cascade Board representatives on contract selection. Provide feedback to the Administration on the planned approach for City Council updates on the- contract selection and subsequent negotiations.

Cascade Water Alliance Water Supply Contract Options ID 1610

60 min · Chuck Clarke, Cascade Water Alliance · packet pp.35–72

Topics: Water

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 16, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 23, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting · Dec 4, 2023

Open packet at p.35 ↗

Staff report:

Receive the City Work Plan update and ask questions. Provide input to the Administration on the planned approach for work and City Council engagement in 2024.

City Work Plan ID 1655

20 min · Dale Markey-Crimp, Assistant to the City Administrator · packet pp.73–97

Open packet at p.73 ↗

Staff report:

Administration is requesting direction to proceed with ARCH Strategic Plan.

A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) Strategic Plan ID 1641

30 min · Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Topics: Housing

Good of the Order

3758 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ welcome everyone I council president

0:07 ↗ Walsh call the February 12th city

0:10 ↗ council Committee of the whole meeting

0:11 ↗ to order as a reminder we continue to

0:14 ↗ have a remote aspect to our meeting so

0:16 ↗ tonight we have council member Rey and

0:20 ↗ some members of Staff as well as

0:22 ↗ potentially the public who may be

0:25 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting

0:26 ↗ remotely via WebEx the first item item

0:30 ↗ on our agenda is public

0:34 ↗ comment and so at this point members of

0:37 ↗ the public May address council at this

0:38 ↗ time in person or virtually those who

0:42 ↗ signed up in advance to make comments

0:43 ↗ will be called on first um if you're

0:45 ↗ joining us virtually and would like to

0:47 ↗ make comments please raise your virtual

0:49 ↗ hand or send the host a chat message if

0:53 ↗ you're on the phone you're going to look

0:54 ↗ for Star three if you've joined by

0:56 ↗ computer or a smartphone look for the

0:59 ↗ hand icon

1:00 ↗ if you're in the room and did not sign

1:02 ↗ up to speak I will ask for others um

1:05 ↗ other speakers before closing this

1:07 ↗ portion of the meeting so clerk has

1:09 ↗ anyone signed up to speak for comments

1:13 ↗ tonight council president nobody has

1:15 ↗ signed up previously to speak and we

1:18 ↗ didn't have no virtual attendees at this

1:20 ↗ time okay and do we have anyone who

1:23 ↗ would like to make

1:25 ↗ comments look like no so as a Remer

1:30 ↗ written comments can be submitted at any

1:32 ↗ time just email city council isqua

1:36 ↗ wa.gov

1:38 ↗ okay looking through the next item on

1:42 ↗ our agenda is ID 1610 Cascade water

1:45 ↗ Alliance water supply contract options

1:49 ↗ presented by Chuck clerk Cascade water

1:52 ↗ Alliance and started out by Emily Moon

1:55 ↗ thank you very

1:57 ↗ much good evening City Council uh we do

2:01 ↗ have a guest this evening Chuck Clark is

2:04 ↗ the lead contracts negotiator for

2:06 ↗ Cascade water Alliance and he will be

2:09 ↗ presenting uh the bulk of the

2:10 ↗ presentation tonight I did want to just

2:13 ↗ introduce the item and introduce Chuck

2:16 ↗ also Matt Ellis our utilities

2:18 ↗ engineering manager is here with me

2:20 ↗ tonight Matt has been representing uh

2:23 ↗ City staff at many of the Cascade board

2:26 ↗ meetings where they have been discussing

2:29 ↗ uh these po IAL uh

2:32 ↗ contracts so tonight the purpose of our

2:34 ↗ meeting is to give you a first

2:37 ↗ opportunity to learn more about what

2:40 ↗ Cascade has been discussing and to share

2:43 ↗ an overview of the contract proposals

2:46 ↗ from Seattle Public Utilities and tooma

2:49 ↗ water district for long-term water

2:51 ↗ supply in our

2:54 ↗ region tonight because this is an early

2:57 ↗ first opportunity for some conversation

3:00 ↗ we're hoping that you might be able to

3:03 ↗ share any thoughts

3:05 ↗ considerations any concerns that you

3:07 ↗ might have or pose questions about this

3:12 ↗ uh water supplier uh contract

3:15 ↗ solicitation and selection

3:18 ↗ process and then ultimately at the end

3:20 ↗ of the meeting I will be asking if you

3:22 ↗ have any thoughts or considerations or

3:24 ↗ questions about the administration's

3:27 ↗ plan approach to providing city council

3:29 ↗ with updates on this project and on the

3:33 ↗ future negotiations with the selected

3:35 ↗ vendor so with that I'm going to turn it

3:38 ↗ over to Chuck Clark thank

3:45 ↗ you thank you Emily um and thank you all

3:49 ↗ for the opportunity for uh at least

3:52 ↗ bringing up to speed on some of the

3:53 ↗ discussions that have been going on with

3:55 ↗ both Seattle and Tacoma maybe a brief

3:59 ↗ comment about uh how I got back involved

4:02 ↗ in the discussions the contract uh

4:05 ↗ solicitation discussions um first I

4:08 ↗ actually used to be the CEO for Cascade

4:10 ↗ water and was brought back in EN acting

4:12 ↗ capacity last May for through um October

4:17 ↗ back to that position again and then

4:19 ↗ after that uh I am no longer the acting

4:21 ↗ CEO but I am uh working with the board

4:25 ↗ uh as the uh lead person discussing the

4:29 ↗ solicitations with both Seattle um and

4:32 ↗ Tacoma actually before that um I was the

4:35 ↗ director of Seattle Public Utilities and

4:38 ↗ was the direct was the deputy mayor in

4:40 ↗ Seattle for um for a while and before

4:44 ↗ that ran the regional office of EPA and

4:47 ↗ State Department of ecology so I've been

4:49 ↗ involved in the water issues for a long

4:52 ↗ period of time but spent a long time

4:55 ↗ working with Cascade and actually came

4:57 ↗ in front of the city council year years

4:59 ↗ ago as the Director of Seattle Public

5:01 ↗ Utilities when isaquel was trying to

5:03 ↗ decide whether to stay with Seattle

5:06 ↗ Public Utilities or to join Cascade and

5:09 ↗ I made a presentation at the time over

5:11 ↗ the benefits of staying with Seattle and

5:13 ↗ is a decided to go with Cascade so um

5:17 ↗ that chased me to Cascade So you you're

5:19 ↗ part of that but um for us uh the board

5:24 ↗ uh wanted to entertain a discussion with

5:27 ↗ anybody interested in taking a look at

5:29 ↗ what water might be available um in the

5:32 ↗ future so go ahead Matt let's start the

5:34 ↗ presentation um the purpose really is to

5:38 ↗ give you a quick overview on Cascade uh

5:42 ↗ some of the discussion of what the

5:44 ↗ current contract terms look like um why

5:48 ↗ we're even looking at solicitations now

5:50 ↗ um and what the uh purpose of that is an

5:53 ↗ overview of what we have heard um and

5:56 ↗ received from both Seattle and Tacoma in

6:00 ↗ uh in

6:01 ↗ solicitations uh some of the preliminary

6:04 ↗ recommendations uh uh specifics that

6:07 ↗ we've given to the board uh potential

6:10 ↗ construction impacts and impacts that

6:12 ↗ could occur to isqua and uh the future

6:17 ↗ um and then some discussion of a board

6:19 ↗ timeline for decisions next

6:22 ↗ meth um as many of you may know um see

6:27 ↗ Cascade is one of the four what are

6:30 ↗ called the big water suppliers um in

6:32 ↗ King in the region Seattle Everett

6:35 ↗ Tacoma um and

6:38 ↗ Cascade we are about

6:41 ↗ 25% of Seattle's uh customer base and

6:45 ↗ youth base um we were created in uh

6:50 ↗ 1999 partly out of frustration by a

6:54 ↗ number of wholesale customers over their

6:57 ↗ relationship with the city of Seattle um

7:00 ↗ and so as I started as the Director of

7:04 ↗ Seattle Public Utilities I heard a lot

7:06 ↗ about the frustration of the wholesale

7:09 ↗ customers and that ended up uh resulting

7:12 ↗ in the creation um of Cascades seven it

7:16 ↗ ended up with seven member agencies it

7:18 ↗ at one time was uh eight um Covington

7:22 ↗ was part comington purchased its way out

7:25 ↗ of being a member um of cascade and so

7:28 ↗ it continued now to be seven uh members

7:32 ↗ uh governed by a board of directors that

7:34 ↗ gives specific policy direction to the

7:37 ↗ staff at Cascade um so all policy is

7:40 ↗ determined by the board um and they

7:43 ↗ direct Cascade over what um they their

7:46 ↗ expectations are and what they want the

7:48 ↗ staff to be undertaking um as part of

7:51 ↗ the early um formation of cascade as

7:56 ↗ many of you know they uh purchased Lake

7:59 ↗ Taps um which has been owned and

8:02 ↗ operated by a Cascade now for over a

8:05 ↗ decade um and is was purchased really as

8:09 ↗ an insurance policy to the Future um

8:11 ↗ that may or may not be used for water

8:13 ↗ supply depending upon the impacts of

8:16 ↗ climate change depending upon the

8:18 ↗ impacts of future water supply issues

8:20 ↗ demand and Supply both next

8:24 ↗ slide um we currently have a contract um

8:27 ↗ with Seattle um it's called a block

8:30 ↗ contract um we pay for 33.3 million

8:34 ↗ gallons uh of water a year um it's

8:37 ↗ called a take or pay contract we pay for

8:40 ↗ 33.3 regardless of whether we use that

8:42 ↗ or not we actually pay at a slight

8:46 ↗ discount over what uh the other

8:49 ↗ wholesale customers pay for that um

8:51 ↗ contract we currently average about 28

8:54 ↗ million gallons a day of water use so as

8:57 ↗ you can tell we we pay for3 3 we Ed 28

9:01 ↗ but because of the discount we are

9:03 ↗ actually paying slightly less than we

9:04 ↗ would have paid if you were a member of

9:07 ↗ uh a wholesale member uh in uh still

9:11 ↗ with Seattle um the block contract that

9:15 ↗ we have uh with Seattle starts to

9:18 ↗ decline in

9:20 ↗ 2039 um which means at this point if

9:23 ↗ you're going to start taking a look at

9:26 ↗ what you may need in the future building

9:28 ↗ like tap or some other uh future Supply

9:31 ↗ you need to start taking a look at that

9:33 ↗ now so that you have enough lead time to

9:34 ↗ deal with that the contract with Seattle

9:37 ↗ ends at

9:38 ↗ 2063 between 2039 and 2063 it slowly

9:42 ↗ declines over time and it starting at

9:45 ↗ the end of 2063 there's about 5.3

9:47 ↗ million gallons still that are going to

9:50 ↗ be purchased from Seattle the rest um

9:53 ↗ will no longer be purchased from Seattle

9:57 ↗ next uh question always is why negotiate

10:00 ↗ now um part of the issue is when you

10:04 ↗ take a look at the Seattle contract

10:06 ↗ slowly ramping down you take a look at

10:09 ↗ what uh demand looks like and the demand

10:13 ↗ n line now is more the kind of yellow

10:15 ↗ amber color line um which still may be

10:18 ↗ slightly High um but shows that there

10:22 ↗ are some challenges in the um in the out

10:26 ↗ years if you don't start taking a look

10:29 ↗ at Lake Taps so if you take Lake Taps

10:31 ↗ off completely um right now uh you'll

10:34 ↗ see that there are problems with um with

10:37 ↗ having enough Supply so the issue uh and

10:41 ↗ the reason to start taking a look now is

10:44 ↗ one it takes 20 years if you're going to

10:45 ↗ plan to do something with uh L TS but

10:49 ↗ two um if either Seattle or Tacoma are

10:53 ↗ interested in providing additional water

10:56 ↗ in the future you need to lock that

10:58 ↗ water up as soon soon as possible so

11:00 ↗ that you uh are not forced into too

11:04 ↗ early into looking at building uh uh

11:07 ↗ Lake Taps and building treatment at Lake

11:09 ↗ Taps next

11:12 ↗ slide um when you look at the region as

11:15 ↗ a whole um you know you saw that the

11:17 ↗ previous slide that says oh we may have

11:19 ↗ some challenges but if you look at the

11:20 ↗ region at a whole and you look at AG

11:23 ↗ what's called aggregate water supply

11:25 ↗ what's available in the region when you

11:26 ↗ look at um both north uh to eett sish

11:31 ↗ County you look South to Tacoma and you

11:33 ↗ look at Seattle you'll see that even

11:37 ↗ with current forecasts and aggregate

11:39 ↗ forecasts which are fairly High there

11:41 ↗ still is a lot of water in the region as

11:44 ↗ a whole um and one of the challenges is

11:47 ↗ how do you maximize the use of all the

11:50 ↗ regional water um before you step off a

11:53 ↗ cliff of building additional Supply um

11:56 ↗ and the the if you think about

11:59 ↗ electrical utilities for example Mo the

12:02 ↗ inner ties they move electrons all over

12:06 ↗ um in dealing with electrical supply in

12:10 ↗ this region we have the flexibility of

12:12 ↗ having sufficient water that in the long

12:14 ↗ run if you can figure out a way to have

12:16 ↗ a regionalized system you can be able to

12:19 ↗ move those molecules of water throughout

12:21 ↗ the region and it they won't have a

12:24 ↗ flavor they don't it isn't Everett water

12:26 ↗ or Seattle water or Cascade water or

12:29 ↗ Tacoma Water it's regional water and it

12:32 ↗ would it results in both a better

12:35 ↗ environmental solution but also a better

12:37 ↗ economic solution um in dealing with

12:40 ↗ water that's currently already available

12:42 ↗ next

12:44 ↗ slide when the board asked uh the staff

12:48 ↗ to take a look at Contract extensions

12:50 ↗ they put some principles in place or

12:53 ↗ objectives that they would like to see

12:55 ↗ um they said to the staff go out and

12:57 ↗ talk to Seattle and Tacoma see if you

12:59 ↗ can get a minimum of a 20year term or

13:03 ↗ longer because that then delays the need

13:06 ↗ to develop uh Lake Taps um give see if

13:10 ↗ you can get reasonable and predictable

13:12 ↗ costs so if you get an extension from

13:15 ↗ Seattle or an extension from Tacoma can

13:17 ↗ you get reasonable and predictable costs

13:19 ↗ um in dealing with that um it wants they

13:23 ↗ want us to be more effective cost

13:25 ↗ effective than building out leg Taps so

13:27 ↗ don't just go out and get uh an

13:29 ↗ agreement in place but rather put

13:31 ↗ something in place that is an economic

13:32 ↗ benefit to all of our customers they

13:35 ↗ wanted flexibility to adapt to changing

13:37 ↗ circumstances in other words in 15 or 20

13:40 ↗ years can you put certainty in the

13:42 ↗ system for some medium term but provide

13:45 ↗ flexibility to Future elected decision

13:47 ↗ makers the board members of cascade and

13:50 ↗ you all in having additional choices in

13:52 ↗ the future one of the reasons Cascade

13:55 ↗ was established was to give flexibility

13:57 ↗ and certainty was to give give all of

13:59 ↗ its members the ability to make choices

14:02 ↗ over where they wanted uh where they

14:04 ↗ could get the best um and most

14:08 ↗ appropriate deal for water supply rather

14:11 ↗ than being solely tied to Seattle that

14:13 ↗ was a principle for why Cascade was

14:16 ↗ established and they wanted us to to

14:18 ↗ honor that principle going forward and

14:20 ↗ then they wanted to look and see if

14:21 ↗ there's some way that this could lead to

14:23 ↗ Regional opportunities and maybe the

14:26 ↗ initial stages of kind of regional

14:28 ↗ ization of the system um uh can we start

14:32 ↗ down that path of having a more

14:34 ↗ regionalized system for the PES Sound

14:36 ↗ area next

14:38 ↗ slide um we've gotten some proposals

14:41 ↗ back from Seattle um we got uh Seattle

14:46 ↗ was willing to give a 10-year um

14:49 ↗ guaranteed extension um from 2040 to

14:53 ↗ 2049 um they uh said that they would off

14:59 ↗ also offer maybe two fiveyear extensions

15:01 ↗ beyond that but they wouldn't guarantee

15:04 ↗ those extensions um for the first

15:06 ↗ 10-year extension they wanted a $14

15:09 ↗ million which I called a penalty payment

15:12 ↗ um but a payment be because uh we get

15:17 ↗ are paying less unit costs than the

15:19 ↗ other wholesale customers they wanted to

15:21 ↗ make up that difference um and so they

15:23 ↗ wanted a $14 million additional payment

15:27 ↗ the they said we guantee you another

15:29 ↗ five years if you give us another $20

15:31 ↗ million um in penalty payments so that

15:35 ↗ that helps make up that difference um

15:37 ↗ and then they offered a

15:40 ↗ 40-year if the 10year uh actually worked

15:43 ↗ and if they were able to do the two

15:45 ↗ fiveyear extensions and they put some

15:47 ↗ some conditions on those that if I was

15:50 ↗ to give give you percentages I say the

15:52 ↗ 10 years 100% guaranteed the fiveyear

15:55 ↗ first fiveyear extension's about

15:58 ↗ probably 80

15:59 ↗ 85% uh uh risk of uh and the second five

16:06 ↗ year is probably about 70 or 75 year 75%

16:10 ↗ chance of getting that and the 40-year

16:12 ↗ extension with the conditions they put

16:14 ↗ on is about a 10% chance you'd be able

16:17 ↗ to get that 40-year extension um they

16:19 ↗ put a number of conditions on including

16:22 ↗ a regional a regionalized system um so

16:25 ↗ they put the conditions they put in

16:27 ↗ place and the premium they put on which

16:30 ↗ was 25% rate premium um would make it uh

16:35 ↗ it would make it difficult to do that

16:37 ↗ Tacoma on the other hand um offered a

16:41 ↗ 20year uh guaranteed contract uh

16:44 ↗ actually till last Friday now they're

16:46 ↗ somewhere between 25 and 35 years um of

16:50 ↗ a guarantee they've been working through

16:52 ↗ their system to see what they might be

16:55 ↗ able to provide including both what your

16:57 ↗ average uh

16:59 ↗ uh use is and also what your Peak use is

17:01 ↗ and they've decided they have more one

17:03 ↗ more water than they thought they had um

17:06 ↗ and so right now they're up to a 25 to

17:10 ↗ 35 year extension um and we're and would

17:14 ↗ be willing to sit down and look at uh

17:16 ↗ talk to us about being able to do that

17:18 ↗ so when I go through some of the numbers

17:20 ↗ today uh some of the benefits are

17:22 ↗ actually better for the Tacoma proposal

17:24 ↗ after last Friday um than they were when

17:27 ↗ we put this presentation together early

17:29 ↗ last week next slide yeah go

17:33 ↗ ahead CH Clark thank you um this has

17:36 ↗ been very informative um was there a

17:39 ↗ under under the uh Seattle contract for

17:42 ↗ the first 5year extension it was going

17:45 ↗ to cost $20

17:46 ↗ million is there a charge to the second

17:50 ↗ 5year extension no at all no not to why

17:53 ↗ they do

17:54 ↗ that well they because the first year

17:58 ↗ the first five-year

17:59 ↗ extension um they said if you want to

18:02 ↗ make sure that you get that uh fiveyear

18:05 ↗ extension uh we'll G we're willing to

18:08 ↗ guarantee that but it'll cost you $20

18:09 ↗ million we're not going to guarantee the

18:11 ↗ second five-year extension so they

18:13 ↗ wouldn't charge us because they won't

18:15 ↗ guarantee it um so you're you're paying

18:18 ↗ a premium basically to get them to

18:20 ↗ guarantee they would give you that first

18:22 ↗ fiveyear

18:23 ↗ extension okay thanks thank you for that

18:27 ↗ clarification from a capital needs

18:30 ↗ perspective because this drives some

18:33 ↗ decisions about Capital needs um and

18:36 ↗ with Seattle 10 15 20 year extensions

18:39 ↗ there's no uh Capital needs prior to

18:41 ↗ building uh Lake Taps so you build you

18:44 ↗ look at the schedule and I'll come back

18:45 ↗ to that a little bit later um and Lake

18:48 ↗ Taps would then have to be built out uh

18:51 ↗ when at some point in that period

18:53 ↗ depending on what happens with the 50

18:54 ↗ and 20e extension um the 40e off

18:59 ↗ option if it was available um actually

19:02 ↗ is a pretty good option you could avoid

19:03 ↗ building Lake Taps the risk is it just

19:06 ↗ won't be available um and so you would

19:08 ↗ be making decisions now based on

19:10 ↗ something that has a high risk which

19:12 ↗ they've agreed has a high risk from a

19:14 ↗ Tacoma perspective um phase one uh and

19:19 ↗ you'll see the map here and and I'll

19:21 ↗ come back to this later because this is

19:23 ↗ where it's an issue for particularly for

19:25 ↗ potentially for isqua um Lake the lake

19:29 ↗ Taps buildout would occur in two phases

19:32 ↗ the first phase would just be

19:34 ↗ transmission because you would be

19:36 ↗ building a transmission line that would

19:38 ↗ allow you to move to Coma water North

19:41 ↗ and there are what's called a central

19:43 ↗ segment and a North

19:44 ↗ segment the the issue at this point is

19:50 ↗ uh you can probably get away with only

19:55 ↗ building the central segment if you're a

19:58 ↗ able to work out an agreement with

20:00 ↗ Seattle to use the existing distribution

20:02 ↗ system um and that's one of the

20:05 ↗ challenges uh when you look at these

20:07 ↗ Maps you'll see that there's a Spur um

20:10 ↗ leading to isqua here that's part of the

20:13 ↗ north alignment that that never assumed

20:15 ↗ that there could be an agreement to with

20:19 ↗ Seattle to to use the existing system

20:21 ↗ and so you would build uh a pipeline to

20:25 ↗ is partly part of which is is in the

20:27 ↗ ground because was done when there was a

20:29 ↗ transportation project I don't know five

20:32 ↗ six 10 probably 10 years ago now so

20:35 ↗ there's a small segment of pipe that's

20:37 ↗ actually sitting in the ground um and

20:40 ↗ has been mothballed um since it was put

20:42 ↗ in but the preference is you you look at

20:47 ↗ uh the you'll see two green lines on

20:48 ↗ there the four the northern one which

20:51 ↗ says North and Central transmission pipe

20:53 ↗ that's where we would connect to the

20:55 ↗ Tacoma system and come north if you look

20:59 ↗ at the that segment that the orange

21:01 ↗ segment that leads up towards what's

21:03 ↗ called Lake Young's that's the lake down

21:05 ↗ there that that runs right next to and

21:08 ↗ then into the distribution system that

21:11 ↗ is currently used to give water to the

21:13 ↗ east side um and the easy the best of

21:16 ↗ all Alternatives if you were doing a

21:18 ↗ regionalized system is you just build

21:20 ↗ that line connect to the existing

21:22 ↗ distribution line and you distribute

21:24 ↗ water the same way you've distributed it

21:26 ↗ historically that's the prefer

21:28 ↗ alternative um the question is would

21:31 ↗ would seal allow you to in essence what

21:34 ↗ they call Wheel water uh put water into

21:37 ↗ that system and distribute it and um

21:39 ↗ that would be the question that would

21:41 ↗ have to be dealt with but that's the

21:42 ↗ preference if you can't do that then

21:44 ↗ what happens is you look at the

21:46 ↗ alignment to isqua and that requires

21:50 ↗ it's a little more

21:51 ↗ complicated um because you then have to

21:54 ↗ reverse the flow in the bellw ISA

21:57 ↗ pipeline and run water back the other

21:59 ↗ way um from what it runs uh today next

22:03 ↗ uh before we move on we've got a

22:05 ↗ question council member marks yeah yeah

22:07 ↗ you said something and maybe I maybe I

22:09 ↗ heard it wrong you said something to the

22:11 ↗ effect of waiting to use Lake Taps the

22:14 ↗ risk is that it wouldn't be available no

22:17 ↗ the you would want to put what the

22:20 ↗ preference really is never to have to

22:22 ↗ use like Taps if you can figure out a

22:25 ↗ way to use the water regionally um

22:28 ↗ because there should be sufficient water

22:29 ↗ in the region to be able to deal with

22:31 ↗ that and I think future decision makers

22:34 ↗ are going to have to make choices about

22:36 ↗ that I just wanted to make sure there's

22:38 ↗ no I mean Lake Taps it's not like

22:41 ↗ somebody else would come along and poach

22:42 ↗ Lake Taps right we've got we have the

22:44 ↗ water right um the I think the

22:47 ↗ challenges for Lake Taps like the

22:49 ↗ challenges for Seattle Tacoma and others

22:51 ↗ is we're going to have to look over the

22:53 ↗ long run at what the implications of

22:55 ↗ climate change may be the clim the

22:58 ↗ implications of the glaciers um on Mount

23:01 ↗ rer which feed part of the White River

23:03 ↗ system so there are those things that

23:05 ↗ you'll have to uh consider as you look

23:07 ↗ to the Future um but uh we are in sole

23:10 ↗ control of Lake TAPS at this point thank

23:13 ↗ you uh council member

23:20 ↗ Hall Mike um thank you uh so in what I

23:24 ↗ heard too was that the risk was that the

23:26 ↗ 40-year option might not be available to

23:28 ↗ us so can you describe what that risk is

23:30 ↗ it's just that Seattle's need might be

23:33 ↗ more than they anticipate and so they

23:35 ↗ wouldn't be able they put they put a

23:37 ↗ number of conditions into the 40-year

23:40 ↗ agreement that uh it would require them

23:42 ↗ to have build to have developed a

23:45 ↗ regional system so they they will have

23:47 ↗ had to build inner ties which they have

23:49 ↗ done they've not talked to anybody nor

23:51 ↗ done any discussions on and uh or they

23:55 ↗ would have to develop an additional

23:57 ↗ water supply source and they're looking

23:59 ↗ at additional water supply sources

24:01 ↗ they've said they don't have water

24:03 ↗ available now um for that 40-year supply

24:07 ↗ and so they would have to meet a series

24:09 ↗ of conditions for developing additional

24:12 ↗ Supply to make that 40e available and

24:15 ↗ then if the 40 years is available you

24:16 ↗ need to pay a premium um to be able to

24:20 ↗ to um have that water and uh you Cascade

24:24 ↗ can't have that 40-year agreement on

24:27 ↗ only your individual members can have

24:29 ↗ that 40-year agreement um they don't

24:32 ↗ particularly like Cascade um as a whole

24:35 ↗ um so they have said it has to be the

24:37 ↗ individual members would be able to have

24:40 ↗ um join uh Seattle and the problem it

24:45 ↗ creates for individual members is you

24:48 ↗ still would own light Taps and you still

24:52 ↗ be paying for operation and maintenance

24:54 ↗ elect Taps and then you join Seattle you

24:57 ↗ would have have a premium to pay for

24:59 ↗ that water supply so it it creates

25:02 ↗ something that is probably not really

25:05 ↗ financially

25:08 ↗ feasible um next

25:11 ↗ slide uh from a capital needs draft

25:14 ↗ timeline you can look at from a Tacoma

25:17 ↗ perspective we'd start if you did a

25:20 ↗ Tacoma agreement because you're starting

25:21 ↗ to take a look at building a pipeline

25:23 ↗ the planning work really starts in 25

25:25 ↗ and 26 uh project Rivery prep starts in

25:30 ↗ 27 through 30 and then you'll see

25:33 ↗ project delivery in 31- 40 part of the

25:37 ↗ if you go back when that I showed you

25:40 ↗ that map that middle the middle segment

25:42 ↗ from the Tacoma uh pipeline to up near

25:45 ↗ Lake um Lake

25:48 ↗ Young's we've already I think we're at

25:51 ↗ about uh 90 we own 90% of that right

25:55 ↗ away ean's now uh already for that that

25:57 ↗ segment we don't for the other segments

25:59 ↗ but for that one we do um and so there

26:02 ↗ isn't as much property issues associated

26:05 ↗ with that portion of the segment um as

26:07 ↗ there would be if we have to do a

26:09 ↗ northern alignment with the Seattle if

26:12 ↗ they if we got the 10e extension it buys

26:15 ↗ us a little bit of time because we don't

26:17 ↗ have to start building a pipeline for

26:19 ↗ the Tacoma Water but it only buys you

26:21 ↗ really about 5 years um so because

26:24 ↗ you're still going to have to go off and

26:26 ↗ since they'll only gu guantee you 10

26:28 ↗ years you can't wait and find out

26:30 ↗ whether someday in the future they're

26:32 ↗ willing to give you additional water

26:34 ↗ you're going to have to start planning

26:35 ↗ and building um because if you wait the

26:38 ↗ risk is on you I mean what's happened is

26:40 ↗ with the Seattle discussions they've

26:42 ↗ tried to shift most all the risk to

26:44 ↗ Cascade um and that's create that's

26:47 ↗ creates challenges because you have to

26:48 ↗ make individual decisions on dealing

26:51 ↗ with that Matt next

26:54 ↗ slide uh the financials um roughly uh

26:59 ↗ the 10-year extension from Seattle's

27:01 ↗ worth about $53 million um uh for

27:07 ↗ Cascade under the existing contract even

27:09 ↗ with the slight premium we pay um the

27:12 ↗ two

27:13 ↗ fiveyear conditional extensions if we

27:16 ↗ were able to get them which uh is right

27:19 ↗ now an unknown is worth about another

27:22 ↗ 132 uh million and then the forear

27:25 ↗ extension will be worth 900 million it's

27:27 ↗ it's a valuable asset because you

27:29 ↗ wouldn't build Lake Taps through 2100 I

27:31 ↗ mean it it puts a long extension on

27:34 ↗ there for for Tacoma um the 25 if you

27:39 ↗ had a 25e contract it's worth about

27:42 ↗ roughly 300 million um it probably worth

27:45 ↗ a little bit more than that now we'll

27:46 ↗ have to run the numbers on it after last

27:49 ↗ Friday so I'm not sure how much of a a

27:52 ↗ benefit will be but it'll be worth more

27:54 ↗ than the 300 million the other issue is

27:58 ↗ to be honest if you're really making a

28:01 ↗ 20-year extension uh decision you're

28:04 ↗ going to be making another one in the

28:06 ↗ future and when you make another one in

28:08 ↗ the future there is water maybe from

28:11 ↗ Tacoma then Seattle more than likely

28:14 ↗ will be looking at if they did have

28:16 ↗ water at that time you could entertain

28:18 ↗ again uh because you're still using

28:21 ↗ Seattle water uh you can look at using

28:24 ↗ Seattle water again um or building Lake

28:26 ↗ Taps so what you're doing is just you're

28:29 ↗ finding the best deal you have available

28:31 ↗ at the time and then still leaving your

28:33 ↗ options open for a decision in the

28:35 ↗ future next

28:38 ↗ slide um just to give you a feel for um

28:43 ↗ what this looks like really through

28:46 ↗ about the next um 15 16 years the Tacoma

28:51 ↗ deal is significantly better from a cost

28:54 ↗ perspective um even with the work you're

28:57 ↗ doing on the construction um than uh

29:01 ↗ than the Seattle deal then uh if you

29:04 ↗ were able to get the Seattle agreements

29:07 ↗ they start getting better but not for

29:09 ↗ about 15 or 20 years um and that's

29:12 ↗ because the terms that that Tacoma has

29:15 ↗ offered are

29:16 ↗ about 75% of the cost of Seattle water

29:21 ↗ um even though we get a discount from

29:22 ↗ Seattle this is tomar is even discounted

29:24 ↗ further um and so it provides really for

29:27 ↗ about the next 15 or 20 years a much uh

29:31 ↗ better return for um Cascade members and

29:35 ↗ for their customers and so um it the one

29:39 ↗ thing on here that we've not dealt with

29:41 ↗ at all is any rate smoothing this is

29:44 ↗ just purely a conversion of all the

29:47 ↗ decisions into what the the costs are

29:49 ↗ year-by-year basis you would want to be

29:51 ↗ rate smoothing and figuring out how to

29:54 ↗ deal as you well know because you

29:55 ↗ probably rat smoooth all the time

29:57 ↗ um you'll have to deal with rate

29:59 ↗ smoothing as you as you go forward next

30:03 ↗ slide um the I think we can probably

30:07 ↗ skip this one because I've already done

30:09 ↗ that so let's go on the next

30:11 ↗ one uh so the preliminary recommendation

30:14 ↗ we gave to uh the board was to uh to

30:18 ↗ take a look in more detail at the Tacoma

30:21 ↗ uh offer it provided longer Supply

30:24 ↗ certainty with flexibility to make

30:26 ↗ decisions in the future

30:27 ↗ was more cost effective than anything in

30:30 ↗ the Seattle's 10-year proposal or the

30:32 ↗ 15-year proposal um when they put the

30:35 ↗ penalties in uh a lower construction

30:38 ↗ risk and time to adapt to changing

30:40 ↗ circumstances so buys us some time um

30:43 ↗ and it leads towards the first step in

30:46 ↗ actual regionalization uh of the Puget

30:50 ↗ Sound water supply system because you

30:52 ↗ put a pipeline in place and to be honest

30:55 ↗ when Seattle talked about a 40 extension

30:58 ↗ what they talked about was putting a

31:00 ↗ pipeline in place to Tacoma so it would

31:03 ↗ already uh be in place and would allow

31:06 ↗ the opportunities to deal with that as

31:07 ↗ we look to the

31:10 ↗ Future um the construction impacts for

31:14 ↗ isqua and I one of the reasons this is

31:16 ↗ not uh high on my priority list was

31:19 ↗ because I drove it when I first started

31:22 ↗ a Cascade 15 years ago and looked at the

31:24 ↗ alignment things have changed since then

31:27 ↗ um but it has a a mile of pipeline in

31:29 ↗ the sr900 corridor and what we would

31:33 ↗ look at now because things are different

31:35 ↗ than they were a decade ago is probably

31:37 ↗ microt tunneling um because you're not

31:39 ↗ building it's not a huge pipe and so you

31:42 ↗ would look at something trying to figure

31:44 ↗ out a way not to disturb um the as much

31:48 ↗ as you could do not to disturb the

31:50 ↗ highway issues because we know what that

31:52 ↗ would be like and um I think again it

31:58 ↗ isn't the preferred alternative because

32:00 ↗ the preferred alternative is is to use

32:02 ↗ pipeline that's already in existence and

32:05 ↗ um basically what that may require is

32:07 ↗ some legislative action to um require

32:09 ↗ Seattle to to wheel in their system um

32:13 ↗ and that would be something that we

32:14 ↗ would take a look at next

32:18 ↗ slide um for the board discussions uh

32:22 ↗ we're looking at March or April just to

32:25 ↗ get some further Direction from the

32:27 ↗ board whether they want us all you've

32:29 ↗ seen now is kind of what we've gotten

32:31 ↗ the solit solicitations we've gotten

32:33 ↗ back from Seattle and Tacoma you've seen

32:36 ↗ um what our preliminary recommendation

32:38 ↗ is but we would be asking the board um

32:41 ↗ probably in that timeline you want us to

32:44 ↗ pursue a detailed discussion with Tacoma

32:47 ↗ on what the contract would look like and

32:49 ↗ what the terms and conditions would be

32:52 ↗ um and if that's the case then we would

32:54 ↗ sit down and take a look at those uh

32:56 ↗ terms and condition conditions if they

32:58 ↗ if they said no we want you to stay with

32:59 ↗ Seattle it' be the same thing we sit

33:01 ↗ down with Seattle and have those

33:02 ↗ discussions we're looking at some board

33:04 ↗ authorization sometime in the fall of uh

33:09 ↗ 2024 um so there we're trying to provide

33:13 ↗ as much time as possible so that we can

33:16 ↗ get all the questions and issues uh out

33:18 ↗ on the table and discuss give the board

33:20 ↗ an opportunity you're actually the first

33:23 ↗ um Council or District I presented to um

33:26 ↗ actually tomorrow night I'm in Redmond I

33:28 ↗ think and over the next month I will

33:30 ↗ have uh been out to all seven of the uh

33:34 ↗ member uh organizations uh councils or

33:37 ↗ commissions I'm making this presentation

33:39 ↗ so that everybody gets as much

33:41 ↗ information as possible we've made this

33:44 ↗ as public as we possibly can um some

33:47 ↗ have argue we've made it public because

33:49 ↗ it hit Seattle and Tacoma against each

33:51 ↗ other uh We've argued we' made it public

33:54 ↗ because we want everybody to see all

33:56 ↗ this information

33:57 ↗ this was the reason Cascade was

34:00 ↗ established was to allow the members to

34:03 ↗ be able to make decisions about the

34:05 ↗ future and about where and how they want

34:08 ↗ to receive their water supply and this

34:12 ↗ this point is like one of the points

34:14 ↗ before when Lake Taps was ped this a

34:16 ↗ major decision uh that all the members

34:19 ↗ will have to decide whether this is what

34:21 ↗ they want um what they want for Cascade

34:24 ↗ and to be honest you know there's not a

34:27 ↗ it's not really a black and white right

34:30 ↗ or wrong decision there're these are

34:31 ↗ just choices to make they are they drive

34:35 ↗ different costs different construction

34:37 ↗ they drive different issues but at the

34:38 ↗ end of the day the board's just going to

34:40 ↗ have to decide what choice they want to

34:42 ↗ make going forward and where they want

34:44 ↗ to get that

34:47 ↗ water that's it for my

34:50 ↗ presentation excellent we'll start with

34:52 ↗ questions council member Joe thank you

34:54 ↗ so much uh for the great presentation I

34:57 ↗ had a question about the legislative

34:58 ↗ action that would be needed when you

35:00 ↗ change the Wheeling mhm um is that

35:03 ↗ legislative action that would be

35:04 ↗ necessary in Olympia or is that Seattle

35:06 ↗ City council legislative action yes okay

35:11 ↗ it could be it well it could be either I

35:14 ↗ it could be as simple as just Seattle

35:18 ↗ agreeing to wheel there is some there is

35:21 ↗ some language in the existing contract

35:23 ↗ on wheeling um it gives that right uh to

35:27 ↗ Seattle to make the decision on whether

35:28 ↗ to allow Wheeling or not partly because

35:31 ↗ they since I was over there when this

35:34 ↗ came out partly because of the fear of

35:37 ↗ OG gee we've got a protected Cedar River

35:40 ↗ Watershed and a tot Watershed and we

35:42 ↗ don't want Lake Taps water wield in our

35:44 ↗ system well now we're talking about

35:45 ↗ Tacoma Water which is from a protected

35:47 ↗ Watershed just like Seattle's water is

35:50 ↗ um so the first issue could just be

35:53 ↗ simply a an agreement with Seattle to to

35:56 ↗ allow wheeling in their system and you

35:58 ↗ would pay for that I mean um there is

36:01 ↗ always a charge of Wheeling if that's

36:03 ↗ not the case then it would take

36:04 ↗ legislative action that would allow

36:06 ↗ wheeling and that's happened in uh

36:08 ↗ several states have uh State statutes

36:13 ↗ that allow wheeling in existing Supply

36:15 ↗ systems and um we would look at

36:17 ↗ something like that thank you very much

36:20 ↗ I'll just uh close my questions out with

36:23 ↗ a thank you to you for stepping in when

36:26 ↗ our executive director Ray was uh not

36:29 ↗ available and uh you ay guided the

36:32 ↗ organization in the time you were there

36:34 ↗ really appreciate you being here in our

36:36 ↗ region and uh CWA being able to to tap

36:39 ↗ your knowledge during that time so thank

36:42 ↗ you I look forward to the questions and

36:44 ↗ conversation from my uh colleagues this

36:46 ↗ evening thank you was that a little bit

36:49 ↗ of a dad joke tapping your no okay not

36:53 ↗ intended not intended okay we're going

36:56 ↗ to start council member hunt then Hall

36:58 ↗ then Marts all right thank you um I do

37:01 ↗ have several questions I uh previously

37:04 ↗ but many years ago served on the Cascade

37:06 ↗ board as an alternate so um please bear

37:09 ↗ with me with these questions the first

37:11 ↗ one is I um I think that at one point

37:15 ↗ there was information provided about the

37:17 ↗ cost uh the current cost structure how

37:20 ↗ the purchase of Lake Taps and the

37:23 ↗ maintenance and the operations of Lake

37:25 ↗ TAPS in that previous decision

37:27 ↗ how that impacts the current rates and I

37:29 ↗ was wondering if you could give us

37:31 ↗ overview of that yeah I so I'm going to

37:35 ↗ try to remember the I'm going to be

37:36 ↗ close um with the numbers uh we're we're

37:41 ↗ paying probably about 10 to

37:45 ↗ 15%

37:47 ↗ discount from Seattle for the water we

37:51 ↗ purchase from

37:53 ↗ them then we're then you all are paying

37:56 ↗ a pre premium for Lake Taps uh for the

38:01 ↗ capital issues and the operational

38:05 ↗ issues and that puts the unit cost of

38:10 ↗ water

38:13 ↗ probably 15% higher than if it was you

38:18 ↗ still had the existing contracts with

38:21 ↗ Seattle I think roughly um where it is

38:24 ↗ so what you've done is that You could

38:27 ↗ argue that 15% is the insurance policy

38:30 ↗ you bought or the lake Taps policy you

38:33 ↗ purchased um for developing that as a

38:36 ↗ water supply that's about the premium

38:39 ↗ that's being

38:41 ↗ paid okay um I think that would be

38:44 ↗ helpful I think that at some point there

38:45 ↗ was a bar chart that showed that and so

38:47 ↗ I think um if if that could be we will

38:51 ↗ resurrect that for you resurrect it that

38:52 ↗ would be wonderful yes thank you um Okay

38:56 ↗ so my next question is uh I wondered and

38:59 ↗ this might be something that you could

39:01 ↗ provide um to the board or if it's if

39:04 ↗ it's not currently available but I

39:05 ↗ wondered if we could look at the costs

39:08 ↗ it I think that in the cost here for

39:11 ↗ Tacoma it it uh factors in that you're

39:14 ↗ building a pipeline that would also be

39:16 ↗ able to be used for Lake Taps is that

39:19 ↗ first of all check in with that okay so

39:21 ↗ um I think it would be useful uh because

39:24 ↗ Lake Taps is not because as you

39:27 ↗ mentioned it's preferred that we don't

39:29 ↗ have to develop Lake Taps I wondered if

39:31 ↗ you could provide the costs um without

39:34 ↗ that factoring in so the cost the the

39:38 ↗ cost to the rate pair is not factoring

39:40 ↗ in the relative difference because right

39:42 ↗ now it's providing the cost um relative

39:45 ↗ to the the savings relative to building

39:48 ↗ out Lake Taps and so if you take Lake

39:49 ↗ Taps off the table just for the sake of

39:52 ↗ argument I think that would be helpful

39:53 ↗ to look at what are the costs of the two

39:55 ↗ options yeah we can give

39:58 ↗ you uh we can break it out in three or

40:00 ↗ four different ways so you can see the

40:03 ↗ Alternatives we can uh break it out so

40:06 ↗ that you don't see the the lake Taps

40:09 ↗ cost when you look out into future

40:11 ↗ estimates we can also break it out so

40:13 ↗ you you you only see a central segment

40:17 ↗ of cost which is that would allow us to

40:19 ↗ do Wheeling through Seattle without

40:22 ↗ having to build if you look in here

40:24 ↗ you'll see there's a North segment and

40:25 ↗ some other

40:27 ↗ so we can give you if you're able to tie

40:31 ↗ into the Seattle system here's what the

40:33 ↗ cost to be and then we can give you

40:35 ↗ here's what the cost would be if you um

40:39 ↗ had to do kind of the full thing so you

40:42 ↗ can see it that way you can see all

40:44 ↗ those pieces and we have that

40:45 ↗ information we provided some of that to

40:47 ↗ the in the we did we've done I think

40:51 ↗ three four to five hour sessions with

40:54 ↗ member staff and with some of the board

40:57 ↗ members in in excruciating detail um and

41:00 ↗ so we can provide some of that to

41:02 ↗ you okay great yeah I think that would

41:04 ↗ be I think that would be helpful because

41:06 ↗ the lake Taps development is not a

41:08 ↗ preferred alternative and so I think

41:10 ↗ it's useful to think about Futures in

41:12 ↗ which we don't have that um developed

41:15 ↗ and then um okay uh on the on the demand

41:20 ↗ slide um and I recall this from my time

41:22 ↗ on the Cascade water Alliance board as

41:24 ↗ well there was a 20 six demand

41:27 ↗ projection that was was much higher than

41:29 ↗ it was realized and I did see that since

41:31 ↗ then our demand has been going down but

41:33 ↗ again the projection has it has it

41:36 ↗ making a u a u and then going back up

41:38 ↗ and so I wondered if you could talk to

41:40 ↗ maybe what the uncertainty is in that I

41:42 ↗ imagine that it factors in climate

41:44 ↗ change and a number of other things but

41:46 ↗ um I wonder if you could speak to that

41:47 ↗ and maybe also the the um if there are

41:50 ↗ things we we can do as a community to

41:54 ↗ make sure that we're not um that we do

41:57 ↗ continue what is currently a downward

41:59 ↗ Trend in the water demand it's a great

42:01 ↗ question um maybe a couple pieces of

42:05 ↗ information because it fits in with that

42:06 ↗ if you look at Seattle's Seattle

42:09 ↗ provides about 75 or 80% of the water in

42:12 ↗ the region um for water supply um and if

42:15 ↗ you go back to 92 since 92 the

42:20 ↗ population growth has been about 35 to

42:23 ↗ 40% for the service area

42:26 ↗ um the

42:28 ↗ actual

42:30 ↗ use has dropped 35 to 40% so you've got

42:35 ↗ population going up and you've got uh

42:37 ↗ per capita use and total and total use

42:40 ↗ down both um and so when Cascade because

42:46 ↗ you'll probably find a letter floating

42:48 ↗ from somewhere around that I wrote when

42:49 ↗ I was at Seattle um criticizing the uh

42:53 ↗ the demand estimate but the 2006

42:56 ↗ Testament was simply pretty much going

42:58 ↗ to each one of the members and saying

43:00 ↗ how much water do you think you're going

43:01 ↗ to

43:02 ↗ use Gathering that and then putting it

43:04 ↗ on a chart um and it as you can have

43:10 ↗ seen it was a way it was way over an

43:13 ↗ estimate we're going through right now

43:14 ↗ and updating that estimate and taking a

43:18 ↗ look at what assumptions you might be

43:21 ↗ able to make related to per capita use

43:24 ↗ in essence can you continue to see a

43:28 ↗ reduction in use patterns and if you can

43:32 ↗ uh how much if any does that reduce that

43:36 ↗ demand line um because you're basing

43:40 ↗ decision you base your decisions on what

43:43 ↗ that demand line looks like and so uh

43:46 ↗ we're taking a look at that now so

43:48 ↗ you're going to see an updated one

43:51 ↗ before we ask the board for a decision

43:54 ↗ um because we want to make sure that

43:55 ↗ we're we're basing it on the best

43:57 ↗ information um available the biggest

44:00 ↗ issue to continue to work on in the

44:04 ↗ region is Peak use um not average use um

44:10 ↗ because in this region uh Peak is what

44:14 ↗ drives you to build additional capacity

44:17 ↗ it's that summer use um which used to

44:21 ↗ be roughly probably twice what um

44:26 ↗ what average use was still is close to

44:29 ↗ that um Seattle uses about I think their

44:34 ↗ base use is about 105 million gallons a

44:36 ↗ day um on average for the year but

44:40 ↗ during the summer when they get to peak

44:42 ↗ days it it's between 180 and

44:46 ↗ 215 um now in ' 92 it was

44:50 ↗ 326 so huge decrease but that Peak use

44:57 ↗ continues to drive the need to go out

45:00 ↗ and build additional Supply because when

45:03 ↗ you look at the Way Seattle calculates

45:06 ↗ their ability to provide water it's not

45:09 ↗ based on the

45:10 ↗ 105 it's based on the 200 um so every

45:14 ↗ time you look at that when you say when

45:17 ↗ you ask do you need to provide water I

45:19 ↗ need to provide water to Peak if I

45:21 ↗ guarantee you that you're going to get

45:22 ↗ water so the more you can do to reduce

45:24 ↗ Peak the better off you are um and the

45:28 ↗ more water it makes it available in the

45:31 ↗ region okay great thank you um two more

45:36 ↗ one is um these uh construction projects

45:40 ↗ you know for the Tahoma pipeline um

45:43 ↗ several hundred million and then the

45:46 ↗ lake Taps is uh two billion I believe um

45:50 ↗ so I'm wondering if you can speak to the

45:54 ↗ the plan for funding those and then and

45:57 ↗ also you know uncertainty around that

45:59 ↗ because we did discuss uncertainty and

46:00 ↗ getting the contracts but not the

46:02 ↗ uncertainty in

46:03 ↗ the it's actually uh you know see how

46:07 ↗ our Cascade has started putting money

46:08 ↗ away already um so there they have had

46:12 ↗ uh money going into a fund over the last

46:15 ↗ few years that they're starting to build

46:17 ↗ a base for that construction those costs

46:20 ↗ are built into the cost estimates that

46:23 ↗ we showed you those charts they're built

46:24 ↗ in but we have details on that that we

46:27 ↗ can provide on that also um the

46:30 ↗ estimated costs for the pipeline was

46:35 ↗ basically we've put in a number of

46:37 ↗ inflation factors um we took a look at

46:40 ↗ what existing pipeline construction has

46:42 ↗ been in the last year so we actually

46:45 ↗ went out and looked at existing

46:47 ↗ pipelines that were under construction

46:49 ↗ looked at existing costs and then

46:51 ↗ inflated it by I think was 35% to give

46:56 ↗ us to try to

46:58 ↗ absorb uh

47:00 ↗ potential uh risk issues associated with

47:04 ↗ that Pipeline and there is you know the

47:07 ↗ biggest project going on in the region

47:09 ↗ is actually down in twon uh where they

47:12 ↗ are looking at getting out of the

47:14 ↗ Portland system and actually for the

47:16 ↗ last five years I've been

47:18 ↗ facilitating their technical experts

47:21 ↗ panels on how to go through the process

47:24 ↗ of looking at what those cost estimates

47:26 ↗ are so we tried to take steal some of

47:28 ↗ their work and utilize that in

47:30 ↗ estimating costs and we tried to to be

47:33 ↗ honest overestimate cost slightly to

47:36 ↗ make sure that um I hate underestimating

47:40 ↗ so um we have tried what we can to put

47:43 ↗ enough cushion in there to to deal with

47:45 ↗ those costs but we've got all of that

47:47 ↗ information broken down in a lot of

47:49 ↗ detail we can provide some of that basic

47:52 ↗ information to you when we provide you

47:54 ↗ the pipeline information I said earlier

47:57 ↗ you know the that by segment we can also

47:59 ↗ give you some of that

48:00 ↗ information okay thank you so um do I

48:04 ↗ understand then that uh the the rate

48:07 ↗ payers money from the rate payers would

48:09 ↗ be used to fund this two billion yeah

48:12 ↗ well unless you can get federal grants

48:14 ↗ and and do other stuff I mean if if you

48:16 ↗ ever went back to the way it was I ran

48:19 ↗ the Construction Grants program for

48:21 ↗ federal money back in the late 70s um

48:24 ↗ and that was when 0% grants were

48:26 ↗ available from the federal government

48:28 ↗ and um you know and if we ever went back

48:30 ↗ to the era where you got you could get

48:33 ↗ federal or state money we would uh jump

48:36 ↗ on that immediately but it just doesn't

48:38 ↗ I don't see that on the horizon at this

48:40 ↗ point okay okay thank you um I think

48:44 ↗ this is yes this is my last question so

48:46 ↗ on on one of the slides um with the

48:49 ↗ rates over time it was one of the last

48:52 ↗ slides that you showed um

48:58 ↗ that one yes thank you um so in this one

49:01 ↗ there is the Brown Line uh which looks

49:05 ↗ awfully nice um and so I'm wondering if

49:08 ↗ you can talk to is that the is that

49:10 ↗ because the reason we aren't talking

49:13 ↗ more about that is because of the

49:14 ↗ uncertainty and getting that cont yeah

49:17 ↗ it it is right now the uncertainty of

49:20 ↗ that and I I've talked in detail with

49:24 ↗ see I mean having been the director over

49:26 ↗ there for seven years I I have a kind of

49:28 ↗ an interest in trying to work closely

49:31 ↗ with Seattle and so I've had lots of

49:34 ↗ conversations with them about the terms

49:37 ↗ and conditions and their interest in

49:39 ↗ having Cascade as continued uh agreement

49:43 ↗ with Cascade and that

49:46 ↗ um they would agree doesn't have a high

49:50 ↗ probability of availability um but

49:54 ↗ because they put it on the the table we

49:56 ↗ have we have done the numbers on it

50:00 ↗ my I won't be around to deal with that

50:03 ↗ um as this goes forward but in I'm not

50:06 ↗ sure that's not available in 10 or 15

50:09 ↗ years um that if you take this next

50:12 ↗ interim step of let's say it is an

50:15 ↗ agreement with

50:16 ↗ Tacoma uh the water in the Region's not

50:20 ↗ going away and if there is still water

50:22 ↗ available from Seattle or more water

50:24 ↗ available from Tacoma or from Everett if

50:27 ↗ that's the case um it only takes an 8

50:29 ↗ Mile pipeline in the north to connect to

50:31 ↗ the Everett system you would be able to

50:34 ↗ look at something like that in the

50:36 ↗ future assuming you got everybody in the

50:39 ↗ region to agree um it would the any

50:43 ↗ graph would look like that because you

50:45 ↗ would not be building like TAPS at that

50:48 ↗ point okay that was it thank

50:52 ↗ you council member Hull you're up next

50:55 ↗ thanks and I also have several so feel

50:57 ↗ free to pop between me and I think ccil

50:59 ↗ mark question to so fine if you wanted

51:02 ↗ um wow 90% grants from the federal

51:05 ↗ government sounds great well think about

51:08 ↗ this I tried to convince Cel the time to

51:11 ↗ take those grants for the secondary

51:14 ↗ treatment um plant for sewage treatment

51:18 ↗ and they didn't want it because they

51:19 ↗ were going to get an exclusion from

51:20 ↗ secondary treatment so they and they

51:22 ↗ were just going to put it into um fug so

51:25 ↗ they turned those grants down and then

51:28 ↗ didn't get the exclusion from secondary

51:30 ↗ treatment

51:31 ↗ so um thank you very much for the

51:34 ↗ detailed presentation by the way um so

51:37 ↗ from what I understand the fund that you

51:40 ↗ were talking about that cascade's been

51:41 ↗ putting money away for for the build out

51:43 ↗ of Lake Taps there was some flexibility

51:45 ↗ in that fund right it's a it's a capital

51:47 ↗ fund that could be could be used for the

51:48 ↗ pipeline Tacoma right it's being it's

51:51 ↗ being put aside for that

51:54 ↗ purpose

51:57 ↗ um okay all right well then thank you so

52:00 ↗ stepping back out then to the the

52:01 ↗ different options can you give us any

52:04 ↗ more context as to why um the Tacoma

52:07 ↗ contract seems to be so much more

52:12 ↗ favorable um yeah politically yeah well

52:16 ↗ I I would since we're we've done all

52:19 ↗ this very publicly um because Seattle in

52:24 ↗ from I give you my perspective Seattle

52:28 ↗ has

52:29 ↗ taken an overly conservative view on

52:34 ↗ water availability and water

52:38 ↗ demand um and has decided to be

52:42 ↗ exceedingly risk

52:43 ↗ averse on what commitments they're

52:46 ↗ willing to make um and so and I've I've

52:50 ↗ had endless conversations with them um

52:53 ↗ because I used to do be inv involved in

52:55 ↗ all those discussions um and I think

52:58 ↗ they've been overly conservative I think

53:00 ↗ they could easily have done a 20 this is

53:02 ↗ my view they could have easily agreed to

53:04 ↗ a 20-year extension um but that's not

53:07 ↗ where they are and they're not moving

53:10 ↗ and they're not budging on on that issue

53:12 ↗ and I've talked to them since I came

53:14 ↗ back in May um about that issue Tacoma

53:17 ↗ on the other hand uh if you remember

53:20 ↗ they had a large uh paper facility down

53:25 ↗ in the port that uh recently announced

53:29 ↗ its closure and they closed I think

53:30 ↗ they're closing this finally shutting

53:32 ↗ down this month but that was about 13

53:35 ↗ million gallons a day of water that they

53:37 ↗ were using 13 to 15 million gallons a

53:39 ↗ day of water and all of a sudden the

53:42 ↗ coma has significant amount of water

53:44 ↗ available and we're the biggest

53:48 ↗ challenge we've had uh with Tacoma and

53:51 ↗ trying to pin down how much water has

53:54 ↗ not been related to how much water they

53:57 ↗ have available it's been the technical

53:59 ↗ issues of how much can you move for the

54:02 ↗ pipeline and uh meet all their client

54:05 ↗ all their customer needs and still

54:08 ↗ provide the water north um to Cascade

54:11 ↗ and so they've been working that's what

54:13 ↗ they've been working through and they

54:14 ↗ they reached some agreements last week

54:15 ↗ internally on how they're going to be

54:17 ↗ able to provide that water um but

54:20 ↗ they've been much more open since they

54:23 ↗ are have taken a

54:25 ↗ much less uh conserv I would argue much

54:29 ↗ less conservative view on that and are

54:31 ↗ comfortable with uh being able to

54:34 ↗ provide that water so you have Tacoma

54:36 ↗ very comfortable and Seattle not and

54:39 ↗ Seattle just wasn't willing to make that

54:42 ↗ commitment and that's my view no that's

54:45 ↗ very helpful context yeah thanks um so

54:48 ↗ going with the

54:50 ↗ Tacoma agreement um we're now connected

54:54 ↗ down into that system we're getting that

54:56 ↗ much closer to that kind of regionalized

54:58 ↗ vision that you were describing at that

55:00 ↗ point is it also and I think I might

55:02 ↗ have heard you say this um so this might

55:04 ↗ just be for my own edification but at

55:06 ↗ that point can we also one of our

55:08 ↗ options could be to push off Lake Taps

55:10 ↗ even further and and potentially

55:12 ↗ re-engage Seattle because then they're

55:14 ↗ that much closer to that fully

55:15 ↗ regionalized system right yeah I I I

55:18 ↗ think all of these I mean there's no way

55:22 ↗ that I would say to you today if we make

55:24 ↗ this decision this is a permanent

55:26 ↗ decision through 2100 I I mean it would

55:29 ↗ be ridiculous to say that the a demand's

55:32 ↗ going to change population's going to

55:34 ↗ change uh climate change is going to

55:36 ↗ have an impact you everybody can make an

55:39 ↗ assumption over that depending on when

55:41 ↗ you get how climate change impacts the

55:44 ↗ region all those things will be changing

55:46 ↗ um it's like the demand forecast that um

55:50 ↗ that council member hunt asked me about

55:52 ↗ the one thing I know when I do a demand

55:54 ↗ forecast is it's wrong I mean there is

55:57 ↗ no unless for some reason you luck into

56:00 ↗ something it is almost impossible really

56:03 ↗ to understand it so you just do you do

56:06 ↗ kind of relative order of magnitude and

56:07 ↗ you try to give yourself a risk range um

56:10 ↗ it's the same thing here all you're what

56:13 ↗ you're really doing is providing

56:14 ↗ yourself another 15 20 25 years of

56:20 ↗ certainty and flexibility that it during

56:22 ↗ that period you still have options to go

56:25 ↗ and look at water for extending for o

56:28 ↗ from others water in the future you can

56:30 ↗ go back to Seattle more from Tacoma

56:33 ↗ maybe Everett um maybe you decide to

56:35 ↗ build leg Taps but that you haven't

56:37 ↗ foreclosed any of those options by

56:39 ↗ making this decision okay thank you very

56:42 ↗ much um and then last question um you

56:45 ↗ mentioned Everett before but the only

56:47 ↗ options here at Tacoma and Seattle so

56:49 ↗ I'm just curious if if casc pursued

56:50 ↗ Everett at all or the board just the

56:52 ↗ board wasn't interested at this point uh

56:55 ↗ and so we asked that question the board

56:57 ↗ said not at this time um and there

57:01 ↗ hasn't ever really been much of a

57:02 ↗ discussion anyway with that would be

57:04 ↗ entirely new but you'd be opening up

57:07 ↗ something completely new however you

57:09 ↗ know since I'm a commissioner at

57:11 ↗ Woodenville water um we actually have a

57:13 ↗ water right uh that we jointly own with

57:16 ↗ Everett and the inner tie is not very

57:19 ↗ far um from uh from Woodenville and from

57:23 ↗ the Seattle system so

57:25 ↗ what you're really talking about is

57:26 ↗ 7even eight miles of pipeline um that

57:29 ↗ would intertie that system so over the

57:32 ↗ long run if you you're in terms of

57:34 ↗ decades looking decadally um there will

57:37 ↗ be options to deal with that as you look

57:39 ↗ at the

57:42 ↗ Future Okay council member Ms thanks um

57:46 ↗ couple of questions about programatic

57:49 ↗ risk um in regards to the Tacoma system

57:53 ↗ uh as opposed to the Seattle system

57:56 ↗ specifically um one with the Tacoma

57:59 ↗ system being closer to uh that lovely

58:01 ↗ Mountain that you showed in picture uh

58:04 ↗ potential Lahar and magnetic earthquake

58:06 ↗ risk system yeah there is there's lar

58:11 ↗ risk to to like Taps um uh also because

58:15 ↗ you know we're fed by the GL glaciers

58:17 ↗ coming off of Mount Rainer um so all and

58:21 ↗ the Cedar River system has for Seattle

58:24 ↗ has some the same issue so you look

58:26 ↗ regionally and there are individual

58:29 ↗ risks I I really don't know the

58:32 ↗ percentage or the the range of risk for

58:34 ↗ each one but each one entertains some

58:37 ↗ level of environmental risk that you

58:39 ↗ would end up having to deal with um the

58:42 ↗ to be honest it's one of the reasons for

58:44 ↗ looking at regionalization and

58:46 ↗ diversification of the system because

58:48 ↗ what you really want to do is spread

58:50 ↗ that risk and give yourself some

58:52 ↗ protection regionally um uh which is

58:55 ↗ what we've argued for entner ties um

58:59 ↗ that you know it may be that Tacoma has

59:02 ↗ a problem but you know if you're inter

59:04 ↗ tied with Seattle all of a sudden you

59:06 ↗ have some flexibility and we've argued

59:08 ↗ in the long run we ought to have that uh

59:11 ↗ regionally um it's a great question and

59:14 ↗ Ne people never ask me about lar so

59:16 ↗ you're the first person that's asked me

59:17 ↗ about that it's a great question well I

59:19 ↗ my employer is in the Kent Valley and so

59:22 ↗ uh I've actually given presentations at

59:24 ↗ work about lar risk um related to that

59:27 ↗ is I guess the same comments about in

59:29 ↗ ties would be for uh systemic risk from

59:33 ↗ a subduction fault event having ties

59:35 ↗ would would keep the system more likely

59:37 ↗ to be I'm not

59:39 ↗ [Music]

59:40 ↗ sure I would almost put more risk on a

59:44 ↗ on Surface Quakes than subduction Quakes

59:47 ↗ I they tend to they tend to have a much

59:50 ↗ more disruptive impact on the pipelines

59:54 ↗ because the pipeline where the pipelines

59:56 ↗ sit and most of them are over some

59:59 ↗ there's some fault typically all

1:00:01 ↗ throughout Puget Sound and it I mean the

1:00:04 ↗ Woodenville

1:00:05 ↗ uh utilities office sits right on top of

1:00:08 ↗ the fault so um you know you're end up

1:00:11 ↗ you end up dealing with those issues I'm

1:00:14 ↗ a little bit more concerned about those

1:00:16 ↗ and we've argued that's one of the other

1:00:18 ↗ reasons why it would be nice to have

1:00:22 ↗ interner ties throughout the region uh

1:00:25 ↗ because if one you know it's usually not

1:00:27 ↗ from a surface Quake perspective um it's

1:00:30 ↗ typically not uh the entire region that

1:00:34 ↗ gets impacted it's usually one now

1:00:36 ↗ having said that um you know if you look

1:00:40 ↗ at a big enough sub subduction Quake at

1:00:43 ↗ that point it's the whole region anyway

1:00:46 ↗ and you're going to be out of water for

1:00:49 ↗ you know your customers 80% of your

1:00:51 ↗ customers are going to be out of water

1:00:52 ↗ for weeks if not months I mean it's

1:00:56 ↗ there are horrendous risks um

1:00:58 ↗ earthquakes are horrendous risks and

1:00:59 ↗ it's why um you know I know at

1:01:02 ↗ Woodenville we're spending a lot of time

1:01:04 ↗ talking about our pipes and talking

1:01:06 ↗ about changing the nature of the pipes

1:01:08 ↗ we're installing to more along the lines

1:01:11 ↗ of what Japan has done and what

1:01:12 ↗ California uses for some of their

1:01:14 ↗ standards to deal with the risks

1:01:16 ↗ associated with earthquakes it is

1:01:19 ↗ significant um for this region and the

1:01:22 ↗ last risk related question I have is

1:01:24 ↗ also because I was in the Kent Valley in

1:01:26 ↗ 2009 um are all the issues around the

1:01:28 ↗ Howard Hansen Dam fully

1:01:32 ↗ resolved no uh no they're closer um

1:01:36 ↗ there are pretty much agreements in

1:01:39 ↗ place that are close to being finalized

1:01:42 ↗ between Tacoma the tribes and the

1:01:43 ↗ federal government that will deal with I

1:01:46 ↗ think the opens up the final

1:01:49 ↗ availability for Tacoma to get more

1:01:51 ↗ water out of Howard Hansen um you know

1:01:54 ↗ you know it's but it continues to be an

1:01:58 ↗ issue as does Mud Mountain Dam uh where

1:02:01 ↗ you know there are issues associated

1:02:03 ↗ with Mud Mountain Dam too um so how so

1:02:06 ↗ how as we as a member of cascade water

1:02:09 ↗ Seattle's system appears less at risk of

1:02:12 ↗ those sorts of issues um it relies on a

1:02:15 ↗ smaller number of dams that are 120

1:02:19 ↗ years old yeah yeah um I've been to

1:02:22 ↗ every one of those um I'm not sure I

1:02:25 ↗ would assign less risk to them seriously

1:02:28 ↗ I mean I know when I was there we had to

1:02:30 ↗ do some major uh improvements at the dam

1:02:33 ↗ for the the cedar system and and you

1:02:37 ↗ know it had

1:02:38 ↗ a I won't get this right but 1910 1915

1:02:42 ↗ had a huge blowout where part of the dam

1:02:45 ↗ was blown out and created a huge flood

1:02:47 ↗ risk that area is still somewhat at risk

1:02:51 ↗ um and so there's always the Chester

1:02:56 ↗ Morris was designed to have water about

1:02:59 ↗ 25 feet more water than it currently has

1:03:02 ↗ under original design but they've never

1:03:03 ↗ been able to get it very high because of

1:03:06 ↗ the inherent risk and so I always worry

1:03:10 ↗ uh about those dams and the you know

1:03:12 ↗ they don't generate electricity really

1:03:14 ↗ anymore which is what the original

1:03:16 ↗ design was they're owned by City Light

1:03:17 ↗ actually so they have their own risks

1:03:21 ↗ all right well thank you I mean that

1:03:24 ↗ feel a lot worse or no I mean in terms

1:03:27 ↗ of the decisions that are in front of us

1:03:29 ↗ it makes me feel better that it isn't

1:03:30 ↗ there isn't a qualitative difference in

1:03:32 ↗ in the risk uh exposure level for Tacoma

1:03:36 ↗ system and since you have an interest in

1:03:37 ↗ that if you ever want to look look on on

1:03:39 ↗ the web for the water supply forum and

1:03:42 ↗ they did a huge risk analysis of the

1:03:45 ↗ water supply systems in the region and

1:03:47 ↗ and it's its members are uh kind of sish

1:03:51 ↗ County King County and Pierce County and

1:03:54 ↗ then they did a whole there's a whole

1:03:55 ↗ earthquake section in there where they

1:03:57 ↗ looked at both the risk of subduction

1:04:00 ↗ Quakes and the risks of individual

1:04:03 ↗ surface Quakes so all that information

1:04:05 ↗ is in there and they they did a a lot of

1:04:08 ↗ specific analytics thank thank you very

1:04:11 ↗ much I appreciate your

1:04:12 ↗ answer okay we've got council member D

1:04:15 ↗ Michelle or Deputy council president D

1:04:16 ↗ Michelle thank you um so in our packets

1:04:20 ↗ uh we had a uh a group of questions that

1:04:23 ↗ have been raised by City staff so maybe

1:04:25 ↗ this is a a question that Matt or Emily

1:04:28 ↗ would like to field uh and we had a

1:04:30 ↗ group of of questions that they've

1:04:32 ↗ raised and those are all good the last

1:04:35 ↗ one in that list was the one that caught

1:04:37 ↗ my attention and the question is what

1:04:39 ↗ are the implications of each proposal

1:04:41 ↗ for water quality and so I'm wondering

1:04:44 ↗ uh first of all why was that raised as a

1:04:46 ↗ concern and secondly how would we

1:04:49 ↗ determine what we mean by water quality

1:04:52 ↗ and and uh what were some of the

1:04:54 ↗ implications that you were that staff

1:04:57 ↗ was wanting to explore with regard to

1:04:59 ↗ water quality for the two

1:05:11 ↗ proposals

1:05:13 ↗ um trying to recall can you repeat that

1:05:17 ↗ one more time for me and you can start

1:05:19 ↗ by introducing yourself as well I'm Matt

1:05:22 ↗ Ellis utility engineering manager

1:05:25 ↗ know I'm just wondering why the staff

1:05:27 ↗ raised the issue of water quality

1:05:29 ↗ between the two proposals and what we

1:05:31 ↗ would be looking for to uh understand if

1:05:34 ↗ there is a difference between um the

1:05:37 ↗ water quality in the two proposals there

1:05:40 ↗ would that entail there's not really a

1:05:42 ↗ water quality difference between tuoma

1:05:46 ↗ and Seattle I mean they're all treated

1:05:48 ↗ clean votable water um and obviously we

1:05:53 ↗ have water from our wells as well that

1:05:55 ↗ we blend currently and so that water is

1:05:59 ↗ treated to meet the same standards and

1:06:03 ↗ chemical composition as Seattle water

1:06:06 ↗ and it would alsoa water um it does

1:06:10 ↗ there are some changes that would need

1:06:12 ↗ to occur as duck mentioned to the Belle

1:06:15 ↗ isquat pipeline that runs within um

1:06:18 ↗ under Newport Way predominantly and so

1:06:21 ↗ would change the direction of the water

1:06:24 ↗ the pipeline which could potentially

1:06:26 ↗ change some

1:06:27 ↗ engineering mechanics of that pipe and

1:06:30 ↗ and how we're getting water but from a

1:06:32 ↗ water quality standpoint there wouldn't

1:06:34 ↗ be a major

1:06:38 ↗ change it's a great issue to raise

1:06:41 ↗ because when you reverse flow in any

1:06:44 ↗ system it raises significant questions

1:06:49 ↗ about how well you've done the planning

1:06:51 ↗ and how well you're you're managing the

1:06:53 ↗ water quality because you reverse flow

1:06:56 ↗ you s if there's sediment and other

1:06:58 ↗ things built up in a system it it can

1:07:00 ↗ Elevate those and raise those like I

1:07:03 ↗ said I've been doing a lot of work down

1:07:04 ↗ in Oregon on that issue and that's the

1:07:07 ↗ specific issue we're dealing with is

1:07:09 ↗ because they're reversing flow in a

1:07:10 ↗ major system they're going to take water

1:07:12 ↗ out of the wamit that they never took

1:07:14 ↗ water out of before it's going to serve

1:07:16 ↗ toatin and that whole thing has raised

1:07:19 ↗ it does raise a whole series of water

1:07:21 ↗ quality questions and it's the right

1:07:23 ↗ issue to be ra raised and you need to go

1:07:25 ↗ through every one of those and check the

1:07:26 ↗ box and make sure that you've done the

1:07:28 ↗ planning necessary to manage that if you

1:07:31 ↗ if you're going to end up doing that

1:07:33 ↗ it's a it's an important

1:07:37 ↗ issue um before we go to round two I

1:07:41 ↗ just want to check in yep council member

1:07:44 ↗ Ray

1:07:46 ↗ online I was just going to wait until

1:07:48 ↗ everybody was done uh I'm really

1:07:50 ↗ intrigued with with the idea of a

1:07:52 ↗ regional uh water supply system Chuck

1:07:55 ↗ what's what do you think the probability

1:07:57 ↗ of that happening in the next 20 years

1:07:59 ↗ 40 years

1:08:02 ↗ is

1:08:03 ↗ uh if I go the next the next 20 years

1:08:08 ↗ I'd

1:08:09 ↗ say

1:08:11 ↗ 5050 uh the next 40

1:08:14 ↗ years unless you're putting people that

1:08:18 ↗ aren't very smart in position decision

1:08:20 ↗ making positions uh I'd say it's more 80

1:08:24 ↗ or 90% I mean I I just think the

1:08:27 ↗ legitimacy of a regionalized system with

1:08:31 ↗ all the questions that have come out

1:08:34 ↗ about diversification and Earth and

1:08:36 ↗ risks and other things it just makes

1:08:39 ↗ total sense to have a system that is

1:08:42 ↗ tied together to deal with those kinds

1:08:45 ↗ of challenges and and issues but it's a

1:08:49 ↗ little harder to see that over the next

1:08:52 ↗ 20 years it it's it takes pressure um to

1:08:55 ↗ be able to force some of those decisions

1:08:57 ↗ to get

1:08:59 ↗ made I tried to I tried to encourage

1:09:02 ↗ that about 10 10 years ago 15 years ago

1:09:05 ↗ before I left spu and I wasn't as you

1:09:07 ↗ can tell I wasn't successful at the time

1:09:09 ↗ so well you were successful everything

1:09:11 ↗ else so that's that's good um what um

1:09:15 ↗ and if we went to Regional water supply

1:09:17 ↗ that that would really obviate the need

1:09:18 ↗ for for any of these exist contracts

1:09:21 ↗ we're talking about or would supersede

1:09:23 ↗ them right

1:09:24 ↗ right yeah and then um if we went to a

1:09:27 ↗ regional water system let's say 40 years

1:09:30 ↗ down the road um what happens with Lake

1:09:33 ↗ Taps is that part of the system is it uh

1:09:36 ↗ mothballed what what would you see

1:09:37 ↗ happening there it depends on who you

1:09:39 ↗ talk to um if you talk to Tacoma and

1:09:42 ↗ we've raised the question with Tacoma

1:09:45 ↗ they are open to having a lake Taps as

1:09:48 ↗ part of a regional system um if you talk

1:09:52 ↗ to Seattle they're not overly interested

1:09:54 ↗ in having leg Taps and in fact Seattle

1:09:56 ↗ is out looking at alternative sources of

1:09:59 ↗ Supply now and I I asked them why they

1:10:02 ↗ didn't put l Taps on the list so um but

1:10:05 ↗ they just haven't had an interest in

1:10:07 ↗ that at least at this point I think in

1:10:09 ↗ the future we're all going to be under

1:10:12 ↗ pressure because of climate change and

1:10:14 ↗ dealing with the consequences of that

1:10:16 ↗ and that pressure is going to make uh

1:10:20 ↗ existing sources of

1:10:22 ↗ Supply um

1:10:24 ↗ a benefit for whoever owns and operates

1:10:28 ↗ those I think the one issue

1:10:31 ↗ for L Taps which um will take some

1:10:37 ↗ effort in the future politically is to

1:10:40 ↗ is to have the core of engineers operate

1:10:43 ↗ Mud Mountain Dam slightly differently

1:10:45 ↗ than they currently operate it so that

1:10:48 ↗ more storage occurs there um you can

1:10:51 ↗ solve most most of the any issues

1:10:54 ↗ related to climate change through

1:10:56 ↗ storage um at Mud Mountain Dam and I I

1:11:00 ↗ think that's an issue that will um be an

1:11:03 ↗ interesting discussion probably over the

1:11:05 ↗ next five or 10

1:11:07 ↗ years that's great thank thank thank you

1:11:09 ↗ that's all I got for right

1:11:11 ↗ now thank you um council member

1:11:16 ↗ hunt thank you um I think this might be

1:11:19 ↗ a question for our city staff so we

1:11:21 ↗ didn't discuss the wells um I think

1:11:23 ↗ because the presentation so far mostly

1:11:25 ↗ about the whole system and the rates for

1:11:28 ↗ overall uh we do currently have 26% it's

1:11:31 ↗ in our packet 26% of the city's water uh

1:11:35 ↗ through groundwater um and have had 58%

1:11:38 ↗ of the water when all four Wells were in

1:11:41 ↗ service right now we have three wells in

1:11:42 ↗ service and so I wondered if you could

1:11:45 ↗ um provide the the future of the well

1:11:48 ↗ water uh usage and how that fits in

1:11:50 ↗ specifically to isqua um and how that

1:11:52 ↗ would

1:11:54 ↗ uh potentially take the edge off some of

1:11:56 ↗ the rates or how that would impact the

1:11:57 ↗ rates that is an excellent question um

1:12:01 ↗ so one of the we do need to put a

1:12:03 ↗ centralized Treatment Facility in before

1:12:05 ↗ we can turn that one well back on um to

1:12:09 ↗ provide better water quality um that is

1:12:14 ↗ a item that we are going to be

1:12:16 ↗ discussing as part of our utility rate

1:12:18 ↗ study um that will be occurring this

1:12:20 ↗ year um so we we have we need to start

1:12:24 ↗ planning for that project in the future

1:12:27 ↗ um so we don't have a a clear idea of

1:12:31 ↗ what the cost difference will be between

1:12:36 ↗ utilizing Cascade and under our

1:12:39 ↗ current uh operating procedure versus

1:12:42 ↗ having all the Wells on with the

1:12:43 ↗ treatment facility with the property

1:12:46 ↗ acquisition that would require for that

1:12:48 ↗ treatment

1:12:50 ↗ plan but will be coming in the

1:12:52 ↗ future

1:12:56 ↗ okay so I think we're at the end of

1:12:58 ↗ council questions so at this point we

1:13:01 ↗ would turn to public

1:13:03 ↗ comment I don't think we have anyone in

1:13:07 ↗ Chambers do we have anyone

1:13:10 ↗ online uh council president we do not

1:13:12 ↗ have anyone online then I don't even

1:13:14 ↗ need to ask if anybody wants to make

1:13:16 ↗ comments okay so uh back to I think we

1:13:22 ↗ have a few more more slides

1:13:29 ↗ there thank

1:13:32 ↗ you we just wanted to make sure there

1:13:34 ↗ was an understanding of the timeline and

1:13:36 ↗ so uh as you have heard the Cascade

1:13:40 ↗ board anticipates they may uh in April

1:13:43 ↗ timeline begin to uh negotiate with

1:13:47 ↗ Seattle or Tacoma um pending board

1:13:50 ↗ Direction on that and then their current

1:13:53 ↗ timeline would be to wrap up uh those

1:13:58 ↗ negotiations uh toward the end of the

1:13:59 ↗ year and hopefully authorize a final

1:14:02 ↗ contract by that time as

1:14:04 ↗ well so for this evening uh we were

1:14:09 ↗ proposing that we come back provide you

1:14:13 ↗ a status update in late second quarter

1:14:17 ↗ early third

1:14:19 ↗ quarter uh

1:14:21 ↗ with how things are addressing with the

1:14:24 ↗ board how are those discussions going as

1:14:26 ↗ you heard tonight Chuck mentioned just

1:14:29 ↗ late last week there was a new Ripple

1:14:31 ↗ and a proposal and so we'd like to come

1:14:34 ↗ back to you uh prior to the board taking

1:14:38 ↗ any final action letting you know what

1:14:41 ↗ is uh currently under

1:14:43 ↗ consideration and uh how those how those

1:14:47 ↗ discussions are

1:14:48 ↗ progressing so tonight we were hoping to

1:14:52 ↗ get feedback on that as our next

1:14:56 ↗ step also wanted to just gauge how your

1:15:00 ↗ conversation went tonight and what

1:15:01 ↗ additional questions you had and whether

1:15:04 ↗ there was a need

1:15:05 ↗ for another presentation in depth U so

1:15:09 ↗ this has been very helpful for me to to

1:15:11 ↗ hear your questions and understand your

1:15:13 ↗ thought process and I think we have some

1:15:15 ↗ follow-ups that we'll work with Cascade

1:15:20 ↗ on excellent well I'm glad that so far

1:15:23 ↗ all of our questions about fears of

1:15:25 ↗ risks and all of those things just feed

1:15:28 ↗ into the conversation we wouldn't be

1:15:30 ↗ policy makers if we weren't doing that

1:15:32 ↗ uh council member hunt do you want to

1:15:34 ↗ start with feedback that I I am happy to

1:15:37 ↗ but I do also have a process question

1:15:39 ↗ clarification okay um so for uh so we do

1:15:42 ↗ have mayor Paulie and council member Joe

1:15:44 ↗ who are on the the board um but I

1:15:47 ↗ wondered if Council will also if there

1:15:50 ↗ would be

1:15:51 ↗ another decision making step that

1:15:54 ↗ Council would be involved with if we

1:15:56 ↗ were to go with a contract um and what

1:15:59 ↗ that process

1:16:01 ↗ like when Cascades board takes action on

1:16:05 ↗ the contract that is the action that

1:16:08 ↗ authorizes the contract so um we're not

1:16:10 ↗ anticipating bringing a a question to

1:16:14 ↗ city council and that's why moments like

1:16:16 ↗ this and the future check-in are going

1:16:18 ↗ to be important to help you share your

1:16:21 ↗ thoughts and make sure questions get

1:16:23 ↗ answered so that the representatives on

1:16:26 ↗ the board can advance those okay and the

1:16:28 ↗ future check-in could be after action

1:16:31 ↗ was taken is that right it it looks like

1:16:33 ↗ that the way it's written it could be I

1:16:35 ↗ I think we're still trying to ascertain

1:16:38 ↗ whether the schedule that they have put

1:16:39 ↗ forward is going to be the ultimate

1:16:44 ↗ schedule mam mayor P yes go ahead uh

1:16:48 ↗ good evening um and I think you all need

1:16:50 ↗ to tell us if that makes sense or not I

1:16:52 ↗ me there are lots of moving pieces here

1:16:55 ↗ um there may be other options that come

1:16:57 ↗ on the table uh through board discussion

1:16:59 ↗ at Cascade um and so I think really part

1:17:02 ↗ of this question is how much would you

1:17:04 ↗ like to be involved um so please provide

1:17:08 ↗ some input on that as

1:17:11 ↗ well okay you heard the administrator so

1:17:15 ↗ council member

1:17:17 ↗ Marts few things first off um I just

1:17:20 ↗ want to mention uh how much I love the

1:17:23 ↗ water quality in Isa I come from the

1:17:25 ↗ Midwest and there are many things that I

1:17:27 ↗ love about the Midwest the water quality

1:17:29 ↗ is not always uh the greatest even even

1:17:32 ↗ in the Twin Cities which Prides itself

1:17:34 ↗ on having a high quality of life so the

1:17:37 ↗ water quality here is just uh impeccable

1:17:40 ↗ um I haven't heard anything today that

1:17:41 ↗ doesn't make me think that we shouldn't

1:17:43 ↗ just let the administration go find the

1:17:45 ↗ lowest cost I'm not hearing anything in

1:17:48 ↗ terms of policy or programmatically or

1:17:52 ↗ risk or uh you know binding us into

1:17:57 ↗ anything that wouldn't just say go get

1:17:59 ↗ the best deal uh for the resident

1:18:02 ↗ businesses so that would be my

1:18:03 ↗ preference to just uh unleash the

1:18:05 ↗ administration and let them go forth and

1:18:07 ↗ do what they see fit I don't see any I

1:18:09 ↗ don't see any mine field here lurking

1:18:11 ↗ where there's a a potential outcome that

1:18:13 ↗ would be the lowest cost but would have

1:18:14 ↗ some other factor that would make it

1:18:16 ↗ undable thank you and before moving on

1:18:19 ↗ do you have any um concerns or

1:18:21 ↗ commentary on the kind of proposed

1:18:25 ↗ schedule of coming back no in terms of

1:18:29 ↗ do I want to see more no that that was

1:18:31 ↗ my point like great clarifying um I'm

1:18:35 ↗ going to go council member Hall and uh

1:18:40 ↗ you guys both raised it at the same time

1:18:42 ↗ so go ahead okay thank you and thank you

1:18:45 ↗ very much Ras for coming out and walking

1:18:46 ↗ us through that um there are definitely

1:18:48 ↗ some water nerds Council so it's good to

1:18:51 ↗ good to have you here I think the

1:18:53 ↗ process schedule looks right my only

1:18:56 ↗ caveat would be if the board suddenly

1:18:57 ↗ starts to steer left towards um Seattle

1:19:01 ↗ I I I think it would be good to get a

1:19:03 ↗ touch back with Council just to kind of

1:19:05 ↗ understand what they're thinking of

1:19:06 ↗ because I think for the most part

1:19:08 ↗ council member Marts is right I mean the

1:19:10 ↗ lowc cost alternative also creates that

1:19:13 ↗ vision of a more regionalized system or

1:19:15 ↗ gets us gets us closer to that so it

1:19:16 ↗ seems the right choice um I think in our

1:19:20 ↗ questions there's a lot of good feedback

1:19:22 ↗ and Contex text for council member Joe

1:19:24 ↗ and mayor paully to bring back to the

1:19:25 ↗ board as well um I think whatever um

1:19:30 ↗ helps us put off the development of late

1:19:32 ↗ Taps as long as humanly possible is the

1:19:34 ↗ right choice um and um like council

1:19:39 ↗ member um Rey I'm enthused by this kind

1:19:43 ↗ of vision of a more regionalized system

1:19:45 ↗ in in the far long term so again I agree

1:19:48 ↗ with this and thank you very much for

1:19:50 ↗ answering our questions and at the

1:19:52 ↗ moment Tacoma seems like the right

1:19:54 ↗ approach but just keep us in the loop um

1:19:56 ↗ as definitely interested in in kind of

1:19:59 ↗ some harder numbers now that the that's

1:20:01 ↗ gone up to like 25 or 30 years as you

1:20:03 ↗ said so maybe that can also be something

1:20:05 ↗ that that comes back but um as as for

1:20:08 ↗ another Council touch I don't think it's

1:20:10 ↗ necessary unless they do something

1:20:11 ↗ completely

1:20:13 ↗ different great council member H thank

1:20:16 ↗ you um so I think that um because we are

1:20:21 ↗ we heard that we're going have a updated

1:20:23 ↗ demand forecast and a lot of this does

1:20:25 ↗ hinge on the demand as well as a um

1:20:28 ↗ updated as you know the the current

1:20:31 ↗ contract is currently being discussed

1:20:33 ↗ and there was update of Friday last week

1:20:35 ↗ so I don't think we have the full um

1:20:39 ↗ picture so I would prefer to have that

1:20:41 ↗ information come back to council um I

1:20:44 ↗ think there were also a number of

1:20:45 ↗ questions that will have some additional

1:20:47 ↗ information about um I do also

1:20:50 ↗ understand council member Joe there's

1:20:52 ↗ probably ways that you could bring back

1:20:54 ↗ you know how the discussion is going um

1:20:56 ↗ to Council in other ways in your updates

1:20:58 ↗ but um my preference would be to get

1:21:00 ↗ that information back to the full

1:21:02 ↗ Council uh because it seems like it's

1:21:04 ↗ still very much in flux and it's super

1:21:06 ↗ important for the history or for the

1:21:09 ↗ future of our city what we do here um uh

1:21:13 ↗ when we're talking about the lowest cost

1:21:15 ↗ option I'm I am wondering if we're

1:21:18 ↗ talking about the same thing because

1:21:20 ↗ there is a brown the brown line which

1:21:22 ↗ which is the lowest cost option that's

1:21:24 ↗ also means that we have you know we put

1:21:28 ↗ our uh we assume that there will be that

1:21:31 ↗ long-term contract which um there's

1:21:35 ↗ some there is some risk associated with

1:21:38 ↗ that so there's a you know how risk

1:21:41 ↗ averse do we want to be in in assuming

1:21:43 ↗ that we could do that but I just wanted

1:21:46 ↗ to flag that that long-term option which

1:21:49 ↗ allows us to put off uh which allows us

1:21:52 ↗ to to not develop Lake

1:21:54 ↗ Taps um is the long-term contract with

1:21:58 ↗ spu and I think that that one also is

1:22:00 ↗ closest to what we're talking about with

1:22:02 ↗ regionalization and with you know when

1:22:04 ↗ we get to a certain point 40 years in

1:22:06 ↗ the future we can look at Everett and

1:22:08 ↗ these other options so I I think that it

1:22:11 ↗ would be good to bring back information

1:22:14 ↗ um and I also think that it would be

1:22:15 ↗ good to look at all of these options

1:22:17 ↗ without factoring in Lake Taps um just

1:22:21 ↗ separate from that conversation because

1:22:23 ↗ as far as I understand the funding that

1:22:26 ↗ has been put aside could be used to

1:22:29 ↗ do other things I can be corrected if

1:22:31 ↗ I'm wrong but I think that that money

1:22:33 ↗ has been put aside by the rate payers

1:22:34 ↗ over time and could be used to to reduce

1:22:37 ↗ rates or to go in on one of these

1:22:39 ↗ contracts or other things so um it seems

1:22:41 ↗ like there's a lot of options it seems

1:22:43 ↗ like there's more options coming on the

1:22:46 ↗ table where options are changing um

1:22:50 ↗ and these are big costs involved and

1:22:54 ↗ there're going to be big costs involved

1:22:55 ↗ to the rap pairs um so for for those

1:22:58 ↗ reasons I think it would be good to have

1:23:00 ↗ this come to council and I

1:23:03 ↗ um and I think it's going to be a a

1:23:06 ↗ difficult decision to make because

1:23:09 ↗ there's a lot of variables and there's a

1:23:10 ↗ lot of moving

1:23:13 ↗ pieces thank you council member Joe

1:23:16 ↗ thank you I i' like to uh thank everyone

1:23:20 ↗ for the conversation tonight you've

1:23:21 ↗ given um me some good guidance as I go

1:23:24 ↗ back to the Cascade board and mayor

1:23:27 ↗ Paulie is going to be instrumental in

1:23:28 ↗ that conversation as well she will be

1:23:30 ↗ the primary um representative for us and

1:23:33 ↗ we're well represented by her and I

1:23:36 ↗ really appreciate her involvement um

1:23:38 ↗ looking at the hall of fame uh back

1:23:40 ↗ there uh Joe forner won the award in

1:23:42 ↗ 2017 and David kapler won the award in

1:23:46 ↗ 2018 both of those individuals were

1:23:49 ↗ instrumental in in uh pushing isqua to

1:23:52 ↗ think wider and uh more in depth about

1:23:56 ↗ our water issues and it led to the

1:23:59 ↗ Cascade water Alliance agreement and

1:24:01 ↗ today we're thinking about kicking the

1:24:04 ↗ can down the road a little bit in terms

1:24:05 ↗ of deferring a major project but we're

1:24:08 ↗ kicking the can down the road because we

1:24:11 ↗ have these other options and the other

1:24:12 ↗ options are going to open up a wealth of

1:24:15 ↗ of additional flexibility for us so it's

1:24:18 ↗ not kicking the can down the road to

1:24:19 ↗ avoid something it's kicking the can

1:24:21 ↗ down the road to open up other options

1:24:23 ↗ for us I think that if we think about it

1:24:25 ↗ in that way as we're um working through

1:24:28 ↗ the negotiations and uh mayor Paul andar

1:24:31 ↗ reporting back I think this could be a

1:24:33 ↗ very useful opportunity to take us to

1:24:36 ↗ Cascade water Alliance 2.0 if you will

1:24:40 ↗ and um I look forward to the

1:24:42 ↗ conversation with the board the Cascade

1:24:45 ↗ board as well and um I'll report back as

1:24:47 ↗ as we go forward but please reach out to

1:24:50 ↗ me or to Mar paully uh with any any

1:24:52 ↗ questions as we go forward and if we do

1:24:54 ↗ need to have Cascade back for a

1:24:56 ↗ presentation I think they're more than

1:24:57 ↗ willing to do that um if we need them

1:25:00 ↗ for um other questions that might uh be

1:25:03 ↗ necessary along the way I I think

1:25:05 ↗ they're um that's an option as well for

1:25:08 ↗ uh the future so um really appreciate

1:25:11 ↗ the conversation guidance tonight thank

1:25:14 ↗ you great and I see council member

1:25:18 ↗ Ray online with a hand

1:25:24 ↗ thank you um wow this is a really

1:25:28 ↗ complex decision to make and as I I

1:25:31 ↗ listen to everything I'm struck by um

1:25:34 ↗ and I think this is I'm really aligned

1:25:36 ↗ with uh council member hunt that there's

1:25:39 ↗ a lot of moving Parts here and there's

1:25:41 ↗ the um you know the financial

1:25:44 ↗ considerations um there is the

1:25:46 ↗ Environmental risk there is the disaster

1:25:49 ↗ risk there is a political risk there's

1:25:52 ↗ the uncertainty of what the future is

1:25:53 ↗ going to hold um there's some technical

1:25:56 ↗ risk I I love that we got to use the

1:25:58 ↗ word Wheeling tonight and um and then

1:26:01 ↗ there's at the bottom of it this the

1:26:03 ↗ raate impact so there's there's a lot of

1:26:05 ↗ things to think about and so

1:26:08 ↗ um I don't know that we could say today

1:26:11 ↗ yeah this is the right decision because

1:26:13 ↗ I I could I couldn't process everything

1:26:15 ↗ that Chuck put on the table today and

1:26:17 ↗ I'd seen some of it before so I'm kind

1:26:19 ↗ of hoping that we can get some updates

1:26:21 ↗ um at a minimum from mayor Paulie and

1:26:23 ↗ council member Joe as this thing

1:26:25 ↗ progresses and as more information

1:26:27 ↗ becomes available and you know I ask you

1:26:30 ↗ as our Representatives on the board to

1:26:33 ↗ be the conduit and bring that

1:26:34 ↗ information back um and then I just want

1:26:38 ↗ to end with um you know something that I

1:26:41 ↗ think is really true which is water is

1:26:43 ↗ the most important resource of the 21st

1:26:45 ↗ century it is the oil of of of this of

1:26:49 ↗ this era so making sure that we have

1:26:51 ↗ enough water and that we manage it

1:26:54 ↗ effectively is probably one of the most

1:26:56 ↗ important things that we're going to do

1:26:58 ↗ in our lifetime so thank

1:27:02 ↗ you thank you uh Deputy council

1:27:05 ↗ president D

1:27:06 ↗ Michelle uh thanks um so uh I will

1:27:10 ↗ repeat uh quite a bit of what's already

1:27:12 ↗ been said but just uh to think about

1:27:15 ↗ water as a a basic human need and uh if

1:27:20 ↗ it costs a lot that has really uh big

1:27:23 ↗ implications for uh our future going

1:27:26 ↗ forward so um I definitely think that

1:27:29 ↗ looking at what how we can keep down the

1:27:31 ↗ cost is is really really important um I

1:27:35 ↗ really appreciate your presentation

1:27:37 ↗ tonight I am not a water nerd so uh

1:27:40 ↗ listening to your explanation made a lot

1:27:42 ↗ of it clearer to me and I I appreciate

1:27:45 ↗ that but the one thing that I heard that

1:27:48 ↗ uh I liked a lot was that uh we are in a

1:27:51 ↗ process process here uh we're not going

1:27:53 ↗ to make a final decision tonight we're

1:27:56 ↗ going forward there are as council

1:27:58 ↗ member Joe said there are uh options

1:28:00 ↗ opening up to us as we go down this path

1:28:03 ↗ and so uh I tend to think that you made

1:28:06 ↗ uh you made a good case for the Tacoma

1:28:10 ↗ uh but we're going to learn more and to

1:28:12 ↗ council member Hunt's uh uh statement uh

1:28:16 ↗ as more information comes in we have the

1:28:18 ↗ option of of modifying our position so

1:28:22 ↗ uh I really appreciate what was done and

1:28:24 ↗ I do hope that we get more information

1:28:27 ↗ uh as we uh head towards this decision

1:28:30 ↗ but uh thank you so much again for a a

1:28:33 ↗ really uh informative presentation

1:28:37 ↗ thanks and I will just say I've had the

1:28:40 ↗ pleasure of uh hearing everyone before I

1:28:43 ↗ talk and so I don't have anything to add

1:28:46 ↗ all of the questions have been asked all

1:28:49 ↗ of the concerns the issues

1:28:52 ↗ um it looks like we're going to have a

1:28:56 ↗ good set of conversations and honestly

1:28:59 ↗ some good options ahead of us and so I

1:29:02 ↗ look forward to hearing what staff says

1:29:05 ↗ and what our Representatives on the

1:29:07 ↗ board say as we uh as the negotiations

1:29:10 ↗ happen uh council member Hall sorry and

1:29:13 ↗ I know this one has gone on for longer

1:29:15 ↗ than we planned but I don't I don't

1:29:16 ↗ think it's clear to me what the next

1:29:17 ↗ steps are so so as the recommend was to

1:29:22 ↗ have Cascade and staff come back one

1:29:25 ↗ more time either Q2 or Q3 for updates

1:29:29 ↗ but was the idea from your comments to

1:29:31 ↗ have another meeting in addition to

1:29:35 ↗ that

1:29:36 ↗ yeah um well and I I will just speak for

1:29:40 ↗ myself I think that it would be good to

1:29:43 ↗ have um another touch with the full

1:29:46 ↗ Council before the decision so if that's

1:29:49 ↗ you too then I you know if that if that

1:29:52 ↗ works out then I think that we don't

1:29:54 ↗ need to have another urgent one right

1:29:57 ↗ now um but I I do think that's the

1:30:01 ↗ hinging point for me is that it would be

1:30:03 ↗ good to have the answers to the

1:30:05 ↗ questions that have been raised tonight

1:30:07 ↗ and to to have a better once the options

1:30:10 ↗ have crystallized more and we've

1:30:12 ↗ separated out some of the different

1:30:15 ↗ options a little bit better um I think

1:30:18 ↗ that that would be good to have that

1:30:20 ↗ information come back to council but I

1:30:21 ↗ am of seven so that's my that's my

1:30:26 ↗ PR City

1:30:28 ↗ administrator you know my sense from the

1:30:30 ↗ discussion is the council wants to be

1:30:32 ↗ kept apprised uh you have two very

1:30:35 ↗ talented experienced uh uh members uh on

1:30:39 ↗ the Cascade board um so I think uh from

1:30:43 ↗ council member Joe's comments that

1:30:44 ↗ that's been heard loud and clear tonight

1:30:45 ↗ and I'm sure mayor Paulie um who I think

1:30:48 ↗ you all know is in Tokyo uh this evening

1:30:52 ↗ as part of a a delegation of local

1:30:53 ↗ government officials from the United

1:30:54 ↗ States and Canada there for this week uh

1:30:57 ↗ she will watch this it's it's the middle

1:30:59 ↗ of the day in Tokyo otherwise I would

1:31:01 ↗ think she might actually be watching it

1:31:02 ↗ live uh but but she will absolutely

1:31:04 ↗ watch this and I think uh based on the

1:31:07 ↗ discussions uh she council member Joe

1:31:09 ↗ will keep Council leadership appr prized

1:31:11 ↗ and if it's appropriate come back at

1:31:13 ↗ whatever point it's appropriate to come

1:31:15 ↗ back we

1:31:20 ↗ will answer your questions about next

1:31:25 ↗ steps kind of yeah I guess because so

1:31:28 ↗ then so it's full steam ahead with the

1:31:30 ↗ discussions We Are One agency of many

1:31:33 ↗ seven in cascad so those discussions

1:31:35 ↗ will continue um council member Joe

1:31:38 ↗ mayor paully will continue to be part of

1:31:40 ↗ those we will keep the council prized uh

1:31:43 ↗ off agenda U I'm sure as as things

1:31:46 ↗ progress and if there is a policy point

1:31:48 ↗ that the mayor and council member Joe

1:31:49 ↗ field is appropriate to bring back we'll

1:31:51 ↗ let Council leadership know and we'll

1:31:53 ↗ come back so but I think this is saying

1:31:56 ↗ certainly by late the second quarter

1:31:58 ↗ early third quarter regardless you'll

1:32:01 ↗ likely see us back F if there is a point

1:32:04 ↗ that makes sense and council member Joe

1:32:06 ↗ the mayor I believe it's appropriate

1:32:08 ↗ then we will come back to okay A little

1:32:11 ↗ bit of flexibility and but recognizing

1:32:15 ↗ that we do want another touch yeah or

1:32:17 ↗ just call council member Joe yeah uhuh

1:32:20 ↗ show up on his doorstep it's cool we'll

1:32:22 ↗ just talk about those things okay um

1:32:25 ↗ does the administration have what they

1:32:27 ↗ need we do thank you excellent thank you

1:32:30 ↗ to the Cascade water Alliance folks who

1:32:32 ↗ have come down and good luck on your

1:32:34 ↗ other presentations all the other

1:32:37 ↗ cities um looking ahead we've got two

1:32:40 ↗ more items you want a five minute break

1:32:44 ↗ sounds good we've got two more items

1:32:46 ↗ we'll get a five minute break while

1:32:48 ↗ you're setting up and we will come back

1:32:51 ↗ at 8

1:33:20 ↗ 08

1:39:28 ↗ I'll wait for the on air

1:39:36 ↗ light okay we're back from our five

1:39:39 ↗ minute break on to item two of

1:39:42 ↗ three which is ID 1655 the city work

1:39:46 ↗ plan presented by Dale Marquee crimp

1:39:48 ↗ assistant the city

1:39:50 ↗ administrator Dale good evening everyone

1:39:53 ↗ Dale Mary crimp assistant to the city

1:39:55 ↗ administrator and I'm here tonight to

1:39:57 ↗ share with you an update on our city

1:39:58 ↗ work

1:40:00 ↗ plan so the the Administration has been

1:40:03 ↗ providing quarterly updates on the city

1:40:05 ↗ work plan now for a handful of years um

1:40:09 ↗ the presentation tonight is providing an

1:40:12 ↗ informational update from our previous

1:40:15 ↗ presentation which was in late October

1:40:17 ↗ 2023 so all of the work that's been done

1:40:20 ↗ since then um since through the first

1:40:22 ↗ month of

1:40:23 ↗ 2024 tonight we're specifically seeking

1:40:27 ↗ questions and any input that you might

1:40:29 ↗ have on the city work plan for 2024 this

1:40:32 ↗ is the second half of the 2023 2024 work

1:40:38 ↗ plan uh the recommendation tonight is to

1:40:40 ↗ receive this work plan and to ask

1:40:43 ↗ questions um and and also to provide

1:40:45 ↗ some input on how you'd like to engage

1:40:47 ↗ with work plan updates throughout the

1:40:49 ↗ rest of this year we want to keep the

1:40:51 ↗ process that we've had in 2023 or is

1:40:53 ↗ there something different you would like

1:40:54 ↗ for

1:40:57 ↗ 2024 a little bit of background for the

1:41:01 ↗ public um the city work plan is designed

1:41:05 ↗ in alignment with our Citywide strategic

1:41:07 ↗ plan and with the budget so most

1:41:09 ↗ recently our 2024 2025 bial budget the

1:41:13 ↗ administration developed this current

1:41:15 ↗ work plan back in early 2023 the end of

1:41:19 ↗ 2022 um and has provided regular updates

1:41:23 ↗ quarterly uh on the progress that was

1:41:25 ↗ made throughout 2023 and as I mentioned

1:41:28 ↗ with the most recent one in late October

1:41:32 ↗ 2023 this information was provided in

1:41:34 ↗ the memo but I wanted to provide a a

1:41:36 ↗ visual here of the progress since the

1:41:40 ↗ most recent and actually you can see all

1:41:41 ↗ the way back here in this table to the

1:41:43 ↗ May update uh the status on the items in

1:41:46 ↗ the work plan so since October uh we've

1:41:50 ↗ seen actually a slight decline in the

1:41:52 ↗ number of items that are on track but

1:41:54 ↗ that's good news because they're all

1:41:55 ↗ items that went from being on track to

1:41:57 ↗ being complete um a decline in the

1:42:00 ↗ number of actions again with minor

1:42:02 ↗ challenges these again also went mostly

1:42:05 ↗ from minor challenges to complete which

1:42:07 ↗ was exciting to see um one um ongoing

1:42:11 ↗ major challenge though we'll talk a

1:42:13 ↗ little bit about um how it shows up as a

1:42:15 ↗ minor challenge in the document itself

1:42:16 ↗ but I'll talk about why uh that's a typo

1:42:19 ↗ but I'll also talk about uh why we

1:42:21 ↗ should be excited because we have seen

1:42:23 ↗ some some notable progress on that item

1:42:25 ↗ so it was a major Challenge and it is

1:42:27 ↗ less of a major challenge now we still

1:42:30 ↗ have no actions that are on hold um and

1:42:32 ↗ we've seen uh eight additional

1:42:35 ↗ items move to complete from the October

1:42:39 ↗ update so there were 10 complete eight

1:42:42 ↗ additional and as was noted in the memo

1:42:44 ↗ uh we removed the 10 that were complete

1:42:47 ↗ last time from the work plan so we can

1:42:49 ↗ narrow down let's focus on what we're

1:42:50 ↗ still working on let's see what we're

1:42:52 ↗ still working on um so 18 total

1:42:55 ↗ completed items over so far over the

1:42:59 ↗ bium there are a lot of places we could

1:43:02 ↗ dive in I'm going to provide in the

1:43:04 ↗ spirit of our strategic plan a little

1:43:06 ↗ bit of an update by strategic plan goal

1:43:08 ↗ area so we'll start with Mobility um

1:43:11 ↗ we've had four completed Mobility

1:43:13 ↗ actions uh over the the year and a

1:43:17 ↗ couple months now one of those is new to

1:43:19 ↗ this particular update so we saw um

1:43:23 ↗ specifically a lot of things were moved

1:43:26 ↗ on these from the uh from the update

1:43:28 ↗ this time

1:43:30 ↗ around some notable items uh you all saw

1:43:33 ↗ me in late October talking about the Ada

1:43:35 ↗ transition plan um getting that off the

1:43:38 ↗ shelf is a really exciting

1:43:41 ↗ opportunity for growth and development

1:43:44 ↗ we have five completed actions um only

1:43:47 ↗ one of these was new to this current

1:43:49 ↗ update the other four four um were all

1:43:51 ↗ complete as of the October update all

1:43:54 ↗ the other items in growth and

1:43:55 ↗ development are on track except for the

1:43:58 ↗ completed design manual for Oldtown um

1:44:01 ↗ which has been included in the title 18

1:44:03 ↗ future updates list uh it needs a more

1:44:07 ↗ comprehensive plan for Community

1:44:08 ↗ engagement before we would consider that

1:44:10 ↗ to be on

1:44:12 ↗ track next we have environmental

1:44:15 ↗ stewardship uh most actions in this

1:44:17 ↗ category remain on track I I I feel as

1:44:20 ↗ though you received a report about green

1:44:22 ↗ isqua we had some of the highest numbers

1:44:25 ↗ of volunteers and hours of volunteering

1:44:27 ↗ this past year um also our sustainable

1:44:30 ↗ purchasing policy uh has been um

1:44:34 ↗ administratively adopted things change

1:44:36 ↗ between the packet and when I get to be

1:44:38 ↗ in front of you so that's an exciting

1:44:40 ↗ thing to see move forward um the park

1:44:42 ↗ plan system update is still on track for

1:44:44 ↗ Council engagement this year um and the

1:44:46 ↗ one place where we're seeing challenges

1:44:47 ↗ is around electric vehicle Fleet

1:44:49 ↗ transition specifically some challenges

1:44:51 ↗ we've been continuing to see in

1:44:53 ↗ acquiring vehicles um that's continued

1:44:56 ↗ on into um throughout all of 2023 I know

1:44:59 ↗ that started prior to

1:45:03 ↗ that for social and economic Vitality

1:45:06 ↗ again most items remain on track and we

1:45:08 ↗ are lucky to have um Jen Davis Hayes in

1:45:12 ↗ the building tonight who can share a

1:45:15 ↗ little bit more if there are questions

1:45:16 ↗ we've had six completed items in this or

1:45:19 ↗ actions in this category

1:45:21 ↗ only one that's new for this update the

1:45:23 ↗ remaining five were in the previous

1:45:25 ↗ update other actions are on track with

1:45:27 ↗ the exception of the wayfinding um again

1:45:31 ↗ due to staff capacity there's there was

1:45:33 ↗ a some delays in moving that project

1:45:35 ↗ forward the current um estimated

1:45:37 ↗ implementation though is going to be for

1:45:40 ↗ Q2 of 2024 now that we do have the staff

1:45:42 ↗ capacity to move that work

1:45:44 ↗ forward and last but certainly um not

1:45:48 ↗ last excuse me second to last and

1:45:49 ↗ certainly not least

1:45:51 ↗ uh City leadership and services so six

1:45:53 ↗ completed actions in this uh

1:45:56 ↗ category um all of these not all of

1:45:59 ↗ these are new only one of these is new I

1:46:01 ↗ skipped ahead y'all I'm going to go back

1:46:04 ↗ to this one

1:46:06 ↗ um no one even blinked at me but I

1:46:09 ↗ totally blinked at myself here um so

1:46:11 ↗ social economic Vitality most actions

1:46:14 ↗ are on track the last one down at the

1:46:16 ↗ bottom um finding spaces for nonprofits

1:46:19 ↗ that has been that one of the greatest

1:46:21 ↗ challenges there's a there's a really

1:46:22 ↗ significant goal in the work plan around

1:46:24 ↗ more opportunities more capacity for

1:46:27 ↗ Community groups and

1:46:28 ↗ nonprofits the real challenge is space

1:46:31 ↗ um and finding space that they can they

1:46:34 ↗ can be in that fits their need um as a

1:46:37 ↗ way to be able to provide more immediate

1:46:38 ↗ Services here in the

1:46:40 ↗ community I already talked about this

1:46:41 ↗ one but I'll talk about it again now

1:46:43 ↗ that we're back on it so City leadership

1:46:45 ↗ and services six complete actions five

1:46:47 ↗ of those six were in the October update

1:46:50 ↗ um um the the key one in this update is

1:46:53 ↗ that the public engagement toolkit is

1:46:55 ↗ not just finalized it went to the equity

1:46:56 ↗ board it also was presented to council

1:46:58 ↗ um it's now in use um and so we consider

1:47:01 ↗ that to be um complete at this point and

1:47:04 ↗ we'll continue to gather input on its

1:47:06 ↗ Effectiveness over the course of the

1:47:07 ↗ upcoming year as we use

1:47:09 ↗ it and then infrastructure so we have

1:47:13 ↗ three items um that were completed three

1:47:16 ↗ action items completed most other items

1:47:18 ↗ in here remain on track um the exception

1:47:23 ↗ uh in here we've got um again is Fleet

1:47:26 ↗ uh we finished our Fleet study in late

1:47:30 ↗ 2022 um the there are a lot of items

1:47:33 ↗ that were already uh being implemented

1:47:35 ↗ administratively sort of improvements to

1:47:38 ↗ internal processes but in terms of a

1:47:42 ↗ policy decision um staff is still

1:47:45 ↗ working on deciding what they want

1:47:48 ↗ exactly what they'd like to bring to

1:47:49 ↗ council for presentation and we expect

1:47:51 ↗ that to happen um ahead of the upcoming

1:47:53 ↗ budget

1:47:54 ↗ conversations um and so you can expect

1:47:56 ↗ that coming up

1:47:59 ↗ soon so just some timing next steps and

1:48:02 ↗ then we'll we'll move to questions we're

1:48:04 ↗ going to continue to move forward with

1:48:06 ↗ items on the work plan um and Report out

1:48:08 ↗ on updates the current plan is to update

1:48:11 ↗ quarterly but as you know um requests

1:48:14 ↗ for ad hoc updates on particular items

1:48:17 ↗ uh is something that we'll also engage

1:48:18 ↗ in throughout the upcoming uh year the

1:48:21 ↗ next planned um update will be following

1:48:25 ↗ the end of quarter 1 so hopefully early

1:48:26 ↗ in Quarter Two um aiming for April

1:48:29 ↗ followed by subsequent quarterly updates

1:48:32 ↗ uh in July and

1:48:34 ↗ October again the the hope for tonight

1:48:37 ↗ um was to provide a bit of an update to

1:48:39 ↗ you on everything that's happened since

1:48:41 ↗ October um in terms of our progress on

1:48:43 ↗ the work plan but also to have an

1:48:46 ↗ opportunity for questions uh we have

1:48:48 ↗ Department directors um on on the

1:48:51 ↗ virtual line and in the room tonight to

1:48:53 ↗ answer any additional questions you

1:48:54 ↗ might have and then also to get input on

1:48:57 ↗ how would you like to engage with this

1:48:58 ↗ in an ongoing way did the way that it

1:49:01 ↗ the way that we brought information to

1:49:03 ↗ you last year work well uh would you

1:49:05 ↗ like to see something slightly different

1:49:06 ↗ here in

1:49:07 ↗ 2024 um and so with that I'll leave this

1:49:12 ↗ up questions starting with council

1:49:15 ↗ member

1:49:16 ↗ Mars two questions sorry which was the

1:49:19 ↗ one action that had made your

1:49:21 ↗ challenges yes the um in the mobility

1:49:25 ↗ section uh it is one second I am pulling

1:49:28 ↗ it up myself the transportation

1:49:30 ↗ concurrency policy and level of service

1:49:33 ↗ um it had been marked as major

1:49:35 ↗ challenges and then had been there was a

1:49:36 ↗ typo it it looks like it says minor

1:49:38 ↗ challenges um in talking today with John

1:49:41 ↗ mortensson uh he shared with me that one

1:49:44 ↗ of the major CH one of the holdups for

1:49:46 ↗ major challenges and I'm sure director

1:49:48 ↗ Emily Moon might have more to share was

1:49:50 ↗ simply around Staffing capacity to get

1:49:53 ↗ the consultant brought on to move the

1:49:54 ↗ work forward um before Jean Paul um left

1:49:59 ↗ the city he was able to add that

1:50:01 ↗ capacity to the public works team and so

1:50:03 ↗ we are very close to executing a

1:50:05 ↗ contract with that consultant John told

1:50:07 ↗ me this week hopefully um which will

1:50:10 ↗ move that closer to being it will not

1:50:12 ↗ it's not on track in terms of the

1:50:14 ↗ original timeline but it is no further

1:50:17 ↗ off track than it was um at the October

1:50:19 ↗ update was he did a he did a really

1:50:21 ↗ great engineering thing where he cited

1:50:23 ↗ the definition for minor challenges

1:50:25 ↗ versus major challenges and he said well

1:50:26 ↗ minor challenges says since the last

1:50:29 ↗ update it has not moved further away

1:50:32 ↗ from being only a quarter behind its

1:50:34 ↗ original goal and I said okay I accepted

1:50:39 ↗ um but that that was the item that was

1:50:40 ↗ off track it's still slightly behind but

1:50:42 ↗ we're getting closer to being back on

1:50:44 ↗ track there so the negative float hasn't

1:50:46 ↗ gone more negative exactly I see okay um

1:50:49 ↗ the the second question I have is uh

1:50:51 ↗ electric vehicle Fleet

1:50:53 ↗ transition TR challenges in acquiring

1:50:55 ↗ Vehicles due to supply chain delays and

1:50:58 ↗ competing demand what does that

1:51:00 ↗ mean I think we should phone a friend

1:51:03 ↗ autum manahan our director of community

1:51:05 ↗ services or M services online bring her

1:51:09 ↗ over here um Autumn would you mind uh

1:51:12 ↗ talking a little bit about the

1:51:14 ↗ procurement issues that we've been

1:51:16 ↗ facing sure um so you know we have been

1:51:19 ↗ successful getting a few electric

1:51:21 ↗ vehicles um and are eyeing other options

1:51:25 ↗ as we are turning over our Fleet for

1:51:27 ↗ what we can acquire for electric

1:51:29 ↗ vehicles we were also successful in uh

1:51:31 ↗ acquiring five hybrid Patrol Vehicles

1:51:35 ↗ which will be in our Fleet soon um

1:51:37 ↗ finding additional Vehicles especially

1:51:39 ↗ Patrol vehicles that are even hybrids um

1:51:42 ↗ is extremely difficult and in talking

1:51:44 ↗ with all of our other partners and other

1:51:46 ↗ agencies throughout the state and

1:51:48 ↗ throughout the country um there just

1:51:50 ↗ isn't the supply from um from a lot of

1:51:54 ↗ our major vendors so we're still working

1:51:56 ↗ on it and looking at uh again how we can

1:51:59 ↗ diversify our Fleet in other ways um

1:52:02 ↗ outside of police patrol and so we're

1:52:04 ↗ continuing to do that with our customers

1:52:06 ↗ [Music]

1:52:07 ↗ internally okay I was just curious

1:52:09 ↗ because it seems like the internet keeps

1:52:11 ↗ saying that nobody's buying electric

1:52:12 ↗ vehicles anymore I think it's possible

1:52:14 ↗ the internet may be incorrect on this

1:52:16 ↗ hard though that may be to believe thank

1:52:18 ↗ you yeah

1:52:21 ↗ he thank you Autumn um questions uh

1:52:24 ↗ Deputy council president D Melle then

1:52:27 ↗ council member hunt Paul and

1:52:30 ↗ Joe um so I was really happy to see that

1:52:34 ↗ the excuse me the transit oriented

1:52:37 ↗ development is now reset to be back on

1:52:40 ↗ track and it has an end date of December

1:52:44 ↗ 25

1:52:45 ↗ um could you give us a little bit more

1:52:48 ↗ detail about that because I I'm pleased

1:52:51 ↗ to see that is that realistic I guess is

1:52:54 ↗ the question Andrea Snider our Deputy

1:52:57 ↗ City administrator continues to work on

1:52:59 ↗ the Tod project and would ask that uh

1:53:02 ↗ she provide an

1:53:11 ↗ update good evening council members uh

1:53:14 ↗ to project update is that we are still

1:53:17 ↗ uh in the process of trying to

1:53:20 ↗ um relocate the the cell tower that is

1:53:24 ↗ on the future to site and build that

1:53:27 ↗ cell tower at the tibits Valley Park so

1:53:29 ↗ that's what has to happen first before

1:53:32 ↗ um we can finish or we can even begin um

1:53:35 ↗ to build the actual to OC um meanwhile

1:53:41 ↗ King County Housing Authority has been

1:53:43 ↗ working on hiring a new architect and

1:53:46 ↗ design firm for the tooc project

1:53:50 ↗ um so they should have that firm

1:53:53 ↗ selected sometime this month and then um

1:53:57 ↗ then they can start with that design

1:53:58 ↗ process including working with the

1:54:00 ↗ city's uh future tenants in the

1:54:02 ↗ Opportunity

1:54:06 ↗ Center thank you and my other question

1:54:09 ↗ was um about the light rail visioning I

1:54:13 ↗ see that we are already advertising for

1:54:16 ↗ citizens to participate in in that

1:54:19 ↗ process and it looks like we're going to

1:54:21 ↗ get a report on that in the fourth

1:54:25 ↗ quarter um so would you just like to

1:54:28 ↗ talk a little bit about the steps to

1:54:30 ↗ that and um where are we going with that

1:54:33 ↗ light rail visioning I just think that I

1:54:36 ↗ was I'm really excited to see that this

1:54:38 ↗ is happening but do anybody want to add

1:54:41 ↗ to that in with a little bit more

1:54:46 ↗ detail think

1:54:48 ↗ Andrea

1:54:50 ↗ sure hi

1:54:53 ↗ um yes uh we have um we will begin more

1:55:00 ↗ of an Outreach process uh for that light

1:55:04 ↗ rail station area

1:55:05 ↗ visioning um and so more of that work is

1:55:09 ↗ in store for us this year I don't know

1:55:11 ↗ what specific um details you're looking

1:55:14 ↗ for I think at a future date we can talk

1:55:15 ↗ about um the specifics of our engagement

1:55:18 ↗ plan we can provide more information on

1:55:20 ↗ what that might look like um but yeah

1:55:23 ↗ I'm sorry Andrea I think my question was

1:55:25 ↗ more specifically um we're going to have

1:55:28 ↗ this public engagement how are we going

1:55:30 ↗ to how's the council going to um

1:55:33 ↗ participate in that and what'll be the

1:55:35 ↗ interaction between those groups and and

1:55:37 ↗ the

1:55:39 ↗ council yeah council member de Michelle

1:55:41 ↗ I would love to get you more or I'm

1:55:42 ↗ sorry Deputy council president Michelle

1:55:44 ↗ I would love to give you more um

1:55:46 ↗ detailed information on that and I'd

1:55:48 ↗ prefer to just follow up and an email to

1:55:51 ↗ council if that's all right yeah um I

1:55:53 ↗ know that we'll be certainly keeping uh

1:55:55 ↗ the mobility and infrastructure

1:55:56 ↗ committee um uh you know up to date and

1:56:00 ↗ a part of the process but I'm lacking

1:56:03 ↗ specific details on timelines and

1:56:05 ↗ exactly what that public engagement plan

1:56:07 ↗ looks like so um I'd love to get back to

1:56:09 ↗ you over an email to you and the rest of

1:56:11 ↗ council all right thank you very

1:56:15 ↗ much okay next I think is council member

1:56:18 ↗ hunt then Hall okay um thank you for the

1:56:24 ↗ presentation there was uh you updated us

1:56:26 ↗ on the transportation concurrency policy

1:56:29 ↗ and level of service um I thought that

1:56:33 ↗ maybe the transportation concurrency

1:56:35 ↗ model update which also has minor

1:56:37 ↗ challenges was related but then I was

1:56:39 ↗ reading it and then I thought maybe it

1:56:40 ↗ wasn't so I wondered if you could uh

1:56:42 ↗ clarify if there was additional

1:56:44 ↗ challenges to be worked through on that

1:56:46 ↗ or if they are just related and they're

1:56:48 ↗ sort of the same same

1:56:52 ↗ issue I'm going to invite director Moon

1:56:57 ↗ up yes you are correct they are two

1:57:00 ↗ different somewhat related projects the

1:57:04 ↗ data update was slightly delayed uh for

1:57:08 ↗ a couple of reasons one was we had to

1:57:11 ↗ wait to some degree for uh some actions

1:57:14 ↗ under Title 18 to be known so that we

1:57:16 ↗ could plug in land use uh

1:57:20 ↗ probabilities into the model uh second

1:57:23 ↗ reason is our consultant founded an eror

1:57:27 ↗ late in the process in the data entry

1:57:31 ↗ and needed to go back and make that

1:57:33 ↗ correction but um we're expecting that

1:57:36 ↗ data any day and uh we're going to be

1:57:40 ↗ bringing that uh forward to council to

1:57:42 ↗ share uh what we've learned from it and

1:57:46 ↗ couple that um in close fashion with the

1:57:49 ↗ discussion on any policy

1:57:51 ↗ questions okay thank

1:57:54 ↗ you okay on to council member

1:57:59 ↗ Hall um thank you so um I only bring

1:58:03 ↗ this up because I was on the Capital

1:58:05 ↗ Finance Community task force so I'm just

1:58:06 ↗ wondering if there's any value in that

1:58:08 ↗ first one um you know we were able to

1:58:10 ↗ pass the transportation benefit district

1:58:12 ↗ sales back that is a huge success for

1:58:14 ↗ that is there any value in keeping that

1:58:16 ↗ on track because there were kind of more

1:58:18 ↗ elements of our long-term

1:58:20 ↗ Capital funding strategy um kind of

1:58:22 ↗ worked up in those recommendations and

1:58:25 ↗ and also questions that the task force

1:58:27 ↗ didn't consider like those with regard

1:58:29 ↗ to facilities that um

1:58:33 ↗ remain kind of still an open question I

1:58:35 ↗ just wanted to ask the administration if

1:58:36 ↗ maybe there's value in keeping that

1:58:38 ↗ keeping that one alive the

1:58:43 ↗ m1c yeah I think that's a really great

1:58:45 ↗ Point um I think most likely you know as

1:58:49 ↗ has been previewed to this group uh

1:58:51 ↗ we're looking ahead at a strategic Plan

1:58:53 ↗ update this coming year and one of the

1:58:55 ↗ parts of that will be exploring the

1:58:57 ↗ objectives and the actions aligned to

1:58:58 ↗ that objective um so it seems like a

1:59:00 ↗ great opportunity also to look at the

1:59:02 ↗ specific actions aligned too I believe

1:59:05 ↗ it's m1c uh and see if it's time to

1:59:08 ↗ redefine now what what do we mean by m1c

1:59:11 ↗ in

1:59:11 ↗ 2024 that is a perfect segue into my

1:59:14 ↗ follow-up question which is as the

1:59:17 ↗ Strategic plan gets updated are we

1:59:18 ↗ expecting

1:59:19 ↗ that um all the objectives and all the

1:59:22 ↗ actions will will be different in the

1:59:25 ↗ the work plan that gets presented to us

1:59:26 ↗ year-over-year

1:59:27 ↗ I think that is potentially something

1:59:30 ↗ that could happen as a result of that

1:59:32 ↗ engagement it won't change the actions

1:59:34 ↗ on this year's work plan but as we look

1:59:36 ↗ ahead to 20 the 2025 2026 banal budget

1:59:40 ↗ absolutely

1:59:42 ↗ thanks council member Joe thank you um I

1:59:46 ↗ had a question about the Wildland Fire

1:59:48 ↗ Protection initiative

1:59:49 ↗ it's toward the end of the uh report

1:59:52 ↗ thank you for all the great detail you

1:59:53 ↗ have in this report it uh certainly

1:59:56 ↗ gives us uh things to think about and

1:59:59 ↗ directions that we can uh look for

2:00:01 ↗ improvement um is this uh initiative uh

2:00:06 ↗ solely East Side Fire and Rescue or does

2:00:08 ↗ our city have uh some role in it and if

2:00:11 ↗ so

2:00:15 ↗ what I'm going to ask uh Autumn to come

2:00:18 ↗ back on um you know our emergency

2:00:21 ↗ manager Jared Schneider has been working

2:00:23 ↗ very closely with East Side Fire and

2:00:25 ↗ Rescue on this they've had some staffing

2:00:28 ↗ challenges themselves at eper on this

2:00:30 ↗ point um I'll let Autumn pick up the

2:00:33 ↗ story from there uh but but certainly

2:00:35 ↗ we're committed this is a a regional

2:00:38 ↗ issue and we have a piece of it as well

2:00:41 ↗ as ephra as well as some of our other

2:00:43 ↗ neighbors Autumn do you want to

2:00:45 ↗ add yeah well put administrat Bitz um so

2:00:49 ↗ Jared our emergency manager has a lot of

2:00:52 ↗ experience uh in this area and worked um

2:00:56 ↗ mostly on the king County's initiative

2:00:59 ↗ around wildfire and so has a lot of

2:01:00 ↗ experience in it um we are happy that

2:01:03 ↗ epher is now fully staffed and their

2:01:05 ↗ emergency management team and so we're

2:01:07 ↗ excited to get going on that work and in

2:01:09 ↗ that partnership um a lot of that will

2:01:11 ↗ include some Community engagement as

2:01:12 ↗ well as a lot of training and and

2:01:15 ↗ planwriting so um we're excited to roll

2:01:17 ↗ up our sleeves and get going on that

2:01:18 ↗ work with with East Side Fire and Rescue

2:01:20 ↗ this year great thank you for that

2:01:22 ↗ background I appreciate it um there's a

2:01:26 ↗ engrossed Senate bill down the

2:01:28 ↗ legislature right now it's 6120

2:01:31 ↗ 6120 that's addressing the Wildland

2:01:34 ↗ Urban interface maps and uh I think that

2:01:38 ↗ if it does pass there will be a larger

2:01:40 ↗ role or a greater role the city could

2:01:42 ↗ play in uh helping Define the areas of

2:01:45 ↗ the Wildland interface for us uh that

2:01:48 ↗ makes sense for our particular

2:01:50 ↗ topography and our environmental

2:01:51 ↗ situation I would uh encourage the

2:01:54 ↗ administration to watch to see if this

2:01:55 ↗ passes and then if it does um try to

2:01:58 ↗ take advantage of the options that are

2:02:01 ↗ available for us uh for the Wildland

2:02:03 ↗ Urban interface thank

2:02:06 ↗ you okay now we're going over to council

2:02:09 ↗ member

2:02:10 ↗ Marts um if we could talk a little bit

2:02:12 ↗ about the Tod again um maybe Deputy City

2:02:17 ↗ administrator uh what's the issue with

2:02:20 ↗ the cell tower moving when last when

2:02:23 ↗ last we talked I thought we found it a

2:02:25 ↗ nice happy home uh where it would uh

2:02:28 ↗ Thrive and play

2:02:30 ↗ with we found it a home what's happened

2:02:34 ↗ since

2:02:35 ↗ that that is uh still the Home tiit

2:02:38 ↗ Valley Park that's still the plan um

2:02:41 ↗ we're in permitting right now and so um

2:02:45 ↗ we are uh at towards the end of of the

2:02:49 ↗ permitting process um this project I

2:02:53 ↗ think was just a little tricky we wanted

2:02:55 ↗ there's a water m a very close to the

2:02:57 ↗ site there's um uh you know critical

2:03:01 ↗ areas that are close and adjacent to the

2:03:03 ↗ site so we wanted to make sure that

2:03:05 ↗ access was maintained for water M and

2:03:07 ↗ all kinds of stuff so um and that design

2:03:11 ↗ um of the of the cell tower and

2:03:13 ↗ accompanying building um isn't obtrusive

2:03:15 ↗ to the park and so um we've been going

2:03:18 ↗ through the permitting process um and I

2:03:22 ↗ think the uh the the cell tower company

2:03:26 ↗ has just um resubmitted their permit um

2:03:30 ↗ and responded to the the comments the

2:03:31 ↗ city staff have provided so we're

2:03:33 ↗ getting very close uh to the cell tower

2:03:35 ↗ being permitted but it's not quite yet

2:03:38 ↗ permitted okay and then the second part

2:03:40 ↗ of this is you know hearing uh sounds

2:03:43 ↗ like there's exciting new things from

2:03:45 ↗ the uh King County Housing and I guess

2:03:48 ↗ gu I would ask it sounds like maybe it's

2:03:51 ↗ time for us to get an update um from and

2:03:53 ↗ invite those fine folks back to hear how

2:03:56 ↗ the plans are looking and uh how they're

2:03:58 ↗ going to get to December 2025 and maybe

2:04:01 ↗ even have it come before services and

2:04:03 ↗ safety in Parks uh to uh to hear from

2:04:06 ↗ them because it's been quite some

2:04:09 ↗ time yes I think um an update at some

2:04:13 ↗ point this year would be appropriate uh

2:04:16 ↗ this at this point in time not much has

2:04:18 ↗ changed because they're still getting

2:04:19 ↗ that new Architecture Firm on board so

2:04:23 ↗ um they they'll need some time to put

2:04:25 ↗ some plans together um also this year uh

2:04:29 ↗ we look forward to Sig a condominium

2:04:31 ↗ agreement with King County Housing

2:04:34 ↗ Authority um that is something that we

2:04:36 ↗ have planned to do by the end of the

2:04:38 ↗ year uh that condominium agreement as

2:04:40 ↗ you may recall would um govern our

2:04:43 ↗ ownership of the Opportunity Center

2:04:45 ↗ space so those conversations will be

2:04:47 ↗ happening and we will certain certainly

2:04:49 ↗ be bringing those items uh to city

2:04:51 ↗ council and of course the appropriate

2:04:53 ↗ city council

2:04:54 ↗ committees okay sometime this year when

2:04:57 ↗ on something that is ostensibly going to

2:04:59 ↗ be done by next December seems like a

2:05:01 ↗ very wide range deed I would hope it'd

2:05:04 ↗ be sooner rather than later I I would

2:05:07 ↗ it's just been a long time since we've

2:05:08 ↗ heard from them and it's exciting to

2:05:10 ↗ hear that they're on track uh for

2:05:13 ↗ December of 2025 but I I decided to care

2:05:16 ↗ more so I'm hoping that it will be not

2:05:18 ↗ towards the end of the year but uh

2:05:21 ↗ sooner right because if there were any

2:05:23 ↗ questions or whatnot end of the year

2:05:25 ↗ only 12 months before the whole project

2:05:27 ↗ do and given we're what six years in at

2:05:29 ↗ this point uh that seems like it seems

2:05:32 ↗ like sooner is better than

2:05:36 ↗ later understood thank you council

2:05:38 ↗ member thank

2:05:41 ↗ you okay looking over my questions it's

2:05:45 ↗ more about things that I'm not seeing on

2:05:47 ↗ there um and so I know work plans based

2:05:51 ↗ on strategic plan but there's also some

2:05:54 ↗ other um items on there so I'm wondering

2:05:57 ↗ if we can get um an update on when the

2:06:01 ↗ online business and occupation tax um

2:06:04 ↗ payments will be available I know we've

2:06:06 ↗ rolled out Utility Billing um online so

2:06:11 ↗ looking forward to hearing about when

2:06:13 ↗ that's coming um I know um earlier Matt

2:06:17 ↗ Ellis mentioned the utility rate study I

2:06:21 ↗ don't see that kind of on this list and

2:06:23 ↗ so understanding when that is coming

2:06:25 ↗ would be

2:06:26 ↗ useful um the other thing that I don't

2:06:30 ↗ see on here is our city hall and

2:06:33 ↗ Facilities kind of further decisioning

2:06:37 ↗ um feels like that's going to be a big

2:06:39 ↗ thing for the year so it would be nice

2:06:41 ↗ to have an understanding of how that um

2:06:45 ↗ comes through as far as when it's coming

2:06:46 ↗ to council and what the big decision

2:06:48 ↗ points are and then I recognize that we

2:06:53 ↗ are probably one year into Title 18

2:06:58 ↗ being launched or at some point we will

2:07:00 ↗ be and so I know there was a commitment

2:07:03 ↗ to coming back to us and saying hey

2:07:06 ↗ here's how the roll out has gone with

2:07:08 ↗ any developers or developments um so I'd

2:07:11 ↗ like to see if we can get that back in

2:07:15 ↗ as well as the project approval flows

2:07:18 ↗ charts and I just realized I'm providing

2:07:20 ↗ feedback rather than questions which is

2:07:23 ↗ really not helpful as a

2:07:27 ↗ facilitator we'll take it okay fantastic

2:07:31 ↗ sorry guys just go into my notes and I

2:07:33 ↗ thought they were all questions but not

2:07:36 ↗ really um okay I assume there is no one

2:07:39 ↗ online for questions there's all sorts

2:07:42 ↗ of people online what would you like to

2:07:44 ↗ talk about no I meant public comment

2:07:47 ↗ questions

2:07:50 ↗ okay and Chris I'm going to come back to

2:07:54 ↗ you see if I'm glad you're technology is

2:07:57 ↗ now stabilized do you have any questions

2:08:00 ↗ on the city work plan item no I don't

2:08:04 ↗ but I want you to know that U my uh

2:08:06 ↗ computer took advantage of uh failing to

2:08:09 ↗ also reinstall new software so it got to

2:08:12 ↗ be a protracted no no questions thank

2:08:14 ↗ you though okay um council member hunt

2:08:18 ↗ um thank you well actually your your

2:08:20 ↗ question or your comments did um make a

2:08:24 ↗ a question come to my mind which is uh I

2:08:27 ↗ also I also think there are some things

2:08:29 ↗ that the city is working on over this

2:08:31 ↗ next year that aren't in this work plan

2:08:33 ↗ is looking for Habitat restoration and

2:08:36 ↗ Salamon uh and um and so I I uh wondered

2:08:41 ↗ if you could briefly describe what um

2:08:46 ↗ what gets on to the work plan and uh

2:08:49 ↗ that we see versus um versus I know

2:08:52 ↗ there there are additional things going

2:08:55 ↗ on um well the work plan is not meant to

2:08:58 ↗ be every single thing we do as a city of

2:09:00 ↗ Isa um what we've tried to do is take uh

2:09:04 ↗ the uh objectives of the Strategic plan

2:09:06 ↗ and incorporate those with updates and

2:09:08 ↗ then what the administration feels are

2:09:10 ↗ key projects something that goes above

2:09:12 ↗ and beyond the everyday so uh we want to

2:09:16 ↗ be sensitive to the council uh if are

2:09:18 ↗ specific projects that might even be

2:09:20 ↗ considered every day but are of

2:09:22 ↗ particular importance or of interest to

2:09:24 ↗ the council um you know we're just

2:09:26 ↗ trying to make sure that this is not a

2:09:28 ↗ 100-page document um we want it to be

2:09:31 ↗ meaningful to you we want it to be

2:09:32 ↗ meaningful to community so if there are

2:09:35 ↗ things or you can just ask the question

2:09:37 ↗ I mean we have the entire senior

2:09:38 ↗ management team online Mr Watling is

2:09:40 ↗ here and I'm sure we'd be happy to talk

2:09:42 ↗ a little bit about some of the habitat

2:09:44 ↗ work that we're doing so and that also

2:09:46 ↗ leads to the the final question question

2:09:49 ↗ is to what format we have given you

2:09:51 ↗ written updates I think the last two

2:09:52 ↗ years haven't gotten a lot of feedback

2:09:54 ↗ on those if you find this kind of round

2:09:57 ↗ robin conversation helpful or happy to

2:09:59 ↗ do it it just takes time and resources

2:10:03 ↗ have everybody join us but as I think

2:10:05 ↗ you've seen it's a pretty easy thing to

2:10:07 ↗ bring people in

2:10:09 ↗ electronic so as a note their um Council

2:10:13 ↗ leadership had previous years um this

2:10:17 ↗ has been kind been tag on in our Retreat

2:10:22 ↗ and so usually because we have such

2:10:24 ↗ meaty topics of the retreat we don't get

2:10:25 ↗ a lot of questions here so we asked the

2:10:29 ↗ administration of city council

2:10:31 ↗ leadership to bring it a committee of

2:10:33 ↗ the whole so that we could ask questions

2:10:35 ↗ so one of the questions then is does

2:10:39 ↗ that make sense do written updates in

2:10:41 ↗ the remainder of the Year work how how

2:10:44 ↗ do you want to interface with this going

2:10:47 ↗ forward

2:10:51 ↗ I was going to say no really that's a

2:10:52 ↗ question uh council member Joe thank you

2:10:55 ↗ um I do appreciate the uh written

2:10:59 ↗ reports that you've been giving us um

2:11:01 ↗ and and I think that um you know putting

2:11:04 ↗ them on the consent agenda uh for us to

2:11:07 ↗ review is fine if any of us have any

2:11:09 ↗ questions about a particular topic we

2:11:11 ↗ should try to get those questions to the

2:11:13 ↗ administration um by noon on Monday at

2:11:16 ↗ the very latest um so that you can have

2:11:19 ↗ someone join us uh by video or be here

2:11:23 ↗ and answer the questions but I think

2:11:25 ↗ that we as council members need to take

2:11:27 ↗ a little bit of the onus and the

2:11:28 ↗ responsibility of reading this and and

2:11:31 ↗ giving the administration a little bit

2:11:32 ↗ of heads up in terms of what questions

2:11:34 ↗ we want to ask so I think the timing of

2:11:36 ↗ the reports is great but I think that um

2:11:38 ↗ you could put a little more of the

2:11:39 ↗ responsibility on the council to um get

2:11:41 ↗ their questions in order before the

2:11:45 ↗ meeting council member hunt

2:11:49 ↗ um I I think this is uh is helpful in

2:11:53 ↗ the written form um I think it's also

2:11:56 ↗ over time gotten um it has a lot more

2:11:59 ↗ information now about how things change

2:12:01 ↗ over time which was one of the the

2:12:03 ↗ things that I um had asked for

2:12:05 ↗ previously so I really appreciate that

2:12:07 ↗ now when you go and look at the

2:12:09 ↗ narrative it does it does say you know

2:12:11 ↗ this this was because uh as things get

2:12:14 ↗ back to being on track then they come

2:12:15 ↗ back on track but it may not have been

2:12:17 ↗ the original track

2:12:18 ↗ and so now it does I think it's helpful

2:12:20 ↗ for us as policy makers to know that it

2:12:23 ↗ is now on track but it's on a different

2:12:25 ↗ track than it was originally and that

2:12:26 ↗ has changed by a year however much it's

2:12:29 ↗ changed um so I think that that's really

2:12:31 ↗ helpful and I think um that's that's

2:12:33 ↗ been a big Improvement at least for for

2:12:36 ↗ me in terms of um how I I can use this

2:12:40 ↗ to sort of see how things change over

2:12:41 ↗ time um and uh as far as how we want to

2:12:47 ↗ work with it I mean I think it is a good

2:12:50 ↗ I think it is a a helpful document and I

2:12:52 ↗ think it is on us to ask about things we

2:12:55 ↗ don't see on here and then um and

2:12:58 ↗ potentially Council leadership to to

2:13:00 ↗ flag things that are that are

2:13:02 ↗ potentially important to us as policy

2:13:04 ↗ makers but not on here but I think that

2:13:07 ↗ um I think overall it's a helpful

2:13:09 ↗ document for us to be reviewing and I

2:13:12 ↗ think the presentation is

2:13:15 ↗ good so I think what I've heard maybe is

2:13:18 ↗ we're okay with written reports on

2:13:22 ↗ consent going forward for the remainder

2:13:25 ↗ of the year is there any objection to

2:13:28 ↗ beginning of the year having an kind of

2:13:31 ↗ in-person

2:13:34 ↗ presentation okay that's what this is

2:13:36 ↗ yes exactly that's what I'm saying going

2:13:39 ↗ forward into future years with the

2:13:42 ↗ expectation that the others could be um

2:13:45 ↗ written on

2:13:46 ↗ consent and any other feedback questions

2:13:51 ↗ yep go ahead um I I have one more thing

2:13:54 ↗ which is um I think especially for the

2:13:57 ↗ the one the one where we have the

2:13:58 ↗ presentation towards the beginning of

2:14:00 ↗ the year it would be good to make sure

2:14:02 ↗ that large large projects um are on here

2:14:06 ↗ so that Council can track them I'm

2:14:08 ↗ thinking of arpa the arpa funding that's

2:14:10 ↗ being used um in the The Pedestrian Park

2:14:14 ↗ and the um in front of the senior center

2:14:16 ↗ for those improvements could be missing

2:14:18 ↗ it but I searched just now for for

2:14:22 ↗ pedestrian I couldn't find it under that

2:14:24 ↗ heading anyway um so I think just those

2:14:26 ↗ large dollar amount uh big projects even

2:14:30 ↗ if they

2:14:33 ↗ are I think those would be good because

2:14:35 ↗ it's good for Council to know where

2:14:36 ↗ those are in the process and also for

2:14:38 ↗ the community to

2:14:39 ↗ know and there is a capital report

2:14:42 ↗ that's separate to that we were not

2:14:44 ↗ asked to bring that this

2:14:46 ↗ evening

2:14:49 ↗ okay have what you need I do thank you

2:14:53 ↗ thank you to all the senior leadership

2:14:55 ↗ staff in person and online appreciate

2:14:58 ↗ seeing your names on the screen and

2:15:00 ↗ those who appeared in

2:15:02 ↗ person um on camera okay looking at our

2:15:07 ↗ next we've got another item which is ID

2:15:10 ↗ 1641 a regional Coalition for housing

2:15:13 ↗ Arch strategic plan presented oh well St

2:15:18 ↗ quit City administrator is going to

2:15:19 ↗ start us off on that I am indeed

2:15:24 ↗ um just let the police chief know she is

2:15:26 ↗ good to

2:15:31 ↗ go uh Madame mayor Pro 10 members of the

2:15:34 ↗ council um as I think you know I am the

2:15:37 ↗ city's representative on the arch board

2:15:41 ↗ I serve as the mayor Paulie's uh uh

2:15:44 ↗ proxy uh on the board on a regular basis

2:15:48 ↗ um in recent weeks recent months the

2:15:50 ↗ board has uh conducted a Strate

2:15:53 ↗ strategic planning process uh to kind of

2:15:55 ↗ take a look at itself as a board as an

2:15:58 ↗ organization and uh be thoughtful about

2:16:01 ↗ the future um there is now a draft

2:16:03 ↗ strategic plan that uh the board has

2:16:06 ↗ reviewed um it is now uh out for comment

2:16:11 ↗ um each me board member was uh asked to

2:16:16 ↗ take it back to their jurisdiction and

2:16:18 ↗ receive whatever comment they felt

2:16:21 ↗ appropriate based on you know how their

2:16:24 ↗ jurisdiction does business and of course

2:16:25 ↗ every city operates a little bit

2:16:27 ↗ differently um in my participation in

2:16:30 ↗ the strategic planning process I have

2:16:32 ↗ had some serious concerns about uh the

2:16:36 ↗ future of arch the role of elected

2:16:38 ↗ officials the role of appointed

2:16:39 ↗ officials um the role of uh of advocacy

2:16:44 ↗ and there are several points within the

2:16:46 ↗ Strategic plan that address that um so

2:16:49 ↗ I'm I'm here this evening with Jen Davis

2:16:51 ↗ Hay's help and Lindsey maners the

2:16:54 ↗ executive director of arch is also with

2:16:56 ↗ us um to have you get an overview of the

2:16:59 ↗ entire document because certainly there

2:17:01 ↗ are many other pieces to it uh that

2:17:03 ↗ focus on the important work that Arch

2:17:06 ↗ does uh but there are a few points that

2:17:08 ↗ I have been concerned about that I have

2:17:10 ↗ raised uh concern as isqua

2:17:13 ↗ representative uh and as the Strategic

2:17:15 ↗ plan now goes into its final stages uh I

2:17:18 ↗ want to be clear on the council's uh

2:17:21 ↗ Viewpoint Ive discussed this with mayor

2:17:23 ↗ Paulie um she too is curious to hear uh

2:17:27 ↗ the feedback from the council um some of

2:17:29 ↗ the issues that have been raised have

2:17:31 ↗ not been widely raised by our other

2:17:32 ↗ neighbor jurisdictions um and so I I

2:17:36 ↗ think we're at a critical point now uh

2:17:38 ↗ to understand what is really important

2:17:39 ↗ to this qua what should be advocated and

2:17:42 ↗ what is you know perhaps just as we all

2:17:44 ↗ you all serve on various Regional bodies

2:17:47 ↗ when you're one of many um you have an

2:17:50 ↗ opinion and you're entitled to that

2:17:51 ↗ opinion but perhaps the rest of the

2:17:53 ↗ group does not share that opinion so

2:17:56 ↗ hopefully tonight looking to get some

2:17:57 ↗ feedback from you on some of these

2:17:59 ↗ points so I've asked Jen uh to come

2:18:01 ↗ tonight to give a very broad overview of

2:18:04 ↗ the entire document and then we'll be

2:18:06 ↗ happy to answer any questions and I also

2:18:07 ↗ appreciate Lindsay uh for joining us

2:18:10 ↗ this evening so she can provide uh more

2:18:12 ↗ of a institutional point of view on any

2:18:15 ↗ points that you may raise and thank you

2:18:16 ↗ and good evening

2:18:19 ↗ good evening thank you Wally I

2:18:20 ↗ appreciate that uh introduction um as he

2:18:23 ↗ mentioned my name is Jen Davis Hayes

2:18:24 ↗ economic development manager and I'm

2:18:27 ↗ here to present uh the high level of the

2:18:29 ↗ Strategic plan and we are very thankful

2:18:31 ↗ to have um our phona friend here in

2:18:33 ↗ Lindsay Masters who was obviously very

2:18:36 ↗ in uh int intrig involved in this

2:18:40 ↗ process over the past year and a and

2:18:42 ↗ plus so again we're here tonight to uh

2:18:44 ↗ get any feedback and just kind of inform

2:18:46 ↗ you about the the Strategic plan um

2:18:49 ↗ there are four areas that we'll be

2:18:51 ↗ talking about here about the about uh

2:18:54 ↗ The Arches plan and while there is no

2:18:57 ↗ budget ask for any implementation for

2:18:59 ↗ this year there may be it's a may be uh

2:19:03 ↗ in our next bym so we wanted to make you

2:19:05 ↗ aware of that as again we're looking at

2:19:07 ↗ things because of course it' be great if

2:19:08 ↗ we can do everything under the current

2:19:09 ↗ budget but want you to be aware of it

2:19:12 ↗ makes sense so the again the Strategic

2:19:15 ↗ plan process for Arch uh they started

2:19:17 ↗ out um establishing goals in uh 2022

2:19:21 ↗ they had an organizational assessment um

2:19:24 ↗ and they then selected a consultant in

2:19:26 ↗ February 23 and then um really looked at

2:19:30 ↗ um setting a goal of how to build more

2:19:32 ↗ affordable housing faster right that

2:19:34 ↗ sounds great um and so it's a highlevel

2:19:37 ↗ direction uh that Arch staff will

2:19:40 ↗ Implement Implement over time so the

2:19:42 ↗ board has created this strategic plan um

2:19:45 ↗ and uh they're hoping that the refined

2:19:47 ↗ and strengthened Arch identity helps uh

2:19:51 ↗ kind of move their organization forward

2:19:53 ↗ um in a more effective way so I know

2:19:55 ↗ that council members um Walsh Hall and D

2:19:58 ↗ Michelle participated in online survey

2:20:02 ↗ as part of the engagement so thank you

2:20:03 ↗ very much for that and then the

2:20:05 ↗ Strategic plan was brought to the board

2:20:08 ↗ for review in January and February um so

2:20:11 ↗ this is again just coming hot off the

2:20:14 ↗ presses so for the First theme is

2:20:16 ↗ governor and administration and so this

2:20:19 ↗ is really looking at you know cores uh

2:20:22 ↗ Arch's core functions so making sure

2:20:24 ↗ that they address the issues in

2:20:26 ↗ affordable housing leverage uh

2:20:28 ↗ opportunities and allocate resources

2:20:30 ↗ effectively um they are the experts in

2:20:33 ↗ the region on affordable housing a lot

2:20:35 ↗ of cities don't have any staff that work

2:20:37 ↗ on affordable housing um we are lucky we

2:20:39 ↗ do have a few but um and there their

2:20:42 ↗ role is also to um manage and preserve

2:20:45 ↗ affordable the affordable housing that

2:20:46 ↗ exist so making Mak sure the people that

2:20:48 ↗ are living in there continue to be um

2:20:50 ↗ meeting the guidelines Etc so the

2:20:52 ↗ governance Administration part really is

2:20:54 ↗ about streamlining

2:20:56 ↗ decision-making um empowering the

2:20:58 ↗ coalition to tackle major policy

2:21:01 ↗ challenges right so making sure that

2:21:02 ↗ there are strong organization so that

2:21:04 ↗ they can achieve great things so for

2:21:07 ↗ instance they're talking about um doing

2:21:09 ↗ more engagement with elected officials

2:21:11 ↗ like yourself to educate inform about

2:21:14 ↗ what's going on and to really help uh

2:21:17 ↗ councils and other elected officials

2:21:20 ↗ across the area be uh more aware of

2:21:23 ↗ what's needed to to move that for uh

2:21:25 ↗ affordable housing forward they are also

2:21:28 ↗ looking at does that make sense for

2:21:30 ↗ elected officials to be more involved in

2:21:32 ↗ the governance of their

2:21:34 ↗ organization um they they have

2:21:36 ↗ identified some ways to streamline

2:21:38 ↗ operations as they continue to grow as

2:21:40 ↗ an organization of course as they're

2:21:42 ↗ looking at as every organization is

2:21:44 ↗ where the efficiencies and where do we

2:21:46 ↗ make sure that we're addressing

2:21:47 ↗ diversity equity and inclusion in the

2:21:49 ↗ way we do our our

2:21:52 ↗ work the uh policy legislative and

2:21:55 ↗ funding area is really focus on State

2:21:57 ↗ and Regional policy efforts to increase

2:22:00 ↗ uh funding and reduce barriers overall

2:22:03 ↗ so looking at are there targeted State

2:22:05 ↗ and and um Regional legislation that

2:22:08 ↗ they can create um uh information for

2:22:12 ↗ and go and advocate for funding that

2:22:15 ↗ supports to build more to build more uh

2:22:17 ↗ housing faster um they want to continue

2:22:20 ↗ to serve as a policy resource um so

2:22:23 ↗ making sure that uh the information that

2:22:27 ↗ about these the funding barriers Etc

2:22:32 ↗ that information is available to all of

2:22:34 ↗ their members and then they also want to

2:22:36 ↗ make sure that they support the

2:22:37 ↗ legislative advocacy that each of our

2:22:39 ↗ cities uh may be doing so that we at

2:22:42 ↗ least have the information um from

2:22:44 ↗ another perspective sorry I did not move

2:22:46 ↗ forward like I thought uh one moment I

2:22:49 ↗ think we've got a question Deputy

2:22:51 ↗ council president D

2:22:53 ↗ Michelle so just to dig a Little Deeper

2:22:56 ↗ on the governance change analysis and so

2:22:59 ↗ I I know that the that Arch has a um

2:23:03 ↗ Advisory Group and then you've also got

2:23:05 ↗ a board um and so are we talking at

2:23:08 ↗ looking at how those two interact and

2:23:11 ↗ seeing if if that's an efficient uh

2:23:14 ↗ decision-making model or um are there

2:23:17 ↗ other specific things that you want to

2:23:18 ↗ do when you're thinking about um making

2:23:22 ↗ the decision-making process more

2:23:25 ↗ efficient um that could be an example of

2:23:27 ↗ something that we include in that study

2:23:30 ↗ um there were a number of topics that

2:23:31 ↗ came up in the board's process this year

2:23:34 ↗ that we identified we definitely wanted

2:23:36 ↗ to take a look at and study and one of

2:23:38 ↗ those was um the role of elected

2:23:40 ↗ officials and how they're engaged in

2:23:42 ↗ Arch um the community Advisory Board was

2:23:45 ↗ something that got a little bit less

2:23:46 ↗ attention attention from from the board

2:23:48 ↗ but I think our staff are interested and

2:23:51 ↗ um not necessarily changing the scope

2:23:54 ↗ and function but looking at ways to

2:23:56 ↗ improve the efficacy of the group so

2:23:58 ↗ we're we're able to Contin you know

2:24:02 ↗ continue to pursue some of those um

2:24:03 ↗ under the current interlocal agreement

2:24:06 ↗ and wouldn't necessarily need to have it

2:24:07 ↗ as part of a consultant study but um I

2:24:10 ↗ think it's it's it's something the board

2:24:11 ↗ would have to scope this year and decide

2:24:13 ↗ what's the range of things they want to

2:24:15 ↗ include in the study

2:24:18 ↗ thank

2:24:22 ↗ you great I'll get on the right uh slide

2:24:28 ↗ so looking at the local policy and

2:24:30 ↗ planning um so this is uh their effort

2:24:33 ↗ to dedicate new capacity to support the

2:24:36 ↗ important local policy priorities so

2:24:39 ↗ they're going to evaluate they get a lot

2:24:41 ↗ of requests I know that because I know

2:24:43 ↗ that I ask them for a lot of help with

2:24:45 ↗ what we've been doing um but to uh

2:24:47 ↗ they've get a lot of requests using

2:24:50 ↗ um uh from from different uh members and

2:24:54 ↗ so they want to learn think more about

2:24:56 ↗ be strategic about those requests how

2:24:58 ↗ can they screen them how can they uh add

2:25:00 ↗ capacity if there's a need to if cities

2:25:03 ↗ are all looking to have a housing

2:25:04 ↗ analysis looking at um a certain aspect

2:25:07 ↗ of housing um and then they really I

2:25:10 ↗ think there's an opportunity to think

2:25:12 ↗ about Surplus land and other strategies

2:25:15 ↗ of how again to to address getting more

2:25:17 ↗ affordable housing so that may be

2:25:19 ↗ looking at feasibility studies at

2:25:21 ↗ development at zoning and incentive

2:25:23 ↗ strategies and so really again shifting

2:25:26 ↗ a little bit of that Focus um of their

2:25:28 ↗ capacity to do more of that to get H

2:25:31 ↗ affordable housing built

2:25:33 ↗ faster and then um program uh

2:25:36 ↗ implementation so that's really again

2:25:39 ↗ what they do every day um so making sure

2:25:42 ↗ that they implement the local uh funding

2:25:44 ↗ and developer incentive programs that

2:25:46 ↗ that is under their purview um making

2:25:49 ↗ sure that that they're Steward for the

2:25:50 ↗ current affordable housing and I'll do

2:25:53 ↗ all this within limited resources so um

2:25:56 ↗ you know they are they are the central

2:25:58 ↗ point of contact for Capital funding

2:26:01 ↗ applications from developers so through

2:26:02 ↗ the arch trust fund as well as the bell

2:26:04 ↗ viws program and then our upcoming

2:26:08 ↗ isqua includes let me try this again uh

2:26:11 ↗ oh my gosh it's iHip and I just said it

2:26:13 ↗ today so it's the um inclusion housing

2:26:17 ↗ policy investment pool sorry that was

2:26:20 ↗ not the right way to say that um but so

2:26:22 ↗ our those those Pro those uh

2:26:25 ↗ applications will all come together um

2:26:27 ↗ as one process um and then of course

2:26:31 ↗ with with uh any organization they're

2:26:34 ↗ looking at how to make sure that all the

2:26:36 ↗ members have a parody of their

2:26:38 ↗ contributions to the benefits they

2:26:41 ↗ receive and uh needs that they have um

2:26:44 ↗ they are going to continue to streamline

2:26:47 ↗ and modernize how they are addressing

2:26:50 ↗ the current affordable housing stock so

2:26:53 ↗ I know that there's um a some other

2:26:55 ↗ topics that will be coming forward this

2:26:57 ↗ year about making sure that the rent

2:27:00 ↗ increases Etc are um are thoughtful and

2:27:03 ↗ strategic for those programs and then

2:27:06 ↗ making sure that the that there's

2:27:09 ↗ marketing to uh inclusive communities to

2:27:12 ↗ make sure people are aware of their uh

2:27:14 ↗ ability to access um affordable housing

2:27:18 ↗ through them so what are those uh

2:27:20 ↗ toolkits that can be developed or other

2:27:21 ↗ ways that it's not just because you

2:27:23 ↗ happen to know where arch

2:27:26 ↗ is oh my computer is going too fast so

2:27:30 ↗ um again there is no Financial ask this

2:27:32 ↗ evening um and there will basically uh

2:27:35 ↗ if additional staff are added to Arch

2:27:37 ↗ they plan to um look at this you know

2:27:41 ↗ this work plan it Implement over time um

2:27:45 ↗ and plan to come back to us when we're

2:27:47 ↗ talking about our work plan with Arch

2:27:48 ↗ for 25 and 26 and the budget request to

2:27:51 ↗ kind of say this is what we've learned

2:27:53 ↗ this year in

2:27:54 ↗ 24 um and this is what we think is

2:27:56 ↗ important so um but this is just a list

2:27:58 ↗ of what potentially could be um you know

2:28:02 ↗ additional um staff uh added and or

2:28:06 ↗ requests for costs um and again this is

2:28:10 ↗ an approximate of what you know taking

2:28:13 ↗ what they currently do or kind of some

2:28:14 ↗ quick back of the envelope estimates um

2:28:17 ↗ that our share of a of one new staff

2:28:20 ↗ member would be about $10,000 so she's

2:28:22 ↗ probably say there's lots of ways we we

2:28:24 ↗ may calculate that but that just gives

2:28:26 ↗ you a roundabout so we're not talking

2:28:28 ↗ $100,000 and we're not talking $1,000 so

2:28:32 ↗ um again we wanted to provide a little

2:28:34 ↗ bit of of context to what that could

2:28:36 ↗ mean if one two staff people are added

2:28:39 ↗ to Arch and again we would have that in

2:28:42 ↗ our work plan that XYZ would occur if we

2:28:44 ↗ that additional investment

2:28:47 ↗ so uh timeing next STS and actually the

2:28:49 ↗ timing has changed so the board is

2:28:50 ↗ actually going to vote on the plan in

2:28:52 ↗ March because there's sever other board

2:28:54 ↗ members that are going to their city

2:28:55 ↗ councils and they wanted to make sure

2:28:57 ↗ that all the city councils had the

2:28:58 ↗ opportunity to provide feedback and then

2:29:01 ↗ we'll again we'll have continued

2:29:03 ↗ conversations we'll work directly with

2:29:05 ↗ Lindsay and her team to create the 242

2:29:08 ↗ or 2526 work plan but we do uh hope that

2:29:12 ↗ any feedback you have will help guide us

2:29:14 ↗ do that and um you know the budget

2:29:17 ↗ request will come in as part of the next

2:29:19 ↗ banian

2:29:21 ↗ budget so um we're just looking again

2:29:24 ↗ for any uh feedback about uh Arch's

2:29:27 ↗ approach for their new strategic plan

2:29:29 ↗ thank

2:29:31 ↗ you excellent so we'll start with

2:29:33 ↗ questions council member

2:29:36 ↗ Mars I don't have any

2:29:38 ↗ questions well then I'm going to skip

2:29:40 ↗ you and

2:29:43 ↗ questions Deputy council president D

2:29:45 ↗ Melle

2:29:47 ↗ uh so just you I feel like we're we're

2:29:50 ↗ talking a little bit vaguely here and

2:29:53 ↗ that we need a little bit more uh Plain

2:29:56 ↗ Talk I guess maybe Wally can but I guess

2:30:00 ↗ what I'm hearing is and I could be wrong

2:30:03 ↗ so please correct me is you're really

2:30:06 ↗ wanting to change the structure of arch

2:30:08 ↗ so that elected officials are more

2:30:10 ↗ engaged is that where we're going with

2:30:13 ↗ this and um is that the the the uh fix

2:30:18 ↗ that you're kind of looking at in ter in

2:30:20 ↗ terms of changing the the um governance

2:30:23 ↗ structure um so it's really not clear

2:30:26 ↗ from the discussion so far so if I'm

2:30:28 ↗ wrong correct

2:30:30 ↗ me do you mind if I

2:30:34 ↗ yeah okay sure so there's um some

2:30:39 ↗ interrelated strategies I think

2:30:41 ↗ governance is one area that the board

2:30:44 ↗ took a look at and there's certain

2:30:46 ↗ things changes that we want to pursue

2:30:48 ↗ that are more about streamlining and in

2:30:50 ↗ efficiencies um and then there are other

2:30:53 ↗ kind of longer term looking um aspects

2:30:55 ↗ of the plan that are about the

2:30:58 ↗ governance structure overall um I don't

2:31:01 ↗ think we're identifying we think there's

2:31:03 ↗ a a particular problem and a solution

2:31:06 ↗ and this is how the governance structure

2:31:07 ↗ needs to change it's more we want to

2:31:09 ↗ explore some of these ideas and talk to

2:31:12 ↗ elected officials about um those

2:31:14 ↗ opportunities look at how we compare

2:31:16 ↗ with

2:31:17 ↗ Regional

2:31:18 ↗ organizations um but related to that I

2:31:21 ↗ think there's a a aspect of the um

2:31:24 ↗ policy and legislative strategies that

2:31:26 ↗ are a little bit interconnected back

2:31:29 ↗ with how elected officials collaborate

2:31:32 ↗ and Arch and participate in Arch and um

2:31:34 ↗ I think to Wally's point we are not

2:31:37 ↗ trying to get out in front of elected

2:31:39 ↗ officials and deciding what policies to

2:31:42 ↗ advocate for on your behalf we want to

2:31:44 ↗ hear from you um that's been something

2:31:46 ↗ we've been trying to accomplish the last

2:31:49 ↗ few years talking about funding sources

2:31:51 ↗ for affordable housing um but we'd like

2:31:54 ↗ to be able to continue building on that

2:31:56 ↗ and it may be it's through a formal work

2:31:59 ↗ for uh work group or more informal

2:32:02 ↗ engagement focus groups with elected

2:32:04 ↗ officials um it kind of depends on the

2:32:07 ↗ direction of the board and what policy

2:32:09 ↗ priorities we would potentially be

2:32:11 ↗ focused on so hopefully that explains a

2:32:14 ↗ little bit of the interconnectedness

2:32:16 ↗ around kind of the governance issues and

2:32:18 ↗ also the work we're hoping to do on more

2:32:21 ↗ strategic policy

2:32:24 ↗ issues uh I'll put a finer point on it

2:32:27 ↗ um the current membership of the board

2:32:29 ↗ is the chief Executives of the member

2:32:32 ↗ agencies so for those that are strong

2:32:35 ↗ mayor is the mayor uh for those that are

2:32:37 ↗ city managers the city manager um we get

2:32:41 ↗ a mix of staff that attend um I don't

2:32:46 ↗ know that I've ever been present Lindsay

2:32:48 ↗ for a mayor pending uh as a chief

2:32:51 ↗ executive um so you have as we would

2:32:54 ↗ have here in isqua uh the city

2:32:56 ↗ administrator looking just at the latest

2:32:59 ↗ uh you know board minutes uh redond had

2:33:02 ↗ their director of planning Community

2:33:03 ↗ Development uh and that's strong mayor

2:33:06 ↗ uh Clyde Hill that's a city manager

2:33:10 ↗ form um what else is strong mayor those

2:33:13 ↗ are the only two sorry th those are the

2:33:15 ↗ only two only two so then the the others

2:33:19 ↗ are a mix of you know the of the city

2:33:22 ↗ managers we had at the last meeting

2:33:24 ↗ Kirkland Bothel and bellev and then

2:33:27 ↗ staff members either Department

2:33:29 ↗ directors or I'm not sure what the inter

2:33:32 ↗ governmental Affairs coordinator in

2:33:33 ↗ Woodenville does how far down that is so

2:33:36 ↗ you know the question is is that the

2:33:39 ↗ group that should be representing that

2:33:40 ↗ if it's Mayors and city managers and

2:33:42 ↗ you're not getting Mayors and city

2:33:44 ↗ managers U should it be only elected

2:33:46 ↗ officials then on the arch board uh

2:33:49 ↗ there's conflict there again because you

2:33:51 ↗ have strong mayor where the mayor is

2:33:53 ↗ going to want and on the city council is

2:33:54 ↗ going to want their seat um then Council

2:33:57 ↗ manager then you have to have the

2:33:58 ↗ council pick that so um my view as your

2:34:02 ↗ city administrator sitting on the arch

2:34:04 ↗ board in the time that I've been here

2:34:06 ↗ which has been four and a half years um

2:34:09 ↗ it seems be it's become very

2:34:10 ↗ staff-driven staff that care deeply

2:34:13 ↗ about affordable

2:34:14 ↗ housing and and move it forward from

2:34:17 ↗ that perspective when I think originally

2:34:19 ↗ it was meant to be the chief Executives

2:34:21 ↗ who uh hopefully have a broader view of

2:34:24 ↗ what the the priorities are in their

2:34:25 ↗ community and so I think that is a a

2:34:28 ↗ major issue for some um it's not an

2:34:31 ↗ issue at all and so you know how does

2:34:34 ↗ the Strategic plan deal with it I think

2:34:36 ↗ as Lindsay has mentioned um you know

2:34:38 ↗ there there is language that would allow

2:34:40 ↗ further investigation from a variety of

2:34:43 ↗ different uh points um you know there's

2:34:47 ↗ the question regarding additional

2:34:48 ↗ Staffing um you know what role would

2:34:51 ↗ that additional staff member have in

2:34:52 ↗ working with elected officials is it

2:34:54 ↗ information sharing is it information

2:34:56 ↗ gathering is it

2:34:58 ↗ advocacy big a advocacy small a um and

2:35:03 ↗ is that appropriate for the future of

2:35:06 ↗ arch when there are other groups

2:35:08 ↗ nonprofits other groups of elected

2:35:09 ↗ officials who gather to talk about these

2:35:12 ↗ same issues um and so I think this is a

2:35:14 ↗ real key point

2:35:16 ↗ um looking at a strategic plan to help

2:35:18 ↗ Arch what is its Niche moving

2:35:24 ↗ forward okay I see council member Ry

2:35:28 ↗ with a

2:35:29 ↗ question so I'll go

2:35:31 ↗ there I want you to know I raised my

2:35:33 ↗ hand before that discussion but my

2:35:36 ↗ question becomes even that much more

2:35:38 ↗ interesting to me is why was Arch formed

2:35:41 ↗ with the governing body even if it was

2:35:44 ↗ Chief executives um it just seems like

2:35:47 ↗ almost every other entity that we

2:35:50 ↗ participate in that's part of an Ila has

2:35:52 ↗ got um elected as part of its governing

2:35:55 ↗ structure and I'm just kind of curious

2:35:58 ↗ why why Arch is

2:36:02 ↗ different I I can share just a little

2:36:04 ↗ bit about how some of the history was

2:36:06 ↗ explained to me um my understanding is

2:36:09 ↗ Arch was set up trying to mirror the

2:36:12 ↗ structure of local government so that

2:36:14 ↗ you have um decision making on policies

2:36:17 ↗ and funding still happening with the

2:36:19 ↗ individual City councils but you have

2:36:22 ↗ the the governance and the data day work

2:36:25 ↗ kind of directed by the executive side

2:36:28 ↗ um we have you know our community

2:36:30 ↗ Advisory Board was kind of set up to

2:36:32 ↗ mirror your planning commissions there

2:36:34 ↗ there are just several aspects of arch

2:36:35 ↗ that we're trying to reflect that but

2:36:38 ↗ it's obviously more complicated when

2:36:39 ↗ you've got 16 different jurisdictions um

2:36:42 ↗ rather than one so um there's there's

2:36:45 ↗ certainly certainly strong opinions

2:36:47 ↗ about what's worked well and what um has

2:36:49 ↗ been challenges around the model and I I

2:36:52 ↗ do think it's it's part of why were

2:36:54 ↗ interested um in the past there have

2:36:56 ↗ I'll just say there have been more

2:36:57 ↗ participation by the the two strong

2:36:59 ↗ Mayors on Arch's board um that just

2:37:02 ↗ hasn't been the recent history so some

2:37:04 ↗ of it is also just about the personnel

2:37:06 ↗ and the the kind of the time that we're

2:37:09 ↗ in and which cities are participating at

2:37:11 ↗ what

2:37:14 ↗ levels

2:37:16 ↗ okay so looking around seeing if we have

2:37:19 ↗ any other

2:37:21 ↗ questions obviously we don't have

2:37:23 ↗ anybody in the room do we have anybody

2:37:25 ↗ online for public comment no okay then

2:37:28 ↗ we can go to feedback led by council

2:37:31 ↗ member

2:37:34 ↗ Mars uh it pains me to say that I think

2:37:37 ↗ that Arch has lost its way in my 15th

2:37:40 ↗ year on Council I've seen a real drift

2:37:43 ↗ on what Arch has focused on and all this

2:37:46 ↗ talk of policy planning and strategy

2:37:48 ↗ putting it front and center is

2:37:50 ↗ unfortunate what art should be doing is

2:37:52 ↗ bringing in money and using that to

2:37:55 ↗ build

2:37:56 ↗ housing um the efforts in recent years

2:37:59 ↗ the to sort of get the renters Bill of

2:38:01 ↗ Rights stuff done at the local level is

2:38:03 ↗ an example of doing policy work that

2:38:06 ↗ isn't about getting more housing into

2:38:08 ↗ the communities I think that the measure

2:38:10 ↗ of success needs to be things like

2:38:13 ↗ dollar dollars raised per year per staff

2:38:15 ↗ square foot built per year per staff

2:38:18 ↗ percentage of dollars going directly to

2:38:20 ↗ housing square foot per million dollars

2:38:22 ↗ spent these sorts of

2:38:25 ↗ uh block and tackling uh issues this is

2:38:29 ↗ what Arch was when I started 15 years

2:38:31 ↗ ago it worked well it served our city

2:38:33 ↗ well um I don't see that in this plan

2:38:37 ↗ draft plan I in front of us lots of talk

2:38:40 ↗ of acting like one of the um other uh

2:38:44 ↗ housing organizations ations that act

2:38:46 ↗ regionally and the Statewide level this

2:38:48 ↗ is a hard problem but we need Arch to

2:38:50 ↗ build housing on the east side thank

2:38:54 ↗ you council member

2:39:00 ↗ Hull I think the plan looks great I

2:39:02 ↗ think the Strategic plan looks great

2:39:04 ↗ there are just two um initial reactions

2:39:07 ↗ of of slight concern that I wanted to

2:39:10 ↗ share and the first is um just be

2:39:13 ↗ mindful of like when you're considering

2:39:15 ↗ the role of the elected official

2:39:17 ↗ sometimes is actually best to keep

2:39:18 ↗ politics out of these kinds of things

2:39:19 ↗ and have Professional Management that

2:39:21 ↗ was the whole reason the strong Council

2:39:23 ↗ form of government or weak may form of

2:39:25 ↗ government was created in the first

2:39:26 ↗ place so um not that I'll presume which

2:39:29 ↗ is the right style but just you know

2:39:31 ↗ something for the board to be mindful of

2:39:33 ↗ um though I totally agree with um say

2:39:37 ↗ totally on the diet uh definitely agree

2:39:41 ↗ with um finding new and creative ways to

2:39:42 ↗ engage elected officials um whether it's

2:39:45 ↗ like the kind of informal work group

2:39:47 ↗ that you were mentioning or something

2:39:48 ↗ else but that's exciting to think about

2:39:51 ↗ um and then also mindful um council

2:39:53 ↗ member Mart's Point um mindful of um

2:39:56 ↗ kind of how providing advice on local

2:40:00 ↗ strategies should be unique to kind of

2:40:02 ↗ the needs and and

2:40:05 ↗ um the housing makeup of of a current

2:40:08 ↗ city um I think there were a couple

2:40:10 ↗ things that came before Council that we

2:40:12 ↗ were supportive and that we adopted and

2:40:14 ↗ a couple things that we said might not

2:40:15 ↗ be as relevant to the city of isqua so

2:40:18 ↗ understanding that being able to provide

2:40:20 ↗ that kind of unique um service to a

2:40:24 ↗ particular City would probably be most

2:40:25 ↗ helpful especially to cities on the east

2:40:27 ↗ side um those are just kind of the two

2:40:30 ↗ things that I wanted to bring up but for

2:40:31 ↗ the most part I'm glad to see that

2:40:33 ↗ you're going through this this this

2:40:35 ↗ process and it's exciting and keep us in

2:40:37 ↗ the

2:40:39 ↗ loop M

2:40:43 ↗ hunt thank you

2:40:46 ↗ um well firstly I do participate on some

2:40:50 ↗ other Ila uh governance bodies um as an

2:40:55 ↗ elected official and uh to council

2:40:57 ↗ member Ray um earlier

2:41:01 ↗ question you know it does seem to me

2:41:04 ↗ that there's a reason why a lot of those

2:41:06 ↗ ilas have elected officials that we're

2:41:08 ↗ the ones who are um ultimately deciding

2:41:11 ↗ on the funding we're making the policy

2:41:14 ↗ and so having are having us in that role

2:41:19 ↗ um helps to make the decisions that are

2:41:22 ↗ made at that level um you know they they

2:41:26 ↗ are um using the information from the

2:41:30 ↗ full Council we're able to bring that

2:41:31 ↗ perspective to those discussions and

2:41:33 ↗ then we're able to craft proposals that

2:41:35 ↗ we believe our councils will ultimately

2:41:38 ↗ vote on I think that um I think there's

2:41:41 ↗ a lot to be learned from hopefully from

2:41:45 ↗ um

2:41:46 ↗ the uh proposal in

2:41:49 ↗ 2022 that was um the arch uh Arch

2:41:52 ↗ recommendations on a number of tenant

2:41:55 ↗ protections as was mentioned earlier um

2:41:58 ↗ and in that resolution about those

2:42:01 ↗ tenant Protections in 2022 there was a

2:42:03 ↗ number of points about that it was in

2:42:05 ↗ the shared interest of arch member

2:42:07 ↗ jurisdictions to advance common policies

2:42:09 ↗ promoting and preserving housing

2:42:11 ↗ affordability and then again that um we

2:42:13 ↗ should consider adopting consistent

2:42:15 ↗ local measures and so I think having uh

2:42:20 ↗ having elected officials in the

2:42:23 ↗ governance would better Advance those

2:42:25 ↗ kinds of um those kinds of values where

2:42:28 ↗ we want to have that buy in from the

2:42:31 ↗ elected who are ultimately going to be

2:42:33 ↗ making the decisions and so for that

2:42:35 ↗ reason I I um appreciate this being

2:42:38 ↗ brought forward I strongly feel that the

2:42:42 ↗ electeds in the governance of this

2:42:44 ↗ should be um should be

2:42:48 ↗ considered uh at the Forefront and I

2:42:51 ↗ think that would then lead to more

2:42:53 ↗ discussions about you know electeds

2:42:55 ↗ bringing forward that we need the more

2:42:57 ↗ housing and and this is what we will

2:42:59 ↗ support within our Council and so then

2:43:01 ↗ those proposals will be the ones that

2:43:03 ↗ are most likely to um Advance within

2:43:05 ↗ each member City so for that reason I I

2:43:09 ↗ think we should I would urge that the

2:43:11 ↗ Strategic plan take that direction

2:43:17 ↗ Deputy council president D

2:43:19 ↗ Michelle yes I agree with those remarks

2:43:22 ↗ uh so just to let you know Lindsay and I

2:43:25 ↗ met was it last summer uh and talked

2:43:28 ↗ about our mutual organizations inside

2:43:31 ↗ Human Services Forum in Arch because we

2:43:33 ↗ were I was picking her very wise brain

2:43:37 ↗ um and because there are some very

2:43:40 ↗ common things that we were talking about

2:43:42 ↗ in terms of governance um M and I agree

2:43:47 ↗ totally that uh you bring elected

2:43:49 ↗ officials to the conversation because

2:43:52 ↗ you know we're the ones that have to go

2:43:53 ↗ out and ring doorbells and talk to

2:43:56 ↗ community members and feel the urgency

2:43:59 ↗ you know I if you talk to people in the

2:44:01 ↗ community you feel the urgency about we

2:44:03 ↗ really need affordable housing and I

2:44:05 ↗ think that elected officials bring that

2:44:08 ↗ to the to the um table um East Side

2:44:13 ↗ Human Services forum is also struggled

2:44:15 ↗ with how do we bring all of these

2:44:17 ↗ different Community perspectives to

2:44:20 ↗ single public policy and I think that is

2:44:24 ↗ a another conversation that you need to

2:44:27 ↗ have um because um not all of us on the

2:44:31 ↗ east side agree with every direction I

2:44:34 ↗ think the sound cities Association has a

2:44:37 ↗ very good way of bringing a lot of

2:44:40 ↗ people together discussing public policy

2:44:43 ↗ and coming together and maybe it happens

2:44:45 ↗ rarely but coming together when they all

2:44:48 ↗ agree um and I think s cities

2:44:51 ↗ Association has the policy of we don't

2:44:52 ↗ do anything that harms any one of our

2:44:56 ↗ members so having those agreements in

2:45:00 ↗ place I think is really important um and

2:45:03 ↗ I think this conversation it's it's a

2:45:05 ↗ great conversation because if you can

2:45:07 ↗ bring everybody together to agree on a

2:45:10 ↗ forward policy then it really is

2:45:12 ↗ powerful and you've got all of your your

2:45:15 ↗ community's bought into it so I

2:45:18 ↗ definitely would um like to see Arch go

2:45:20 ↗ in that direction get a stronger

2:45:23 ↗ involvement uh people at the table who

2:45:25 ↗ are elected officials bring that

2:45:27 ↗ Community perspective but it is a

2:45:29 ↗ challenge to figure out then how do we

2:45:31 ↗ get all these voices to uh come together

2:45:34 ↗ around a single policy and then move

2:45:36 ↗ that policy forward so uh but I I think

2:45:39 ↗ elected officials bring that broad

2:45:41 ↗ perspective and that's that's really

2:45:44 ↗ important we love our staff members

2:45:47 ↗ but like I said we're the ones out

2:45:49 ↗ knocking on people's doors so anyway

2:45:52 ↗ that would be my my feedback and um uh I

2:45:56 ↗ just want to also say uh I think Arch

2:45:58 ↗ has done some really meaningful things I

2:46:01 ↗ know as a member former member of the

2:46:03 ↗ board at together Center that was a huge

2:46:07 ↗ investment in that project and then we

2:46:09 ↗ have the investment in our own to here

2:46:12 ↗ so this is a really important

2:46:13 ↗ organization and we want to get it right

2:46:16 ↗ right so uh good luck to you with your

2:46:20 ↗ strategic plan but I would uh I would

2:46:22 ↗ also support bring more elected

2:46:25 ↗ officials

2:46:28 ↗ yeah hi before I make my comments

2:46:31 ↗ checking in with uh can you turn off uh

2:46:34 ↗ council member Joe and council member

2:46:36 ↗ Ray seeing if any comments

2:46:41 ↗ there seeing any well that gives me

2:46:44 ↗ freedom to just just move ahead um so

2:46:47 ↗ I'm on the King County affordable

2:46:50 ↗ housing committee care about this so so

2:46:53 ↗ so so so very much um and I would also

2:46:57 ↗ Echo that art has been super powerful in

2:47:02 ↗ doing the important things of building

2:47:05 ↗ housing and

2:47:07 ↗ maintaining um and shepherding the

2:47:10 ↗ affordable housing that we have um one

2:47:13 ↗ of the things that the Ping County

2:47:16 ↗ affordable housing committee has done

2:47:18 ↗ since it's in its fiveyear and is kind

2:47:22 ↗ of doing that re-evaluation um did a

2:47:26 ↗ strengths weaknesses opportunities and

2:47:28 ↗ threats analysis and one of the things

2:47:32 ↗ really looked at is what are things that

2:47:35 ↗ maybe we don't do as well um and I'm not

2:47:39 ↗ seeing as much of that here and so

2:47:41 ↗ that's something that I would really

2:47:44 ↗ like to evaluate um or have the group at

2:47:48 ↗ Arch evaluate because you can't do

2:47:52 ↗ everything and it's really important to

2:47:55 ↗ understand where your strengths are and

2:47:57 ↗ so if I was to evaluate Arch's strengths

2:48:00 ↗ I would say you've got a lot of strength

2:48:03 ↗ in bringing together really important

2:48:08 ↗ segments of cities in the area to work

2:48:12 ↗ together toward a common goal of of

2:48:15 ↗ affordable housing with funding maybe

2:48:17 ↗ you need to evaluate what that funding

2:48:19 ↗ model looks like for everybody to do

2:48:22 ↗ more in that area but you have the group

2:48:27 ↗ and you've been able to prove that out

2:48:30 ↗ by building housing those are really

2:48:33 ↗ important strengths to lean on um where

2:48:38 ↗ I think there has been a little bit of a

2:48:41 ↗ challenge is in that um um policy

2:48:46 ↗ advocacy area and so I think I agree

2:48:49 ↗ with um the other council members that

2:48:51 ↗ getting electeds on board um to help

2:48:55 ↗ evaluate those and smooth out some of

2:48:58 ↗ those areas um before moving forward is

2:49:01 ↗ probably a good

2:49:03 ↗ idea similarly I will say I just don't

2:49:07 ↗ support the idea of arch adding to

2:49:12 ↗ Staffing to do state policy

2:49:16 ↗ advocacy I think there are a lot of

2:49:20 ↗ state legislators who are doing a lot in

2:49:24 ↗ that area we've seen a lot of action in

2:49:27 ↗ the last few years we also have some

2:49:30 ↗ other Regional organizations such as the

2:49:32 ↗ fuget sound Regional Council or sound

2:49:34 ↗ cities Association that are a little bit

2:49:37 ↗ higher up and can do more of that data

2:49:42 ↗ Gathering um and some of those

2:49:45 ↗ ideas that I just think are better

2:49:49 ↗ placed

2:49:50 ↗ similarly the afford committee decided

2:49:54 ↗ that that wasn't going to be a big part

2:49:56 ↗ of their role because there are other

2:49:59 ↗ organizations that do that better um so

2:50:03 ↗ I would just put a point that I think

2:50:06 ↗ it's really super important to

2:50:11 ↗ keep housing

2:50:13 ↗ invest um

2:50:18 ↗ on working on those

2:50:21 ↗ loc these cities need I don't know

2:50:25 ↗ what's going on with M but we'll see um

2:50:29 ↗ and then

2:50:31 ↗ the I would put in there is that the

2:50:35 ↗ decision criteria map um that you've

2:50:37 ↗ included in your um draft I think is

2:50:42 ↗ really useful I think it's it says a lot

2:50:45 ↗ that you've included that in there but I

2:50:48 ↗ think it's only valuable if you do agree

2:50:52 ↗ that other organizations may do

2:50:53 ↗ something better than you and so I think

2:50:56 ↗ it's really important to be able to take

2:50:57 ↗ that look inwards and also outwards and

2:51:01 ↗ recognize that if the goal isn't for you

2:51:04 ↗ to do everything it's really important

2:51:07 ↗ to use that decision criteria to

2:51:11 ↗ decide what your strengths are what you

2:51:13 ↗ should be doing more of and what you can

2:51:16 ↗ let other organizations do instead that

2:51:19 ↗ would be my

2:51:21 ↗ feedback uh looking again at Council and

2:51:25 ↗ then I guess back at the administration

2:51:28 ↗ do you guys have what you

2:51:31 ↗ need moving

2:51:36 ↗ forward I think so um you know very much

2:51:39 ↗ appreciate your your comments and

2:51:41 ↗ thoughts um as I said at the outset We

2:51:44 ↗ Are One of many um and so my takeaway is

2:51:49 ↗ to to continue advocating on behalf of

2:51:52 ↗ what I think are some common themes that

2:51:53 ↗ I've heard from the council this evening

2:51:55 ↗ and uh I'll keep you

2:51:59 ↗ posted excellent well we are well served

2:52:03 ↗ with uh that and having Arch leadership

2:52:06 ↗ here much

2:52:08 ↗ appreciated uh I think with that last

2:52:11 ↗ item on our agenda is good of the order

2:52:13 ↗ anybody have anything to

2:52:16 ↗ add

2:52:18 ↗ fantastic okay well then I will say we

2:52:21 ↗ are adjourned at 9:23 p.m. thank you

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 (7)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh