City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, October 14, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

2025-26 Legislative Agenda COM 0037

45 min · Shelly Helder, Lobbyist · packet pp.5–22

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 15, 2024

▶ Watch from 1:48 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends adoption of the 2025-26 Legislative Agenda at the Council meeting of Nov. 4, 2024.

Policy, Funding and Services on the Housing Continuum COM 0044

Director · 45 min · Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services · packet pp.23–57

Topics: HousingBudget

▶ Watch from 1:20:34 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

The City’s approach to affordable housing spans several departments and programs. In 2023, Community Planning & Development, Human Services and Economic Development presented to City Council the combined and collaborative efforts to address the affordable housing needs of the community. This presentation is the annual update regarding planning and regulations, operational initiatives, and capital funding & implementation. Staff will return to City Council for certain projects or efforts in 2025, as noted.

3689 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ welcome everyone I council president

0:05 ↗ Walsh called the October 14th Committee

0:08 ↗ of the whole meeting to order at 6:30

0:10 ↗ p.m. as a reminder we continue to have a

0:13 ↗ remot a remote aspect to all of our

0:16 ↗ meetings both staff and members of the

0:18 ↗ public may be participating tonight um

0:21 ↗ remotely via

0:23 ↗ WebEx and um as a starting point I just

0:27 ↗ want to take a moment to acknowledge the

0:29 ↗ day today

0:30 ↗ um this is the observed indigenous

0:32 ↗ people's day and so let's take a moment

0:36 ↗ to recognize the first inhabitants of

0:38 ↗ the area that is now isqua today please

0:41 ↗ take time to reflect on the indigenous

0:43 ↗ people that came before us as well as

0:45 ↗ our respect of these lands and each

0:47 ↗ other we acknowledge that we're on the

0:49 ↗ indigenous land of the coish peoples who

0:52 ↗ have reserved treaty rights to this land

0:54 ↗ specifically both the snow qualy and the

0:57 ↗ Muckle shoot Indian tribes we thank the

0:59 ↗ take uh caretakers of this land who have

1:02 ↗ lived and continue to live here so

1:05 ↗ please take some time to educate

1:06 ↗ yourself on the contributions and the

1:09 ↗ continued work done by our tribes and

1:11 ↗ consider supporting their efforts to

1:14 ↗ protect respect and restore these lands

1:17 ↗ members of the tribes uh recognize and

1:20 ↗ celebrate today as important to them as

1:23 ↗ it was the day that they receiv received

1:24 ↗ Federal recognition which as a society

1:26 ↗ is very important these tribes are still

1:29 ↗ here and thriving and are a Sovereign

1:31 ↗ Nation I think it's important to

1:33 ↗ recognize the stewardship that they have

1:35 ↗ provided on this land on which we now

1:37 ↗ reside so I just wanted to take a moment

1:40 ↗ to recognize this as an important

1:42 ↗ day so moving on to the rest of our

1:45 ↗ agenda we have public comment followed

1:48 ↗ by two agenda items so with public

1:52 ↗ comment there are multiple public

1:54 ↗ comment opportunities at tonight's

1:55 ↗ meeting there is a general public

1:57 ↗ comment opportunity at the beginning of

1:59 ↗ the meeting or you can make comments

2:01 ↗ after the presentation and Council

2:03 ↗ question and answer period on tonight's

2:05 ↗ agenda

2:07 ↗ items so public comment members of the

2:10 ↗ public May address council at this time

2:12 ↗ in person or virtually those who signed

2:15 ↗ up in advance to make comments will be

2:17 ↗ called on first if you're joining us

2:20 ↗ virtually and would like to make a

2:21 ↗ comment you'll raise your virtual hand

2:24 ↗ if you're on a phone you're going to

2:25 ↗ press star three if you're on a computer

2:28 ↗ or smartphone look for the hand icon or

2:31 ↗ send the host a chat message so if you

2:34 ↗ are in the room and did not sign up I'll

2:37 ↗ ask for other speakers before closing

2:39 ↗ this portion of the meeting so um clerk

2:43 ↗ if we'll just wait a moment and see if

2:45 ↗ anyone wishes to raise their hand has

2:47 ↗ anybody signed up or indicated a desire

2:50 ↗ to speak this evening no one has signed

2:52 ↗ up and we actually don't have any

2:54 ↗ virtual members of the public with us

2:56 ↗ tonight okay do we have anybody in the

2:58 ↗ room who would like to make

3:01 ↗ comments being none I will just make a

3:04 ↗ reminder that written comments can be

3:06 ↗ submitted at any time by emailing city

3:09 ↗ council isqua

3:11 ↗ wa.gov okay so looking ahead our first

3:16 ↗ agenda item is Comm

3:19 ↗ 0037 which is the 2025 2026 legislative

3:23 ↗ agenda and presented by Shelly Helder

3:27 ↗ our lobbyist

3:34 ↗ good evening council president council

3:36 ↗ members good to be with you tonight um

3:40 ↗ this is going to be the um first touch

3:43 ↗ first discussion for in preparation for

3:45 ↗ the 20125 state legislative session so

3:49 ↗ next slide tonight I'm going to start

3:52 ↗ with an overview of what we expect from

3:54 ↗ the 2025 session um I plan to review the

3:57 ↗ city's draft legislative agenda as well

4:00 ↗ as the policy manual and then I'll wrap

4:02 ↗ up by talking about next steps um after

4:05 ↗ my presentation I look forward to any

4:08 ↗ questions or comments that you all may

4:10 ↗ have um particularly looking for

4:12 ↗ comments and feedback on the draft

4:15 ↗ documents next slide so the 2025

4:18 ↗ legislative session is going to be the

4:20 ↗ first of a 2-year bium which means it's

4:22 ↗ going to be a long 105 day session the

4:25 ↗ legislature's primary um task is to

4:28 ↗ adopt new operating capital and

4:30 ↗ transportation budgets um they'll also

4:33 ↗ consider thousands of

4:35 ↗ bills um on the budget front the

4:38 ↗ September uh revenue forecast um

4:41 ↗ projected a decrease of roughly $525

4:44 ↗ million within the current budget cycle

4:48 ↗ um so the current budget has the buffer

4:51 ↗ to accommodate that decrease but what

4:53 ↗ this the implication of that is is that

4:56 ↗ revenues are declining not increasing

4:59 ↗ and so for the upcoming bium um that

5:03 ↗ that's going to present challenges for

5:04 ↗ state budget writers um in addition to

5:08 ↗ the revenues not growing at the

5:10 ↗ previously forecasted rate there's also

5:13 ↗ um statutory obligations that the

5:14 ↗ legislature is going to um be faced with

5:17 ↗ one of them for example is an expansion

5:21 ↗ of the Working Connections Child Care

5:23 ↗ Program the expanded eligibility goes

5:26 ↗ into effect November 1 and so that's

5:28 ↗ going to increase the um cost to operate

5:32 ↗ that program of course the legislature

5:33 ↗ will need to adhere to the law that they

5:36 ↗ recently passed and fund that program so

5:39 ↗ it's just one example of their the

5:41 ↗ state's costs increasing and yet

5:43 ↗ revenues not keeping Pace um that's on

5:46 ↗ the operating side of things the state's

5:48 ↗ Transportation budget is in a similar

5:51 ↗ position um transportation revenues

5:54 ↗ continue to decline they have for many

5:55 ↗ years and um as you all are experiencing

5:59 ↗ at the local level costs um the pro the

6:02 ↗ cost to implement projects also is

6:05 ↗ rising um the way the state has

6:08 ↗ addressed this challenge over the last

6:10 ↗ several years is anytime they need new

6:14 ↗ um funding to anytime they want to fund

6:17 ↗ projects they have to develop a revenue

6:19 ↗ package in other words they have to

6:21 ↗ create a new Revenue source and then um

6:24 ↗ invest that Revenue in projects

6:26 ↗ throughout the state there are already

6:29 ↗ discussions happening about a new

6:31 ↗ Revenue package um simply because the

6:33 ↗ transportation budget is in such a dire

6:35 ↗ State

6:37 ↗ um that typically takes several years

6:40 ↗ for a revenue package to come to

6:41 ↗ fruition and so while conversations are

6:45 ↗ beginning um I don't necessarily expect

6:47 ↗ something to pass in

6:49 ↗ 2025 though um Anything is Possible the

6:54 ↗ capital budget the third and the

6:56 ↗ smallest of the state's budgets is a

6:58 ↗ function of the size of the operating

7:00 ↗ budget so with the operating budget not

7:02 ↗ necessarily growing um the way that it

7:05 ↗ has in years past the capital budget

7:07 ↗ will not be growing at the same Pace

7:09 ↗ either so we um we still expect there to

7:12 ↗ be opportunities for funding within the

7:14 ↗ capital budget but not necessarily to

7:16 ↗ the same um I guess magnitude that there

7:19 ↗ has been in previous budget

7:22 ↗ Cycles um looking at the political

7:25 ↗ context the everyone knows there's an

7:27 ↗ election in a few weeks um there are

7:29 ↗ three initiatives on the ballot that

7:31 ↗ will have um substantial impact on the

7:34 ↗ state's budget and so depending on the

7:36 ↗ outcome of those initiatives um that

7:39 ↗ will also influence budget decisions

7:41 ↗ come um next

7:43 ↗ year we don't expect a shift in who

7:46 ↗ holds majority um in either chamber

7:49 ↗ though there is a possibility that uh

7:52 ↗ Democrats will secure a super majority

7:54 ↗ in both the house and the Senate um that

7:57 ↗ is significant because a super majority

7:59 ↗ is what's needed in order to um incur

8:02 ↗ debt debt um which is how both the

8:05 ↗ transportation and the capital budgets

8:08 ↗ have historically been bipartisan

8:10 ↗ budgets so there is a chance that we

8:13 ↗ would see a capital or Transportation

8:15 ↗ budget that is not developed in a

8:17 ↗ bipartisan fashion though just because

8:19 ↗ Democrats have a super majority doesn't

8:21 ↗ mean that they would choose to do

8:23 ↗ that um finally the start of a new bium

8:27 ↗ does mean that um there

8:29 ↗ um a Redevelopment of committees both in

8:33 ↗ the makeup of who serves on the

8:35 ↗ Committees the leadership of those

8:36 ↗ committees and the jurisdiction so we

8:39 ↗ would expect certain committees to

8:40 ↗ remain the same from past years like for

8:42 ↗ example Transportation I don't think

8:44 ↗ that committee is going anywhere um but

8:46 ↗ there will be a reordering depending on

8:48 ↗ the issues that um the different

8:51 ↗ caucuses and different leadership teams

8:53 ↗ decide um they want to focus on in this

8:55 ↗ upcoming

8:57 ↗ session so that's the broader context

9:00 ↗ focusing now on the city's preparation

9:04 ↗ so a city has two legislative documents

9:06 ↗ that guide our engagement in the State

9:09 ↗ Legislative process the first document

9:12 ↗ is our legislative agenda and that lists

9:15 ↗ the top two sometimes three to five

9:18 ↗ priorities for the city these are issues

9:21 ↗ that um the city is going to take a a

9:24 ↗ direct or um primary lead in advancing

9:27 ↗ and have um IR Nexus to City

9:33 ↗ governance um it's don't worry it's not

9:36 ↗ distracting

9:39 ↗ um so this the legislative agenda is the

9:42 ↗ document that we want our state

9:44 ↗ legislators to focus on these are the

9:46 ↗ issues that we are going to use to

9:48 ↗ measure our success um in terms of

9:51 ↗ whether it was a whether we accomplished

9:53 ↗ our objectives within the legislative

9:56 ↗ bium the second document is our policy

9:59 ↗ manual and this is intended to be more

10:01 ↗ of a reference document it's um a longer

10:05 ↗ document there's not necessarily a limit

10:07 ↗ on the size it's any position that the

10:09 ↗ city wants to um determine in advance

10:13 ↗ based on issues we anticipate may come

10:15 ↗ up during session so it's intended to be

10:17 ↗ a reactive document and allows us to

10:20 ↗ engage in a um in a timely way when the

10:23 ↗ legislative process is very

10:25 ↗ fast-paced so both of these documents

10:28 ↗ are developed with the 2year legislative

10:31 ↗ cycle in mind so um we do that for or

10:35 ↗ the

10:37 ↗ 25 I guess the documents will say 25 26

10:42 ↗ because those are the calendar years

10:44 ↗ that they apply to the state budget

10:46 ↗ cycle is 2527 because the fiscal year

10:49 ↗ runs from July to June I want to specify

10:51 ↗ that because that can get a little

10:53 ↗ confusing it's not a typo it's it's

10:56 ↗ intentional um we you update the

11:00 ↗ documents halfway through the banum so

11:03 ↗ um though these are what we hope to

11:05 ↗ accomplish over the next 2 years if

11:07 ↗ something is accomplished we would then

11:08 ↗ remove it and update the

11:10 ↗ documents next

11:13 ↗ slide so um on the screen are the draft

11:17 ↗ priorities uh for the

11:20 ↗ 2526 um uh legislative

11:23 ↗ cycle um you will notice that there are

11:26 ↗ more than five and if you were paying

11:27 ↗ attention then you'll know that I just

11:29 ↗ recommended that we have no more than

11:32 ↗ five priorities I will address that

11:34 ↗ thank you for that really good

11:37 ↗ question um I also want to note that um

11:42 ↗ I want to be intentional when I say that

11:44 ↗ these are draft priorities and that's

11:46 ↗ because these are being recommended for

11:48 ↗ your consideration for your comment and

11:51 ↗ for your feedback so if you see

11:52 ↗ something here tonight that you have

11:54 ↗ more questions about or you don't agree

11:56 ↗ should be a city priority this is the

11:59 ↗ the venue that uh we're looking for your

12:02 ↗ input as to um whether these are correct

12:04 ↗ or not so the first priority is a

12:08 ↗ request to um complete the safety

12:11 ↗ improvements along State Route 18 the

12:14 ↗ funding that was allocated to this

12:16 ↗ Corridor in the last Revenue package um

12:19 ↗ was intended to complete the corridor

12:21 ↗ but because costs have increased so

12:23 ↗ substantially um that funding will now

12:26 ↗ only complete a portion from um

12:30 ↗ what is it Deep Creek to Tiger Mountain

12:32 ↗ Summit and the two roundabouts at isqua

12:35 ↗ Hobart Road so the portion that is now

12:38 ↗ unfunded is from the summit down to

12:41 ↗ isqua Hobart Road um and it's expect

12:44 ↗ expected to cost somewhere in the

12:46 ↗ ballpark of 900 million it's a a really

12:49 ↗ really massive project I say in the

12:52 ↗ ballpark because it is that's a very

12:54 ↗ preliminary estimate um and

12:57 ↗ realistically the construction for that

12:59 ↗ portion of the road won't be able to

13:01 ↗ begin until the construction on the um

13:06 ↗ first phase is complete so we're several

13:08 ↗ years out from realistically needing

13:11 ↗ that money and yet we know with a dollar

13:15 ↗ size of that magnitude it's going to

13:17 ↗ take several years to identify funding

13:20 ↗ for that um so this is a request that's

13:24 ↗ being made as part of the broader

13:26 ↗ Coalition the southeast area legislative

13:28 ↗ transportation Coalition

13:30 ↗ cltc and they um um are doing Outreach

13:35 ↗ to uh legislators both in the region as

13:38 ↗ well as Statewide to help um everyone

13:41 ↗ understand the importance of the safety

13:43 ↗ improvements to Highway

13:47 ↗ 18 the uh second priority is a request

13:50 ↗ for the state to fix the broken

13:52 ↗ structure of City

13:54 ↗ finances um of course the cap on the

13:57 ↗ property tax growth has meant that um

14:00 ↗ that Revenue stream can't keep Pace um

14:03 ↗ with inflation and that limitation has

14:05 ↗ only compounded over the years we at the

14:08 ↗ point now where even fixing that cap

14:10 ↗ isn't going to solve the problem um and

14:13 ↗ so the request is not not only to fix

14:15 ↗ that cap but also to um to look for

14:19 ↗ other Solutions so increase the direct

14:21 ↗ distribution to cities um for one of the

14:25 ↗ city's largest um cost drivers which is

14:29 ↗ is Public Safety um or um through other

14:33 ↗ means realistically direct distributions

14:36 ↗ to cities within the current budget

14:39 ↗ state budget framework or climate is

14:41 ↗ going to be very challenging the reason

14:44 ↗ that this is uh a priority item is

14:47 ↗ because state budget writers are already

14:49 ↗ starting to talk about new revenue

14:51 ↗ streams for the state and so if there is

14:54 ↗ going to be a new Revenue opportunity at

14:55 ↗ the state um we want to make sure that

14:59 ↗ the state understands these challenges

15:01 ↗ are are happening at the city level as

15:03 ↗ well and so either new re new new

15:07 ↗ Revenue tools for cities or direct

15:09 ↗ distribution um there needs to be some

15:12 ↗ type of solution so we've we've listed

15:13 ↗ options because we want to be flexible

15:16 ↗ with what that outcome um could we want

15:19 ↗ to be flexible with how we arrive at the

15:21 ↗ outcome of additional

15:24 ↗ resources the third priority is a

15:26 ↗ request for $250,000

15:29 ↗ from the capital budget for technology

15:31 ↗ to improve the safety and care for um um

15:35 ↗ individuals in incarcerated in the jail

15:38 ↗ so there's two different types of

15:40 ↗ technology that this um is envisioned to

15:44 ↗ support and we don't know yet which one

15:46 ↗ makes the most sense there's still a

15:48 ↗ little bit more um uh fact finding that

15:52 ↗ we need to be doing to to hone in on

15:55 ↗ this request specifically but the first

15:57 ↗ would be a body scanner

15:59 ↗ um my understanding is it's a little bit

16:01 ↗ like a a metal detector but it scans for

16:04 ↗ Contraband substances and so the the

16:06 ↗ intent is to limit the drugs that would

16:09 ↗ make it into the jail um while also

16:12 ↗ limiting the need to do um more um

16:16 ↗ complete um strip search the other

16:20 ↗ technology is a little bit like a smoke

16:22 ↗ detector um but it detects rapid changes

16:25 ↗ in heart rate um in order to provide

16:28 ↗ more consistent um care for inmates

16:32 ↗ rather than needing to have someone you

16:34 ↗ know monitor 24/7 that the smoke

16:37 ↗ detector I'll call it um is able to have

16:41 ↗ that that monitoring happen happening

16:44 ↗ 247 um both of these are technology that

16:49 ↗ will that can help um in the operations

16:53 ↗ of the jail um and improving the inmates

16:57 ↗ um health conditions

16:59 ↗ as I mentioned we're still kind of

17:00 ↗ flushing out um whether there there

17:03 ↗ could be available Grant programs in

17:05 ↗ which we would want to make sure that

17:06 ↗ we've we've pursued that opportunity um

17:10 ↗ but wanted to bring the idea before the

17:12 ↗ council both because um costs to run the

17:16 ↗ jail are so significant that anything we

17:19 ↗ can do to improve conditions and uh

17:22 ↗ limit liability would be helpful and

17:24 ↗ because there are so few City owned

17:28 ↗ jails um the state is not NE this is not

17:31 ↗ something that's on the state's radar

17:33 ↗ and so um bringing forward something

17:36 ↗ that is unique to the city and a unique

17:38 ↗ challenge that you all face I think um

17:41 ↗ is is

17:43 ↗ helpful the next priority is being made

17:47 ↗ in coordination with the E City gov

17:49 ↗ Alliance um isqua is one of the

17:51 ↗ principal partners of the alliance and

17:54 ↗ um they're planning to do an upgrade of

17:56 ↗ their um building permit system system

17:59 ↗ um or online digital permitting system

18:01 ↗ called my building permit um to revamp

18:04 ↗ the front end and

18:06 ↗ to um build a new backend system cost uh

18:11 ↗ they've received estimates at 5.4

18:13 ↗ million and so the request is for the

18:15 ↗ state to match the local investment

18:17 ↗ dollar for dollar which would be a $2.7

18:20 ↗ million request of the state that is a

18:23 ↗ really large request from the state and

18:25 ↗ the only reason that it is within the

18:28 ↗ realm of ible is because it would be

18:30 ↗ requested as part of a coalition so this

18:33 ↗ is something that multiple jurisdictions

18:35 ↗ around the state would be advancing and

18:37 ↗ that they're considering just like you

18:39 ↗ are as one of their legislative

18:42 ↗ priorities um the benefit to the state

18:45 ↗ in investing in a program like this

18:48 ↗ is um for for years state legislators

18:51 ↗ have been saying that permit

18:52 ↗ streamlining and improving permit

18:54 ↗ processing timelines is something that's

18:56 ↗ going to help in the um the Expediting

19:00 ↗ of housing construction and um a

19:03 ↗ permitting system that is not constantly

19:05 ↗ being changed by an by a separate

19:08 ↗ private provider um which is what the

19:11 ↗ backend system is now um will improve

19:15 ↗ the permit processing timelines there's

19:17 ↗ also cost savings involved for the

19:19 ↗ jurisdictions that utilize the program

19:22 ↗ um so can go into much more detail about

19:25 ↗ that but I'm going to move on to the

19:28 ↗ next prior priority um which is twofold

19:32 ↗ it is uh two different types of or two

19:35 ↗ different Park projects that the city is

19:37 ↗ looking to advance the first is the

19:39 ↗ Creeks to Peaks activation which would

19:42 ↗ be a $100,000 request from the state

19:44 ↗ capital budget and that would initiate

19:47 ↗ this project uh the second is a

19:51 ↗ $250,000 request uh for the Rainer Trail

19:54 ↗ Dog Park um and as as I understand the

19:58 ↗ dog park it is it's considered fully

20:01 ↗ funded based on initial estimates but

20:03 ↗ with um most projects these days when

20:06 ↗ you go out to actually bid there's a

20:08 ↗ higher cost than um the original um

20:13 ↗ estimate and what the original project

20:15 ↗ was um funded at and so this request is

20:18 ↗ intended to provide some um margin for

20:22 ↗ to be able to be able to deliver the

20:24 ↗ project um within the existing resources

20:27 ↗ and then if there are additional um or

20:30 ↗ if there is excess capacity then there

20:33 ↗ would be the opportunity to add um

20:35 ↗ additional amenities to that

20:38 ↗ project um both of these projects are

20:42 ↗ really visible to the community and so

20:44 ↗ that's that is a benefit to Capital

20:46 ↗ request made to the state as you have

20:48 ↗ community members that are going to

20:50 ↗ tangibly benefit from from a these both

20:52 ↗ of these projects

20:55 ↗ um I don't expect the legislature to

20:57 ↗ fund both of them them they're listed

20:59 ↗ here more as options think of it as a

21:02 ↗ buffet for state legislators to choose

21:05 ↗ which project they think is going to be

21:07 ↗ um most competitive or most

21:11 ↗ um uh realistic in the climate budget

21:14 ↗ climate that we're

21:16 ↗ facing um it's a strategy that this that

21:19 ↗ isqua has not taken historically we've

21:22 ↗ we've identified one project and that's

21:24 ↗ the project we've Advanced because our

21:26 ↗ project requests have been larger dollar

21:28 ↗ amount

21:29 ↗ the having multiple requests in a

21:31 ↗ smaller dollar amount is a different

21:33 ↗ strategy that we have not utilized

21:36 ↗ before um the last item on the agenda is

21:40 ↗ not new and this is the the sixth item

21:42 ↗ and the reason that I think that it

21:44 ↗ makes sense to still have it on here is

21:46 ↗ because it is not it is not a new

21:48 ↗ request so this is not something that

21:50 ↗ we're coming to the legislature asking

21:51 ↗ for new funding for um it is a request

21:54 ↗ for the reallocation of the funding

21:57 ↗ that's been previously awarded to the

21:58 ↗ issaqua Opportunity Center when the

22:01 ↗ legislature funded that money um it was

22:04 ↗ done so through a brand new grant

22:06 ↗ program Behavioral Health grant program

22:09 ↗ since that money was awarded the grant

22:11 ↗ program's been built up and there are

22:13 ↗ now strings attached to that grant

22:16 ↗ funding the strings attached to the

22:18 ↗ funding that's been awarded to the city

22:19 ↗ no longer fit with the vision of the

22:21 ↗ isqua Opportunity Center and so um there

22:24 ↗ are limitations on what we could use

22:26 ↗ that funding for the request of the

22:28 ↗ state is really administrative

22:30 ↗ essentially take the money out of that

22:32 ↗ grant program put it in the local

22:34 ↗ community project list where there are

22:37 ↗ much fewer strings and that honors the

22:39 ↗ original legislative intent of the

22:42 ↗ Opportunity

22:43 ↗ Center

22:45 ↗ um the we've already had conversations

22:48 ↗ with uh representative Kalen about this

22:51 ↗ request she understands and is

22:53 ↗ supportive of making sure that the city

22:55 ↗ has the resources that were originally

22:57 ↗ included for this

23:00 ↗ project

23:01 ↗ um before I transition to talking about

23:04 ↗ the policy manual I do want to note that

23:06 ↗ for any of the priorities that we would

23:08 ↗ be making that have a funding request

23:11 ↗ attached to them we would be doing more

23:14 ↗ um we'd be flushing them out more and

23:16 ↗ we'd be developing a one-page document

23:19 ↗ that provides much more details um the

23:22 ↗ reason that we don't have that this

23:23 ↗ evening is because these are still draft

23:25 ↗ priorities and so when there is

23:28 ↗ confirmation from the council that there

23:30 ↗ is these are the accurate priorities

23:32 ↗ then we would develop those documents

23:34 ↗ and we would have those prepared for the

23:36 ↗ legislative

23:38 ↗ session transitioning to the policy

23:41 ↗ manual um for the most part this

23:44 ↗ document is um unchanged there are there

23:47 ↗ are a lot of edits but I would say most

23:49 ↗ of them are more like wordsmithing and

23:52 ↗ um clarification I don't think there's

23:55 ↗ any new positions stated in the policy

23:59 ↗ manual um there is a removal to

24:02 ↗ references to the

24:04 ↗ covid-19 uh

24:05 ↗ recovery um and there there was a

24:09 ↗ recommendation that came from staff that

24:12 ↗ um Arch is advancing um regarding

24:16 ↗ providing flexibility and support for

24:19 ↗ partnership with um religious

24:22 ↗ organizations for affordable housing

24:24 ↗ projects so that's something that um

24:27 ↗ what should have been in included in the

24:28 ↗ draft version in your packet but was not

24:31 ↗ so that's something that we would look

24:33 ↗ to include in future

24:36 ↗ versions next

24:40 ↗ slide so as I mentioned um towards the

24:43 ↗ beginning this is intended to be U the

24:46 ↗ beginning of the process and so we're

24:49 ↗ looking for your feedback on these

24:50 ↗ priorities the goal is to adopt a um uh

24:55 ↗ a final version of both legislative

24:56 ↗ agenda and policy manual November um

25:00 ↗ following that we would schedule time to

25:02 ↗ meet with our state legislators and

25:04 ↗ brief them on the city's

25:06 ↗ priorities um and then meet with any

25:09 ↗ other state legislators that makes sense

25:11 ↗ based on what the priorities are at the

25:14 ↗ state level of course the the election

25:16 ↗ is coming up following the election

25:18 ↗ there will be the House and Senate

25:20 ↗ committee on committees which is the

25:23 ↗ committee that determines who sits on

25:24 ↗ what committees and um then legislative

25:28 ↗ committee days uh I think of it a little

25:30 ↗ bit like back to school night for the

25:32 ↗ legislature it's like a dry run of

25:35 ↗ what's going to happen in January and

25:36 ↗ it's um like the informal start of the

25:39 ↗ legislative session um bills will begin

25:42 ↗ to be pre-filed December 1 so we'll

25:45 ↗ start to get a sense of what the issues

25:47 ↗ are that folks have been working on over

25:49 ↗ the last several months and then the

25:51 ↗ legislative session starts on January

25:54 ↗ 13th so it will be um Fast and Furious

25:57 ↗ from now until

25:59 ↗ January so that I think is the end of my

26:02 ↗ presentation but I um welcome any

26:05 ↗ comments or questions and I I know there

26:08 ↗ were some so don't be

26:11 ↗ shy okay we'll start with questions and

26:14 ↗ then save the comments for later Deputy

26:17 ↗ council president D

26:19 ↗ Michelle thank you um earlier this year

26:22 ↗ we had a presentation from our community

26:26 ↗ Court uh on the uh um public defenders

26:30 ↗ the state supreme court is going to is

26:34 ↗ going to weigh in on the the number of

26:36 ↗ clients that a public defender can have

26:39 ↗ uh which could uh change the um number

26:42 ↗ that we are required to hire and so

26:44 ↗ forth um is there I I'm not really clear

26:48 ↗ about where we are in that process and

26:49 ↗ I'm wondering if we shouldn't be

26:52 ↗ including some kind of statement um

26:55 ↗ regarding State relief for the funding

26:57 ↗ of the those extra public defenders if

27:00 ↗ that were to come about but I will admit

27:03 ↗ I don't know where we are in the process

27:05 ↗ so my question is where are we in the

27:07 ↗ process and uh should we uh in fact be

27:11 ↗ including some kind of statement about

27:14 ↗ that uh particular necessity if it comes

27:17 ↗ about thank you yeah a great question so

27:22 ↗ uh the part we are in the proc we are in

27:25 ↗ between two um public hearings that the

27:27 ↗ Supreme Court is holding on the proposed

27:29 ↗ changes to the case load standards um

27:32 ↗ the first one I think was uh in

27:34 ↗ September the public the opportunity to

27:37 ↗ submit written comment is the deadline

27:39 ↗ is October 31st um Association of

27:42 ↗ Washington cities has developed draft

27:44 ↗ comments for cities to consider

27:46 ↗ submitting um so that's it's available

27:49 ↗ if the city wants to weigh in on that

27:51 ↗ and then I think there's another

27:52 ↗ opportunity for uh public comment in

27:55 ↗ November um following that there's not

27:58 ↗ necessarily a clear deadline as far as

28:00 ↗ when the court then is going to make a

28:02 ↗ decision about the case loads some would

28:05 ↗ think that perhaps it'll be in January

28:08 ↗ or maybe in April so it's not certain

28:12 ↗ whether there will be a decision made in

28:14 ↗ time for the state to develop their

28:16 ↗ budget in response to that decision um

28:20 ↗ at the same time for the legislature to

28:23 ↗ pass any law that that says what the

28:25 ↗ case load standards should be almost a

28:28 ↗ moot point because anyone is going to

28:31 ↗ adhere to the what the the Judiciary has

28:34 ↗ said so um your point though is valid

28:39 ↗ there this the state whatever the case

28:43 ↗ load standards are um it it's worth a

28:46 ↗ city advocating that there be adequate

28:48 ↗ funding for whatever those standards are

28:51 ↗ especially considering there's not

28:52 ↗ adequate funding for the current

28:54 ↗ standards yes City administrator

28:59 ↗ uh council president members of the

29:00 ↗ council good evening U the mayor is

29:03 ↗ preparing comments for the October 31st

29:05 ↗ deadline working with the city attorney

29:07 ↗ we'll make a copy of that available to

29:09 ↗ you once it's submitted thank you um

29:13 ↗ council member

29:16 ↗ hunt thank you um on the my uh building

29:20 ↗ permit item you mentioned in your

29:23 ↗ comments that the um the requested

29:26 ↗ funding would

29:29 ↗ get us away from a system where there

29:31 ↗ were changes being made um to the back

29:33 ↗ ends of the software by a private

29:35 ↗ provider does that mean that there would

29:37 ↗ be a different ownership model for the

29:39 ↗ software or what could you elaborate

29:41 ↗ more on on that one yes yes so um eity

29:46 ↗ go Alliance created the front-end system

29:48 ↗ for my building permit so that that has

29:51 ↗ been developed it um I think of it my

29:55 ↗ technology understanding is very basic

29:57 ↗ so I think of it like like a sandwich

29:59 ↗ like the frontend system is one slice of

30:00 ↗ bread the backend system is another and

30:03 ↗ the backend system every jurisdiction

30:05 ↗ that uses my building permit has to

30:06 ↗ contract with one of six or seven

30:09 ↗ private companies so there is no option

30:13 ↗ for

30:15 ↗ um there is no public option to match to

30:19 ↗ my building permit so anyone who

30:21 ↗ contracts with I don't even know the

30:24 ↗ name of one of the companies but they

30:26 ↗ could be bought by some else and their

30:28 ↗ responsibility is not to the um

30:32 ↗ customers it's to their their board or

30:35 ↗ their shareholders or whatever their

30:36 ↗ organization structure is so the the

30:39 ↗ idea is to have my building permit

30:41 ↗ create their own upgrade the front end

30:43 ↗ system and create their own backend

30:45 ↗ system so that they're not beholden to

30:48 ↗ any other organization or private

30:51 ↗ company um and then the because they

30:54 ↗ would have their own system they'd have

30:56 ↗ more control over when the upgrades are

30:58 ↗ done and what the upgrades are and just

31:01 ↗ the the the the ownership would be by

31:05 ↗ eity go

31:08 ↗ Alliance okay thank you and the

31:11 ↗ ownership would be by eity go but it

31:14 ↗ would be public publicly available

31:16 ↗ software for any

31:19 ↗ City yes in the state or yes anyone in

31:22 ↗ the state that wants to that wants to

31:24 ↗ contract with e City go Alliance would

31:26 ↗ be able to would benefit from the use of

31:30 ↗ this this system and that I think is

31:32 ↗ that's a great great point because

31:34 ↗ that's one of the benefits and the

31:35 ↗ reasons why this makes sense for the

31:37 ↗ state to invest in is because it becomes

31:40 ↗ then another option for

31:43 ↗ jurisdictions um who want to improve

31:45 ↗ their permitting processes but aren't

31:48 ↗ satisfied with what's on the market

31:49 ↗ right now okay uh do we know if the

31:53 ↗ other cities in the in the alliance are

31:56 ↗ putting this front are in their own

31:58 ↗ legislative agendas that's a great

32:01 ↗ question everyone that I know of is in

32:03 ↗ the process of developing or considering

32:05 ↗ their priorities right now I know that

32:07 ↗ all the executive committee members um

32:11 ↗ of eity go Alliance so that's bellw

32:14 ↗ Kirkland samamish snow quamy Kenmore and

32:17 ↗ isqua um are have committed to having

32:21 ↗ this item um brought before their

32:23 ↗ Council as a priority it's ultimately up

32:25 ↗ to each jurisdiction's Council to decide

32:28 ↗ what the priorities are but they they're

32:29 ↗ all being presented with this we've also

32:32 ↗ done Outreach to every jurisdiction that

32:34 ↗ utilizes my building permit which is an

32:36 ↗ additional I think two dozen

32:39 ↗ jurisdictions um and briefed their

32:42 ↗ government relations teams on this item

32:45 ↗ so um I can't say definitively but it is

32:49 ↗ out there okay thank you and then uh one

32:52 ↗ other question on the um the technology

32:58 ↗ for the jail for safety in the jail you

33:01 ↗ mentioned two technologies the scanners

33:04 ↗ and then the um smok detector like

33:07 ↗ sensors do you have a sense of how um

33:12 ↗ how much of the need

33:14 ↗ $250 would address in terms of coverage

33:17 ↗ of of the jail population does that

33:19 ↗ cover the technology so that all

33:21 ↗ individuals in the jail could be scanned

33:23 ↗ or does it you know cover enough for all

33:25 ↗ of the cells or is it really sort of one

33:28 ↗ piece of how much we would need to pay

33:30 ↗ for those Technologies yeah great

33:32 ↗ question um we the $250,000 amount came

33:36 ↗ from the fact that the scanner is

33:38 ↗ 250,000 so if it were used for the

33:41 ↗ scanner that's what it would it would

33:43 ↗ purchase one scanner for the jail and

33:44 ↗ that would be used for any during any

33:46 ↗ intake um I don't know how much each of

33:50 ↗ the individual monitors cost and so I'm

33:53 ↗ not sure how many cells that would then

33:55 ↗ cover um but

33:58 ↗ at least now my my understanding is not

34:00 ↗ necessarily that it would purchase both

34:02 ↗ but we're trying to figure

34:03 ↗ out it's we know that there um has

34:07 ↗ historically been grant funding

34:09 ↗ available for that type of scanner and

34:10 ↗ so if there is then we would want to use

34:12 ↗ grant funding for the scanner and then

34:14 ↗ pursue State funding for the for the

34:17 ↗ ceiling monitors um if if there isn't

34:20 ↗ grant funding available then the body

34:23 ↗ scanner may be a better um first

34:26 ↗ step okay thank

34:29 ↗ you council member

34:36 ↗ Hall um thank you thank you very much um

34:41 ↗ I have a couple questions some of the

34:42 ↗ same questions that coun member hunt you

34:44 ↗ had emailed in earlier so um my first

34:48 ↗ question was about the

34:50 ↗ direct direct distribution to

34:52 ↗ jurisdictions for for Public Safety um

34:56 ↗ and you you kind talked about the value

34:58 ↗ of there being kind of flexibility in

35:00 ↗ our words there I was wondering if you

35:01 ↗ could just expand on that a little bit

35:02 ↗ it seemed like almost like a sentence I

35:05 ↗ would expect in the policy manual kind

35:07 ↗ of like broad uh applying to multiple

35:09 ↗ jurisdictions whereas I've always

35:11 ↗ thought of our legislative agenda

35:14 ↗ as particular to isqua not to

35:16 ↗ jurisdictions generally so I was just

35:18 ↗ could you expand a little bit more on

35:19 ↗ that point yeah yeah I I think the

35:22 ↗ observation is really astute because the

35:24 ↗ city financial um challenges are they

35:28 ↗ are unique to isqua in the sense that

35:30 ↗ not every city has the same budget

35:32 ↗ challenges but they're they're not

35:34 ↗ unique to isqua in the sense that every

35:36 ↗ city has budget challenges right now um

35:40 ↗ the so this the specific request would

35:44 ↗ be

35:46 ↗ um there every city gets um a formulaic

35:50 ↗ distribution from the criminal justice

35:52 ↗ assistance account and so their one of

35:55 ↗ the ideas is to request an increase to

35:59 ↗ that amount that gets distributed

36:01 ↗ Statewide so it would go to Every

36:04 ↗ jurisdiction um another idea is to

36:06 ↗ change the um the way that marij or

36:11 ↗ cannabis revenues are calculated and to

36:14 ↗ increase the amount then that would go

36:16 ↗ to

36:16 ↗ cities um last year there was a bill

36:20 ↗ brought forward that would um allow

36:24 ↗ jurisdictions to implement a public

36:26 ↗ safety sales tax Council manically

36:28 ↗ currently that can be um implemented by

36:31 ↗ a vote of the people so there's uh I

36:33 ↗ think different ways to pursue it I

36:35 ↗ think the reason that it that it's on

36:39 ↗ the city's legislative agenda as one of

36:41 ↗ the top priority items is because um the

36:44 ↗ city's in a in a challenging State

36:47 ↗ financially not every city is and so

36:51 ↗ Association of Washington cities does

36:52 ↗ have this as one of their priorities and

36:55 ↗ what they're looking for is

36:57 ↗ jurisdictions that are willing to come

36:58 ↗ forward to be kind of help tell the

37:02 ↗ story of why this is so important what

37:04 ↗ does this mean what's going to happen in

37:06 ↗ cities around the state if there aren't

37:08 ↗ changes made um so I I think to your

37:11 ↗ point council member Hall it could very

37:13 ↗ well be a policy manual item um the

37:17 ↗ reason that it I think makes sense as a

37:20 ↗ priority item is because we this is

37:22 ↗ communicating to our state legislators

37:25 ↗ we need you to focus on this we we we

37:27 ↗ need you to be part of the the team

37:29 ↗ that's looking for the solution not just

37:32 ↗ when a solution gets brought forward

37:33 ↗ saying yeah that

37:36 ↗ works so what would we think about I

37:38 ↗ really appreciate kind of the specific

37:40 ↗ examples there and I'm sure there are

37:42 ↗ many other ideas floating around the

37:44 ↗ legislature but what would we think

37:45 ↗ about having that kind of broad

37:47 ↗ statement but then saying something like

37:50 ↗ for example or like these methods that

37:52 ↗ have been considered previously or or

37:55 ↗ something like that I just feel like it

37:56 ↗ there's probably value in being specific

38:00 ↗ yeah in the agenda I mean I guess are I

38:02 ↗ guess my question is are we are we

38:05 ↗ wanting to just stay away from that at

38:06 ↗ the policy uh or the legislative agenda

38:09 ↗ level and then speak to that when we're

38:11 ↗ talking with our legislators or is there

38:13 ↗ value in having being more specific in

38:15 ↗ this document we we can definitely be

38:17 ↗ more specific in this document I don't

38:19 ↗ think there's necessarily A A downside

38:22 ↗ to that but I would Envision that in any

38:24 ↗ conversation with our legislators we're

38:26 ↗ going to be talking more more specifics

38:29 ↗ and and not just what the solutions are

38:32 ↗ I think th those are what some of the

38:34 ↗ solutions could be I think really what

38:36 ↗ our message needs to be is these are the

38:38 ↗ problems this this is where our our

38:40 ↗ hands are tied behind our back this is

38:42 ↗ where like we don't have a solution our

38:46 ↗ these are the costs that we're seeing

38:47 ↗ rise these are our limited Revenue

38:50 ↗ options we don't want to tell you how to

38:53 ↗ fix this problem but this is a problem

38:55 ↗ here are some ideas

38:57 ↗ um so I

39:00 ↗ think I don't think there's a downside

39:02 ↗ in listing some potential Solutions but

39:04 ↗ I think the bigger message that we want

39:06 ↗ to carry to Olympia is this is a problem

39:09 ↗ that needs to be addressed and this is

39:10 ↗ what the problem looks like for

39:12 ↗ isqua City

39:14 ↗ administrator yes in discussing uh the

39:17 ↗ proposed agenda with mayor Paulie she

39:18 ↗ was very um interested in pursuing this

39:22 ↗ as I think as as shelle has mentioned

39:24 ↗ the association of Washington cities has

39:26 ↗ put this out there as one of their pri

39:27 ↗ prorities but is looking for other

39:28 ↗ cities to step forward I mean it's one

39:31 ↗ thing for the association to take these

39:32 ↗ positions it's another thing for a city

39:35 ↗ actually experiencing some of these

39:36 ↗ challenges to step forward so it's

39:38 ↗ included here for isqua to step forward

39:41 ↗ and I think the question for the council

39:43 ↗ given the other legislative priorities

39:45 ↗ are you comfortable and supportive of

39:47 ↗ doing that and be a leader in the state

39:49 ↗ in this discussion versus just one of

39:52 ↗ many um chiming it okay absolutely I

39:55 ↗ appreciate the additional detail kind of

39:57 ↗ that sounds like a good discussion for

39:59 ↗ us to have as Council um couple other

40:01 ↗ questions I was hoping someone could

40:03 ↗ talk to me a little bit more about what

40:05 ↗ Creeks to Peaks activation would mean if

40:07 ↗ there's something specific in mind there

40:10 ↗ or if we're stay broad on

40:16 ↗ purpose thanks Shell I noticed the look

40:19 ↗ um my way uh yeah happy to Jeff Watling

40:22 ↗ parks's Community Services director uh

40:25 ↗ little bit of backstory I guess of what

40:26 ↗ Creeks to PE is um services and safety

40:29 ↗ and Parks committee has heard a little

40:31 ↗ of this they're going to hear more of it

40:32 ↗ tomorrow night as we bring the the draft

40:34 ↗ Park strategic plan to them for

40:36 ↗ consideration to recommend all of you

40:38 ↗ this is I guess a little bit of a

40:40 ↗ preview um of that document so as we did

40:43 ↗ that work and engaged with the community

40:46 ↗ and quite frankly engaged with you a lot

40:48 ↗ in some of our pre conversations when we

40:50 ↗ launched the park plan the green

40:52 ↗ necklace which has lived a great life um

40:54 ↗ had many different definitions by many

40:56 ↗ different people um and there was a u

41:01 ↗ desire and an interest to bring Clarity

41:03 ↗ to what is the green necklace and what

41:04 ↗ does that mean is that just Central

41:06 ↗ isqua is that the open space around us

41:09 ↗ and that really led us in the engagement

41:11 ↗ effort to um come up with how do we

41:15 ↗ redefine the green necklace and how do

41:17 ↗ we Define something that really feels

41:21 ↗ more like isqua Park system and so that

41:24 ↗ is the origin or think of creeks to Peak

41:27 ↗ isqua Creeks to Peaks Park system is

41:29 ↗ really the rebranding of the green

41:32 ↗ necklace um our system's not a necklace

41:34 ↗ our system is a a mesh of trails there's

41:37 ↗ a desire to get through town There's a

41:39 ↗ desire to get up into the open space and

41:41 ↗ so this activation is then taking how do

41:44 ↗ we take something that we rename in a

41:46 ↗ park plan and um do a first

41:50 ↗ implementation um that I think is still

41:52 ↗ to be defined um as as Shelley was

41:55 ↗ saying but if it is something that we

41:56 ↗ want to um seek U funding for I would

41:59 ↗ imagine this is a mix of some branding

42:02 ↗ work uh we have brainstormed some

42:05 ↗ projects one of those projects we would

42:07 ↗ consider is um what's known as the three

42:10 ↗ Trails intersection uh where East Lake

42:12 ↗ sis trail reineer trail and Juniper

42:14 ↗ Trail meet right there at Gilman we have

42:16 ↗ a scramble um what if we did a install

42:20 ↗ what if we branded that intersection and

42:22 ↗ created asphalt art that began to really

42:26 ↗ Define Creek to Peaks as that is a a

42:28 ↗ really key intersection to what we're

42:31 ↗ trying to do throughout our whole park

42:32 ↗ system so that's an idea uh again I

42:35 ↗ think what is before you is an idea if

42:37 ↗ it's something we want to consider we'll

42:38 ↗ put more work in to defining

42:41 ↗ it okay so then the idea would be that

42:44 ↗ we have these ideas but once the

42:46 ↗ legislative agenda is finalized we would

42:48 ↗ have something Concrete in there for

42:50 ↗ Peaks to Creek

42:52 ↗ AC correct okay yeah um I have a

42:55 ↗ question about dog park too so you might

42:56 ↗ as well stay yes I have a few more is

42:58 ↗ that okay Council keep going okay um so

43:04 ↗ okay so it sounds like the funding

43:06 ↗ request there is for some flexibility to

43:09 ↗ anticipate potential overruns but we're

43:12 ↗ so it's $250,000 is that rates I guess

43:15 ↗ can you remind me how much the dog park

43:17 ↗ was it just seems like a pretty sizable

43:19 ↗ amount for overruns but maybe I'm not

43:21 ↗ judging the scale of the project yeah

43:23 ↗ welcome to construction 2024 2025

43:27 ↗ um right now we have just under

43:30 ↗ $500,000 in the budget for the dog park

43:33 ↗ um so again we're anticipating that's

43:36 ↗ fully funded as we um I think as the

43:39 ↗ state is seen as we've certainly seen

43:41 ↗ with Hillside Park bid Award with the

43:44 ↗ recent um um arpa projects award that we

43:48 ↗ did what we're seeing in public works um

43:49 ↗ it's a very tough bid climate to

43:52 ↗ estimate so uh this idea is do we

43:55 ↗ proactively consider some additional

43:57 ↗ funding um in the off chance um when we

44:00 ↗ take that out to bid that we need to

44:01 ↗ seek additional

44:06 ↗ funding um I guess then followup

44:08 ↗ question for Shelley do you know if this

44:09 ↗ is a common kind of request to make of

44:12 ↗ the legislature um kind of off chance

44:15 ↗ funding that bidding is

44:18 ↗ challenging you know I'm not aware of

44:21 ↗ whether this is something that's

44:22 ↗ consistently brought forward but I do

44:24 ↗ know that in recent years because

44:27 ↗ projects are continuing to come in

44:29 ↗ greater than they have been estimated

44:32 ↗ that projects have come back then to ask

44:34 ↗ for more money because so we've seen

44:37 ↗ that pretty consistently over the last

44:38 ↗ several budget Cycles this is I think

44:41 ↗ being proactive so that the um costs

44:45 ↗ don't increase because the project

44:46 ↗ timeline gets pushed out um so it's a

44:48 ↗ little bit more of a it's a different

44:51 ↗ take on the same type of requests that

44:53 ↗ the legislature has been funding I will

44:56 ↗ say the we to to the great great

45:00 ↗ question we can't just have a funding

45:02 ↗ request for a nebulous um request I mean

45:06 ↗ we we have to have specifics the

45:08 ↗ legislature um has a very specific form

45:10 ↗ we have to fill out we have to be able

45:12 ↗ to quantify what's going to be developed

45:14 ↗ as a public benefit for state tax

45:17 ↗ dollars um so that will need to be

45:20 ↗ refined um before we're s if we would be

45:24 ↗ successful in this okay that's

45:26 ↗ heartening okay thank you appreciate

45:27 ↗ that so um earlier you had also said

45:30 ↗ that this would kind of in a in a way

45:33 ↗ serve as like a buffet for the

45:34 ↗ legislators to be able to pick and

45:35 ↗ choose I guess my question um is um

45:40 ↗ where's our Buffet as Council I I like

45:43 ↗ are there options that we can consider

45:45 ↗ for this bucket um understanding what

45:48 ↗ the needs are across the city we always

45:50 ↗ talk about facilities things like that

45:52 ↗ so it looks like there's a mic over

45:54 ↗ there I'm just curious um if that's

45:55 ↗ something the administration would be

45:57 ↗ open to us considering kind of the full

45:59 ↗ range of

46:00 ↗ possibilities so let's continue the

46:02 ↗ analogy so shell is here and she's

46:05 ↗ whipped up a wonderful uh preview meal

46:08 ↗ for you and so ultimately you're going

46:10 ↗ to be serving this meal at a legislative

46:12 ↗ breakfast and so um I think tonight

46:15 ↗ we've got too many too many egg dishes

46:18 ↗ and maybe we need some more fruit um and

46:20 ↗ some juice to go with it so shell has

46:22 ↗ prepared all these things for you you

46:24 ↗ get to decide what you want to serve so

46:27 ↗ uh it may be that you give them two egg

46:29 ↗ dishes to choose from at the legislative

46:31 ↗ breakfast you may only give them one egg

46:32 ↗ dish to choose from it's up to you so

46:35 ↗ you're uh Shelly has done your meal

46:37 ↗ planning for you now you get to uh

46:39 ↗ choose what you want to taste and then

46:41 ↗ ultimately decide what you want to

46:43 ↗ serve I think we've overused the

46:45 ↗ metaphor okay thank you I appreciate

46:47 ↗ that and it sounds like a good question

46:49 ↗ or discussion for us to have as Council

46:50 ↗ too so um I swear I'm almost done a

46:54 ↗ couple more questions one thing I

46:56 ↗ noticed is that the I90 over

46:59 ↗ undercrossing isn't on our legislative

47:01 ↗ agenda document so I was wondering if

47:02 ↗ you could kind of speak to not having

47:05 ↗ that showcase there because I think it's

47:06 ↗ usually there right as opposed to policy

47:08 ↗ man yes yes you're right and actually

47:10 ↗ your question reminds me that it should

47:13 ↗ be in the policy manual so that was an

47:15 ↗ oversight removing it from the

47:17 ↗ legislative agenda should have been

47:19 ↗ incorporated into the policy manual so

47:20 ↗ I'm going to add that to my note right

47:23 ↗ now um the reason that it's not a

47:25 ↗ legislative priority is because we are

47:28 ↗ well as you can tell there are already a

47:30 ↗ lot of priorities and we are wanting to

47:32 ↗ really focus on State Route 18 um it's

47:37 ↗ been difficult to advance the I90 over

47:40 ↗ underpass in the midst of advancing

47:43 ↗ Highway 18 and so we're just recognizing

47:46 ↗ that that's the reality that we're

47:48 ↗ facing and we want to push on the

47:51 ↗ completion of 18 um knowing full well

47:55 ↗ that the over under overpass is a

47:58 ↗ long-term goal but it's that it's

48:05 ↗ longterm okay that makes sense I

48:07 ↗ appreciate that um I think actually that

48:09 ↗ answers all of my questions so I'm done

48:11 ↗ for now thank you again appreciate

48:13 ↗ council member Ray um thanks um can we

48:16 ↗ talk just a little bit more about the

48:17 ↗ safety and care of incarcerated

48:19 ↗ individuals running a jail is a u

48:22 ↗ expensive but more importantly it's a

48:24 ↗ risky um business venture to be in is

48:27 ↗ there anything or we consider or would

48:29 ↗ we consider or can we consider um

48:32 ↗ expanding this Beyond just the capital

48:34 ↗ programs that you kind of touched on

48:36 ↗ around monitoring is it feels like to me

48:39 ↗ this could be a more valuable and

48:41 ↗ broader initiative if thought more

48:42 ↗ broadly about it you read my mind um so

48:47 ↗ this actually started off as an

48:49 ↗ operating budget request um because

48:52 ↗ realistically the the financial

48:55 ↗ challenge to the city is on the

48:57 ↗ operating side of things not the capital

48:59 ↗ and so that's where the greatest need is

49:02 ↗ um considering the state's budget

49:05 ↗ climate we did not think that an

49:07 ↗ operating budget request would compete

49:09 ↗ well and so to ensure that there is

49:13 ↗ something to support jail operations um

49:17 ↗ we decided to focus on a capital budget

49:20 ↗ request that being

49:23 ↗ said we can still make this operating we

49:26 ↗ could structure this in a way that makes

49:28 ↗ it more flexible um to say safety and

49:32 ↗ care of incarcerated individuals broadly

49:35 ↗ and we're looking for opportunities for

49:36 ↗ the state's support to do that some

49:38 ↗ ideas may include direct distribution to

49:41 ↗ help with jail operations body

49:44 ↗ scanner monitors um support for the

49:48 ↗ medical care I mean we could we could

49:50 ↗ list out some of the ways that the state

49:52 ↗ could help us um so it's an

49:55 ↗ option I just follow up on that um so

49:58 ↗ money is good policy is also good so is

50:02 ↗ are there some policy questions that

50:04 ↗ could be embedded in this one too that

50:06 ↗ you

50:07 ↗ might consider when fleshing

50:11 ↗ out let me take that one and uan is here

50:14 ↗ and certainly can can add to this um as

50:17 ↗ shelle's indicated this has been a

50:19 ↗ multi-month internal discussion within

50:21 ↗ the administration as to how to approach

50:24 ↗ um the legislature uh next year and

50:26 ↗ dealing with issues with the jail um

50:29 ↗ much of what you're hearing tonight

50:30 ↗ really was generated by a discussion

50:32 ↗ with the attorneys representing cities

50:35 ↗ that have jails and those attorneys have

50:37 ↗ sat together to say what is the most

50:39 ↗ effective way to uh limit our liability

50:43 ↗ and to make sure that those that are

50:44 ↗ incarcerated in our jails are best

50:46 ↗ protected um and it is from those

50:48 ↗ discussions that this technology idea

50:51 ↗ came uh we also have talked about uh

50:55 ↗ policy changes regarding liability

50:57 ↗ and have worked with colleagues in other

50:59 ↗ jurisdictions around the state have

51:01 ↗ talked with shell and her colleagues and

51:03 ↗ we are not recommending at this point to

51:05 ↗ move forward with that uh because we

51:07 ↗ believe the uh the difficulty uh is

51:10 ↗ probably U outweighed by by the

51:13 ↗ effectiveness and perhaps going down

51:15 ↗ this other route so um this is a

51:18 ↗ strategy that has been well thought uh

51:20 ↗ to make the most of what we believe we

51:22 ↗ could get resources out of the state

51:24 ↗ legislature to help us with this Chief

51:26 ↗ Swan is here I don't know Chief if you

51:28 ↗ want to add anything at this juncture or

51:30 ↗ just continue to be available for

51:34 ↗ question you need a

51:42 ↗ microphone good evening Council thank

51:44 ↗ you um I can say um a bigger part is

51:48 ↗ this is for the safety as you can

51:50 ↗ imagine um there's been mention of the

51:52 ↗ the monitors are in the cell for

51:54 ↗ multiple different people they've ALS Al

51:56 ↗ considered they're similar to a Fitbit

51:58 ↗ but they connect directly to the medical

52:00 ↗ office so it's one on pods when we have

52:04 ↗ like our dorms when we have upwards of

52:06 ↗ you know 10 to 15 people you can't um

52:09 ↗ imagine how they can manage all those

52:11 ↗ heart rates right from one scanner or in

52:13 ↗ one room so they are thinking of there

52:15 ↗ are some other options that are similar

52:17 ↗ but it's all part of the same technology

52:19 ↗ um the other thing is far as considering

52:21 ↗ the safety of our inmates as mentioned

52:25 ↗ as far as operating would be hours of

52:27 ↗ our Medical Care as we've seen from some

52:30 ↗ of the incidents that we've had and so

52:33 ↗ this is what's been gone over as far as

52:35 ↗ the best option for what can be safe for

52:38 ↗ individuals the scanner that's mentioned

52:40 ↗ is um huge as far as they note an object

52:43 ↗ and every single person that would come

52:45 ↗ in would benefit from that because every

52:46 ↗ single person would have one of those

52:48 ↗ and go through the scanner so they're

52:51 ↗ just a bunch of different options that

52:52 ↗ are definitely as been mentioned been

52:54 ↗ vetted on what would be most beneficial

52:57 ↗ at this point in time for the safety uh

52:59 ↗ of our inmates and for the

53:01 ↗ city thanks that's really helpful

53:03 ↗ appreciate

53:06 ↗ it okay any other

53:10 ↗ questions okay um I'm going to move on

53:13 ↗ to public comment and then we will do

53:15 ↗ feedback so we have an opportunity now

53:18 ↗ for public comment have anybody

53:20 ↗ indicating a desire to speak online or

53:23 ↗ in person

53:26 ↗ anybody

53:27 ↗ online we still don't have any members

53:29 ↗ of the public with us virtually okay

53:32 ↗ before you come up let me just read over

53:34 ↗ we've got a comments here uh you're

53:38 ↗ invited to address the council regarding

53:40 ↗ matters that are directly related to

53:41 ↗ isqua's programs projects services or

53:43 ↗ events comments related to political

53:45 ↗ campaigns are not permitted please

53:47 ↗ direct comments to the whole Council and

53:49 ↗ not individuals while this is not a

53:51 ↗ question and answer session we will

53:53 ↗ contact you to follow up if needed when

53:55 ↗ recognized unmute your microphone um or

53:58 ↗ step up to the Lecter and turn it on to

54:01 ↗ the red uh state your name address and

54:04 ↗ relationship to the city speak clearly

54:06 ↗ and pause frequently and limit your

54:08 ↗ comments to 5

54:10 ↗ minutes um personal attacks subscene

54:13 ↗ language derogatory remarks and

54:15 ↗ disruptive behavior will not be uh

54:17 ↗ permitted so go ahead and come on up we

54:19 ↗ would love to hear from you

54:30 ↗ thank you for the opportunity to address

54:32 ↗ you my name is Jay sternoff my address

54:35 ↗ is

54:36 ↗ 22611 Southeast 44th place in

54:41 ↗ isqua uh I have been a longtime East

54:44 ↗ Side resident uh since the time that uh

54:49 ↗ the city of BBY was 10,000

54:51 ↗ people uh I moved to isqua in 1979 moved

54:55 ↗ away

54:56 ↗ uh for a while and moved back several

55:00 ↗ years ago I'm here tonight to speak

55:02 ↗ specifically on the Parks and Recreation

55:05 ↗ investment discussion specifically in

55:09 ↗ reference to The Creeks to Peaks act

55:11 ↗ activation and the request for uh to go

55:14 ↗ to the legislature for

55:16 ↗ $100,000 uh

55:18 ↗ assistance uh I wanted to state that in

55:21 ↗ the community I live there was some

55:23 ↗ communication that took place uh at the

55:26 ↗ end of April and uh council president

55:29 ↗ Walsh responded at the beginning of uh

55:33 ↗ May uh and I'm going to try to summarize

55:37 ↗ and I'm more than happy to submit these

55:40 ↗ letters as part of the council record so

55:43 ↗ uh the complete so on so you I I don't

55:46 ↗ get accused of

55:47 ↗ paraphrasing okay but uh the president

55:51 ↗ of Providence Point a community of

55:53 ↗ approximately a little over a thousand

55:56 ↗ residences in Northeast uh isqua wrote

56:00 ↗ on April 29th the Providence Point

56:03 ↗ umbrella Association and directors is

56:05 ↗ fully and unequivocally opposed to this

56:08 ↗ portion of the park department plan and

56:11 ↗ specifically what I'm referring to is

56:13 ↗ the Laughing Jacobs Creek uh

56:16 ↗ Trail

56:19 ↗ uh in the next sentence It Was Written

56:22 ↗ the portion of the proposed plan is

56:24 ↗ particularly egregious since there is

56:26 ↗ perfectly simply an alternative that

56:28 ↗ does not intrude into the property

56:30 ↗ simply reroute the proposed Trail North

56:33 ↗ and up the hill to the sidewalk along

56:35 ↗ Southeast 43rd way near 43rd Place and

56:38 ↗ then extend the sidewalk East to the

56:41 ↗ entr of uh Province points Forest

56:43 ↗ Village and connect it to the trail

56:45 ↗ system on the province Point prop below

56:48 ↗ Province Point Property uh that was

56:52 ↗ pointed out for several reasons one

56:54 ↗ being that one of the discuss discusss

56:56 ↗ of this Trail was uh that trail be

56:59 ↗ opened up uh specifically for uh the

57:03 ↗ potential uh uh high school and

57:06 ↗ Elementary School that was going above

57:08 ↗ Province point and that uh school

57:11 ↗ children could uh uh Traverse that that

57:14 ↗ trail unfortunately at least in my

57:17 ↗ judgment I wouldn't want my young

57:20 ↗ children being in a forested area where

57:24 ↗ people could uh uh do things that were

57:28 ↗ not appropriate and that's one of the

57:30 ↗ reasons why we suggested it but more

57:32 ↗ importantly Providence Point is a

57:35 ↗ private Eng gated community that has

57:38 ↗ existed since the late

57:40 ↗ 80s uh uh when we uh became uh part of

57:46 ↗ the city of

57:47 ↗ isqua uh and around I believe it was

57:50 ↗ around

57:52 ↗ 2005 uh we were uniquely different than

57:54 ↗ many of the other areas Act accessed

57:56 ↗ area access in South Cove is an example

57:59 ↗ the city took over maintenance of all

58:01 ↗ the streets that's not true in

58:03 ↗ Providence Point South Cove is not gated

58:06 ↗ we are gated we've been able to keep

58:09 ↗ crime down because we have our own

58:11 ↗ security people and we may do our own

58:15 ↗ totally our own maintenance nothing is

58:17 ↗ required by the city of isqua service

58:20 ↗ other than the police department and for

58:24 ↗ those reasons they City doesn't have

58:27 ↗ access to that property there is a

58:29 ↗ utility easement that comes up near

58:32 ↗ laughing Jacob's Creek it is not an

58:34 ↗ easement to be utilized for uh for the

58:39 ↗ public it is strictly for what was it

58:42 ↗ was designed

58:43 ↗ for in response to that letter uh

58:48 ↗ council president Walsh wrote back

58:54 ↗ uh let me just find

58:59 ↗ the the area then

59:02 ↗ okay it it essentially what she uh wrote

59:05 ↗ back was Providence Point residen

59:10 ↗ uh the potential Trail has been kept as

59:13 ↗ a future project history aside I want to

59:16 ↗ assure you the city would not proceed

59:18 ↗ with any work on this project until it

59:21 ↗ was requested by Providence Point also

59:23 ↗ as a general approach to Trails the city

59:26 ↗ would not proceed with any portion of

59:27 ↗ the trail on private property without

59:30 ↗ first having an agreement in the support

59:33 ↗ of that private property

59:35 ↗ owner anyway with that said that is what

59:38 ↗ my presentation is but I'd like to

59:41 ↗ submit these two letters for the record

59:44 ↗ of the

59:53 ↗ council thank you this is General really

59:56 ↗ not a question and answer period so

59:58 ↗ we're not able to reply but I do have

59:59 ↗ your um letter in my response here and I

1:00:04 ↗ will personally be asking a question

1:00:05 ↗ about whether that's what Creeks to

1:00:07 ↗ Peaks uh refers to so that maybe we can

1:00:10 ↗ get a little bit of information um I

1:00:12 ↗ will ask if there are any other I don't

1:00:14 ↗ see anybody else that's public all the

1:00:16 ↗ rest of y'all are friendly faces and all

1:00:19 ↗ of that um I I meant people I see all

1:00:24 ↗ the time you're right absolutely

1:00:27 ↗ um okay so I will go ahead and close the

1:00:29 ↗ public comment and move on

1:00:32 ↗ to

1:00:34 ↗ um Council feedback I'm wondering if we

1:00:37 ↗ can start um director Watling just um

1:00:40 ↗ trying to get an understanding does The

1:00:42 ↗ Creeks to Peaks talk

1:00:46 ↗ about um this particular proposed Trail

1:00:49 ↗ and is there any change from when you

1:00:53 ↗ help me provide that letter yes so I

1:00:56 ↗ guess a couple things uh thank you for

1:00:57 ↗ the comment uh The Creeks to Peaks um

1:01:01 ↗ definition does not speak to any one

1:01:03 ↗ specific project so no it is not related

1:01:06 ↗ specifically to the the the Laughing

1:01:08 ↗ Jacobs Creek uh Trail Corridor um

1:01:11 ↗ specific to the question and I I would

1:01:13 ↗ encourage you to take a look at the

1:01:15 ↗ draft Park plan that'll be before the uh

1:01:17 ↗ services and safety and Parks committee

1:01:19 ↗ tomorrow night um there is reference to

1:01:22 ↗ that project uh but it's it's referenced

1:01:25 ↗ and you'll see the definition is very

1:01:27 ↗ consistent with what the council

1:01:28 ↗ president Walsh said and what we as

1:01:30 ↗ staff believe is though this is a um um

1:01:34 ↗ concept of a project it would not be um

1:01:38 ↗ um something we would proceed with or

1:01:40 ↗ move forward with without um some future

1:01:43 ↗ um request uh from Providence Point and

1:01:46 ↗ if that was uh not to be taken that the

1:01:48 ↗ city would not initiate uh that specific

1:01:51 ↗ project on its on its own um some

1:01:54 ↗ context that is a trail corridor that

1:01:56 ↗ also has been thought of uh regionally

1:01:58 ↗ for since the'80s uh so um I think the

1:02:02 ↗ desire of at least putting it showing

1:02:04 ↗ that connectivity opportunity within

1:02:06 ↗ this park plan um was really a desire to

1:02:09 ↗ to continue to show that opportunity but

1:02:12 ↗ as we all know a park system plan um is

1:02:14 ↗ not a funding document uh those those

1:02:17 ↗ are not budgeted projects there's a lot

1:02:19 ↗ of community discussion that would still

1:02:21 ↗ need to be had Paramount to this

1:02:23 ↗ specific project uh none of that would

1:02:25 ↗ happen until there was um desire and

1:02:27 ↗ interest from the property owner and

1:02:29 ↗ that being Providence

1:02:31 ↗ Point okay great so now um kind of going

1:02:36 ↗ to the legislative priorities and agenda

1:02:39 ↗ that was provided does anybody want to

1:02:41 ↗ start out

1:02:46 ↗ feedback go ahead Council Ray I always

1:02:49 ↗ like to get start I think I think it's I

1:02:51 ↗ think it's really

1:02:54 ↗ um the the top five plus one is is a is

1:02:57 ↗ a great list um very consistent Highway

1:03:00 ↗ 18 I think is still I noticed that the

1:03:02 ↗ bar was longer on that one on the thing

1:03:04 ↗ I don't know if that was intentional but

1:03:05 ↗ I think that's uh if it wasn't

1:03:07 ↗ intentional it should be I think that's

1:03:08 ↗ our number one priority um I understand

1:03:11 ↗ the issues around um health and jail and

1:03:15 ↗ I think that makes great sense and

1:03:21 ↗ um and I think we're uh you know I think

1:03:24 ↗ if we can be successful in moving those

1:03:26 ↗ those items forward we will we will have

1:03:27 ↗ had a good

1:03:31 ↗ legis

1:03:33 ↗ okay Deputy council president followed

1:03:36 ↗ by council member

1:03:38 ↗ Hall yes she's the decider she's the

1:03:41 ↗ decider yeah uh Shelley does such a nice

1:03:44 ↗ job and uh uh thank you so much for also

1:03:48 ↗ answering several questions and

1:03:51 ↗ clarifying things I did send a shell a

1:03:55 ↗ um some language that I would like us to

1:03:58 ↗ at least consider um and it is uh quote

1:04:02 ↗ issaqua supports increased State funding

1:04:05 ↗ and or subsidies for local organizations

1:04:08 ↗ combating food insecurity as well as

1:04:10 ↗ those providing essential life resources

1:04:13 ↗ such as diapers cribs clothing bedding

1:04:16 ↗ and other essential child and family

1:04:18 ↗ needs um this would be in support of two

1:04:21 ↗ organizations in isqua that uh fit that

1:04:24 ↗ description uh one would be the esqua

1:04:27 ↗ food and clothing bank and the other

1:04:28 ↗ would be kid Vantage um and both of

1:04:31 ↗ those organizations uh many of us

1:04:34 ↗ recently attended the isqua food and

1:04:37 ↗ clothing bank breakfast and they spoke

1:04:40 ↗ again about the doubling of the demand

1:04:43 ↗ uh the demand just keeps going up it

1:04:45 ↗ doubled last year it doubled again this

1:04:47 ↗ year and the resources uh continue to

1:04:50 ↗ diminish um and so uh I would hope that

1:04:54 ↗ we would work with those two

1:04:57 ↗ organizations um admittedly this might

1:04:59 ↗ need some word smithing um and uh I did

1:05:03 ↗ look up and see if the state of

1:05:05 ↗ Washington uh has mechanisms for um

1:05:09 ↗ supporting food insec or not food

1:05:11 ↗ insecurity food security uh they do

1:05:14 ↗ there are four different funds that the

1:05:15 ↗ state um supports um and I would suggest

1:05:19 ↗ that we could support increased funding

1:05:22 ↗ for one or all of those funds maybe work

1:05:25 ↗ with Shelly get the exact wording but

1:05:27 ↗ I'd like to propose that we add that to

1:05:30 ↗ our policy manual so um and other than

1:05:34 ↗ that I think that we've got I think

1:05:36 ↗ we've got a very good list of priorities

1:05:39 ↗ and um excellent work from our lobbyist

1:05:42 ↗ thank you council member Hall well I'll

1:05:46 ↗ start just by agreeing that jelly is the

1:05:48 ↗ best and Gordon Thomas Honeywell is also

1:05:51 ↗ the best so we're very well represented

1:05:52 ↗ in Olympia um I also agree for uh at a

1:05:55 ↗ high level that we've captured the right

1:05:58 ↗ buckets of categories here um I think

1:06:01 ↗ there are a few areas where I just like

1:06:03 ↗ I think there's value in being a bit

1:06:05 ↗ more specific so um I think the way that

1:06:09 ↗ you described the need to talk about

1:06:13 ↗ direct um financial assistance for

1:06:15 ↗ cities um for Public Safety is

1:06:18 ↗ compelling I'm sold on that but I would

1:06:19 ↗ like to see a little bit more

1:06:22 ↗ specifics I don't know if just saying

1:06:24 ↗ for example this fits well but you

1:06:27 ↗ you'll find a way to to restructure this

1:06:30 ↗ somehow that that adds some specificity

1:06:32 ↗ there um because I feel like there is

1:06:34 ↗ value in having the one sheet of paper

1:06:36 ↗ that is very specific this is exactly

1:06:38 ↗ what we need this and this and then the

1:06:40 ↗ manual more tells the story of um

1:06:43 ↗ opportunities and wos um so that's kind

1:06:46 ↗ of my thought there with creeks to Peaks

1:06:49 ↗ um I am glad to hear that there are some

1:06:52 ↗ ideas in the hopper and those will

1:06:55 ↗ solidify as we move forward so I'm okay

1:06:57 ↗ with keeping that in here if we want

1:06:58 ↗ that to be one of the two um just making

1:07:02 ↗ sure that cuz I mean I guess at the end

1:07:03 ↗ of the day it could be very it could be

1:07:05 ↗ a very successful thing lots of

1:07:07 ↗ recreation in the area to drive economic

1:07:09 ↗ development in the city too so there is

1:07:11 ↗ a story to be told there um and there's

1:07:13 ↗ value there having worked in a State

1:07:17 ↗ Legislative Office that helps compile

1:07:19 ↗ local community projects I don't

1:07:20 ↗ necessarily feel the same way about

1:07:23 ↗ potential overrun for dog park I don't

1:07:25 ↗ think that would be a very competitive

1:07:27 ↗ project to go to the state legislature

1:07:29 ↗ with um so I would like to see some more

1:07:33 ↗ uh another option there um for us to

1:07:35 ↗ consider within and I think if we want

1:07:36 ↗ to keep if we think the city says we

1:07:39 ↗ would like to have kind of a menu of

1:07:41 ↗ parks specific or Parks what is it yeah

1:07:43 ↗ Parks and Recreation Investments

1:07:45 ↗ specific asks that's okay um but I also

1:07:48 ↗ would like to get a bit more of a sense

1:07:50 ↗ of what are the other opportunities that

1:07:52 ↗ we think are kind of in that dollar

1:07:54 ↗ range that could be competitive um but

1:07:57 ↗ also compelling to our state legislators

1:07:59 ↗ to attach their name to it and say yes

1:08:00 ↗ this is a good idea um cuz they also

1:08:03 ↗ need to hang their cap on it and then

1:08:04 ↗ write in their newsletters that look

1:08:05 ↗ what all funding I got so I just I don't

1:08:08 ↗ think that saying that for the dog park

1:08:11 ↗ would be compelling to them

1:08:16 ↗ um and let's see um other than that um I

1:08:20 ↗ think the legislative priorities

1:08:23 ↗ document the legislative agenda document

1:08:25 ↗ looks good um I am I mean I'm glad we're

1:08:29 ↗ reappropriate the 3 million for the

1:08:31 ↗ opportunity Center My worry is that and

1:08:34 ↗ it's not our fault that things have

1:08:35 ↗ happened but My worry is that that $3

1:08:37 ↗ million buying power is now much less

1:08:39 ↗ than it was and we're not asking for

1:08:41 ↗ additional money because we don't I mean

1:08:42 ↗ I imagine we think that's not

1:08:43 ↗ politically possible to ask for anymore

1:08:45 ↗ so I'm just worried about that I wanted

1:08:47 ↗ to say that for the record um as for the

1:08:49 ↗ policy manual I also think it's fine

1:08:51 ↗ there was one area though where talking

1:08:55 ↗ about about storm

1:08:56 ↗ water um some language was added yeah it

1:09:01 ↗ says isos support state funding and

1:09:03 ↗ grants for storm water to meet

1:09:04 ↗ exponentially increasing requirements it

1:09:06 ↗ just seemed a little inflammatory so I

1:09:08 ↗ was wondering if anything had changed in

1:09:10 ↗ the last couple years because it was

1:09:12 ↗ just that last part that was added so my

1:09:14 ↗ only ask there would be to just evaluate

1:09:16 ↗ whether we think that language is

1:09:18 ↗ necessary if something if something

1:09:20 ↗ really has changed where we want to

1:09:22 ↗ highlight that in the policy manual um

1:09:24 ↗ there are probably a lot ways to do that

1:09:26 ↗ so anyways um those are my thoughts and

1:09:27 ↗ again um great job

1:09:30 ↗ thanks council member

1:09:34 ↗ hunt um thank you so on the uh State

1:09:39 ↗ Route 18 as well as um the isqua

1:09:42 ↗ Opportunity Center those are

1:09:43 ↗ long-standing

1:09:44 ↗ um those are long-standing needs I think

1:09:47 ↗ it is true that we don't know exactly

1:09:50 ↗ how much with under a current

1:09:51 ↗ construction and under a current um

1:09:53 ↗ costs those will actually end up being I

1:09:55 ↗ think that's for both because they both

1:09:57 ↗ have taken uh many years and they're

1:10:00 ↗ both they both have appeared on our

1:10:02 ↗ legislative top priority list for many

1:10:05 ↗ years as well um and so I did wonder

1:10:08 ↗ structurally if we put those together

1:10:11 ↗ and and recognize exactly what council

1:10:13 ↗ member Hall was saying which is we we

1:10:15 ↗ really want these projects to be

1:10:17 ↗ finished we recognize that this is how

1:10:20 ↗ they've how much money they've received

1:10:22 ↗ we anticipate that there will there may

1:10:24 ↗ need to be additional funding but really

1:10:26 ↗ at the end of the day we we need the

1:10:28 ↗ state's uh help to get these really

1:10:31 ↗ important projects um finished and sort

1:10:33 ↗ of put those at the top together as

1:10:36 ↗ longstanding priorities that we just

1:10:39 ↗ need to cover um on the other

1:10:44 ↗ priorities on the uh Financial

1:10:48 ↗ sustainability the city has had this

1:10:52 ↗ request to address the property tax um

1:10:57 ↗ cap in our in our policy manual for

1:11:02 ↗ multiple years I think it's risen to the

1:11:05 ↗ priorities list this year because of the

1:11:09 ↗ budget situation but the way it appears

1:11:12 ↗ in the uh priority list right now it's

1:11:15 ↗ really focusing on Public Safety I agree

1:11:19 ↗ with council member Hall that I think

1:11:22 ↗ adding more specific

1:11:25 ↗ requests in the policy Arena would be

1:11:29 ↗ helpful um I think that as as you

1:11:32 ↗ mentioned shell it's unlikely that

1:11:34 ↗ direct distribution will be um in the

1:11:37 ↗ cards because of the the state's likely

1:11:40 ↗ budget situation and so I think giving

1:11:42 ↗ them giving our legislators tools that

1:11:45 ↗ would help us meet this or things that

1:11:47 ↗ we would advocate for and then spending

1:11:50 ↗ that time describing our financial uh

1:11:53 ↗ situation more if especially since this

1:11:56 ↗ is something other cities are going to

1:11:57 ↗ be looking at to address their uh

1:12:00 ↗ revenue and so other cities will be in

1:12:03 ↗ the same boat we are potentially at the

1:12:07 ↗ Forefront asking for these tools so I

1:12:09 ↗ think we should make that more clear and

1:12:12 ↗ and ask for more tools that would help

1:12:14 ↗ not only us but the other cities that

1:12:16 ↗ are in this in this boat um on the

1:12:20 ↗ safety and care that one you went into a

1:12:24 ↗ lot more specific this evening about

1:12:26 ↗ what those Technologies are and how much

1:12:28 ↗ of the need that would cover so I think

1:12:31 ↗ I think there's a real need there I

1:12:33 ↗ think we need to explain more about what

1:12:35 ↗ the technology would

1:12:37 ↗ be um I do agree with the digital

1:12:40 ↗ permitting system upgrades because it

1:12:42 ↗ will definitely help address housing um

1:12:45 ↗ and it's it's something that many other

1:12:47 ↗ cities will also benefit from um in that

1:12:51 ↗ case I think it's also a matter of

1:12:53 ↗ making it clear that it's not just for

1:12:54 ↗ it's a but it's for this whole Regional

1:12:56 ↗ Coalition and in fact any City in the

1:12:58 ↗ state of Washington um and then on the

1:13:00 ↗ Parks and Recreation Investments uh

1:13:03 ↗ again agree with council member Hall I I

1:13:06 ↗ don't see

1:13:08 ↗ that anticipating a budget

1:13:11 ↗ overrun um would would be particularly

1:13:16 ↗ compelling um if it comes in at the at

1:13:20 ↗ the budgeted amount then we would have

1:13:23 ↗ an additional ask of legislature above

1:13:25 ↗ of what we had budgeted um and set aside

1:13:28 ↗ for that project which I think could be

1:13:30 ↗ a bit um a bit concerning especially

1:13:33 ↗ when budgets are are for both the state

1:13:36 ↗ and for the city are so um tight this

1:13:39 ↗ year so I

1:13:41 ↗ think we're at a bit of a disadvantage

1:13:44 ↗ this evening as as policy makers because

1:13:46 ↗ we haven't yet seen the budget so we

1:13:48 ↗ don't yet know which projects are been

1:13:50 ↗ cut or cut back um but I would like to

1:13:53 ↗ potentially you know revisit this and

1:13:56 ↗ look at once we have more specifics on

1:13:58 ↗ what projects have had to been cut

1:14:00 ↗ because of our um budget situation this

1:14:02 ↗ year potentially there could be a

1:14:04 ↗ project on there that we could get the

1:14:05 ↗ last or we could ask for that last

1:14:07 ↗ dollar to to put it back on a list um

1:14:10 ↗ but I I that would be my preference over

1:14:13 ↗ including this uh potential overrun in

1:14:16 ↗ the in the

1:14:18 ↗ list

1:14:22 ↗ um that covers my comments thanks

1:14:26 ↗ anyone

1:14:30 ↗ else before you go a second time I'm

1:14:32 ↗ just going to check the

1:14:34 ↗ rest

1:14:39 ↗ no okay goe it was just a quick question

1:14:41 ↗ I thought I saw you writing did you

1:14:42 ↗ capture the over undercrossing for the

1:14:45 ↗ policy manual too okay

1:14:47 ↗ perfect okay I will throw in my feedback

1:14:52 ↗ um I feel like Highway 18 has been a

1:14:55 ↗ really

1:14:56 ↗ longstanding ask for us and there isn't

1:14:59 ↗ much new there I feel like that needs to

1:15:02 ↗ be moved down the list because it's not

1:15:06 ↗ something that

1:15:07 ↗ is that reflects something new going on

1:15:11 ↗ and we don't think there's going to be a

1:15:13 ↗ transportation package happening quickly

1:15:16 ↗ at this point so I feel like some of the

1:15:19 ↗ other priorities are talking

1:15:22 ↗ about wicker po potential wins on that I

1:15:27 ↗ think also you know from my perspective

1:15:29 ↗ the portion of Highway 18 that we're now

1:15:33 ↗ asking for is already widened it already

1:15:37 ↗ has more safety improvements it's just

1:15:40 ↗ more to it um so I just don't feel like

1:15:45 ↗ that deserves top shelf on our

1:15:49 ↗ legislative agenda for this year um in

1:15:53 ↗ particular also if we are including it

1:15:55 ↗ there's a typo in there um summer rather

1:15:59 ↗ than

1:16:00 ↗ Summit just you know yeah um few other

1:16:06 ↗ ideas um jail I like it as a capital

1:16:11 ↗ request I think um something that both

1:16:14 ↗ improves safety reduces risk and um

1:16:18 ↗ improves our liability and thus

1:16:20 ↗ potentially our cost for um future

1:16:23 ↗ things limits are liability um is really

1:16:27 ↗ important so I I like that as a creative

1:16:30 ↗ request there um for Parks and

1:16:34 ↗ Recreation I don't really like either of

1:16:37 ↗ these options especially not the dog

1:16:39 ↗ park overrun I'm wondering we've been

1:16:41 ↗ talking about we just removed money from

1:16:44 ↗ the e house project and so I wonder if

1:16:47 ↗ we might consider something like that um

1:16:50 ↗ as a potential ask there um because I

1:16:54 ↗ think that recognizes an area that

1:16:56 ↗ really has need not just an area where

1:16:59 ↗ there might be cost overruns and that we

1:17:01 ↗ have to decide how to fund um and then

1:17:05 ↗ the big one that I want to just stomp on

1:17:08 ↗ a little bit is the financial

1:17:10 ↗ sustainability I really like that we are

1:17:13 ↗ moving away from asking the state to

1:17:17 ↗ kind of fall on their sword and agree to

1:17:20 ↗ increase a 1% property tax cap because

1:17:24 ↗ there's really no benefit for state

1:17:26 ↗ legislators to say here we're going to

1:17:28 ↗ let cities take more money from

1:17:32 ↗ residents but the state legislators

1:17:34 ↗ aren't getting anything from that um

1:17:38 ↗ instead I really I was on a deputy

1:17:41 ↗ mayor's call the other day and we were

1:17:43 ↗ talking about legislative agendas and

1:17:45 ↗ Maple Valley was talking about how they

1:17:47 ↗ are now focusing on um cannabis shared

1:17:52 ↗ Revenue so I looked up the information

1:17:54 ↗ on it so the liquor excise tax um share

1:17:58 ↗ is set at 35% for cities and counties

1:18:03 ↗ where 80% of that goes to

1:18:06 ↗ cities the Cannabis excise tax sharing

1:18:09 ↗ first of all it was started out at zero

1:18:12 ↗ but then they've increased it to 5% for

1:18:16 ↗ cities and counties with 60% of that

1:18:19 ↗ going to counties so if we look at the

1:18:22 ↗ whole grouping 54% % goes to

1:18:26 ↗ Healthcare 31% of that Revenue goes

1:18:29 ↗ directly to the state general fund 12%

1:18:33 ↗ goes to administrative related to

1:18:36 ↗ cannabis activities but only 5% goes to

1:18:38 ↗ the cities so if we potentially doubled

1:18:42 ↗ that or something like that that is a

1:18:45 ↗ smaller portion um this is shared

1:18:50 ↗ Revenue I feel like that is a really

1:18:52 ↗ good way to potentially push the needle

1:18:56 ↗ on that um and especially for the city

1:18:59 ↗ of isqua more of that Revenue goes to

1:19:01 ↗ cities who have authorized use of or

1:19:05 ↗ allowed use of um Cannabis stores so we

1:19:09 ↗ have a potential extra portion of that

1:19:12 ↗ um it also is you know some might say is

1:19:16 ↗ has a correlation with Public Safety and

1:19:20 ↗ so if we took that and tied it to Public

1:19:23 ↗ Safety I feel like that is a really good

1:19:25 ↗ way that we could create a story around

1:19:28 ↗ it and not ask the legislator

1:19:32 ↗ legislature

1:19:33 ↗ to increase taxes on residents um people

1:19:37 ↗ who are using the service are already

1:19:39 ↗ paying tax it's just what portion of

1:19:42 ↗ that tax is going to the state versus

1:19:44 ↗ cities and

1:19:46 ↗ counties so that would be my direct plea

1:19:48 ↗ also Maple Valley's putting it on there

1:19:51 ↗ it was shared on this Deputy mayor's

1:19:52 ↗ thing so it it may be something that's

1:19:55 ↗ getting a little bit more momentum and

1:19:57 ↗ I'd like to continue like supporting

1:20:00 ↗ that as an

1:20:01 ↗ idea so um let me go back I think those

1:20:05 ↗ are my notes um I also noted down we

1:20:10 ↗ need to have a discussion about I wrote

1:20:13 ↗ down the buffet of choices and breakfast

1:20:15 ↗ dishes so if we want to come back to

1:20:17 ↗ that conversation you know what city

1:20:21 ↗ administrator Buist having the choices

1:20:24 ↗ and whether all of them were egg dishes

1:20:26 ↗ I just I wrote it all down so um maybe

1:20:30 ↗ I'll cycle back and come back to that uh

1:20:33 ↗ council member

1:20:34 ↗ Mars U thank you madam council president

1:20:37 ↗ uh I I would like to see both State

1:20:39 ↗ Route 18 and the isqua opportunities uh

1:20:42 ↗ Center uh stay on this list I think that

1:20:46 ↗ there is

1:20:48 ↗ a I think it's important

1:20:52 ↗ even in a phase where we might not be

1:20:54 ↗ making a lot of traction um to to keep

1:20:58 ↗ Resolute on issues that are very

1:21:00 ↗ specific to us and uh might otherwise um

1:21:05 ↗ not get attention in a in a clamorous

1:21:08 ↗ time in Olympia um my wife and I are

1:21:10 ↗ empty nesters we live up on up on squawk

1:21:13 ↗ mountain and uh you know we started

1:21:15 ↗ looking at other homes in isaquel and I

1:21:18 ↗ I would love to look at the south end of

1:21:19 ↗ town I'd love to look at syamore

1:21:21 ↗ Sycamore it's entirely impossible

1:21:23 ↗ because the traffic is nightmarish and

1:21:26 ↗ there's no way on Earth I would deal

1:21:27 ↗ with morning traffic down there and so

1:21:30 ↗ we just we have to get people off isqua

1:21:32 ↗ Hobart Road and we live in a bizarre the

1:21:35 ↗ there are parts of the 21st century that

1:21:37 ↗ I just feel very old about and part of

1:21:39 ↗ that is that we go where Google Maps

1:21:41 ↗ tells us to go right and I'm sure we've

1:21:43 ↗ all had times where we've been in a in a

1:21:45 ↗ in a new neighborhood and we're trying

1:21:48 ↗ to get some place and we're following

1:21:49 ↗ Google Maps and we realize that Google

1:21:51 ↗ Maps is leading us down through a

1:21:53 ↗ residential neighborhood that is not

1:21:54 ↗ designed at all to get traffic right and

1:21:57 ↗ Google Maps leads our friends to the

1:21:59 ↗ South up through the city of isqua and

1:22:01 ↗ so um State Route 18 you know until

1:22:05 ↗ folks in Maple Valley and Covington and

1:22:07 ↗ black diamond until they go put in

1:22:10 ↗ downtown Seattle and get a route that

1:22:12 ↗ doesn't take them up is Hobart Road then

1:22:14 ↗ we're not done and so we need to keep

1:22:16 ↗ our eye on that and even like I said in

1:22:18 ↗ a bium where we may not make as much

1:22:21 ↗ progress as we want we need to keep on

1:22:23 ↗ it because other cities don't care as

1:22:25 ↗ much as we do but we care about it a

1:22:27 ↗ very great deal similarly the isqua

1:22:29 ↗ Opportunity Center uh has been a

1:22:32 ↗ long lift um and we have appreciated the

1:22:36 ↗ assistance that we've gotten from the

1:22:38 ↗ state and we um need to finish this

1:22:41 ↗ project and it's and we are going to

1:22:43 ↗ need help and whether it's uh $3 million

1:22:46 ↗ or some other amount of money I think

1:22:48 ↗ there is a huge benefit to us um

1:22:51 ↗ maintaining our resoluteness by having

1:22:53 ↗ these items Beyond are uh on our Master

1:22:56 ↗ list thank you and I'll just say just to

1:22:59 ↗ clarify I I wasn't suggesting removing

1:23:01 ↗ it just moving it down the list but

1:23:04 ↗ Deputy council

1:23:06 ↗ president uh I I I want to weigh in as

1:23:09 ↗ well I think it should stay really at

1:23:11 ↗ the top of our agenda and um I'll add

1:23:14 ↗ two more things to what council member

1:23:16 ↗ Martin said first of all it's it's a

1:23:18 ↗ Safety project and if you've driven over

1:23:20 ↗ the top of that hill in the dark in the

1:23:24 ↗ rain as I have done uh that is a scary

1:23:27 ↗ trip um and uh that's a heavily used

1:23:30 ↗ roadway and certainly the safety issues

1:23:32 ↗ are are prime prime there and then the

1:23:35 ↗ other thing I want to commend uh mayor

1:23:37 ↗ Paulie has put together a a strong

1:23:40 ↗ Coalition of adjacent cities and uh also

1:23:43 ↗ Council mber Dunn has joined that uh

1:23:47 ↗ Coalition working to make sure that

1:23:49 ↗ sr18 uh is widened and I think we need

1:23:53 ↗ to as council member Mars has said we

1:23:56 ↗ need to stay the course and we need to

1:23:58 ↗ stay strong on that course because there

1:24:00 ↗ are plenty of other people that would

1:24:02 ↗ love to jump in there ahead of us if

1:24:04 ↗ they could so um I not only think it

1:24:07 ↗ should be on our priorities I think it

1:24:09 ↗ continues to be our top priority thank

1:24:12 ↗ you can I clarify the area that we're

1:24:15 ↗ asking for additional funding is the

1:24:20 ↗ southernmost portion of that project

1:24:23 ↗ which is from Tiger Mountain

1:24:24 ↗ to isobar road is that

1:24:27 ↗ correct yeah okay just making sure cuz I

1:24:31 ↗ have definitely driven the areas that

1:24:33 ↗ they're working on now and all of that

1:24:37 ↗ but that southern portion has barriers

1:24:39 ↗ in

1:24:40 ↗ between um the Lan so I I'm not sold on

1:24:44 ↗ Those portions but uh any

1:24:49 ↗ comments council member hun um so there

1:24:53 ↗ have been a couple comments about if it

1:24:55 ↗ should be at the end or at the top but I

1:24:57 ↗ think for

1:24:58 ↗ me if it was just a different section

1:25:01 ↗ because we have new

1:25:03 ↗ 2025 to 2026 State priorities that are

1:25:07 ↗ like the things we really want them to

1:25:08 ↗ look at this next session and then we

1:25:10 ↗ have the things that we've wanted them

1:25:12 ↗ to look at for every legislative session

1:25:14 ↗ for the last you know six plus years so

1:25:16 ↗ I think maybe just a different section

1:25:18 ↗ on the page for those longstanding and

1:25:20 ↗ then for the emerging new ones and then

1:25:23 ↗ going forward we would have it

1:25:25 ↗ structured that way as well and you

1:25:26 ↗ would still have those longstanding ones

1:25:28 ↗ every time they're still on there um and

1:25:33 ↗ then uh I agree with the comments about

1:25:36 ↗ potentially the the Cannabis um policy I

1:25:40 ↗ think those sorts of more specific

1:25:42 ↗ policies would be helpful to put in that

1:25:45 ↗ City Financial sustainability section um

1:25:48 ↗ and uh so plus one on that

1:25:51 ↗ and replacing the you know the direct

1:25:55 ↗ distribution to jurisdictions because we

1:25:56 ↗ don't expect that to be possible but

1:25:58 ↗ having some other potential things that

1:26:01 ↗ might be more possible for them to

1:26:02 ↗ consider to address our financial

1:26:05 ↗ sustainability and then also on the E

1:26:08 ↗ house I've already shown my cards on

1:26:11 ↗ that one but uh I think those are

1:26:13 ↗ exactly the kinds of things where we

1:26:15 ↗ know that our budget didn't cover that

1:26:17 ↗ cost for that one we have the amount for

1:26:20 ↗ that part of the project that was

1:26:21 ↗ already scoped out so we have a dollar

1:26:23 ↗ amount and it wasn't possible to be

1:26:25 ↗ covered with budget so those are the

1:26:27 ↗ sorts of things that I think we should

1:26:29 ↗ look at and put in our little Buffet of

1:26:32 ↗ options and then make it clear to the

1:26:34 ↗ legislature that that is an those are

1:26:36 ↗ options but I would much prefer to do

1:26:38 ↗ that than have the um potential overrun

1:26:42 ↗ as our as our thing that we're putting

1:26:47 ↗ forward okay so let's ask the question

1:26:51 ↗ then to give a little bit more specific

1:26:53 ↗ feedback a

1:26:54 ↗ are we interested in having a buffet

1:26:59 ↗ style approach to the Parks and

1:27:01 ↗ Recreation projects and

1:27:05 ↗ be are we interested in adding the E

1:27:09 ↗ house and maybe something else do we

1:27:12 ↗ feel like two or

1:27:15 ↗ three council member

1:27:17 ↗ Hall City administrator um thank you u

1:27:22 ↗ in the mayor's absence I think we the

1:27:24 ↗ ation would like to ask perhaps to come

1:27:25 ↗ back to the council with the you know

1:27:27 ↗ with an egg dish and maybe some french

1:27:29 ↗ toast um for consideration what we've

1:27:32 ↗ heard the issues regarding the E house I

1:27:34 ↗ think we've heard uh

1:27:36 ↗ the parameters of there's a dollar

1:27:39 ↗ parameter there's the you know is this

1:27:42 ↗ something that will happen you know the

1:27:43 ↗ the challenge with the E house is I

1:27:45 ↗ think it was

1:27:47 ↗ $800,000 that was in the arpa project um

1:27:51 ↗ you know that unfortunately still was a

1:27:53 ↗ first fit and so we would I think want

1:27:55 ↗ to talk further with Shelly um to see

1:27:58 ↗ how compelling and ask that might be

1:27:59 ↗ this year versus

1:28:01 ↗ in6 so if I think the administration's

1:28:05 ↗ heard you but again I would would ask

1:28:06 ↗ that we let mayor Paulie chime in um

1:28:09 ↗ with her priorities as well and then

1:28:10 ↗ we'll bring that back we have a date

1:28:13 ↗ set sh for this to come back November

1:28:16 ↗ 4th November

1:28:17 ↗ 4th so we'll have the on regular

1:28:20 ↗ business council president I would

1:28:21 ↗ imagine and uh have that for you

1:28:25 ↗ okay how does that approach coming back

1:28:27 ↗ um with the administration November 4th

1:28:30 ↗ um idea council member Mars um I I want

1:28:33 ↗ to add on the subject of the E house um

1:28:36 ↗ I was uh unavailable for last week's uh

1:28:40 ↗ meeting but um I I think my commitment

1:28:44 ↗ to wanting to continue to make

1:28:45 ↗ incremental progress um in Confluence

1:28:48 ↗ Park is well known so um I would be very

1:28:50 ↗ very very very interested in talking

1:28:53 ↗ about what we might do to advance the

1:28:56 ↗ part of that um slow at Ste wins the

1:28:58 ↗ race dier from we need to poop sorry I

1:29:01 ↗ want to make sure we need thank you okay

1:29:05 ↗ and then um just as you're going through

1:29:07 ↗ that I think we've heard pretty soundly

1:29:09 ↗ from the council that we're not as much

1:29:12 ↗ in favor of the idea of the dog park

1:29:14 ↗ overrun um as part of that um grouping

1:29:19 ↗ of projects and I think you know in

1:29:21 ↗ talking with mayor Paulie this is an

1:29:22 ↗ extraordinarily important project

1:29:24 ↗ what we may do is we may do some

1:29:26 ↗ additional engineer

1:29:27 ↗ estimates see if there's a portion of

1:29:30 ↗ this which is not funded and so perhaps

1:29:32 ↗ we might rephrase the rephrase the

1:29:35 ↗ question a different kind of sauce for

1:29:37 ↗ the

1:29:40 ↗ expanded yeah yeah okay

1:29:46 ↗ well okay so how do we feel about all of

1:29:51 ↗ this

1:29:53 ↗ um I think one of the ideas was to maybe

1:29:57 ↗ set aside the um or call out in a

1:30:01 ↗ separate thing the

1:30:03 ↗ longstanding um request

1:30:07 ↗ around Highway 18 and the Opportunity

1:30:10 ↗ Center um any nods or shakes of heads

1:30:16 ↗ council member Hall I think it's

1:30:17 ↗ perfectly fine as it's structured as is

1:30:20 ↗ I think there's value in keeping Highway

1:30:22 ↗ 18 up front not just for the fact that

1:30:24 ↗ there is a separate project Lisa and

1:30:26 ↗ Bill and our legislators need to also be

1:30:29 ↗ able to say see all the cltc cities

1:30:31 ↗ continue to have this as their first to

1:30:33 ↗ repy and whoever the Senate leader is um

1:30:37 ↗ so it's I think just keeping the

1:30:39 ↗ structure as it is now but we're making

1:30:41 ↗ the tweaks where we've identified would

1:30:43 ↗ be good okay I will back down on that

1:30:45 ↗ one um and then uh I heard some specific

1:30:50 ↗ or or some requests for specificity in

1:30:53 ↗ the financial responsibility or whatever

1:30:57 ↗ it was section um yeah Financial

1:31:01 ↗ sustainability did the administration

1:31:03 ↗ get the feedback they needed on that

1:31:05 ↗ okay sounds good I think we are probably

1:31:08 ↗ good there anything else needed okay

1:31:10 ↗ we'll look for November 4th okay great

1:31:15 ↗ um going back to our agenda um next item

1:31:20 ↗ of business is Comm 0044 policy funding

1:31:24 ↗ and services on the housing

1:31:25 ↗ Continuum and this one's going to be

1:31:28 ↗ presented

1:31:29 ↗ by four of our amazing leaders in this

1:31:33 ↗ area I don't know who is starting us out

1:31:35 ↗ but it looks like Kristen Leon our

1:31:37 ↗ senior planner

1:31:48 ↗ maybe okay while she is getting set up

1:31:51 ↗ um I will just mention that this is

1:31:53 ↗ going to be coming in from several

1:31:54 ↗ different areas um of the city so we've

1:31:57 ↗ got director Jeff Watling from Parks and

1:31:59 ↗ Community Services Brenda Parker our

1:32:01 ↗ interim human services manager Kristen

1:32:04 ↗ Lon our senior planner and Jen Davis

1:32:06 ↗ Hayes our economic development manager

1:32:09 ↗ and housing Guru affordable housing

1:32:12 ↗ Guru um yeah something like that so

1:32:17 ↗ whenever you are ready go for it

1:32:38 ↗ all right there we go thank you for your

1:32:40 ↗ patience uh good evening council

1:32:42 ↗ president Walsh and members of the

1:32:44 ↗ council um yes I am Senior planner

1:32:46 ↗ Kristen Leon with the community of

1:32:48 ↗ Planning and Development Department I am

1:32:50 ↗ here with Brenda Parker and Jeff rling

1:32:52 ↗ from Parks who will talk about our

1:32:53 ↗ operational Investments and Jen Davis

1:32:56 ↗ Hayes who we'll talk about on the ground

1:32:58 ↗ Investments uh we just want to this is

1:33:00 ↗ our housing overview for you all it's

1:33:02 ↗ our annual overview that we do um to

1:33:04 ↗ show you kind of what's what's coming

1:33:06 ↗ and where we're going and where we've

1:33:08 ↗ been uh so tonight we're going to

1:33:11 ↗ provide an update on the affordable

1:33:12 ↗ housing policy and regulations

1:33:14 ↗ operations and funding and then we'd

1:33:17 ↗ like to get your feedback on anything

1:33:19 ↗ and review next

1:33:21 ↗ steps Direction needed tonight from

1:33:23 ↗ policy and regulations we have nothing

1:33:25 ↗ at this time but trust me there's a lot

1:33:27 ↗ coming um operations we don't have any

1:33:30 ↗ tonight and then funding the question

1:33:32 ↗ for funding is would city council

1:33:34 ↗ consider utilizing the inclusive housing

1:33:36 ↗ investment pool or iHip for

1:33:39 ↗ pre-development

1:33:41 ↗ costs I'm going to start you off uh as

1:33:45 ↗ you know the policy and regulation piece

1:33:46 ↗ covers every bit of it this is our

1:33:48 ↗ housing spectrum and it goes all the way

1:33:50 ↗ from care for the homeless and policies

1:33:52 ↗ for the homeless up to uh market rate

1:33:56 ↗ housing um the housing report card cover

1:33:59 ↗ covers all of that house bill 1220 which

1:34:02 ↗ will you all are familiar with but I'll

1:34:03 ↗ talk about it in just a minute um covers

1:34:07 ↗ from the homeless up to Affordable and

1:34:10 ↗ Rental owner rental ownership uh

1:34:13 ↗ affordable

1:34:14 ↗ housing uh house bills 1337 1110 and the

1:34:18 ↗ revised 11on which is

1:34:20 ↗ 2321 uh cover affordable housing up

1:34:23 ↗ through market rate housing and then we

1:34:25 ↗ have the potential housing and parking

1:34:27 ↗ analysis which I'll talk about which

1:34:29 ↗ would cover subsidized housing through

1:34:31 ↗ market

1:34:32 ↗ rate so first things first I'm just

1:34:35 ↗ going to mention the annual housing

1:34:36 ↗ report card that we do we've completed

1:34:38 ↗ that again it came out a little later

1:34:39 ↗ this year in May of 2020 uh May of 2024

1:34:42 ↗ the 2023 housing report card did I don't

1:34:45 ↗ know if you had a chance to read it but

1:34:46 ↗ just a really quick overview we had just

1:34:49 ↗ 114 units built in 2023 uh 71 of them

1:34:53 ↗ were multif family 41 were single family

1:34:57 ↗ and two were accessory dwelling units

1:34:59 ↗ and the 114 is almost 200 units fewer

1:35:02 ↗ than the previous year uh but 26 of

1:35:05 ↗ those were affordable units up in

1:35:07 ↗ Westridge at 60 and 80% of the area

1:35:09 ↗ median income so that's good in July we

1:35:13 ↗ came out with the housing dashboard it

1:35:14 ↗ is a work in progress um it is intended

1:35:17 ↗ eventually to replace the housing report

1:35:20 ↗ card that we have and as I said it's a

1:35:22 ↗ work in progress and we will continue to

1:35:24 ↗ build on that and add more information

1:35:26 ↗ as

1:35:27 ↗ needed so house bill 2012 1220 uh it

1:35:32 ↗ requires the city to accommodate for

1:35:35 ↗ every level of affordable housing to

1:35:37 ↗ plan for Emergency Shelters emergency

1:35:40 ↗ housing transitional housing and

1:35:41 ↗ permanent Supportive Housing it requires

1:35:44 ↗ us to adopt anti- displacement policies

1:35:47 ↗ and to inventory and monitor our housing

1:35:49 ↗ as we do uh policies were added proposed

1:35:53 ↗ policies were added as part of the 2024

1:35:55 ↗ comprehensive Plan update which you all

1:35:57 ↗ will see soon and implementation

1:35:59 ↗ actually of the regulations we went

1:36:00 ↗ backwards was completed in March of

1:36:04 ↗ 2024 House Bill 1110 and 2321 these

1:36:09 ↗ required that cities of our size allow

1:36:11 ↗ for a minimum of two units per lot a

1:36:14 ↗ minimum of four four units per lot if

1:36:16 ↗ it's in one quarter mile of a major

1:36:19 ↗ Transit stop four units per lot if one

1:36:22 ↗ of those of any lot if one of those

1:36:24 ↗ units is affordable

1:36:26 ↗ housing and also the middle

1:36:29 ↗ housing not single family housing single

1:36:31 ↗ families not included so the middle

1:36:33 ↗ housing which is duplex and up are what

1:36:35 ↗ must be used to achieve the required

1:36:37 ↗ unit density so again we have added

1:36:40 ↗ proposed policies within the

1:36:41 ↗ comprehensive Plan update the

1:36:43 ↗ implementation is in progress and the

1:36:45 ↗ expected to be complete in June of 20125

1:36:48 ↗ we have a grant that is helping us to do

1:36:51 ↗ that last one is house bill 1937 which

1:36:54 ↗ deals with accessory dwelling units and

1:36:56 ↗ in this one owners cannot require the

1:36:59 ↗ owner to live on the same property as we

1:37:01 ↗ currently do uh we cannot establish roof

1:37:04 ↗ height limits of an Adu that is less

1:37:06 ↗ than 24 fet high and we cannot prohibit

1:37:09 ↗ the sale of a unit as a condominium

1:37:12 ↗ separate from the principal unit again

1:37:15 ↗ uh in this case we have our policies in

1:37:17 ↗ place we didn't need to add policies our

1:37:19 ↗ implementation again is in progress and

1:37:22 ↗ is expected to be complet complete in

1:37:23 ↗ June of

1:37:25 ↗ 2025 lastly is the potential housing and

1:37:28 ↗ parking analyses those two to be done

1:37:30 ↗ these are pending approval in the 2025

1:37:33 ↗ 2026 budget these stem from the

1:37:36 ↗ diversity of housing report that was

1:37:38 ↗ done in 2023 and from the title 18

1:37:41 ↗ update when we found things that needed

1:37:43 ↗ to be R reviewed it's intended to Spur

1:37:46 ↗ more Housing Development and more

1:37:48 ↗ housing particularly in central isfar

1:37:50 ↗ where we have seen uh very little

1:37:52 ↗ particularly in the Urban

1:37:54 ↗ the analysis will revisit expanding our

1:37:57 ↗ inclusionary zoning which is currently

1:37:59 ↗ only allowed in urban core and mixed use

1:38:01 ↗ or required in urban core and mixed use

1:38:03 ↗ Central isqua we will look to improve

1:38:07 ↗ the development bonus program which

1:38:08 ↗ right now is very confusing to both

1:38:10 ↗ planners and to developers who come in

1:38:12 ↗ so it hasn't been used very often we've

1:38:14 ↗ received 11 units and about $2 billion

1:38:16 ↗ in funding from that um we want to

1:38:20 ↗ consider the effects of adding a multif

1:38:22 ↗ family tax exemption program

1:38:24 ↗ which is likely to improve our ability

1:38:26 ↗ to get affordable housing and we want to

1:38:28 ↗ calibrate some of our development

1:38:30 ↗ regulations using the parking analysis

1:38:32 ↗ to enable more types of housing in

1:38:34 ↗ multif family and mixed use

1:38:37 ↗ zones so that's what I have I'm going to

1:38:40 ↗ pass it on first to Jeff Watling and

1:38:41 ↗ then I think Brenda's going to join

1:38:48 ↗ in thanks Kristen hi again Jeff Watling

1:38:51 ↗ parks and Community Services director

1:38:53 ↗ just really quickly um as we uh now jump

1:38:55 ↗ into the programmatic Investments uh

1:38:57 ↗ that we do within Human Services um I

1:39:00 ↗ just wanted to take the opportunity I

1:39:01 ↗ know many of you have not met Brenda

1:39:03 ↗ Parker yet Brenda serving as our interim

1:39:06 ↗ manager as you know we've been in

1:39:07 ↗ transition uh with the Human Services

1:39:09 ↗ div division as Monica's gone off to an

1:39:12 ↗ exciting director level position with

1:39:14 ↗ scet County we celebrate that but we

1:39:16 ↗ have work to still do here and and

1:39:18 ↗ thankfully we've created a very talented

1:39:21 ↗ professional pool within the division um

1:39:24 ↗ Brenda Parker is currently our

1:39:25 ↗ Behavioral Health supervisor um I will

1:39:29 ↗ um pass it on to her to talk through

1:39:31 ↗ these three programs that really um U

1:39:35 ↗ address um housing security and quite

1:39:37 ↗ frankly housing insecurity uh throughout

1:39:40 ↗ the entire um housing Spectrum as you

1:39:42 ↗ see Brenda it's all

1:39:49 ↗ yours good evening council president

1:39:52 ↗ Walsh another Council members um I'm

1:39:55 ↗ going Jump Right In Here I know we're

1:39:56 ↗ running a little bit behind my too long

1:39:59 ↗ so this is the housing Continuum that I

1:40:01 ↗ think you're all familiar with and I'm

1:40:04 ↗ going to be talking about each of the

1:40:06 ↗ the emergency housing program Human

1:40:08 ↗ Services Grants and the behavioral

1:40:12 ↗ program so first of all just a update

1:40:15 ↗ about the emergency housing program as

1:40:18 ↗ you know this was a pilot program with

1:40:20 ↗ um serving over 40 participants during

1:40:23 ↗ this time period it closed August 31st

1:40:26 ↗ 2024 um I have a few stats here about

1:40:29 ↗ some of the the um outcomes that we had

1:40:32 ↗ but what I really wanted to highlight

1:40:33 ↗ was at the time of the closing we had

1:40:35 ↗ still 11 participants in the program and

1:40:39 ↗ since we no longer have the emergency

1:40:41 ↗ housing program staff the behavioral

1:40:43 ↗ health program has been able to continue

1:40:45 ↗ working with at least just over half of

1:40:48 ↗ those participants in various

1:40:51 ↗ places we will also still continue to

1:40:54 ↗ work with the motel for severe weather

1:40:56 ↗ as that approaches quickly and then we

1:40:59 ↗ have the Emer or I'm sorry the isqua

1:41:01 ↗ police department still able to

1:41:06 ↗ utilize emergency

1:41:09 ↗ needs

1:41:11 ↗ um we feel as we continue to evaluate

1:41:14 ↗ the data here we feel that overall this

1:41:17 ↗ was a successful pilot there were

1:41:20 ↗ absolutely valuable Lessons Learned um

1:41:23 ↗ about staffing needs about boundaries

1:41:25 ↗ about time needed to transition from a a

1:41:28 ↗ program like this to other options and

1:41:30 ↗ you can see that reflected even in one

1:41:32 ↗ of the the um outcomes here it takes a

1:41:36 ↗ lot of time dealing with people's basic

1:41:39 ↗ needs before you can get to the category

1:41:41 ↗ of putting them in a house so we'll

1:41:45 ↗ continue to work with Administration to

1:41:47 ↗ explore future options the intention the

1:41:50 ↗ current intention is to carry forward

1:41:52 ↗ the funding for but we'll have

1:42:00 ↗ more the next one I'll cover I'm sorry

1:42:02 ↗ can I just quickly ask you to lower your

1:42:04 ↗ mic a little bit sometimes it's really

1:42:05 ↗ hard for YouTube to yes is that better

1:42:07 ↗ yeah that's perfect

1:42:09 ↗ thanks the next one is the Human

1:42:11 ↗ Services Grants and I want to just give

1:42:14 ↗ a special shout out to our Hannah

1:42:16 ↗ Roberts who helped put some of these uh

1:42:18 ↗ facts together for us she is our human

1:42:20 ↗ services

1:42:21 ↗ coordinator so as you can see here or as

1:42:24 ↗ you maybe know from from last year we

1:42:28 ↗ had $210,000 a year allocated

1:42:31 ↗ to serving residents across the

1:42:33 ↗ Continuum in these Human Services Grants

1:42:36 ↗ and this represents about 38% of the

1:42:38 ↗ total annual Human Services Grants so a

1:42:41 ↗ substantial amount for housing is

1:42:44 ↗ captured here you will also see in the

1:42:47 ↗ report that Hannah included a chart in

1:42:50 ↗ with additional information on the grant

1:42:52 ↗ recipients for each one of those

1:42:53 ↗ programs and then also just a quick

1:42:56 ↗ reminder here on the rental assistance

1:42:57 ↗ that was used in 2023 so there are no

1:43:01 ↗ there there were no um allocations in

1:43:03 ↗ 2024 in that

1:43:07 ↗ program and then jumping quickly into

1:43:09 ↗ the behavioral health piece of this um

1:43:12 ↗ you can see some of our data here the

1:43:15 ↗ 148 active individuals and services but

1:43:17 ↗ again I want to highlight just a few

1:43:19 ↗ other things here tonight all four of

1:43:21 ↗ the behavioral health position were

1:43:23 ↗ filled this year we do have one of our

1:43:26 ↗ Behavioral Health coordinators out on

1:43:27 ↗ paternity leave until mid November so um

1:43:31 ↗ a little bit short staffed but with the

1:43:34 ↗ increase in staff over the past year we

1:43:36 ↗ were able to really see the follow-up

1:43:38 ↗ Services intensify and I want to give

1:43:42 ↗ just a brief example of that tonight um

1:43:44 ↗ we had a just a couple of months ago a

1:43:48 ↗ police referral it was a DV situation

1:43:51 ↗ and we were able to respond directly to

1:43:52 ↗ that call um we were called through

1:43:55 ↗ dispatch when we arrived on the scene we

1:43:58 ↗ had a a mother and a child being

1:44:00 ↗ displaced from their

1:44:02 ↗ home and so after that though the

1:44:05 ↗ co-response calls are usually pretty

1:44:06 ↗ quick so we'll maybe spend an hour or

1:44:10 ↗ less with our police department but what

1:44:12 ↗ I want to point out is then we were 40

1:44:14 ↗ plus hours of follow-up Services just to

1:44:18 ↗ this mom and her adult child and so it's

1:44:22 ↗ it's very very valuable to have this

1:44:24 ↗ additional staff so that we can can take

1:44:27 ↗ care of some of these follow-up

1:44:29 ↗ needs and as a result of that 40 plus

1:44:32 ↗ hours we were able to find a program and

1:44:35 ↗ place these two and they will be in a

1:44:38 ↗ safe space for up to two

1:44:40 ↗ years that was really

1:44:43 ↗ great we have also with the with the

1:44:46 ↗ staff been able to um strengthen our

1:44:49 ↗ relationship with our Police Department

1:44:50 ↗ so we're going to regular briefings with

1:44:53 ↗ them spending a lot of time with them

1:44:55 ↗ and I think that that's just really

1:44:57 ↗ helping our program to grow now and not

1:45:00 ↗ only though do we have police referrals

1:45:02 ↗ we also have referrals from across the

1:45:04 ↗ community so we see we have all kinds of

1:45:07 ↗ referrals coming in whether it's from

1:45:10 ↗ our Community Partners whether it's from

1:45:13 ↗ our staff our Administration so we

1:45:15 ↗ continue to be able to serve more people

1:45:17 ↗ with the with these Behavioral Health

1:45:19 ↗ positions that were

1:45:20 ↗ funded I know that was really quick

1:45:23 ↗ uh our plan is to continue the program

1:45:25 ↗ development and evaluation continue to

1:45:28 ↗ look at the needs of the community and

1:45:31 ↗ see what's next we'll return back in

1:45:33 ↗ 2025 with with uh more updates and

1:45:37 ↗ recommendations for

1:45:39 ↗ you and if you have any questions I

1:45:42 ↗ asked for Jeff to stick around

1:45:45 ↗ but um so would the administration like

1:45:48 ↗ us to do questions on these two areas

1:45:51 ↗ before moving on to the other

1:45:53 ↗ not necessarily go to the end

1:45:56 ↗ okay okay fantastic then you are done

1:45:59 ↗ for now thank you um and we will pass it

1:46:02 ↗ on to Jen

1:46:08 ↗ davises hi uh Jen Davis Hayes housing

1:46:11 ↗ I'm sorry economic and housing

1:46:13 ↗ development manager now you got my title

1:46:15 ↗ all messed up um so I do have a I'm the

1:46:18 ↗ only one that is asking uh some

1:46:20 ↗ direction for tonight and that is

1:46:22 ↗ regarding looking at pre-development

1:46:24 ↗ costs for the housing inclusive housing

1:46:27 ↗ investment pool or iHip so we'll get

1:46:29 ↗ into more of that later um so my portion

1:46:33 ↗ is really about uh affordable housing

1:46:36 ↗ funding sources and on the ground and

1:46:38 ↗ again we cover this part of the spectrum

1:46:41 ↗ of the housing

1:46:43 ↗ Continuum and as a reminder I know you

1:46:46 ↗ uh we were here a lot last year to talk

1:46:49 ↗ about um the funding so these are the

1:46:51 ↗ reminder of the funding sources that we

1:46:53 ↗ have for affordable housing the first

1:46:55 ↗ two the HB 1590 and 1406 we have um

1:47:01 ↗ allocations for the 21 through 24 uh

1:47:05 ↗ budget years of how we are going to

1:47:06 ↗ spend that and that's kind of the

1:47:08 ↗ program Investments that you see on the

1:47:10 ↗ side um and then the development bonus

1:47:12 ↗ program is one that um we'll be looking

1:47:14 ↗ at working on next

1:47:17 ↗ year um so as a reminder the uh iHip um

1:47:21 ↗ was uh again created thank you uh by

1:47:24 ↗ city council last year and so this was

1:47:27 ↗ for us to be able to invest in projects

1:47:30 ↗ that were going to bring more affordable

1:47:32 ↗ housing to the city and um similar to

1:47:35 ↗ our other requirements for affordable

1:47:37 ↗ housing they would be required to be

1:47:38 ↗ affordable for the life of the project

1:47:41 ↗ and meet of course the the requirements

1:47:43 ↗ for the funding source source which

1:47:46 ↗ includes 60% Ami and serving specific

1:47:50 ↗ populations we um worked with Arch to

1:47:54 ↗ create a system that would work that in

1:47:56 ↗ order for people to apply for that money

1:47:58 ↗ they would apply for at the same time

1:48:00 ↗ when they apply for the Housing Trust

1:48:01 ↗ Fund money because a lot of times

1:48:03 ↗ they're asking for money from multiple

1:48:05 ↗ sources and so we made it quote unquote

1:48:07 ↗ easier um we added an addendum on there

1:48:11 ↗ and um so their those applications were

1:48:15 ↗ um accept were due in September so since

1:48:18 ↗ the time you you um adopted this uh

1:48:23 ↗ fund we have been proactively reaching

1:48:26 ↗ out to Property Owners developers

1:48:28 ↗ anybody who wants to kind of hear it I

1:48:30 ↗ I've been looking at you know folks that

1:48:33 ↗ have been contacting our friends in

1:48:35 ↗ community Planning and Development to

1:48:36 ↗ say hey we're thinking about developing

1:48:38 ↗ this residential project and so I would

1:48:41 ↗ follow up and say if you're interested

1:48:43 ↗ we have an opportunity for you to you

1:48:45 ↗ know access some resource to provide

1:48:47 ↗ additional affordable housing we reached

1:48:50 ↗ out to send information to every single

1:48:54 ↗ developer we contacted in the past um

1:48:56 ↗ looked at uh committees and

1:48:59 ↗ organizations um and again of course

1:49:01 ↗ shared with our Arch partners and have

1:49:03 ↗ been have it on our um website um and

1:49:07 ↗ then again uh Arch promoted it as part

1:49:10 ↗ of their Outreach for their funding this

1:49:13 ↗ spring uh through summer so we received

1:49:16 ↗ one application which we were really

1:49:18 ↗ excited about because we didn't think

1:49:20 ↗ that we were going to receive anything

1:49:21 ↗ the first couple years years because you

1:49:23 ↗ kind of have to build up the pipeline so

1:49:26 ↗ we will be back um so we have a meeting

1:49:30 ↗ uh actually this week for the first

1:49:31 ↗ meeting for our internal internal

1:49:33 ↗ committee to review with Arch the

1:49:36 ↗ application they did a memo which again

1:49:38 ↗ you'll see all this good stuff when we

1:49:40 ↗ come back to council and uh 61 documents

1:49:44 ↗ to review so um so we'll be uh starting

1:49:47 ↗ that review uh this week and going back

1:49:50 ↗ and forth with Arch to get more

1:49:52 ↗ information Andor deciding on a

1:49:54 ↗ recommendation which will bring to

1:49:56 ↗ services safety and Parks committee and

1:49:58 ↗ then the full Council for consideration

1:50:00 ↗ the uh ask for was for a little less

1:50:03 ↗ than $500,000 from Leo house uh there is

1:50:07 ↗ a property they want to purchase that is

1:50:09 ↗ currently a privately owned um

1:50:12 ↗ development disabled uh

1:50:14 ↗ co-housing uh uh home and so again we'll

1:50:19 ↗ we'll come back with more

1:50:20 ↗ information um one of the things that

1:50:23 ↗ since I am working um on affordable

1:50:25 ↗ housing and uh Redevelopment in Central

1:50:28 ↗ isal just trying to show you a little

1:50:29 ↗ bit of the things I'll be working on

1:50:31 ↗ next year and so again of course

1:50:33 ↗ continue to build the uh awareness of

1:50:36 ↗ the iHip uh making sure we track the

1:50:39 ↗ affordable housing Revenue uh it you

1:50:41 ↗ know the since it's based well part of

1:50:44 ↗ it is based on sales tax revenue we did

1:50:46 ↗ see a little bit uh less than we thought

1:50:49 ↗ we thought originally was going to be

1:50:50 ↗ 2.5 per year and we we we reforecast

1:50:53 ↗ that during the budget allocations um to

1:50:56 ↗ 2.2 million we'll be exploring um some

1:51:00 ↗ other uh City utility connection waivers

1:51:03 ↗ which we have in the resolution but we

1:51:05 ↗ don't have in code we'll be working with

1:51:07 ↗ our friends again and how uh Community

1:51:09 ↗ Planning and Development on housing

1:51:10 ↗ analysis project if that gets approved

1:51:13 ↗ and figur out how we can um support the

1:51:16 ↗ missing middle um reaching out to

1:51:19 ↗ developers uh the development bonus fee

1:51:22 ↗ and investment criteria again that's

1:51:24 ↗ that uh close to $2 million which has

1:51:27 ↗ some criteria saying it can be for this

1:51:29 ↗ or that but doesn't have um you know

1:51:32 ↗ decision- making for us as a city and so

1:51:34 ↗ we'll work with uh parks and uh

1:51:37 ↗ Community Planning Development to come

1:51:39 ↗ to a little bit more clarity on what we

1:51:41 ↗ can invest that in because that that

1:51:43 ↗ those funds are uh have to be spent

1:51:46 ↗ within 10 years we have until 2029 so

1:51:49 ↗ it's not like it has to happen tomorrow

1:51:51 ↗ but if there's a project that you know

1:51:53 ↗ isn't our CIP or or something in the in

1:51:56 ↗ the near future we want to make sure

1:51:57 ↗ that we align that with that and then uh

1:52:00 ↗ the last one is actually what uh I once

1:52:05 ↗ uh inform or uh agreement on slash uh

1:52:10 ↗ any input on um in order to follow

1:52:12 ↗ through

1:52:13 ↗ so with the iHip um right now uh people

1:52:17 ↗ are able to apply for funding to build a

1:52:21 ↗ project we have been working with some

1:52:24 ↗ different nonprofits a religious

1:52:27 ↗ organization um and they are having a

1:52:29 ↗ hard time getting uh those pre that kind

1:52:32 ↗ of the pre-development reports and

1:52:36 ↗ understanding if this is even a feasible

1:52:38 ↗ project Arch had said that there are

1:52:41 ↗ some funding sources outside of arch

1:52:43 ↗ that do uh allow some funding to and it

1:52:48 ↗ could be a match it could be a certain

1:52:50 ↗ percentage of uh what the total costs

1:52:52 ↗ are but it it allows them to do some

1:52:55 ↗ initial

1:52:56 ↗ feasibility and if it moves if the

1:52:59 ↗ project moves forward there is a

1:53:01 ↗ requirement to provide affordable

1:53:03 ↗ housing so if let's say a nonprofit

1:53:05 ↗ developer looks at it but then a

1:53:08 ↗ for-profit developer comes in and uses

1:53:10 ↗ you know comes in to develop the same

1:53:12 ↗ thing there would still be that

1:53:13 ↗ attachment at affordable housing um and

1:53:16 ↗ so it it just can give our smaller

1:53:18 ↗ Property Owners developers and some of

1:53:21 ↗ our nonprofit fa based organizations leg

1:53:24 ↗ up in order to you know try to move

1:53:26 ↗ forward some projects and really a lot

1:53:29 ↗ of the Fai faith-based organizations are

1:53:31 ↗ the ones that have land um and are

1:53:33 ↗ willing you know Mission driven to

1:53:35 ↗ provide affordable housing so it seems

1:53:38 ↗ like something uh that we'd be

1:53:40 ↗ interested to explore again um not

1:53:43 ↗ looking at uh large Investments but

1:53:47 ↗ starting to to look at what other funds

1:53:49 ↗ have done and how we could uh do

1:53:51 ↗ something along those lines so that is

1:53:54 ↗ again the only direction we are asking

1:53:56 ↗ for tonight is do you want us to uh to

1:54:00 ↗ explore this and bring something back to

1:54:02 ↗ the city council to potentially uh amend

1:54:06 ↗ the iHip uh policy document that would

1:54:08 ↗ then add

1:54:10 ↗ this and that is the end of our

1:54:14 ↗ presentation okay so I think we will

1:54:16 ↗ start with questions and see if anybody

1:54:19 ↗ has questions on any of these items

1:54:22 ↗ Deputy council president oh so so uh Jen

1:54:27 ↗ um do we know the part from the packet

1:54:31 ↗ that was missing for me and and maybe

1:54:33 ↗ it's because we don't know yet do we

1:54:35 ↗ know how much uh funds would be required

1:54:39 ↗ for let's just say the the Leo uh

1:54:42 ↗ proposal for um pre-development cost are

1:54:48 ↗ I guess I'm trying to get a hold on uh

1:54:51 ↗ what would this do to the overall fund

1:54:53 ↗ is really my question right okay so the

1:54:55 ↗ Le just so so you know Leah house is is

1:54:57 ↗ asking to actually purchase and so it's

1:54:59 ↗ preservation of affordable housing so

1:55:01 ↗ it's different so for instance we've

1:55:03 ↗ been looking working with our savior

1:55:05 ↗ Luther Church um and so Arch has been

1:55:09 ↗ working with them to try to line up how

1:55:11 ↗ to to move forward on this to make a

1:55:13 ↗ wise decision and so

1:55:17 ↗ um you know it could be again it could

1:55:20 ↗ be um 100,000 but again we may say we

1:55:23 ↗ want to provide a portion of it we want

1:55:26 ↗ to provide um uh you know there's

1:55:30 ↗ different ways to look at that so uh

1:55:32 ↗ that property has critical areas and

1:55:34 ↗ some other things so I think that's why

1:55:35 ↗ it might be a little bit on the higher

1:55:37 ↗ end we could also look at we'll do X you

1:55:40 ↗ know the first two steps and then they

1:55:42 ↗ have to do the next three steps again

1:55:44 ↗ looking at um some options uh might I

1:55:48 ↗ can bring back to present to the

1:55:50 ↗ committee the entire fund right now we

1:55:54 ↗ have about $2 million and we plan to

1:55:57 ↗ deposit about $500,000 a year depending

1:56:00 ↗ on um again the the revenue is a sales

1:56:03 ↗ tax so please go out and spend more

1:56:05 ↗ money and US squ everybody but um so

1:56:08 ↗ that's just gives you an idea about uh

1:56:11 ↗ there and so I when I was reading the

1:56:13 ↗ packet I I got the impression that we

1:56:15 ↗ had a

1:56:16 ↗ specific so this is a concept this is

1:56:19 ↗ this is a general policy we're looking

1:56:21 ↗ at so an idea yeah the question is do

1:56:23 ↗ you want me to go and spend staff time

1:56:25 ↗ to explore this is there an interest at

1:56:27 ↗ all in that if if so I will go and look

1:56:30 ↗ at some options bring it back see how

1:56:32 ↗ the the group feels about it again it

1:56:34 ↗ could be that you say only 10% of the

1:56:36 ↗ fund could be invested This Way Again

1:56:39 ↗ lots of options if it's not at all

1:56:41 ↗ interesting to you then I w't spend the

1:56:43 ↗ staff time all right thank you thank you

1:56:45 ↗ for the

1:56:47 ↗ clarification uh council member

1:56:50 ↗ Joe thank you uh JN Davis Hayes if you

1:56:53 ↗ could please stay up there um I

1:56:55 ↗ appreciate the the thoughtfulness and

1:56:57 ↗ the the idea to bring this forward when

1:57:00 ↗ we think about housing there's always um

1:57:03 ↗ that that gap between the funding

1:57:06 ↗ necessary to get a project to you know

1:57:09 ↗ the the

1:57:10 ↗ feasibility and the cost of the project

1:57:13 ↗ and I think you're trying to work that

1:57:14 ↗ bottom part of the equation by giving a

1:57:17 ↗ little boost to the people for

1:57:18 ↗ predevelopment cost to perhaps get them

1:57:20 ↗ to a place where they can make at work

1:57:23 ↗ in your work do you have a sense here's

1:57:25 ↗ a question if if in your work when you

1:57:27 ↗ have been um out there talking to uh the

1:57:31 ↗ funders and the people that want to do

1:57:33 ↗ these projects is the order of magnitude

1:57:36 ↗ for getting that Gap fixed uh you know

1:57:41 ↗ really really big or is it $10,000 do

1:57:44 ↗ you have kind of a sense of what's going

1:57:46 ↗ to get that fulcrum point where we're

1:57:48 ↗ actually getting some some housing built

1:57:50 ↗ I guess if we where to put this

1:57:53 ↗ forward um so again there I guess

1:57:56 ↗ there's two different things there where

1:57:58 ↗ the gap between what's feasible and what

1:58:01 ↗ um or what's what what their financial

1:58:05 ↗ analysis shows and what's what's uh able

1:58:07 ↗ to cover their cost that Gap is is tends

1:58:10 ↗ to be pretty large and can be anywhere

1:58:12 ↗ from you know hundred plus thousand doll

1:58:15 ↗ per unit to 3 400,000 again depending on

1:58:18 ↗ lots of issues around the the property

1:58:20 ↗ type Etc the uh getting people started

1:58:24 ↗ in order to get some first level uh

1:58:27 ↗ reports to determine okay the developer

1:58:30 ↗ area is this big the uh you know we

1:58:33 ↗ because again with critical areas you

1:58:35 ↗ got to you know make sure that you don't

1:58:37 ↗ uh you understand the buffers you

1:58:38 ↗ understand what building type and the

1:58:41 ↗ zoning and all that kind of stuff so so

1:58:43 ↗ those reports again depending on if you

1:58:45 ↗ if you go and you spend 10 $15,000 and

1:58:48 ↗ realize this isn't never going to work

1:58:51 ↗ then you stop right so but if you learn

1:58:53 ↗ that it may be possible you may be able

1:58:56 ↗ to do one or two more steps to figure

1:58:58 ↗ out Okay this may be feasible so um so

1:59:02 ↗ again we can determine what we're

1:59:03 ↗ willing to support depending on

1:59:06 ↗ um uh the appetite okay all right great

1:59:10 ↗ um so if I'm hearing you correctly this

1:59:14 ↗ um decision perhaps is is more focused

1:59:18 ↗ on um getting people to do that

1:59:21 ↗ pre-evaluation to see what can be built

1:59:23 ↗ not actually getting to the point where

1:59:24 ↗ they're going to put a project in isqua

1:59:28 ↗ is that kind of a way to think about it

1:59:30 ↗ so it helps them to get to that decision

1:59:32 ↗ to yes we can move forward which then so

1:59:35 ↗ it's kind of Prim priming the pump right

1:59:37 ↗ of projects that they they then can work

1:59:39 ↗ with um nonprofit private developer to

1:59:43 ↗ uh do the last steps in order to do you

1:59:45 ↗ know finalize the plans toine funding um

1:59:49 ↗ which they will apply for iHip and Arch

1:59:52 ↗ and you know State and all a bunch of

1:59:55 ↗ others so so it it it it allows them to

1:59:58 ↗ decide to see if it's even possible to

2:00:01 ↗ do okay so by priming the pump we're

2:00:04 ↗ helping them make that first couple of

2:00:07 ↗ decisions to decide whether or not this

2:00:10 ↗ is going to be something that they want

2:00:11 ↗ to work on right and move forward with

2:00:13 ↗ right right okay yeah appreciate it

2:00:15 ↗ thank you

2:00:17 ↗ m council member

2:00:20 ↗ Hall thank you um

2:00:22 ↗ so you said that some funders already do

2:00:25 ↗ this um kind of pre-development

2:00:27 ↗ assistance can you give me a sense of

2:00:28 ↗ like who are the kinds of people that do

2:00:30 ↗ that or organizations no I'm sorry um no

2:00:33 ↗ I I would if I did more research so AR

2:00:35 ↗ just told me yeah and so part of this um

2:00:38 ↗ with one staff down for economic

2:00:39 ↗ development it's been a little

2:00:40 ↗ challenging to keep everything up in the

2:00:42 ↗ air but um I can I can provide more that

2:00:45 ↗ information after this um who oh yeah

2:00:48 ↗ that's perfect I mean I looked real

2:00:49 ↗ quick but I it's not sticking in my head

2:00:51 ↗ of who but um I would definitely go and

2:00:53 ↗ talk to them and better understand not

2:00:55 ↗ only in this region but if there's

2:00:56 ↗ others uh throughout the

2:00:58 ↗ country better understand again this is

2:01:00 ↗ trying to help smaller you know

2:01:02 ↗ nonprofits smaller Property Owners

2:01:05 ↗ smaller um or you know religious uh

2:01:09 ↗ organizations so no that makes sense to

2:01:11 ↗ me I appreciate it and it's it's not

2:01:13 ↗ fair because I didn't email that in so I

2:01:16 ↗ I just can't remember I looked at it but

2:01:17 ↗ I I you know right now I can't remember

2:01:19 ↗ the names and if if you are looking into

2:01:21 ↗ it too it would be interesting to know

2:01:22 ↗ if other cities do this in the region

2:01:24 ↗ too if this is this is if this would be

2:01:27 ↗ unique within King County the region or

2:01:29 ↗ if this would be new type of City local

2:01:32 ↗ assistance um and then the other

2:01:34 ↗ question that I have regarding the

2:01:35 ↗ predevelopment assistance is

2:01:38 ↗ um um you you started to answer it in in

2:01:42 ↗ email response to a question but if if

2:01:44 ↗ we were to provide the kind of

2:01:46 ↗ assistance to a developer they decide

2:01:48 ↗ never mind we're not going to do this do

2:01:50 ↗ we see that as a cost of doing business

2:01:52 ↗ or I think you had started to say we

2:01:53 ↗ could design the program in a way in

2:01:55 ↗ such a way that maybe we get some of it

2:01:57 ↗ back but how is Staff thinking about

2:01:58 ↗ that so far yeah and and I guess again

2:02:01 ↗ it would depend if it's $10,000 versus

2:02:03 ↗ $100,000 um that might be a difference

2:02:06 ↗ where um where we say Okay um we expect

2:02:11 ↗ people again to match so we're not

2:02:13 ↗ investing as much as we're investing as

2:02:18 ↗ uh half or or less than half of what

2:02:20 ↗ they're investing um um but yeah if

2:02:23 ↗ somebody we gave somebody 10,000 $15,000

2:02:25 ↗ and they decide this is not moving

2:02:27 ↗ forward um then that is a gone

2:02:31 ↗ investment but uh again I have to get

2:02:33 ↗ into more details with Arch about that

2:02:35 ↗ she they said there may be a way and

2:02:37 ↗ depending it depends on how large yeah

2:02:40 ↗ we don't know um it depends on how large

2:02:43 ↗ the investment is if we want to do this

2:02:44 ↗ but you could put uh something against

2:02:46 ↗ our property to say that hey two you

2:02:48 ↗ know two units of affordable housing are

2:02:50 ↗ required whenever this gets redeveloped

2:02:53 ↗ um if there's a larger investment so

2:02:55 ↗ again for 10,000 it's probably not a a

2:02:57 ↗ fair um compensation but you know we can

2:03:01 ↗ look at again all those ways um to to

2:03:04 ↗ see that happen but you know we don't

2:03:06 ↗ want to punch anybody either for trying

2:03:08 ↗ to make this happen in on good faith um

2:03:11 ↗ but we're not going to spend yeah we

2:03:12 ↗ don't want to spend half our fund trying

2:03:14 ↗ for things that don't work that's I

2:03:17 ↗ think maybe we look at a percentage of

2:03:19 ↗ the fund that would could go towards

2:03:21 ↗ this and rest remain

2:03:26 ↗ there Deputy council president D

2:03:29 ↗ Michelle uh so Jen uh you talked about

2:03:32 ↗ um doing these uh studies on soils and

2:03:36 ↗ things like that what about the process

2:03:38 ↗ that uh organization has to go through

2:03:40 ↗ just to determine exactly what they want

2:03:44 ↗ to do do they want to do senior housing

2:03:45 ↗ do they want to do disabled housing do

2:03:47 ↗ they want to do um low income at 30%

2:03:51 ↗ those you know those kinds of different

2:03:53 ↗ decisions just ahead of time would this

2:03:56 ↗ kind of um funding uh support that

2:04:01 ↗ process as well or would are we really

2:04:03 ↗ talking about technical studies more

2:04:05 ↗ technical I think that Arch um is a

2:04:08 ↗ resource for them to talk through that

2:04:09 ↗ with their congregation with their group

2:04:12 ↗ whoever it may be um and I I also think

2:04:15 ↗ as they work through it to see the size

2:04:17 ↗ of the units and you know figuring out

2:04:19 ↗ we can build 20 units versus

2:04:22 ↗ 40 units um determining okay do you want

2:04:25 ↗ to do family units or do you want to do

2:04:27 ↗ one single room Studios um that type of

2:04:30 ↗ thing but but I think Arch is a really

2:04:32 ↗ good resource for that and under and

2:04:35 ↗ help providing information about you

2:04:37 ↗ know where the funding is uh for these

2:04:40 ↗ various um uh populations that they

2:04:43 ↗ would serve so again our funding is for

2:04:46 ↗ 60% and lower Ami so um it would be if

2:04:50 ↗ they want to come back to our us for

2:04:51 ↗ funding they would have to you know or

2:04:53 ↗ even to look at that they have to be 60%

2:04:55 ↗ and below

2:04:58 ↗ so any other

2:05:01 ↗ questions okay and no public in the room

2:05:04 ↗ is there still any public on line we do

2:05:08 ↗ now have one member of the public with

2:05:10 ↗ us virtually okay well we have an

2:05:13 ↗ opportunity for public comment to the

2:05:15 ↗ one person who is sitting there online

2:05:18 ↗ uh if you so choose to raise your hand

2:05:21 ↗ you're on the phone star three you're on

2:05:23 ↗ a computer or smartphone you can look

2:05:25 ↗ for that raiseed hand icon if you would

2:05:27 ↗ like to make comment on this we are

2:05:29 ↗ always listening so I will just pause

2:05:32 ↗ for a moment and see if we have any

2:05:35 ↗ public

2:05:37 ↗ comments on this nothing coming up no

2:05:41 ↗ you can always email us we read a lot of

2:05:44 ↗ emails we reply to a lot of emails so

2:05:47 ↗ anytime um okay next step feedback

2:05:52 ↗ who wants to start it

2:05:54 ↗ out oh wow three people were just

2:05:57 ↗ jumping in there um Deputy council

2:06:00 ↗ president then council member

2:06:05 ↗ Hall oh sorry hunt sorry you're hes next

2:06:08 ↗ to each other it's a problem for

2:06:11 ↗ me uh so I've actually been through this

2:06:14 ↗ process as a member of the together

2:06:17 ↗ Center board of directors um early on

2:06:20 ↗ when we did not know even what we wanted

2:06:22 ↗ to do and um eventually realizing that

2:06:27 ↗ among the 13 board members that were

2:06:29 ↗ there we did not have the expertise to

2:06:31 ↗ proceed we did uh hire a consultant who

2:06:34 ↗ came in and helped us Define exactly

2:06:36 ↗ what we wanted to do um and then from

2:06:40 ↗ there we uh had to start the studies on

2:06:43 ↗ the on the project and um I I absolutely

2:06:48 ↗ agree that that expertise hiring that

2:06:51 ↗ expertise doing those studies uh for

2:06:54 ↗ small organizations um like I said the

2:06:57 ↗ together Center had 13 board members and

2:06:59 ↗ two two whole employees at the time that

2:07:03 ↗ we started that process and So within

2:07:06 ↗ that group it's difficult to find the

2:07:08 ↗ expertise especially when you're dealing

2:07:10 ↗ with affordable housing which has all is

2:07:14 ↗ a whole field unto itself of expertise

2:07:18 ↗ that you need to understand um along

2:07:20 ↗ with all the the the construction needs

2:07:22 ↗ and everything so I absolutely think

2:07:25 ↗ this is a valid U uh thing to have and

2:07:29 ↗ to allow that money to be used for um I

2:07:33 ↗ was thinking while I was reading the

2:07:34 ↗ packet it's a little bit like asking uh

2:07:37 ↗ you know to choose between your favorite

2:07:39 ↗ children because it is a limited pot of

2:07:42 ↗ money and there are so many good things

2:07:44 ↗ we could do with it uh but I have no

2:07:47 ↗ objections to adding this as a policy

2:07:52 ↗ that this could be um an option for use

2:07:55 ↗ I have no problem with doing that at all

2:07:57 ↗ because yes uh I think smaller

2:08:00 ↗ organizations Our Savior Lutheran Church

2:08:02 ↗ is a really good example um and other

2:08:05 ↗ churches in the area um could use this

2:08:08 ↗ and without that kind of support they

2:08:10 ↗ can't proce proceive so I would be

2:08:13 ↗ supportive of it but um it's too bad

2:08:16 ↗ that this is just 1% of one tenth of 1%

2:08:22 ↗ uh because there are so many needs and

2:08:24 ↗ so many places that we could put this

2:08:25 ↗ money that it's almost difficult to to

2:08:28 ↗ decide what you want to carve out thank

2:08:31 ↗ you council member

2:08:34 ↗ hunt thank you I I have uh no doubt that

2:08:38 ↗ there's definitely a need for this Tex

2:08:40 ↗ technical expertise I think where I

2:08:43 ↗ differ from uh council member D Michelle

2:08:45 ↗ is this is a limited pot of money we've

2:08:48 ↗ already seen that there is money that

2:08:50 ↗ will be effective in our community for

2:08:52 ↗ the preservation of affordable housing

2:08:55 ↗ housing and as you mentioned that was

2:08:57 ↗ ahead of what you expected to be the

2:08:59 ↗ schedule we just started this program

2:09:02 ↗ recently we just adopted the policy one

2:09:05 ↗ of the policy um one of the main

2:09:10 ↗ objectives that we wanted to fulfill

2:09:12 ↗ with this funding was preservation of

2:09:15 ↗ existing affordable housing and we've

2:09:16 ↗ already seen a project come come in for

2:09:18 ↗ a large amount of potentially a large

2:09:22 ↗ amount of the existing funds and so if

2:09:25 ↗ we got a few more projects that would

2:09:27 ↗ add more preservation of affordable

2:09:30 ↗ units those are people that are already

2:09:31 ↗ in the community that uh very likely

2:09:33 ↗ would be displaced if that project was

2:09:35 ↗ no longer able to be at affordable

2:09:37 ↗ levels and so I think this is a huge

2:09:39 ↗ Community benefit we're already seeing

2:09:41 ↗ it uh we're already seeing that this

2:09:43 ↗ fund is able to to do that so I would

2:09:47 ↗ like to see us um focus on that and I

2:09:50 ↗ have big concerns about the technical

2:09:52 ↗ assistance or the predevelopment

2:09:54 ↗ because I would like to make sure that

2:09:57 ↗ this fund gets US units and I also don't

2:10:02 ↗ want to be in a position where we're

2:10:03 ↗ funding a feasibility study that the

2:10:06 ↗ project is turns out to not be feasible

2:10:08 ↗ and then we uh we have you know we have

2:10:11 ↗ the option of either that money is gone

2:10:14 ↗ and there's no project or we have to

2:10:16 ↗ claw back the money from a community

2:10:17 ↗ partner organization neither of those is

2:10:20 ↗ good um and so I I don't want to be in

2:10:22 ↗ that position it sounds like Arch also

2:10:25 ↗ is providing that early technical

2:10:28 ↗ expertise and help I know they have

2:10:30 ↗ limited bandwidth but they are able to

2:10:32 ↗ to talk with our Community Partners and

2:10:34 ↗ you know explain the different uh levels

2:10:37 ↗ of affordability and that sort of

2:10:39 ↗ highlevel beginning um beginning uh

2:10:45 ↗ strategy um so I would I would caution

2:10:47 ↗ that we just started with the program

2:10:49 ↗ it's already seemingly successful in

2:10:51 ↗ achieving one of our main goals I'm

2:10:53 ↗ primarily interested in using this fund

2:10:55 ↗ to preserve existing housing um that is

2:10:58 ↗ Affordable because again those are folks

2:11:01 ↗ that are already in the community and we

2:11:02 ↗ know that there's a big pressure on uh

2:11:06 ↗ new developments to be um market rate so

2:11:10 ↗ I would like to stick with that and and

2:11:13 ↗ see how the program uh plays out before

2:11:17 ↗ we start adding um adding additional

2:11:20 ↗ things that done with the funds and if

2:11:22 ↗ we do consider the predevelopment I

2:11:24 ↗ would want to make it a small um portion

2:11:28 ↗ that is able to be used for that again

2:11:30 ↗ because it seems risky that we might

2:11:32 ↗ lose that funding and not get those

2:11:33 ↗ housing

2:11:34 ↗ units council member

2:11:36 ↗ marks thank you so um I have something I

2:11:40 ↗ would love to see in this debate

2:11:43 ↗ and um City administrator will probably

2:11:45 ↗ tell me it can't be done but uh I would

2:11:48 ↗ love us to pick so often we say what's

2:11:52 ↗ Belleview doing and Redmond doing and

2:11:53 ↗ what's Berkland doing and so on so forth

2:11:56 ↗ um and those are all much bigger cities

2:11:58 ↗ than ours um although I guess Kirk's not

2:12:00 ↗ that much bigger than us nowadays but

2:12:02 ↗ anyhow um what I would love to know is

2:12:06 ↗ as we go forward on a lot of these

2:12:08 ↗ housing questions I would love it if we

2:12:11 ↗ had a half dozen cities that we thought

2:12:14 ↗ had their act together in King County or

2:12:17 ↗ in western Washington or you pick it and

2:12:20 ↗ then tell us you know as some of these

2:12:22 ↗ issues come up how they're doing it and

2:12:25 ↗ because it's such a we're a small City

2:12:28 ↗ and we have very bright folks but why

2:12:31 ↗ reinvent the wheel and if we can

2:12:34 ↗ identify some cities that we think are

2:12:36 ↗ doing it well and I know there's risks

2:12:38 ↗ associated with doing that but um you

2:12:41 ↗ know it would be very very helpful to me

2:12:43 ↗ to see what's you know and we don't have

2:12:46 ↗ to hold them up as exemplars and if they

2:12:49 ↗ don't have to all agree with an idea and

2:12:51 ↗ we're a leader Beyond some other cities

2:12:53 ↗ but just just have something to compare

2:12:55 ↗ to right so I just put that idea out

2:12:58 ↗ there and if if there's something we can

2:12:59 ↗ do in that area so often I will say you

2:13:02 ↗ know what does Redmond do or or Kirkland

2:13:05 ↗ do and I realize those aren't precise

2:13:08 ↗ comparisons but maybe there are a half a

2:13:10 ↗ dozen cities that we could look at um

2:13:13 ↗ and to help us see so often in these

2:13:16 ↗ complex issues as an engineer I love it

2:13:18 ↗ when somebody else has already worked on

2:13:20 ↗ it and they found a solution that works

2:13:22 ↗ that means so much to me in complex

2:13:24 ↗ issues so that's what I will say on this

2:13:26 ↗ issue

2:13:27 ↗ thank I'll just throw in on that concept

2:13:31 ↗ I know that the um affordable housing

2:13:34 ↗ committee has put out reports on some of

2:13:37 ↗ the best practices and the things that

2:13:39 ↗ produced the most results and so it

2:13:43 ↗ might not necessarily be a city that we

2:13:45 ↗ look to as an example but it could be

2:13:49 ↗ look here are the policies that have

2:13:52 ↗ produced this type of results um that

2:13:55 ↗ could be useful as well uh council

2:13:57 ↗ member

2:13:58 ↗ Joe thank you I was um looking at the um

2:14:03 ↗ comprehensive plan for some guidance as

2:14:04 ↗ we're looking out to 2044 for um housing

2:14:09 ↗ policy and and isqua needs 3,500

2:14:12 ↗ additional units by

2:14:14 ↗ 2044 of those 3,500 units

2:14:18 ↗ 2,996 housing units are needed that are

2:14:21 ↗ affordable to households with incomes

2:14:23 ↗ less than or equal to 80% of the area

2:14:26 ↗ median income um out of those uh 669

2:14:31 ↗ need to be temporary emergency Beds

2:14:33 ↗ which are very hard to get built um in

2:14:36 ↗ the 30 to 50% Ami we need 868 housing

2:14:41 ↗ units and 30% low lower Ami we need 1668

2:14:46 ↗ units

2:14:49 ↗ um no one is building these units in s

2:14:54 ↗ homish County or King

2:14:55 ↗ County and um they're not going to get

2:14:58 ↗ built unless

2:15:00 ↗ cities you know try some other ideas and

2:15:03 ↗ I know it hasn't been done yet but I

2:15:06 ↗ think we really need to

2:15:07 ↗ explore possibly doing this and putting

2:15:10 ↗ it together and if there are other

2:15:12 ↗ cities out there that are doing it um

2:15:14 ↗ you know learn from them but um these

2:15:17 ↗ numbers are are really Stark and if

2:15:21 ↗ we're doing small units at a time you

2:15:24 ↗ know we're building we're building up on

2:15:26 ↗ the on the in the highlands a 200 unit

2:15:30 ↗ facility that has 10% uh affordable

2:15:33 ↗ housing that's 20 units and that's a big

2:15:36 ↗ achievement for us you know it took a

2:15:38 ↗ lot of work to get us to that point

2:15:40 ↗ we're doing 20 at a time to fill in

2:15:43 ↗ these numbers uh you know we need to do

2:15:45 ↗ a lot more than um even just the

2:15:48 ↗ proposal that's coming out today so I'd

2:15:50 ↗ be in favor of us exploring it and

2:15:52 ↗ figuring out how we can best hone it and

2:15:55 ↗ make it work for isqua and our needs but

2:15:58 ↗ um I think it's something we should

2:15:59 ↗ explore thank you council member

2:16:04 ↗ Hall uh first of all council member Mars

2:16:06 ↗ I love that idea that's a really

2:16:07 ↗ interesting one um as for the question

2:16:11 ↗ um uh before us right now um I think

2:16:15 ↗ good points have been made on kind of

2:16:16 ↗ both sides of this argument for right

2:16:19 ↗ now I'm not really sure where I land but

2:16:20 ↗ but I do think it's clever uh and

2:16:23 ↗ probably worth the staff resources to

2:16:25 ↗ explore which I think is the question

2:16:27 ↗ being asked of us tonight so um no

2:16:30 ↗ problem with looking into it for me

2:16:33 ↗ um I think there are a few kind of

2:16:36 ↗ things I just jotted down that I want us

2:16:38 ↗ to be mindful of um I agree my primary

2:16:43 ↗ concern would be that this would be end

2:16:46 ↗ up becoming a lot of what we do with the

2:16:48 ↗ fund and that's not the the objective of

2:16:51 ↗ fund so having some sort of policies

2:16:52 ↗ around a limit on the percentage of the

2:16:55 ↗ fund that can be used in this way or or

2:16:58 ↗ some other kind of policy around x% of

2:17:02 ↗ expenditures for the year can be for

2:17:03 ↗ this

2:17:04 ↗ or you'll think of a good way to do that

2:17:06 ↗ but um and then also some way to protect

2:17:08 ↗ our investments um if someone decides

2:17:13 ↗ not to go through with a project

2:17:14 ↗ although council member hun I didn't I

2:17:16 ↗ didn't even think about what what you

2:17:17 ↗ brought up earlier about like we

2:17:19 ↗ wouldn't want to ever be in the

2:17:20 ↗ situation where we're having to clawback

2:17:21 ↗ funds from an important Community

2:17:23 ↗ partner so I don't even know what to

2:17:25 ↗ think of that anymore so we'll let you

2:17:28 ↗ chew on that one um and then yeah just

2:17:31 ↗ the same request that I had during

2:17:32 ↗ questions so like who are the kind of

2:17:33 ↗ funders who provide this kind of

2:17:34 ↗ assistance and and do other cities do

2:17:37 ↗ this or would this be kind of out of the

2:17:38 ↗ the norm or unique I guess is another

2:17:40 ↗ way of saying it um and

2:17:43 ↗ then I don't know the only other thing

2:17:45 ↗ that comes to mind is like is there

2:17:48 ↗ value if we were to do something like

2:17:50 ↗ this would there be value value and

2:17:51 ↗ having some sort of application window

2:17:53 ↗ that closes so we can review

2:17:56 ↗ [Music]

2:17:57 ↗ review requests for the these kinds of

2:18:00 ↗ funds against actual requests for the

2:18:03 ↗ number like units that could be produced

2:18:04 ↗ and and have some sort of judgment made

2:18:06 ↗ by an internal committee or by the

2:18:08 ↗ council I don't know if that's a good

2:18:10 ↗ idea either I'm just spitballing random

2:18:12 ↗ thoughts at this point but um yeah

2:18:14 ↗ the overall I think uh it's worth

2:18:18 ↗ exploring um a few other I have a few

2:18:21 ↗ other kind of comments like for like

2:18:24 ↗ requests for future information about

2:18:25 ↗ some of the behavioral health stuff too

2:18:27 ↗ I can stop now and we can finish out the

2:18:29 ↗ iHip yeah let's do

2:18:31 ↗ that Council M Ray um thanks I uh I was

2:18:36 ↗ um very interested in listening to kind

2:18:38 ↗ of everybody's thoughts on this and and

2:18:41 ↗ and in processing that I I have one big

2:18:43 ↗ takeaway which is do we know what the

2:18:45 ↗ barriers are to people building

2:18:47 ↗ affordable housing and does this help us

2:18:50 ↗ bu any of those barriers so I think if

2:18:53 ↗ you say well one of the biggest problems

2:18:55 ↗ is I don't want to invest into and this

2:18:56 ↗ is almost to Deputy president de

2:18:58 ↗ Michelle's say I don't know how to start

2:19:00 ↗ the ball rolling then then that's a

2:19:03 ↗ barrier we can bust if that's not a big

2:19:05 ↗ deal then then then it probably not

2:19:09 ↗ pouring money into this particular

2:19:11 ↗ Avenue makes a lot of sense so I don't

2:19:12 ↗ know that I have a strong opinion or or

2:19:15 ↗ against but I do have a strong opinion

2:19:17 ↗ and that is we understand what the root

2:19:19 ↗ causes of our problems are and that we

2:19:22 ↗ um take what limited resources we have

2:19:24 ↗ and we funnel them and we focus them on

2:19:26 ↗ the root causes of our

2:19:30 ↗ barriers okay let me chime in here and

2:19:32 ↗ then I also have comments on the

2:19:35 ↗ behavioral health and other areas as

2:19:38 ↗ well okay before we go to behavioral

2:19:40 ↗ health I'll ask for follow-ups sounds

2:19:42 ↗ good um so I think I would say as a

2:19:45 ↗ first step on this I think a proposal

2:19:49 ↗ like this really shows the value of

2:19:51 ↗ having a staff member who's focused on

2:19:53 ↗ housing because that is like oh okay we

2:19:58 ↗ wouldn't have looked at something like

2:20:00 ↗ this if we didn't have somebody who was

2:20:03 ↗ out there seeking what what more can we

2:20:06 ↗ do and what are the barriers so first of

2:20:08 ↗ all Kudos on that that being said I'm

2:20:11 ↗ not really ready to be a leader in this

2:20:14 ↗ area I think there are so many areas

2:20:17 ↗ where we have opportunities with our

2:20:20 ↗ money

2:20:21 ↗ I I would rather let a Belleview um do

2:20:25 ↗ this and so that being said I'm also not

2:20:28 ↗ sure that cities are the best source for

2:20:31 ↗ that um I really can't choose with such

2:20:35 ↗ limited funds to do something like this

2:20:37 ↗ over building or preserving units but

2:20:40 ↗ the bigger issue for me is looking at

2:20:43 ↗ this with uh potentially a staff member

2:20:46 ↗ down on economic development and really

2:20:48 ↗ limited staff time I'm freaking excited

2:20:52 ↗ about a lot of the things on the 2025

2:20:54 ↗ example efforts and I'm not as excited

2:20:58 ↗ about the predevelopment funding

2:20:59 ↗ compared to those other things so I'm

2:21:03 ↗ not really ready for that I really like

2:21:05 ↗ the idea of the utility connections

2:21:07 ↗ waiver I think that could be really

2:21:09 ↗ useful um and then the final thing for

2:21:11 ↗ me on that is hey we're about to do a

2:21:14 ↗ housing analysis our middle housing

2:21:17 ↗ parking analysis I don't want anybody

2:21:22 ↗ investing funds toward feasibility until

2:21:26 ↗ we get that

2:21:28 ↗ done because that's going to

2:21:31 ↗ change what is potentially out there as

2:21:34 ↗ far as how many units they could build

2:21:37 ↗ um so my personal opinion is that this

2:21:40 ↗ is not the right time for this that

2:21:43 ↗ looking at 26 or later is probably a

2:21:47 ↗ better option for this particular area

2:21:51 ↗ that would be my feedback okay second

2:21:53 ↗ round on any of these

2:21:55 ↗ areas uh I saw council member hunt and

2:21:58 ↗ then Deputy council president D Michelle

2:22:02 ↗ thank you uh I wanted to also add that

2:22:06 ↗ we have also made a lot of changes

2:22:07 ↗ through the title 18 update and we've

2:22:10 ↗ made a lot of changes um due to uh the

2:22:13 ↗ state laws that um that were mentioned

2:22:16 ↗ that have to do with with housing and

2:22:18 ↗ and permitting timelines and things like

2:22:19 ↗ that so I think we

2:22:21 ↗ also would benefit from some time to see

2:22:24 ↗ if those have made the

2:22:26 ↗ feasibility uh more straightforward if

2:22:29 ↗ they've made it more because that was

2:22:31 ↗ part of why we did that overhaul of

2:22:33 ↗ Title 18 our land use code was to make

2:22:36 ↗ um pering more uh you know more

2:22:39 ↗ straightforward you would have more

2:22:40 ↗ certainty that you could or could not do

2:22:42 ↗ a project and um I think that we are

2:22:46 ↗ still assessing how that plays out but I

2:22:48 ↗ would like to you know continue to see

2:22:51 ↗ if that really meets those goals and and

2:22:53 ↗ does make it more clear what's feasible

2:22:55 ↗ and what's not feasible

2:22:57 ↗ um I I also you know having served on

2:23:01 ↗ Council sometimes the feasibility study

2:23:03 ↗ turns out that it's not feasible that's

2:23:05 ↗ why you do the study and so if we go

2:23:07 ↗ this route we very much would expect

2:23:09 ↗ that there would be studies that would

2:23:11 ↗ not result in housing and and again I

2:23:13 ↗ just with the limited funds that we have

2:23:14 ↗ I just I'm not thinking that that's a

2:23:17 ↗ good use of this fund um and then lastly

2:23:20 ↗ the the preservation of existing housing

2:23:23 ↗ is not a a hypothetical there are you

2:23:26 ↗ know community members somebody that I

2:23:27 ↗ talked to that her her housing is being

2:23:31 ↗ bought by another uh housing provider

2:23:33 ↗ and they're going to be increasing the

2:23:35 ↗ rates and she's lived there for many

2:23:36 ↗ years and she's not going to be able to

2:23:38 ↗ pay the increased rates so this is a

2:23:40 ↗ this is a challenge that our community

2:23:42 ↗ members are facing it's not a

2:23:43 ↗ hypothetical and I would like to take

2:23:45 ↗ the steps we can to address those

2:23:47 ↗ existing needs of our current community

2:23:49 ↗ members with this fund

2:23:53 ↗ Deputy council president D

2:23:55 ↗ Michelle so um just uh just a comment

2:23:59 ↗ that uh across the country uh part of

2:24:02 ↗ the housing problem is land where do we

2:24:05 ↗ get land and who has land well

2:24:08 ↗ unfortunately um a lot of churches have

2:24:10 ↗ land and they have small shrinking

2:24:14 ↗ congregations um and it's a phenomenon

2:24:16 ↗ that's uh across the United States so

2:24:19 ↗ you have

2:24:20 ↗ um uh a land that's available where it

2:24:24 ↗ isn't available otherwise and again you

2:24:27 ↗ have a small group of people a small

2:24:30 ↗ organization due to the decrease in in

2:24:33 ↗ congregation size so

2:24:36 ↗ um even if we discover that this is not

2:24:39 ↗ the best route to go I think it's still

2:24:42 ↗ a question how do we help small

2:24:45 ↗ organizations leverage uh what they've

2:24:48 ↗ got which is very expensive land land

2:24:50 ↗ that is just sitting there and uh make

2:24:54 ↗ it available for housing so I I still

2:24:57 ↗ think this is worth exploring we find

2:24:59 ↗ out whether this is reasonable or not

2:25:02 ↗ reasonable um uh I hear what other

2:25:05 ↗ people are saying it it is expensive to

2:25:07 ↗ get these studies done uh and we have a

2:25:10 ↗ limited amount of funds here but the

2:25:12 ↗ bigger question is how do we begin to

2:25:16 ↗ free up some of this land help those

2:25:18 ↗ small organizations

2:25:20 ↗ um to begin the process of developing

2:25:24 ↗ affordable housing and the other thing

2:25:26 ↗ is about churches is their mission is to

2:25:29 ↗ help people in need uh so often they are

2:25:33 ↗ committed to the cause and are willing

2:25:35 ↗ to follow it through but they just need

2:25:37 ↗ that help to get going so um I think the

2:25:40 ↗ bigger question is something that even

2:25:42 ↗ if this turns out not to be a viable

2:25:44 ↗ route we should keep asking thank

2:25:48 ↗ you okay any other feedback on this area

2:25:53 ↗ I know we also had um part of the

2:25:56 ↗ presentation on Behavioral Health and um

2:25:59 ↗ all of that council member Hall well I

2:26:02 ↗ was just going to

2:26:04 ↗ say you know well articulated I think

2:26:06 ↗ good points too I still feel the same

2:26:08 ↗ way that it's worth investigating though

2:26:10 ↗ so that leaves me kind of puzzled in

2:26:12 ↗ terms of what our direction is as a

2:26:16 ↗ council oh okay members of the council

2:26:19 ↗ thank you I mean this is been a

2:26:20 ↗ tremendous discussion um we have to be

2:26:23 ↗ nimble we have to be creative we have to

2:26:25 ↗ adjust to our circumstances because

2:26:27 ↗ developing in isqua is different than

2:26:29 ↗ developing in Kirkland Redmond Belleview

2:26:32 ↗ Ron anywhere else and so I think what

2:26:34 ↗ you've heard and I appreciate your

2:26:36 ↗ recognition of of Jen's comments tonight

2:26:39 ↗ is that we have a staff member whose job

2:26:41 ↗ it is to think like this and so uh one

2:26:43 ↗ tool has been presented to you tonight

2:26:45 ↗ thank you for the feedback we'll go back

2:26:47 ↗ and and process this but we're

2:26:49 ↗ continuing to look for those tools

2:26:51 ↗ because as council member Joe said no

2:26:53 ↗ one's doing this I mean everyone has

2:26:56 ↗ policies the state of Washington passes

2:26:57 ↗ laws demanding that we do this but the

2:27:00 ↗ Practical reality is no one's doing it

2:27:01 ↗ so why aren't they doing it there are

2:27:03 ↗ many factors involved we're trying to

2:27:05 ↗ crack the nut isqua and so appreciate

2:27:08 ↗ the council's I hear you rooting us on

2:27:11 ↗ saying keep going and so we're going to

2:27:13 ↗ keep going with this we'll come back at

2:27:15 ↗ a future meeting uh with some additional

2:27:17 ↗ ideas um but it's hard

2:27:21 ↗ it's absolutely hard and rather than

2:27:23 ↗ throw up our hands or wait for uh the

2:27:26 ↗ State Department of Commerce to come up

2:27:27 ↗ with new regulations on a bill that was

2:27:29 ↗ passed two years ago we're going to

2:27:31 ↗ continue to work it so I I really

2:27:33 ↗ commend Jen uh and I commend the council

2:27:36 ↗ uh with this so we we don't need

2:27:38 ↗ consensus unanimous opinion uh but we

2:27:41 ↗ appreciate the conversation and we will

2:27:43 ↗ come back at a future meeting and

2:27:45 ↗ continue to work as we've said we've got

2:27:48 ↗ an application pending for first money

2:27:50 ↗ that's the most important thing let's

2:27:52 ↗ get the money out there let's create the

2:27:54 ↗ housing and we're on our way to do

2:27:56 ↗ that so what I'm hearing is complex

2:27:59 ↗ feedback on a complex topic is accepted

2:28:03 ↗ and we appreciate

2:28:06 ↗ that okay um any other feedback on any

2:28:11 ↗ of the other

2:28:15 ↗ topics go for it council member Hall

2:28:18 ↗ thank you

2:28:22 ↗ well first of all Brenda if I hadn't met

2:28:24 ↗ you before it's it's a pleasure to meet

2:28:25 ↗ you thank you so much for presenting um

2:28:27 ↗ tonight I just had a few comments on the

2:28:29 ↗ behavioral behavioral health stuff

2:28:33 ↗ um I saw just kind of request for

2:28:36 ↗ feature information no need to respond

2:28:37 ↗ tonight unless you feel like it's

2:28:39 ↗ necessary but um of the kind of active

2:28:43 ↗ participants that we had in the

2:28:44 ↗ behavioral health program I saw that

2:28:45 ↗ there was something like

2:28:47 ↗ 20 n participants who were successfully

2:28:50 ↗ discharged which I thought was great I

2:28:52 ↗ guess I'm just curious about kind of

2:28:54 ↗ like what are the patterns that we're

2:28:55 ↗ starting to see in terms of how long

2:28:57 ↗ it's how long it's taking people um

2:28:59 ↗ participants I mean to go through the

2:29:01 ↗ program um and if there's kind of any

2:29:04 ↗ information that you think would be

2:29:05 ↗ helpful to ask as policy makers in that

2:29:08 ↗ space

2:29:10 ↗ um the other thing is that I've been

2:29:12 ↗ thinking about is and I know it's very

2:29:15 ↗ different levels of Acuity care in terms

2:29:17 ↗ of like our program and programs like

2:29:19 ↗ like Racer the regional crisis response

2:29:22 ↗ um but I would be super interested in

2:29:26 ↗ sometime in the future getting some sort

2:29:28 ↗ of comparison with racer around kind of

2:29:31 ↗ what's the need in their service area

2:29:33 ↗ and the services that they provide and

2:29:35 ↗ then what's the need in our service area

2:29:37 ↗ and the kind of services that that they

2:29:39 ↗ provide and maybe some sort of scale of

2:29:41 ↗ of funding just as a way to compare it's

2:29:44 ↗ hard to compare programs AC Community

2:29:47 ↗ across Community um but I just think

2:29:49 ↗ that would be kind of helpful

2:29:50 ↗ information at some point in the future

2:29:56 ↗ um

2:29:58 ↗ the should I say that um the only other

2:30:02 ↗ thing I'm uh that struck me as and this

2:30:07 ↗ has nothing to do with Behavioral Health

2:30:08 ↗ now um as somewhat worrisome was

2:30:11 ↗ the housing analysis and parking

2:30:15 ↗ analysis um TBD with the budget that's

2:30:19 ↗ been such a huge priority of this

2:30:22 ↗ Council um I also did just want to say

2:30:24 ↗ for the record for the council too at

2:30:26 ↗ the last Planning Development

2:30:27 ↗ environment committee meeting we talked

2:30:28 ↗ a little bit about this and added our

2:30:30 ↗ own feedback and that was to really go

2:30:33 ↗ big on this analysis and give us some of

2:30:35 ↗ like the really inspiring um uh options

2:30:39 ↗ that are that are being considered in

2:30:40 ↗ other cities around America so we can

2:30:42 ↗ really compare about what is it like

2:30:45 ↗ where are the levers to be super

2:30:46 ↗ Progressive in this space that lead to

2:30:48 ↗ good outcomes um so that was some of our

2:30:51 ↗ other stuff anyways that kind of concern

2:30:53 ↗ concerns me a little bit that that's a

2:30:54 ↗ potential

2:30:56 ↗ um for not being included in the next

2:30:59 ↗ budget though I understand the

2:31:01 ↗ circumstances um around that and I would

2:31:03 ↗ just say that I hope if if we're not

2:31:04 ↗ able to do that kind of study we can at

2:31:06 ↗ least move forward with the

2:31:07 ↗ recommendations that the Eco North

2:31:09 ↗ Northwest report um kind of came to us

2:31:12 ↗ with or have a conversation about that

2:31:14 ↗ at council at the very least those are

2:31:16 ↗ kind of my thoughts on that thanks

2:31:19 ↗ council member Joe

2:31:20 ↗ thank you I would like to just comment

2:31:22 ↗ on the emergency housing program um

2:31:25 ↗ looking at the statistics uh you know

2:31:28 ↗ we're we're changing the lives of the 40

2:31:30 ↗ participants served um you know it's not

2:31:33 ↗ a big number but every life is important

2:31:37 ↗ uh as we go forward I also appreciate

2:31:39 ↗ the fact that we learned a number of

2:31:41 ↗ things about the Continuum of Care

2:31:43 ↗ during that process and one thing that

2:31:45 ↗ struck me that you said Brenda was we

2:31:48 ↗ kind of learned how um

2:31:51 ↗ to I'm going to say this incorrectly but

2:31:53 ↗ but kind of how to um work with this

2:31:56 ↗ population in the sense that we need to

2:31:58 ↗ respect their privacy a little bit but

2:32:00 ↗ we also need to have that that touch to

2:32:03 ↗ make sure that we're serving them at the

2:32:05 ↗ same time and I think that we only got

2:32:08 ↗ that type of experience or that type of

2:32:09 ↗ knowledge by working with this

2:32:11 ↗ population and doing this program so I I

2:32:13 ↗ really appreciate that also um

2:32:16 ↗ preserving our relationship with the

2:32:17 ↗ motel to address need for emergent and

2:32:20 ↗ severe weather related housing needs um

2:32:23 ↗ we saw the storms come through North

2:32:25 ↗ Carolina Florida Georgia and uh cities

2:32:28 ↗ that didn't have previous relationships

2:32:32 ↗ with uh you know other supporting cities

2:32:34 ↗ or other agencies um we're really in a

2:32:37 ↗ pickle um if we have this relationship

2:32:40 ↗ that we're building and these uh severe

2:32:43 ↗ weather activities you know hit our

2:32:45 ↗ region we have those relationships and

2:32:47 ↗ that's so important in being able to

2:32:49 ↗ pick up that phone and get someone out

2:32:51 ↗ of the cold and into housing if it's a

2:32:54 ↗ real emergency so I I would encourage

2:32:56 ↗ that we continue that relationship as

2:32:58 ↗ well as the relationship with the police

2:32:59 ↗ that you highlighted uh as we provide

2:33:02 ↗ that Continuum care for Human Services

2:33:04 ↗ so thank you very

2:33:07 ↗ much anyone

2:33:10 ↗ else council member hunt um just as the

2:33:14 ↗ chair of the Planning Development

2:33:15 ↗ environment committee I wanted to plus

2:33:17 ↗ one council member Hall's comments on

2:33:18 ↗ the importance of the stud we really

2:33:20 ↗ felt like there were things that we

2:33:22 ↗ needed to um explore and that we wanted

2:33:26 ↗ to have that stud results so that we

2:33:28 ↗ could continue to make progress on

2:33:31 ↗ addressing the housing Continuum and I

2:33:32 ↗ think it uh I think it also dtales

2:33:35 ↗ nicely with the last conversation we had

2:33:37 ↗ there are practices across the country

2:33:40 ↗ to um incentivize and get these kinds of

2:33:43 ↗ housing built um and we have lots of

2:33:45 ↗ different lovers and so I think using

2:33:48 ↗ you know that study will be really

2:33:49 ↗ important I think looking across the

2:33:50 ↗ other cities as several council members

2:33:52 ↗ spoke about in the last conversation um

2:33:54 ↗ should be a part of that study and it

2:33:56 ↗ will be really

2:33:59 ↗ important okay um for my comments I was

2:34:02 ↗ looking at the 2023 2024 budget about

2:34:06 ↗ the housing and parking analysis I

2:34:08 ↗ noticed there was

2:34:09 ↗ $490,000 for the title 18 future updates

2:34:12 ↗ of which um 200,000 was for the

2:34:16 ↗ exploration of middle inome housing and

2:34:19 ↗ um 130,000 was for the centrala parking

2:34:22 ↗ analysis so I'd just like to understand

2:34:25 ↗ if we could whether those funds have

2:34:27 ↗ been already spent and there would be a

2:34:30 ↗ need for new funds or whether some of

2:34:33 ↗ that carries

2:34:36 ↗ over thanks

2:34:40 ↗ Kristen hi sure uh none of the funds

2:34:43 ↗ have been used um a a consultant has

2:34:47 ↗ been found um but a a cont cont has not

2:34:50 ↗ been signed for the parking analysis

2:34:51 ↗ pending uh the budget and then we've

2:34:54 ↗ started our search for the consultant

2:34:55 ↗ for the housing analysis but again put

2:35:00 ↗ put that one on hold so it would just be

2:35:01 ↗ shifting funds from the 23 24 over to

2:35:04 ↗ the

2:35:06 ↗ 2526 so maybe we don't need to panic

2:35:08 ↗ quite as much appreciate that you you

2:35:11 ↗ guys put us in a tizzy there no we Panic

2:35:14 ↗ oh fantastic thanks City

2:35:16 ↗ administrator okay

2:35:21 ↗ TBD yeah okay all Panic then great we'll

2:35:26 ↗ have another conversation about that one

2:35:29 ↗ um uh for operational Investments hi

2:35:33 ↗ Brenda nice to see you again um just

2:35:37 ↗ thinking over the emergency housing

2:35:39 ↗ program uh we had a one-year pilot and

2:35:42 ↗ so I think I'm interested in kind of

2:35:45 ↗ doing a look back and how do we decide

2:35:50 ↗ if it was effective how do we decide if

2:35:53 ↗ that's something we would want to pursue

2:35:56 ↗ if another opt opportunity came up

2:36:00 ↗ versus you know providing additional

2:36:02 ↗ funding to other emergency shelters in

2:36:05 ↗ the area such as snowall me or Belleview

2:36:08 ↗ obviously not the same type of services

2:36:13 ↗ but before we put another dollar into

2:36:16 ↗ that I'd really like to understand what

2:36:17 ↗ were our goals what did we achieve

2:36:20 ↗ was it a cost-effective measure um so I

2:36:24 ↗ think that would be great um and then

2:36:28 ↗ Jen I would just say I looked over the

2:36:32 ↗ arch um Housing Trust Fund application

2:36:36 ↗ and isqua's iHip is all over that which

2:36:40 ↗ I think is a great um way to try and

2:36:44 ↗ recruit projects to us because then on

2:36:49 ↗ this application it's like sweetening

2:36:51 ↗ the pot it's like oh you wanted money

2:36:53 ↗ well guess what there's guaranteed money

2:36:55 ↗ over here it's just if you're

2:36:57 ↗ considering if you'll consider isqua

2:36:59 ↗ maybe we're a better option than going

2:37:01 ↗ somewhere else so I just wanted to

2:37:03 ↗ congratulate on that and I think it's

2:37:07 ↗ it's a really good option okay so any

2:37:11 ↗ other feedback on this area does the

2:37:13 ↗ administration have what they need in

2:37:16 ↗ all of our

2:37:18 ↗ complexity uh yes and I guess I would

2:37:20 ↗ just remind the council uh you've

2:37:22 ↗ already set up a pretty good program um

2:37:25 ↗ you know we will continue to look for

2:37:27 ↗ Best Practices um but we are being

2:37:29 ↗ looked at as a best practice by some

2:37:31 ↗ communities because first of all you

2:37:33 ↗ retained the 1/10th 1% dollar that many

2:37:36 ↗ of your neighbors did not and so that is

2:37:38 ↗ a funding stream that is very vigorous

2:37:40 ↗ that we have under statute have to

2:37:43 ↗ balance between creating housing and

2:37:45 ↗ services and so uh many of our neighbors

2:37:48 ↗ already look at us and say gwiz why

2:37:51 ↗ didn't we do this because look at what

2:37:53 ↗ isqua has been able to do not only in

2:37:54 ↗ housing creation uh but also Supportive

2:37:57 ↗ Services uh for those that are homeless

2:38:00 ↗ so um give yourself some credit that

2:38:03 ↗ this Council has spent many many

2:38:05 ↗ meetings uh looking at options looking

2:38:08 ↗ how to weigh other funding sources

2:38:10 ↗ looking how to uh balance uh the Myriad

2:38:13 ↗ of state regulations that have come out

2:38:16 ↗ um and our neighbors are looking at us

2:38:18 ↗ and say gosh this a has a pretty good

2:38:20 ↗ balance and so we will always continue

2:38:23 ↗ to uh do better um I think the one

2:38:27 ↗ exactor here remains money developers

2:38:29 ↗ need to develop to make money developers

2:38:31 ↗ are not Charities uh by and large um and

2:38:35 ↗ so the difficulties in finding property

2:38:38 ↗ at the high costs that there are the

2:38:40 ↗ difficulty of finding financing uh the

2:38:42 ↗ difficulty of developing in isqua where

2:38:45 ↗ we as a community have said we have

2:38:47 ↗ certain land use standards that perhaps

2:38:49 ↗ some some of our neighbors don't and so

2:38:51 ↗ you take all those things together uh it

2:38:53 ↗ makes it difficult but your staff I

2:38:54 ↗ think has been very diligent under mayor

2:38:56 ↗ Paulie's Direction uh to make it work

2:38:59 ↗ under those circumstances so we

2:39:00 ↗ appreciate your feedback this evening on

2:39:03 ↗ the whole variety of issues and we'll

2:39:04 ↗ continue to keep you posted on all the

2:39:06 ↗ work that we're doing not only in

2:39:07 ↗ community planning and development but

2:39:08 ↗ Parks uh and Community Services as well

2:39:11 ↗ as in the executive office through our

2:39:13 ↗ housing and economic development

2:39:16 ↗ team okay fantastic um last item here is

2:39:21 ↗ good of the order anybody okay I just

2:39:24 ↗ have one item which is that um the

2:39:28 ↗ administration had sent out um an

2:39:30 ↗ invitation for a middle housing tour

2:39:33 ↗ which is the um first Saturday in

2:39:37 ↗ November I'm working on that because I

2:39:40 ↗ recognize that might be a difficult date

2:39:42 ↗ for um some of us um so I will kind of

2:39:46 ↗ seek some feedback in the background but

2:39:49 ↗ middle housing it's great so um with

2:39:53 ↗ that I think we are adjourned at 9:10

2:39:56 ↗ 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