City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, June 16, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Wildfire Evacuation Time Estimate Study COM 0143

60 min · Jared Schneider, Emergency Manager · packet pp.5–235

▶ Watch from 0:57 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The study kicked off in Spring 2024 in response to the increase in wildfire risk in Issaquah and West of the Cascades communities. Evacuation is a crucial life-safety response action during a wildfire. Having a thorough understanding of the situation enables the city to become more efficient in its emergency response and plan for long-term improvements to permanently expedite evacuation. The results of the study will be used to update the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan to reflect the best practices identified through the study.

2027-2032 Capital Improvement Plan COM 0102

45 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.237–444

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 1:08:38 Open packet at p.237 ↗

Staff report:

The Council directs the Administration to bring this item to a vote at the June 23 Regular City Council Meeting.

3068 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ Yeah,

0:07 ↗ there we go.

0:10 ↗ See,

0:12 ↗ good. Here we go. Welcome everyone. I,

0:15 ↗ Deputy Council President Barbara D.

0:17 ↗ Michelle, call the June 16th committee

0:19 ↗ of the whole meeting to order at 6 PM.

0:22 ↗ Council President Walsh is with us

0:25 ↗ remotely this evening.

0:27 ↗ Thank you for being here. And as a

0:29 ↗ reminder, we continue to have a remote

0:32 ↗ aspect to our meetings. Both staff and

0:35 ↗ members of the of the public may be

0:37 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting

0:38 ↗ remotely via WebEx.

0:41 ↗ There are multiple public comment

0:44 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting.

0:46 ↗ First, there is a general public comment

0:48 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:50 ↗ meeting. Or second, you can make

0:52 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:55 ↗ council question and answer period on

0:57 ↗ tonight agenda items. Members of the

1:00 ↗ public may address council at this time

1:02 ↗ in person or virtually. Those who signed

1:05 ↗ up in advance to make comments will be

1:07 ↗ called on first. If you are joining us

1:10 ↗ virtually and would like to make

1:11 ↗ comments, please raise your virtual

1:13 ↗ hand. If you are on the phone, press

1:16 ↗ star three. If you had joined by

1:18 ↗ computer or smartphone, look for a hand

1:21 ↗ icon or send the host a chat message. If

1:24 ↗ you are in the room and did not sign up,

1:26 ↗ I will ask for other speakers before

1:28 ↗ closing this portion of the meeting. I

1:31 ↗ will wait for a moment to see if anyone

1:33 ↗ wishes to raise their hand.

1:39 ↗ Clerk, has anyone signed up to speak or

1:41 ↗ indicated a desire to speak this

1:42 ↗ evening? Yes.

1:45 ↗ Thank you. I will read the guidelines.

1:49 ↗ You are invited to address the council

1:50 ↗ regarding matters that are directly

1:52 ↗ related to isquest programs, projects,

1:54 ↗ services, or events. Comments related to

1:57 ↗ political campaigns are not permitted.

2:00 ↗ Please direct comments to the whole

2:01 ↗ council and not to individuals. While

2:04 ↗ this is not a question question and

2:06 ↗ answer session, we will contact you to

2:08 ↗ follow up if needed. When recognized,

2:12 ↗ unmute your microphone for virtual

2:14 ↗ attendees or step up to the lectern in

2:18 ↗ the in-person attendees and there is a

2:21 ↗ uh button up there to press and it will

2:23 ↗ turn the microphone red. State your

2:26 ↗ name, address, and relationship to the

2:28 ↗ city. Speak clearly and pause frequently

2:31 ↗ and comments are limited to 5 minutes.

2:34 ↗ If you are attending virtually and do

2:36 ↗ not respond after your name or phone

2:37 ↗ number is called or if your connection

2:39 ↗ is lost unexpectedly, the meeting will

2:42 ↗ need to proceed. You are encouraged to

2:44 ↗ rejoin the meeting if able. Personal

2:47 ↗ attacks, obscene language, derogatory

2:50 ↗ remarks, and disruptive behavior will

2:52 ↗ not be permitted. Uh, clerk, can you

2:55 ↗ identify the first person who has signed

2:57 ↗ up to speak? Yes, Brad Finood.

3:08 ↗ Okay. And Brad, press the button and it

3:10 ↗ will turn the microphone red. There you

3:12 ↗ go. Uh, thank you for having me. My name

3:14 ↗ is Brad Fine. Good for the record. Um,

3:17 ↗ and I live up on Forest Drive, uh, just

3:20 ↗ up the hill from here. Thank you for

3:22 ↗ having me today. Before I get into what

3:24 ↗ I wanted to talk about, first of all, my

3:26 ↗ apologies. When I walked out of the

3:28 ↗ house, uh I did not actually intend to

3:31 ↗ come to the council meeting. I was

3:32 ↗ taking my dog for a walk until I

3:33 ↗ realized that the shield that I was

3:35 ↗ wearing, uh, you know, represents a

3:39 ↗ different city. Um, I am here, um, you

3:43 ↗ know, I've been a resident of Esqua for

3:45 ↗ 11 years and I know, uh, many of you and

3:49 ↗ I, um, and I've, uh, been in contact

3:52 ↗ with a lot of you throughout the years

3:54 ↗ um, due to due to my work. 99% of the

3:57 ↗ time when I state that I'm from Isqua,

4:00 ↗ I'm extremely proud that I'm from

4:02 ↗ Isiqua. I love it here. The community is

4:05 ↗ beautiful. Nature is beautiful. Schools

4:07 ↗ are beautiful. All three of my kids went

4:08 ↗ to school here. I'm here today though um

4:11 ↗ on on something that I'm actually not

4:13 ↗ really proud about.

4:15 ↗ So, um it was brought to my attention

4:17 ↗ that two people died in the city jail

4:19 ↗ fentanyl overdose or or fentanyl

4:21 ↗ withdrawal. I I actually don't know the

4:23 ↗ answer to that. and that the city came

4:25 ↗ up with a $5.5 million payout according

4:28 ↗ to Cascade PBS. Um this um this startles

4:33 ↗ me for a number of reasons. Number one,

4:35 ↗ as a taxpaying citizen of the city of

4:37 ↗ Isqua,

4:39 ↗ um that's either my tax money or that's

4:42 ↗ uh my money that I paid into taxes that

4:44 ↗ have gone into risk pool or into into um

4:48 ↗ into insurance, all those type of

4:49 ↗ things. Um, but really why it saddens me

4:52 ↗ is because we had two people die under

4:53 ↗ our care of a preventable death. Um, as

4:59 ↗ in addition to being a resident of the

5:00 ↗ city professionally, um, I am in uh, my

5:03 ↗ day job, that's not how I'm here now,

5:05 ↗ but I'm in charge of overdose prevention

5:07 ↗ for all of King County. It it it saddens

5:11 ↗ me that in the city that I live in, that

5:13 ↗ we had two people die underneath our

5:15 ↗ care that was extremely preventable. And

5:17 ↗ when I mean preventable, it's a very pre

5:20 ↗ preventable death.

5:22 ↗ Um I am a national leader in overdose

5:26 ↗ prevention and I bring that to you as a

5:29 ↗ tool knowing that the work that happens

5:31 ↗ in our county is uh shared with the city

5:34 ↗ of Isqua and that we are able to work

5:37 ↗ together to make sure that these types

5:38 ↗ of things don't happen under our care.

5:41 ↗ And I bring that as a resident. I bring

5:43 ↗ that um as an uh in in the in my in my

5:48 ↗ professional role too. My questions to

5:51 ↗ you are what policies are changing in

5:53 ↗ the jail as a result of that.

5:57 ↗ I um I urge you to have a briefing in

6:00 ↗ front of council to understand that. I

6:02 ↗ understand that uh corrections uh

6:04 ↗ healthcare is a really difficult

6:06 ↗ situation sometimes and I'm not saying

6:08 ↗ it's not but I am saying that this is

6:10 ↗ preventable.

6:12 ↗ Um, I also believe that we have a human

6:15 ↗ service commission here in Isqua that

6:17 ↗ should be able to look at this and take

6:18 ↗ this up and come up with some best

6:20 ↗ practices. Um, and I again offer myself

6:24 ↗ up to you as a resource. When I say I'm

6:27 ↗ a national expert, it's pretty easy to

6:29 ↗ figure it's it's pretty easy to find me.

6:32 ↗ Um, and I just want to close by saying

6:35 ↗ that it's much easier for us to do this

6:38 ↗ before anybody else dies. Nobody else

6:40 ↗ has to die under our care. I'm the

6:43 ↗ survivor of a brother that died of an

6:45 ↗ overdose. So, those two people that died

6:47 ↗ under our care are somebody's kids.

6:50 ↗ There's a possibility that they're

6:51 ↗ somebody's parents and there's a

6:53 ↗ possibility that they're somebody's

6:54 ↗ siblings.

6:56 ↗ If we don't if we don't and can't handle

6:58 ↗ this willingly, then we'll be under a

7:00 ↗ DOJ uh decree or we'll be sued or we'll

7:03 ↗ have another lawsuit on our hands, which

7:05 ↗ is how so many of these jails have moved

7:07 ↗ towards evidence-based treatment. that

7:09 ↗ evidence-based treatment isn't really

7:11 ↗ costly, but it's extremely super

7:13 ↗ effective. And I can't even begin to

7:16 ↗ think about

7:18 ↗ what would be um like the cost

7:21 ↗ differential of us doing it the right

7:22 ↗ way versus losing lives or having to

7:26 ↗ come up with a $5.5 million settlement.

7:29 ↗ Thank you for your time.

7:34 ↗ Thank you. Um, city clerk, is there

7:37 ↗ another um someone else who would like

7:39 ↗ to comment? No, I do see one member of

7:42 ↗ the public with us um electronically,

7:44 ↗ but there's no one indicating a desire

7:46 ↗ to comment. Thank you. Um, thank you for

7:50 ↗ the the comments that we heard regarding

7:52 ↗ uh fentanyl overdoses. Uh, as we said

7:55 ↗ earlier, it's not a question and answer

7:57 ↗ period, but someone can follow up with

7:59 ↗ you, Brad, to tell you the answer to

8:01 ↗ your questions. Thank you.

8:04 ↗ All right, we will go on to our agenda

8:09 ↗ and let me get the number correct. We

8:11 ↗ our first agenda item is COM0143

8:16 ↗ wildfire evacuation time estimate study

8:19 ↗ and it will be presented by Jar Jared

8:21 ↗ Schneider, emergency manager uh for the

8:25 ↗ city of Isiqua.

8:32 ↗ All right.

8:34 ↗ Good evening, council. Just give me one

8:36 ↗ moment while I get my uh screen fired up

8:38 ↗ here.

8:48 ↗ Okay, great. Well, um good evening. It's

8:52 ↗ a pleasure again to be in front of you

8:54 ↗ all to talk about uh this topic that is

8:56 ↗ not only of something important to to me

8:58 ↗ as the emergency manager emermergency

9:01 ↗ manager but us as the community you know

9:03 ↗ here in Isiqua. It's um it's a sensitive

9:05 ↗ topic. It's one that continues to come

9:07 ↗ up unfortunately around our country as

9:09 ↗ um more and more devastating wildfires

9:11 ↗ impact um really the western US. And so

9:15 ↗ um it's also very timely with summer

9:17 ↗ coming up. So, I'm happy to share uh

9:20 ↗ with you all just the results of uh

9:22 ↗ something that you all have had input on

9:23 ↗ and that we've been talking about for

9:25 ↗ quite some time, but it is really just

9:28 ↗ another another start and another um way

9:30 ↗ that we are learning to protect our

9:32 ↗ community through this uh really

9:33 ↗ challenging disaster.

9:38 ↗ So with that, the purpose of today's

9:40 ↗ meeting is to share information on our

9:42 ↗ planning process, the results of the

9:44 ↗ study, and really what we're going to do

9:46 ↗ um now that we have the study in our

9:47 ↗ hands. Um and then we also like to spend

9:50 ↗ some time identifying future evacuation

9:52 ↗ scenarios. And I'll talk a little bit

9:54 ↗ about what that means in a little bit uh

9:56 ↗ to help us deepen our understanding of

9:59 ↗ these of this challenge and ways that we

10:01 ↗ can better protect our community.

10:04 ↗ So the direction needed from council is

10:06 ↗ uh does the city council have additional

10:08 ↗ ideas for wildfire evacuation risk

10:10 ↗ reduction scenarios that the

10:12 ↗ administration should consider?

10:15 ↗ So to set the table, first I want to

10:17 ↗ talk about western Washington wildfire.

10:20 ↗ Um 30 to 40% of wildfires uh in

10:23 ↗ Washington occur on the west side of the

10:25 ↗ Cascade Crest. And if that's a

10:27 ↗ surprising number to you, that was

10:29 ↗ actually surprising to me the first time

10:31 ↗ I read that. Um, you know, the east side

10:33 ↗ of the state is much more known for its

10:36 ↗ wildfires and for its, you know,

10:38 ↗ devastating summers, but really, you

10:40 ↗ know, I bring up this number to show

10:42 ↗ that wildfires, they're happening here,

10:44 ↗ albeit they're much smaller and

10:45 ↗ typically in the form of like brush

10:47 ↗ fires, if you will, but this is a now

10:49 ↗ problem, right? So, this is a this is a

10:51 ↗ a situation that we need to be planning

10:53 ↗ for currently. In terms of our risk, our

10:56 ↗ highest risk is actually in September

10:57 ↗ and early October. And the reason for

11:00 ↗ that, why it's a little bit later than

11:01 ↗ some other parts of the west is that

11:03 ↗ just has given our uh vegetation really

11:05 ↗ ample time to dry out, our snowpack to

11:08 ↗ to really diminish and to really just

11:10 ↗ create the conditions that are more

11:12 ↗ similar to what the east side of the

11:14 ↗ state look like. And that really does

11:16 ↗ come in that September, early October

11:18 ↗ time frame. We have two types of

11:21 ↗ wildfires that we plan for here on the

11:23 ↗ west side of the Cascades. One is kind

11:25 ↗ of low severity events and these are

11:27 ↗ typically smaller. Not all those

11:29 ↗ climatic conditions are quite right for

11:31 ↗ a wildfire. Yet the the main thing is

11:34 ↗ wind. Uh they're not typically

11:35 ↗ accompanied by like high wind events.

11:38 ↗ And so these fires they can sit they can

11:40 ↗ smolder for sometimes weeks on end

11:42 ↗ honestly just staying up in the canopy

11:44 ↗ kind of burning maybe slowly like

11:46 ↗ inching along. Um and these are these

11:49 ↗ are our most common types of wildfires.

11:50 ↗ Again, 30 40% of these um fires, this is

11:53 ↗ kind of what they look like here on the

11:55 ↗ Western Cascades. Now, the second type

11:58 ↗ of fire that we plan for are these high

12:00 ↗ severity events. And and these events,

12:03 ↗ this is when all those conditions,

12:05 ↗ they're right, they're ripe for fire.

12:06 ↗ And um you know, firefighters will kind

12:08 ↗ of describe them as high wind events

12:10 ↗ that happen to have a fire in them

12:12 ↗ really. So, eastern dry winds, low

12:16 ↗ relative humidity, that is like the

12:18 ↗ that's what raises um the the hairs on

12:21 ↗ our back, you know, of our neck, right?

12:22 ↗ Is those types of events for wildfire.

12:24 ↗ That's really what we look for here in

12:26 ↗ Western Washington cuz if we get those

12:29 ↗ um as you all know, our forests are full

12:32 ↗ of fuel, right? There's the potential

12:34 ↗ for them to burn. Most of the times they

12:37 ↗ don't, right? But if the conditions are

12:38 ↗ right, there is ample ample supply.

12:42 ↗ So with that, I just wanted to highlight

12:44 ↗ too where is our wildfire risk going.

12:47 ↗ And uh this probably doesn't surprise

12:49 ↗ you, but it is going up. So the annual

12:51 ↗ days of extreme fire danger in western

12:54 ↗ Washington are increasing from 16 is

12:56 ↗ about where we're at right now. And

12:58 ↗ we're projecting in 2040 and 2069 to

13:01 ↗ have about 24 extreme wildfire uh danger

13:04 ↗ days. And so again, those are days,

13:06 ↗ right, where things have dried out, it's

13:07 ↗ hot, low relative humidity. So those are

13:10 ↗ our high-risisk days. So our risk is

13:13 ↗ increasing.

13:15 ↗ So let's talk about now um the wildfire

13:17 ↗ evacuation time estimate study. Um so

13:20 ↗ the wildfire evacuation time estimate

13:22 ↗ study is really made up of three main

13:24 ↗ factors. One, it's a time to start your

13:27 ↗ trip. And so this is fed by community

13:29 ↗ information. I'll talk a little bit

13:30 ↗ about that community survey in just a

13:32 ↗ moment. The second is estimating the

13:34 ↗ amount of traffic. So like how many cars

13:35 ↗ are on the road in any given moment,

13:37 ↗ right? In a in an evacuation. And then

13:40 ↗ the third is a transportation network,

13:42 ↗ right? So actually understanding our

13:44 ↗ infrastructure um and how vehicles

13:46 ↗ travel on it and what this what it would

13:49 ↗ look like utilizing our current

13:50 ↗ infrastructure for an evacuation. And

13:53 ↗ all that turns into an evacuation time

13:55 ↗ estimate study. So a couple things. Um

13:59 ↗ the evacuation time estimate study is is

14:01 ↗ the time that it takes for people to

14:03 ↗ leave the city of Isqua. It's not the

14:05 ↗ time that it takes for people to get to

14:06 ↗ safe shelter. Right? So there's a

14:08 ↗ distinction there. This is to exit city

14:10 ↗ boundaries. Uh next, it accounts for the

14:12 ↗ number of buses to pair transit needs

14:15 ↗ for schools, assisted living, and the

14:16 ↗ homeless community. So we did factor in

14:18 ↗ that population as well too. And then it

14:21 ↗ also estimates a 13% shadow evacuation

14:24 ↗ from areas not directly inside of Isiqua

14:27 ↗ um but people that may leave you know

14:29 ↗ for for a wildfire that may impact us in

14:32 ↗ our evacuation too. And and just because

14:34 ↗ it was brought up by council member

14:35 ↗ Jiang um too, you know, there is

14:37 ↗ intentions of having a countywide um

14:41 ↗ wildfire uh evacuation time estimate

14:43 ↗ study right now um as part of their

14:45 ↗ community wildfire protection planning

14:47 ↗ process. Um, right now there is no

14:50 ↗ countywide plan happening, but um, it is

14:52 ↗ something hopefully that will happen

14:53 ↗ eventually, right? And that would really

14:55 ↗ be descriptive of that large like mega

14:57 ↗ fire, if you will, right? That very

14:59 ↗ large stand replacing hundreds of

15:01 ↗ thousands to million acres fires, right?

15:03 ↗ But but this plan is specifically for us

15:05 ↗ here in Isqua, right? Because that's

15:06 ↗ that's really our scope for for this

15:08 ↗ study.

15:10 ↗ Um, okay. So, to talk about where we've

15:12 ↗ been and where we are now. So, in spring

15:14 ↗ of last year, we kicked off the study.

15:17 ↗ um with uh the contractor who conducted

15:19 ↗ this study uh coming out and driving the

15:22 ↗ roads and virtually building our

15:24 ↗ transportation network in a simulation.

15:26 ↗ Um that's that's how they model it is uh

15:29 ↗ through a virtual space. Uh they marked

15:31 ↗ everything down like every road sign,

15:33 ↗ traffic signal timings, speeds that it

15:36 ↗ takes to travel roundabouts and the

15:38 ↗ like. It's a very detailed uh process. I

15:41 ↗ should say too um this this engineering

15:43 ↗ firm has been in this business for about

15:46 ↗ um I think about 20 years doing this

15:48 ↗ type of work. They actually started um

15:50 ↗ modeling evacuations for nuclear reactor

15:52 ↗ accidents after the 5mile incident in

15:54 ↗ New York. Um it became a mandate that

15:57 ↗ evacuations um be estimated and and

16:00 ↗ planned for a little bit um and more in

16:02 ↗ depth. And so this software that fed our

16:05 ↗ study um is really kind of the the next

16:08 ↗ level of that uh type of simulation. and

16:10 ↗ they're applying it to wildfire. And so,

16:12 ↗ um, that is kind of their background if

16:14 ↗ if that's helpful information.

16:17 ↗ In summer 2024, we conducted a community

16:19 ↗ survey where we asked, um, residents

16:21 ↗ some key information that would help us

16:23 ↗ understand how many vehicles they had

16:26 ↗ and how long it would take people to get

16:28 ↗ ready to evacuate. We had over 380

16:31 ↗ respondents to that survey, which is a

16:32 ↗ pretty good turnout. Um but again that

16:35 ↗ information feeds right just like how

16:37 ↗ long it takes people to get ready which

16:39 ↗ is really important in a little bit and

16:40 ↗ we'll talk about that more. Uh in the

16:42 ↗ fall of 2024 we um were doing some data

16:45 ↗ gathering and so the types of data that

16:47 ↗ we were looking for was the number of

16:49 ↗ buses that we have in King County, the

16:52 ↗ number of school children that ride

16:53 ↗ buses home. um the number of population

16:56 ↗ of our assisted living facilities,

16:58 ↗ things like that, and and involving our

16:59 ↗ school district um really intimately in

17:02 ↗ um in that process there. In the spring

17:04 ↗ of this year, we got our draft plan and

17:06 ↗ we developed our first round of

17:08 ↗ evacuation scenarios, which we'll talk

17:10 ↗ about in a little bit, too. And then

17:12 ↗ summer is where we're at now. We have

17:14 ↗ our our finalized evacuation time

17:16 ↗ estimate study, and we are in the

17:18 ↗ process of sharing these results with

17:20 ↗ the community.

17:22 ↗ So to look at the study area, it is

17:26 ↗ as I mentioned um and highlighted on

17:29 ↗ this picture here we have our primary

17:30 ↗ evacuation routes and our secondary

17:33 ↗ evacuation routes. So um it should come

17:35 ↗ as no surprise the main you know

17:37 ↗ thoroughares are primary and the feeder

17:39 ↗ routes are our secondary. Uh take note

17:42 ↗ that this study also included the use of

17:44 ↗ those emergency access roads that we

17:47 ↗ typically have uh gates or ballards

17:49 ↗ blocking. So James Bush is an example of

17:51 ↗ that and then a route that actually

17:53 ↗ links up to Isqua Highlands where they

17:55 ↗ use to develop the neighborhood. Um we

17:57 ↗ have a few different routes that we will

18:00 ↗ open in the event of a wildfire and they

18:02 ↗ were accounted for within this study.

18:06 ↗ So without further ado, here is the

18:08 ↗ results from the from the study. So this

18:10 ↗ is a lot going on on this table. So let

18:13 ↗ me take a moment to kind of discuss on

18:15 ↗ what we're looking at here. So this is

18:18 ↗ the time that it would take um 90% of

18:21 ↗ the population to evacuate the area. So

18:25 ↗ first let's start with that. So why 90%?

18:27 ↗ Why not 100%. Well, in our community

18:30 ↗ survey, we had a wide range of people

18:32 ↗ and their time that it would take them

18:33 ↗ to to get ready to evacuate, right? So I

18:36 ↗ think the longest individual that we had

18:38 ↗ through our community survey that said

18:39 ↗ that they'd be ready for it would take

18:41 ↗ them 4 hours to evacuate, right? And so

18:44 ↗ that amount of time that it takes for

18:46 ↗ that person to be ready to evacuate

18:48 ↗ exceeds like the amount of congestion if

18:50 ↗ you will right on the traffic route,

18:52 ↗ right? So 90% is a much more um it's a

18:56 ↗ much more representative number of the

18:58 ↗ actual reality for for most people when

19:01 ↗ we talk about evacuation.

19:03 ↗ So we have a few different times in

19:06 ↗ which we modeled. So we have a summer

19:08 ↗ and a fall scenario. Really the big

19:10 ↗ difference there is in the summer we

19:12 ↗ have schools out you know no no no no

19:15 ↗ classes but also visitors coming in to

19:17 ↗ our many parks something that we also

19:19 ↗ collected data for and then in fall you

19:21 ↗ know we don't have the visitors as much

19:23 ↗ but what we have is school right so

19:25 ↗ that's really the two big differences

19:27 ↗ between those seasonal categories then

19:30 ↗ um much like uh much like the seasons we

19:33 ↗ also have different times of days and

19:34 ↗ the weekend right and really that's to

19:36 ↗ account for are people home when this

19:38 ↗ happens is it a work day. Um, are kids

19:41 ↗ at home or not? Right? So, that's really

19:42 ↗ the difference between the weekend

19:45 ↗ midday, midweek, evening, and midweek

19:47 ↗ midday. So, um, that's how you can kind

19:50 ↗ of read the top portion of this table.

19:52 ↗ And then on the left, what you see is

19:54 ↗ these, uh, breakdowns of these response

19:56 ↗ areas that we have. Um, they're just

19:59 ↗ really groupings of neighborhoods. Um,

20:01 ↗ in a second, my next slide is actually

20:03 ↗ the neighborhood specific times. And so

20:05 ↗ I'm going to go ahead and just tab there

20:06 ↗ now because I think that's mostly how we

20:08 ↗ operate, right? So in like on average

20:12 ↗ the the the most common time that it

20:14 ↗ would take for our neighborhoods

20:16 ↗ individually to evacuate is somewhere

20:18 ↗ around 2 hours to 2 hours 5 minutes. And

20:21 ↗ all city evacuation it would take about

20:23 ↗ 2 hours and 20 minutes for 90% of the

20:25 ↗ population. But really um Esqua

20:28 ↗ Highlands is the one that stands out

20:29 ↗ there at 2 hours and 50 minutes. So,

20:32 ↗ Esqua Highlands is by far our uh most

20:35 ↗ challenging neighborhood to evacuate and

20:38 ↗ due to its density and just limited

20:40 ↗ number of egress routes, it it is

20:42 ↗ conducive there to be, you know, uh

20:45 ↗ large congestions and bottlenecks in

20:46 ↗ that neighborhood.

20:50 ↗ So, with that, we're going to to take a

20:52 ↗ look now at what um what the city looks

20:55 ↗ like during an evacuation. So, um here,

20:58 ↗ if you've ever used Google Maps, it's

21:00 ↗ kind of similar, right? You can kind of

21:01 ↗ see the red is the area where there's

21:02 ↗ congestion. Yellow it's kind of like a

21:04 ↗ little bit of stop and go and green is

21:06 ↗ just like free flow of traffic. So this

21:09 ↗ map shows what is looks like at 15

21:12 ↗ minutes after we say okay you know an

21:14 ↗ evacuation has been ordered right and so

21:17 ↗ uh the city already has some traffic on

21:19 ↗ it. So the the study itself doesn't

21:22 ↗ account like empty roadways when we

21:24 ↗ began right cuz that's just not

21:25 ↗ realistic in most of our scenarios. So,

21:28 ↗ as you can see on this map, you know,

21:29 ↗ it's mostly the day-to-day traffic and

21:32 ↗ the very very prepared individuals who

21:34 ↗ are ready to leave um at a moment's

21:37 ↗ notice really. And so, um take note the

21:40 ↗ main areas where there's congestion is

21:42 ↗ East Lake Samish East Lake Samish

21:45 ↗ Parkway and a little bit downtown in the

21:47 ↗ valley and kind of around the I90

21:49 ↗ on-ramp, which is pretty reflective,

21:51 ↗ right? if you're driving around town on

21:52 ↗ any given day at 30 minutes is when

21:56 ↗ things start to um really get more

21:58 ↗ congested in our downtown corridor and

22:00 ↗ also around Costco. So Costco is another

22:03 ↗ um area that we found in this study that

22:05 ↗ it gets congested very very quickly due

22:07 ↗ to their parking garages and just the

22:09 ↗ the limited numbers of routes that they

22:11 ↗ have out of Costco too. So that's

22:12 ↗ another special consideration we'll talk

22:13 ↗ a little bit more later. Um if you look

22:16 ↗ at our neighborhoods right you start to

22:17 ↗ see Isqua Highlands is starting to get a

22:19 ↗ little bit of traffic. Um, but again,

22:21 ↗ it's nothing it's nothing too immense.

22:24 ↗ One hour is when things really start to

22:26 ↗ slow down in gridlock around the city.

22:29 ↗ So, SR900 becomes completely jammed up.

22:32 ↗ Isqua Hobart Road Southeast becomes very

22:35 ↗ congested. East Lake Seamish Parkway,

22:37 ↗ and of course, the Highlands.

22:40 ↗ At an hour 30, that's much the same.

22:43 ↗ You'll note that the main change though

22:45 ↗ is some of the traffic up in our other

22:47 ↗ neighborhoods besides Highlands are

22:48 ↗ actually starting to clear up around an

22:50 ↗ hour and a half. Um, now all the major

22:53 ↗ ways outside of the city are still quite

22:55 ↗ congested, but the neighborhoods start

22:57 ↗ to clear up. Again, the exception being

22:59 ↗ uh Isqua Highlands

23:01 ↗ 2 hours it's much the same. As you see,

23:04 ↗ if you'll recall from our table, most of

23:06 ↗ the neighborhoods at this point um 90%

23:08 ↗ of people have been able to evacuate,

23:10 ↗ right? But Isqua Highlands is still is

23:13 ↗ still quite congested. 2 hours and 30

23:16 ↗ minutes looks similar. It's starting to

23:18 ↗ ease up a little bit in Highlands in the

23:20 ↗ Highlands. And of course at uh 3 hours

23:22 ↗ um is when pretty much everything is is

23:25 ↗ cleared up. So Jared, I think we have

23:26 ↗ some questions about the maps. So

23:28 ↗ Council Member Hall, just a really quick

23:30 ↗ clarifying question. Thank you for this.

23:32 ↗ Um this is all under the assumption that

23:34 ↗ only is residents are being asked to

23:37 ↗ evacuate. Is that right? that and 13% of

23:40 ↗ like Samish and unincorporated King

23:42 ↗ County and Soqami and a few others. So

23:44 ↗ there is a 13% shadow uh evacuation is

23:47 ↗ what they call it. So yeah. Okay. Cuz

23:50 ↗ like I'm I'm even starting to think like

23:52 ↗ downstream I90 like when you get into

23:55 ↗ East Gate like what kind of impact is

23:56 ↗ that going to have here? So that is

23:58 ↗ accounted for in this 13% shadow. Okay.

24:01 ↗ Yeah. Um I I believe I shared the study

24:04 ↗ with everyone. Um, but if you can see

24:06 ↗ back in that document, the shadow

24:07 ↗ evacuation region is actually quite

24:09 ↗ large. Um, it accounts, I think, for I

24:12 ↗ think 50,000 odd vehicles that are not

24:14 ↗ isqua related onto the roadways. So,

24:17 ↗ it's it's a pretty representative um

24:20 ↗ number of what I think we could expect.

24:21 ↗ And again, you know, this is a this is a

24:24 ↗ scient scientifically vetted process,

24:26 ↗ right? This is something that um is kind

24:28 ↗ of an industry standard. So, I I don't

24:30 ↗ necessarily know where that 13% number

24:32 ↗ comes from, but I it seems to be a best

24:34 ↗ practice. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Great.

24:38 ↗ Okay. Anyone else? Yeah. Oh, uh, Council

24:40 ↗ Member Jen, um, one question I had was,

24:44 ↗ you know, in this scenario, what's the

24:46 ↗ likely direction of evacuation? cuz I

24:48 ↗ see on the map, you know, it shows

24:50 ↗ traffic on SR900 is Quoba Road and Duthy

24:53 ↗ Hill Road, but those all seem to,

24:55 ↗ especially Duthy Hill Road seems to be

24:56 ↗ going in the direction of more forests.

24:59 ↗ Um, so have we modeled, you know, oh,

25:02 ↗ actually if there's a fire on Tiger

25:03 ↗ Mountain, you probably don't want to be

25:04 ↗ driving right past it on Isqua Road and

25:06 ↗ would be evacuating in a different

25:08 ↗ direction. How would that affect things?

25:10 ↗ Yeah, that's that's a great question.

25:11 ↗ And so what I should say is what you're

25:13 ↗ seeing today, right, is is this is

25:15 ↗ really our best case scenario honestly

25:17 ↗ in terms of evacuation, right? This is

25:19 ↗ if every route is available and you know

25:22 ↗ traffic is actually able to flow. Um you

25:25 ↗ think of the LA wildfires where there

25:26 ↗ was issues with you know vehicles that

25:28 ↗ were stalled and had to be cleared with

25:29 ↗ like bulldozers and the like, right? Um

25:32 ↗ and that would obviously very much

25:33 ↗ impact our evacuation if certain routes

25:35 ↗ get um congested or cut off or in the

25:38 ↗ case that we can't even use certain

25:40 ↗ routes. So when we get to the scenarios,

25:42 ↗ we actually had kind of a rationale for

25:45 ↗ not modeling those situations first. Um

25:47 ↗ instead, I'll share with you the ones

25:48 ↗ that we did before that, but I can go

25:50 ↗ into that a little bit more and talk

25:52 ↗ about why we chose not to model blocked

25:55 ↗ individual routes um for our first wave

25:57 ↗ of scenarios.

26:00 ↗ Okay, any other questions?

26:02 ↗ Okay. Okay.

26:06 ↗ So um to highlight some of the key

26:07 ↗ findings of which there's many this is a

26:09 ↗ very rich document and one that we are

26:12 ↗ still digesting honestly um here on the

26:14 ↗ administration side but Newport Way

26:16 ↗ northwest lakes Seamish Parkway

26:19 ↗ southeast

26:20 ↗ lakes Samishamish Parkway is Pine Lake

26:22 ↗ Road southeast and southeast Isqua fall

26:25 ↗ city road they all have roundabouts um

26:27 ↗ kind of at the edges of our cities and

26:29 ↗ and those impede rapid evacuation um

26:33 ↗ because there's a minimum or a maximum

26:35 ↗ amount of speed that you can use to

26:36 ↗ travel around them safely. So, um those

26:40 ↗ routes in particular are a little bit

26:42 ↗ more governed by those roundabouts and

26:43 ↗ the speed that we can move people um

26:45 ↗ than necessarily even the uh the uh the

26:48 ↗ the capacity of the roadway, which I

26:50 ↗ thought was very very interesting.

26:53 ↗ Front Street and SR900 are the only two

26:55 ↗ routes that they describe as ones that

26:57 ↗ are available for rapid evacuation. That

26:59 ↗ means ones that, you know, we could just

27:01 ↗ like quickly, you know, have all the the

27:03 ↗ the lights timed and the likes uh lights

27:05 ↗ timed in a way that we could quickly

27:07 ↗ move people in one direction, but again,

27:09 ↗ those go through some of our highest

27:10 ↗ prone wildfire areas. So, there's a

27:13 ↗ chance that they may not be able to be

27:14 ↗ usable um in a wildfire. And then

27:16 ↗ lastly, this one comes as no surprise,

27:18 ↗ but I90 quickly becomes congested.

27:23 ↗ So we talked about um accounting for the

27:25 ↗ needs of people who do not have access

27:27 ↗ to um vehicles. And so here in this

27:30 ↗ table you see a summary of the

27:32 ↗ transportation uh resources required

27:34 ↗ broken into subcategories of the types

27:36 ↗ of people who may need them. So school

27:38 ↗ transportation um they only need 10

27:41 ↗ buses. And if you're wondering, wow,

27:42 ↗ that seems like a pretty low number,

27:44 ↗ that's because 97% of people in the

27:46 ↗ community said that they would go pick

27:47 ↗ up their kids from school. And I think

27:49 ↗ that seems to hold up um with you know

27:51 ↗ parents and in a situation like this. I

27:53 ↗ think most kind of want to take take

27:55 ↗ that situation into their own control.

27:58 ↗ Uh medical facility transportation

28:00 ↗ needs. You know there's buses,

28:01 ↗ wheelchair buses and ambulances needed.

28:04 ↗ Transit dependent transportation needs.

28:06 ↗ So this accounts for our homeless

28:08 ↗ community but also those who do not have

28:09 ↗ access to a vehicle need 22 buses for

28:12 ↗ there. Oh, correctional facilities.

28:14 ↗ Sorry, I skipped over that to account

28:15 ↗ for the jail. and then access or

28:17 ↗ functional needs. Right? So this is

28:18 ↗ people living in assisted living or

28:20 ↗ other types of situations similar to

28:22 ↗ that. You know there's a there's a large

28:24 ↗ amount of uh buses uh wheelchair buses

28:26 ↗ and ambulances all needed for that

28:28 ↗ category. So there you can kind of see

28:30 ↗ the total number of resources that we

28:32 ↗ would need to to evacuate people out of

28:35 ↗ which it's a sizable number. But this is

28:38 ↗ information that is um really valuable

28:40 ↗ for emergency response, right? Because

28:44 ↗ um in any response, if you go asking for

28:46 ↗ buses, right, or any type of resource,

28:48 ↗ they're going to ask you how many you

28:49 ↗ need. And and you know, we we we know um

28:52 ↗ how many we need. So Jared, I I ask you

28:55 ↗ about the the numbers of parents going

28:57 ↗ to get um their students, and we have

29:01 ↗ such a concentration of schools right

29:03 ↗ here. I think we have five that I can

29:05 ↗ count. And so and you and there's only

29:08 ↗ one road into Clark Elementary and

29:11 ↗ Gibson Act and one road out. So um so

29:16 ↗ did did this study um model the

29:20 ↗ congestion that would occur with all of

29:22 ↗ these parents

29:24 ↗ um coming to get their children? Yeah.

29:26 ↗ So that was that was an area too that we

29:29 ↗ um raised our eyebrow for a stat, right?

29:31 ↗ was do we just know on any given day

29:33 ↗ where there's school pickup right they

29:34 ↗ can grind the city to a halt in his

29:36 ↗ transportation network. So we worked

29:38 ↗ with the contractor to actually model um

29:40 ↗ increased demand on our schools given

29:42 ↗ the fact that we believe you know that

29:44 ↗ will be the first place that people go

29:46 ↗ before they you know prepare their home

29:48 ↗ or do anything else to to get ready for

29:49 ↗ an evacuation. And so the findings or

29:52 ↗ the results of that um I'm going to jump

29:54 ↗ forward a little bit since we're on it.

29:57 ↗ Um so the findings or so for this is for

30:00 ↗ Isqua Middle School and Isqua High

30:02 ↗ School. So um accounting for oh sorry uh

30:07 ↗ yeah I guess I'm starting with Grand

30:08 ↗ Ridge first. So Grand Ridge is another

30:10 ↗ is another school that also has um the

30:12 ↗ congestion there can often times spill

30:14 ↗ over on a park right and create uh just

30:16 ↗ even delays you know on a on a regular

30:18 ↗ day getting around the city. And so

30:20 ↗ accounting for the added demand on

30:22 ↗ schools and the pickup challenges that

30:24 ↗ we have, we see that that bumps up the

30:26 ↗ estimated time for evacuation 15 minutes

30:28 ↗ in the Isqua Highlands. Um, now keep in

30:31 ↗ mind this is the reason why this is like

30:33 ↗ such a valuable study. If you look at

30:34 ↗ the second uh row on this, you'll see

30:37 ↗ that we can actually alleviate that

30:39 ↗ additional demand from pickup by

30:42 ↗ actually forcing um parents to pick up

30:45 ↗ uh their kids on college drive. And so

30:47 ↗ that keeps park clear, right? and people

30:49 ↗ can can more quickly uh transverse that

30:52 ↗ area. So, um that's a that's a really

30:54 ↗ operational good planning, you know, gem

30:57 ↗ that we have right from this study is

30:59 ↗ that we can make a meaningful difference

31:00 ↗ that way. Um and then for more of the

31:04 ↗ schools around here, specifically Isqua

31:05 ↗ High School and Middle School, again,

31:07 ↗ yeah, the increased demand also raised

31:08 ↗ this area's evacuation time by about 15

31:11 ↗ minutes. And so, you know, we weren't

31:13 ↗ able to come up with a positive solution

31:15 ↗ yet for for mitigating against that

31:17 ↗ traffic, but that doesn't mean that we

31:18 ↗ can't. So, all this um I have a meeting

31:21 ↗ with this class school district um in a

31:24 ↗ few weeks to talk about the results of

31:26 ↗ this study and to really develop some

31:29 ↗ next steps on how we can implement some

31:30 ↗ of these uh findings that we have. But

31:33 ↗ great question. Thank you.

31:37 ↗ Okay, great. Um, okay. I I mentioned

31:40 ↗ that, you know, we have employees and

31:42 ↗ people commuting to Isqua, too, right? I

31:44 ↗ I just wanted to take a moment to

31:46 ↗ highlight um that it isn't just Isqua

31:48 ↗ residents that we're accounting for,

31:49 ↗ too, right? It's also our many many

31:50 ↗ employees. I I talked about Costco and

31:52 ↗ the challenges that they have evacuating

31:55 ↗ out of um out of their parking garages

31:57 ↗ just due to the constraint nature of uh

32:00 ↗ of the roads around there. And so they

32:02 ↗ are also going to be engaging with us

32:04 ↗ too to see if there are some creative

32:05 ↗ solutions that we can come up with to to

32:07 ↗ help reduce that stress.

32:12 ↗ Talking about why this information

32:14 ↗ matters to the public. Um these are two

32:16 ↗ curves that you see on this slide. One

32:19 ↗ is the amount the percentage of like the

32:21 ↗ amount of trips that have been generated

32:23 ↗ and then also the estimated uh time for

32:26 ↗ evacuation. And so you'll look right if

32:29 ↗ you are ready and you and your household

32:30 ↗ are ready within 30 minutes um your time

32:34 ↗ is going to be significantly less right

32:37 ↗ um getting outside of Isiqua.

32:38 ↗ Preparedness is going to be one of our

32:41 ↗ key messages, you know, following the

32:43 ↗ study is getting this information to the

32:44 ↗ hands of our community. You know, we

32:46 ↗ need to make sure that people don't have

32:48 ↗ threehour times, right, to be to get um

32:51 ↗ their to get their household moving. You

32:53 ↗ know, if if that's the situation, it's

32:55 ↗ just um it's much more more bleak in a

32:58 ↗ wildfire, right? So, we want to

32:59 ↗ encourage personal preparedness and

33:02 ↗ really the results show, right, how much

33:04 ↗ uh how much better it will be for that

33:05 ↗ travel time.

33:08 ↗ Another key message that we're rolling

33:09 ↗ out to the community is um really

33:11 ↗ consolidating the the number of vehicles

33:14 ↗ that we're going to take in an

33:15 ↗ evacuation, right? And a little bit of

33:17 ↗ this is also butdding up against human

33:19 ↗ nature, right? But if you'll look, 66%

33:22 ↗ of our respondents said they would take

33:23 ↗ one vehicle, two said they would take

33:25 ↗ about 28% and three uh 3.7% said they

33:28 ↗ would take three or more. um if we can

33:31 ↗ right if we can fit if we can encourage

33:33 ↗ people to fit you know all their family

33:35 ↗ into one vehicle that's a message that

33:37 ↗ we're going to try to bring right

33:38 ↗ because that reduces our congestion.

33:40 ↗ Similarly, we also really want to

33:41 ↗ encourage car pooling, right? Or if you

33:43 ↗ have a neighbor who doesn't have access

33:46 ↗ to a car or a vehicle, right? Like

33:48 ↗ please, please grab them um and bring

33:50 ↗ them along in your car because you saw

33:52 ↗ the number of buses that we needed,

33:54 ↗ right? That's a very challenging number

33:56 ↗ that um it'll take quite some time to

33:59 ↗ get um King County Metro and Sound

34:01 ↗ Transit to actually dispatch uh to that

34:03 ↗ volume right out here. So, so some of

34:05 ↗ those actions, right, like car pooling,

34:07 ↗ minimizing our our amount of vehicles

34:09 ↗ that we're taking is is really key for

34:10 ↗ our community.

34:13 ↗ Um, really the bottom line though out of

34:15 ↗ everything, it's it's a capacity issue

34:17 ↗ right here in Isqua. And, you know, I

34:19 ↗ know um that has been a common theme and

34:22 ↗ something that's come up continuously,

34:24 ↗ right, in the city in other ways, not

34:26 ↗ even just wildfire evacuation, right?

34:28 ↗ Um, traffic and congestion is a major

34:30 ↗ concern in the community and for our

34:32 ↗ wildfire evacuation, it's uh it's a

34:34 ↗ similar limiting factor for us.

34:39 ↗ So, let's talk a little bit now about

34:40 ↗ what we're going to do about it, right?

34:42 ↗ We jumped forward a little bit, but um I

34:45 ↗ said that we have um these scenarios

34:47 ↗ that we can model. And so effectively

34:49 ↗ what these scenarios are are ways that

34:51 ↗ we can tweak that virtual model that was

34:54 ↗ built by the contractor to really change

34:57 ↗ the results that we get out of the

34:59 ↗ model. And so the way that we decided

35:02 ↗ that this for this first wave that we

35:03 ↗ decided um what we were going to focus

35:05 ↗ in on is situations that could really

35:08 ↗ improve improve things in Isiqua. And

35:12 ↗ when we were talking around the table

35:13 ↗ with our planning group about closing

35:15 ↗ certain routes and and you know kind of

35:18 ↗ um modeling that change, we we already

35:22 ↗ know in some ways what's what it's going

35:24 ↗ to look like. We don't have the exact

35:25 ↗ time, but we know it's going to be

35:26 ↗ worse, right? And that's just intuitive.

35:29 ↗ And so instead, we thought that we would

35:31 ↗ spend our first um our first wave of

35:33 ↗ scenarios on is more investing in things

35:35 ↗ that we hope will improve evacuations in

35:38 ↗ the long term. Now there's a lot of

35:41 ↗ value in understanding you know the the

35:43 ↗ more worst case scenarios right but we

35:46 ↗ know too that there's um probably equal

35:48 ↗ amount of value in understanding if not

35:50 ↗ more in understanding the things that we

35:51 ↗ can do to to actually help our community

35:54 ↗ right in a permanent way. So that is our

35:57 ↗ rationale for the first wave of

35:58 ↗ scenarios and um again at the end of

36:01 ↗ this would love to discuss if there's

36:02 ↗ more that you all have ideas for.

36:05 ↗ So, um, I want to talk about near-term

36:07 ↗ risk reduction first. And so, the

36:09 ↗ scenarios are a little bit baked into

36:10 ↗ these slides, too. So, I'll highlight

36:12 ↗ them when we get to them. So, these are

36:14 ↗ the things that we're doing in the short

36:15 ↗ term, right, to to immediately reduce

36:17 ↗ our risk. So, we talked about the

36:19 ↗ schools, so skip past that. Um we have a

36:24 ↗ city uh evacuation exercise coming up

36:26 ↗ where we're actually going to apply the

36:27 ↗ learnings of from this study um in a

36:30 ↗ simulated way right to make sure that

36:33 ↗ our response and our responders are

36:35 ↗ prepared for an evacuation. And uh to

36:38 ↗ this effect it's not just the city of

36:39 ↗ Isqua who's participating in this. We

36:40 ↗ have Eastside Fire and Rescue, Costco,

36:42 ↗ Isqua School District and and many more.

36:45 ↗ Um Gary Gold might even participate too.

36:47 ↗ And so again, you know, the hope is that

36:50 ↗ we take a more um all-encompassing

36:52 ↗ approach to this exercise, that we make

36:54 ↗ sure that we're bringing a lot of people

36:55 ↗ to the table. But, you know, this will

36:57 ↗ be the first time I think that we'll

36:58 ↗ we'll really take a look at these

36:59 ↗ results in the form of an exercise. And

37:02 ↗ I think I'm really curious to see how

37:04 ↗ that plays out. Personally,

37:07 ↗ um we're looking at implementing

37:09 ↗ variable evacuation signs at key

37:11 ↗ locations in the city. So, speaking of

37:13 ↗ routes being closed or um inaccessible,

37:16 ↗ right, the ability to redirect and like

37:19 ↗ provide real-time information to those

37:21 ↗ evacuating is essential um in in a

37:24 ↗ situation like this. And so, uh the sign

37:26 ↗ that you see on the right is an example

37:28 ↗ of a is a sign that we are currently

37:30 ↗ looking at um to potentially to get a

37:33 ↗ little bit more information on if this

37:34 ↗ could be something that we could

37:35 ↗ implement here at the city of Isqua. Um

37:37 ↗ the markers that you see on the left are

37:39 ↗ just potential locations that were

37:40 ↗ identified as as maybe uh spots that

37:42 ↗ would be this would be beneficial for.

37:44 ↗ So again it's mostly though to share if

37:47 ↗ a route is closed, right? That's that's

37:48 ↗ really the main purpose of these. Static

37:50 ↗ evacuation signs um can be a little bit

37:53 ↗ troubling for that reason, right? If you

37:54 ↗ have a static sign that points someone

37:56 ↗ down SR900, but SR900 is blocked off,

38:00 ↗ right? Uh you may end up making uh the

38:02 ↗ situation worse. So that's why variable

38:04 ↗ signs are important there.

38:06 ↗ Um, in terms of community outreach, so

38:08 ↗ we're doing all the standard ones like

38:10 ↗ social media, newsletters, and the

38:12 ↗ likes. We're also in the process of

38:13 ↗ updating our website to re uh to um

38:16 ↗ include the results of this evacuation

38:18 ↗ study again in the hopes of preparing

38:20 ↗ people so they can be um ready to to

38:22 ↗ leave at a moment's notice. Uh we're

38:24 ↗ also going to develop a story map if

38:26 ↗ you're familiar with that product. if

38:28 ↗ you aren't, it's a uh GIS web-based

38:31 ↗ platform um that shows, you know, a map

38:34 ↗ inlaid with pictures and information.

38:36 ↗ And um the hope is that we're going to

38:38 ↗ make neighborhood specific regions in

38:40 ↗ that in that story map to where if you

38:43 ↗ live on Squawk Mountain, right, you can

38:45 ↗ quick click on the Squawk Mountain

38:46 ↗ neighborhood and you can see the

38:48 ↗ directions that you would take, um

38:50 ↗ locations that you um could congregate

38:52 ↗ for uh bus pickup if you don't have

38:54 ↗ access to transportation and as well as

38:56 ↗ just share some other um helpful

38:58 ↗ preparedness information. Uh the thing

39:00 ↗ that you the image that you see on the

39:02 ↗ right is uh a similar product that

39:04 ↗ actually I I made once upon a time for

39:07 ↗ uh the Snowquami Valley Valley for a

39:09 ↗ tool dam failure. Um we they they had

39:12 ↗ desire to do a similar process. So um we

39:15 ↗ hope to emulate something something

39:16 ↗ similar. So um oh the last thing I'll

39:19 ↗ say too about community outreach is uh

39:21 ↗ there's a 4ount initiative going on

39:22 ↗ right now uh called ready site go. And

39:25 ↗ what this is is it's an effort to create

39:28 ↗ one common terminology around

39:30 ↗ evacuation. And so, you know, having our

39:32 ↗ evacuation levels be um shared and not a

39:36 ↗ 321 or 123 instead of ready, set, go. If

39:39 ↗ we can all agree upon that, it'll just

39:41 ↗ make communicating more easy in a

39:44 ↗ wildfire uh for our community. So, we're

39:46 ↗ also taking part in that initiative.

39:49 ↗ Um outreach has already started, I

39:51 ↗ should say. So, uh, we had a lot of fun

39:54 ↗ with East Side Fire and Rescue doing two

39:56 ↗ trivia nights around wildfire. Um, a few

40:00 ↗ weeks ago, um, the image on you see on

40:02 ↗ your left is from, uh, Gas Lamp. Um, we

40:04 ↗ had about 40 people show up to our

40:06 ↗ wildfire trivia night, which is a big

40:08 ↗ success, honestly, for for this type of

40:10 ↗ content. And it was a really, uh, fun,

40:13 ↗ approachable way to engage people in

40:15 ↗ something that can be kind of inherently

40:17 ↗ stressful. And um we got really good

40:19 ↗ feedback um from everyone involved

40:21 ↗ including uh the business itself. They

40:23 ↗ were really happy to have us. So um it

40:26 ↗ was a really fun time. And on the right

40:28 ↗ uh is we were at Formula Brewing uh for

40:30 ↗ the second event and we had uh 27 people

40:32 ↗ show up to that one. And uh fun was had

40:34 ↗ by all. And again, yeah, uh a really

40:37 ↗ good way I think to engage people with

40:39 ↗ this content.

40:41 ↗ We have two documentary screenings um

40:44 ↗ scheduled. So, we're going to be

40:46 ↗ screening uh the the film Living with

40:48 ↗ Wildfire. It's a 45minute film at on

40:52 ↗ June 23rd at the Train Depot and July

40:54 ↗ 15th at Blakeley Hall. Um after the

40:57 ↗ screening of the documentary, we're

40:58 ↗ going to follow it up with a panel of

41:00 ↗ not only local experts, but experts from

41:02 ↗ other parts in Washington, including

41:04 ↗ some firefighters who actually went down

41:05 ↗ to the LA um fires and and and fought

41:08 ↗ them from East Side Fire and Rescue. So,

41:11 ↗ um, there will be an opportunity to

41:12 ↗ share, you know, some of the information

41:14 ↗ that I just shared with you all, but

41:15 ↗ also for the community to ask any other

41:17 ↗ questions that, you know, they might

41:18 ↗ have about wildfires. So, uh, if you're

41:20 ↗ free, please attend. Um, it should be

41:22 ↗ fun.

41:24 ↗ All right, let's talk about long-term

41:26 ↗ risk reduction. So, these are the

41:27 ↗ projects, right, that like will

41:29 ↗ permanently reduce our our wildfire risk

41:32 ↗ in Isiqua.

41:33 ↗ Um, so the first the first set that we

41:36 ↗ really focused on was Isqua Highlands.

41:39 ↗ And the reason for that is because as

41:41 ↗ you all saw, it's really our

41:42 ↗ neighborhood that has by far the highest

41:45 ↗ um ETE, right? So, we wanted to drill

41:48 ↗ down first into that neighborhood to try

41:49 ↗ to implement solutions that would um be

41:51 ↗ effective. So, um we picked three areas

41:55 ↗ where we simulated building new roads to

41:58 ↗ help facilitate an evacuation. So, the

42:00 ↗ first one on the screen here is Grand

42:02 ↗ Ridge Drive to 22nd Avenue Southeast.

42:05 ↗ Um, if you're not familiar with that

42:07 ↗ road, it's the um it's a it's like the

42:10 ↗ high point exit road is where it is. So

42:12 ↗ that would give Isco Highlands more

42:15 ↗ access to I90 through a secondary um

42:17 ↗ route.

42:19 ↗ This next one is Northeast Natalie uh

42:22 ↗ way to southeast old Black Nugget Road.

42:24 ↗ Jerry, yes. Oh, we have a question.

42:28 ↗ I think I've been up that road. It's

42:30 ↗ extremely narrow and extremely steep,

42:33 ↗ right? Yes. Yes. And so it makes James

42:36 ↗ Book James uh uh Bush look like a

42:40 ↗ freeway. Yeah. No. And so I should say

42:43 ↗ too, right, that these so what we didn't

42:45 ↗ necessarily do is like an environmental,

42:47 ↗ you know, sensitivity study or um more

42:50 ↗ than just we we talked about it with

42:52 ↗ some of the public works engineering

42:53 ↗ team to see if there was if it would

42:55 ↗ even be feasible. We believe these

42:57 ↗ routes to be feasible but challenging.

43:00 ↗ So you're right in which it's not uh

43:02 ↗ necessarily high-capacity road, but it

43:04 ↗ is something um that we could consider

43:07 ↗ and um there would be challenges to it

43:09 ↗ of course. And does that orange bit

43:11 ↗ exist currently or no? This would be

43:13 ↗ something if we chose to

43:17 ↗ correct invest in it. All right. Yes.

43:18 ↗ Yeah, that orange that's thank you for

43:20 ↗ highlighting that. That orange bit is

43:22 ↗ what we essentially were building if you

43:24 ↗ will in the model. So that's connecting

43:27 ↗ that Grand Ridge Drive to that to that

43:28 ↗ road that leads to the High Point

43:30 ↗ entrance.

43:32 ↗ Oh, um, Council President Walsh has a

43:35 ↗ question. Yes.

43:37 ↗ Thank you. And on that, would that be an

43:39 ↗ emergency road where you would need to

43:42 ↗ remove the pillar in the middle of it to

43:45 ↗ get access? Yeah, correct. So all these

43:47 ↗ would be just emergency the vision for

43:49 ↗ them at least is all just emergency

43:51 ↗ routes, right? that we would only open

43:52 ↗ up in the event of something like a

43:54 ↗ wildfire. Um, but yeah, great point.

43:58 ↗ And so, do you pull in estimates of how

44:02 ↗ long it's going to take an emergency

44:03 ↗ responder to get up there when everybody

44:05 ↗ is trying to evacuate? Yeah. So, the key

44:08 ↗ there, right, is um we are working with

44:11 ↗ Isqua Police Department since they are

44:13 ↗ always on scene and always on duty to

44:15 ↗ have keys to all of these service roads,

44:18 ↗ the ones that exist and these

44:19 ↗ hypothetical ones as well. So, um, as

44:22 ↗ part of our wildfire evacuation

44:23 ↗ exercise, um, I'm creating standardized

44:26 ↗ checklists to where, you know, if we

44:28 ↗ have a wildfire evacuation, you know,

44:30 ↗ uh, hopefully every IPD officer has a

44:32 ↗ checklist in their in their, uh, vehicle

44:34 ↗ with them that says open up, you know,

44:37 ↗ Grand Ridge Drive to 22nd Avenue

44:39 ↗ Southeast. So it's um the importance of

44:42 ↗ opening up these routes has been shared

44:44 ↗ with uh public works staff with Epher

44:47 ↗ and IPD that this is really it's a high

44:50 ↗ priority right it's maybe the highest

44:52 ↗ priority honestly during during our

44:54 ↗ evacuation

44:56 ↗ and we might also just give those

44:58 ↗ residents keys

45:00 ↗ that are there I mean I I think that you

45:02 ↗ know council president's point is a very

45:04 ↗ valid one and I think you know if we

45:06 ↗ were to pursue something like this I

45:07 ↗ think we would have to look at multiple

45:09 ↗ uh avenues for making that road

45:11 ↗ accessible in an emergency. So, um

45:14 ↗ before moving, I just want to Yeah.

45:16 ↗ Okay. say we're not going to wait for

45:17 ↗ one of the four police officers on duty

45:19 ↗ in the midst of an evacuation to run up

45:21 ↗ there and unlock that. That that may not

45:24 ↗ be the most realistic scenarios. So,

45:25 ↗ we'll we pursue this, we'll come up with

45:28 ↗ more realistic scenarios. Great. Thank

45:30 ↗ you. Council President, do you have any

45:32 ↗ more questions? Okay. Uh Council Marts

45:36 ↗ has a question. Um, does it make things

45:39 ↗ substantially more complicated that this

45:41 ↗ stretch unlike the others that you're

45:43 ↗ talking about are not within the

45:44 ↗ boundaries of the city of Isiqua? Yeah.

45:46 ↗ And so it would require an agreement,

45:49 ↗ right, with the community up there and

45:50 ↗ and I believe that is a private road,

45:52 ↗ right? Yeah. So again, you know, these

45:56 ↗ are there's no golden golden solution,

45:59 ↗ right? But these are challenges that

46:01 ↗ again in the long term we can actually

46:03 ↗ work towards you know if we want to if

46:05 ↗ we want to spend the time and invest in

46:06 ↗ these these are these are potential

46:08 ↗ solutions that could help alleviate our

46:10 ↗ time but again yeah there's just it's

46:12 ↗ it's a challenge right and there's no

46:14 ↗ magical answer unfortunately that'll

46:16 ↗ solve our problem here.

46:20 ↗ Great. Any other questions? Okay. Okay.

46:24 ↗ Great. Thank you. So, uh, the second

46:26 ↗ route that we modeled was northeast

46:28 ↗ Natalie Way to Southeast Old Black

46:29 ↗ Nugget Road. So, um, there's already a

46:32 ↗ roughed in line there from, uh, or road

46:34 ↗ there from, uh, Bonavville Power

46:36 ↗ Administration. So, it, um, conceivably

46:39 ↗ could be pretty easy to just continue

46:41 ↗ connecting that to, uh, Old Blacknugget

46:43 ↗ Road.

46:45 ↗ Then, um, following that same kind of

46:46 ↗ line, uh, from Old Blacknugget Road all

46:49 ↗ the way to southeast Isqua Fall City

46:51 ↗ Road. So, that spans the north fork of

46:53 ↗ the Esqua Creek. And so that kind of

46:56 ↗ connects, you know, um, across the way

46:58 ↗ there, right? Instead of having to

46:59 ↗ filter all the way down through park and

47:01 ↗ and the like, right? You can just cut

47:03 ↗ right across right across to Southeast

47:05 ↗ City Road.

47:08 ↗ So the results of all those routes are

47:11 ↗ showed here on this slide. And so um,

47:14 ↗ Grand Ridge Drive to 220 220 sorry 272nd

47:19 ↗ Avenue. Uh, that's a 35minut um,

47:22 ↗ decrease in evacuation time estimates.

47:24 ↗ So that is a very meaningful change,

47:26 ↗ right? That is a significant uh decrease

47:28 ↗ in time. Uh northeast Natalie Way to

47:31 ↗ southeast to Old Blacknugget Road is 10

47:33 ↗ minutes and then similarly to to

47:36 ↗ southeast Isquafal city road is about 30

47:39 ↗ minutes. So those are all impactful

47:42 ↗ changes um that we could consider and

47:45 ↗ you know could look into further to to

47:47 ↗ reduce our long-term risk of uh impacts

47:49 ↗ of wildfire specifically to the

47:51 ↗ Highlands uh community.

47:55 ↗ Uh the next the next set that we looked

47:57 ↗ at was a Squawk Mountain Loop to

47:59 ↗ Idlewood Drive Southwest. So, uh Forest

48:01 ↗ Rim is one of our communities that is um

48:04 ↗ it only is one way in and one way out.

48:06 ↗ And so that is the type of situation and

48:08 ↗ the type of community that we really

48:10 ↗ want to prioritize and and making sure

48:12 ↗ that there's additional um ways of

48:14 ↗ egress outside of them. Um so we decided

48:17 ↗ to model a route out of that community.

48:20 ↗ Now, you'll notice that the time

48:21 ↗ estimate didn't change, right, as a

48:24 ↗ result of this change. And that's just,

48:26 ↗ you know, due to the the demographic

48:28 ↗ nature, right, of the size of that

48:29 ↗ community compared to the rest of the

48:30 ↗ neighborhood. But, um, the study

48:32 ↗ actually highlighted that the way that

48:34 ↗ it interplayed with some of the other

48:35 ↗ congestion patterns in the city was a

48:37 ↗ more even distribution um that helped

48:39 ↗ minimize some of the bottlenecks in some

48:41 ↗ of the other parts of the city. So, that

48:43 ↗ in itself is worthwhile. And like I

48:46 ↗ said, I mean, any community with one way

48:48 ↗ in and one way out is significantly a

48:49 ↗ challenge. and something that we that we

48:50 ↗ want to take a hard look at.

48:54 ↗ Um, so with that, those were the

48:56 ↗ scenarios that that I mentioned that we

48:57 ↗ modeled. So, I want to talk a little bit

48:59 ↗ about our timing and next steps. And so,

49:02 ↗ uh, this summer I was actually already

49:04 ↗ at the transportation advisory board and

49:06 ↗ I brought this information to and they

49:07 ↗ had some interesting feedback for me.

49:10 ↗ Um, we're going to have our evacuation

49:12 ↗ exercise and really, you know, focus on

49:13 ↗ this community outreach, making sure

49:14 ↗ that we get this information in the

49:16 ↗ hands of our of our community. In fall,

49:18 ↗ we're going to um do a little bit of

49:19 ↗ scoping around those signs and

49:21 ↗ understand if that's a viable solution.

49:23 ↗ And um and if not that, you know,

49:26 ↗ something similar. Of course, uh we hope

49:28 ↗ to do some additional evacuation

49:30 ↗ scenario development in fall as part of

49:31 ↗ a grant opportunity that is available.

49:33 ↗ We can seek some more funding to do um

49:36 ↗ more more modeling with our contractor

49:40 ↗ and then of course start building our

49:42 ↗ story map in the winter. Hopefully we

49:44 ↗ can get those signs installed and then

49:45 ↗ we'll have the results of the additional

49:46 ↗ scenarios.

49:48 ↗ Beyond we have our community wildfire

49:50 ↗ protection plan coming up. Um that is a

49:53 ↗ King County plan of which Epher and the

49:56 ↗ fire departments all annex onto and then

49:58 ↗ within the fire departments were were

50:00 ↗ involved. So um that plan is currently

50:02 ↗ underway. We've had some uh we've had a

50:05 ↗ few planning meetings on it and they're

50:07 ↗ doing a lot of community outreach around

50:08 ↗ that plan currently right now. One thing

50:10 ↗ I want to note is what'll be

50:11 ↗ interesting, um, one of the products of

50:13 ↗ that plan, they they actually model what

50:16 ↗ wildfires will look like in in the

50:18 ↗ region. So, at that point, you know,

50:20 ↗ we've we've modeled what the evacuation

50:22 ↗ will look like, but at the conclusion of

50:24 ↗ that plan, we'll have more information

50:26 ↗ on what a potential wildfire could look

50:27 ↗ like in our community, right? Taking in

50:29 ↗ fact things like the vegetation, the

50:31 ↗ slope, um, just our development and the

50:33 ↗ likes. So, we're we're very interested

50:36 ↗ in the product of that. Um, we're also

50:38 ↗ concluding our hazard mitigation plan.

50:40 ↗ Um, if you're unfamiliar with this plan,

50:42 ↗ it's a five-year plan that um really

50:45 ↗ tells or prescribes like what we're

50:47 ↗ going to do in the long term to reduce

50:48 ↗ our risk. So, of which some of these um

50:51 ↗ some of these road improvements are are

50:54 ↗ going to be included in that plan, but

50:55 ↗ there may be other options outside of

50:57 ↗ improving our evacuation that may be

50:59 ↗ worthwhile for for wildfire. And then

51:02 ↗ finally, yeah, we're going to take a

51:03 ↗ closer look at some of those long-term

51:05 ↗ projects to see again if they're

51:06 ↗ feasible and viable.

51:09 ↗ So, um, with that, uh, does the city

51:11 ↗ council have any additional ideas for

51:13 ↗ wildfire evacuation risk reduction

51:14 ↗ scenarios, uh, that the administration

51:16 ↗ should consider? Great. So, usually we

51:19 ↗ start with questions. Okay. Uh, and let

51:22 ↗ me ask Council President Walsh, is your

51:24 ↗ hand raised from the last time or did

51:26 ↗ you have a question that you wanted to

51:28 ↗ ask? Oh, all good. Okay. Uh, council

51:32 ↗ remarks.

51:34 ↗ Does the city have the plans in place

51:37 ↗ right now what to do if on a day with a

51:41 ↗ high fuel load a fire starts on the far

51:44 ↗ side of Squawk Mountain or the far side

51:46 ↗ of Tiger Mountain? Yeah. So, we we do

51:49 ↗ have a standing evacuation plan. Um,

51:51 ↗ we're currently in the process of

51:52 ↗ refining it with using this study to

51:54 ↗ kind of update it and bring in the

51:56 ↗ newest information. But absolutely, you

51:58 ↗ know, we we will be able to respond

51:59 ↗ effectively um if a wildfire were to

52:01 ↗ start, you know, tomorrow. But um what

52:04 ↗ this does is this really brings us, I

52:06 ↗ think, to a to the next level of our

52:08 ↗ response and it gives us a lot better

52:10 ↗ information to work from.

52:13 ↗ Um just to follow up on that, um

52:18 ↗ do do the plans consider um for instance

52:22 ↗ recommending like um departing on foot

52:26 ↗ versus you know in scenarios in a in a

52:28 ↗ fastmoving fire it might be that the

52:31 ↗ recommendation wouldn't be to evacuate

52:33 ↗ but you reach a point where and I say

52:36 ↗ this of course as someone who lives a

52:37 ↗ thousand feet up squawk um you know

52:40 ↗ there's all sorts of scenarios where you

52:41 ↗ choose just set off on foot down the

52:43 ↗ mountain, right? You know, and we

52:45 ↗ haven't necessarily identified when that

52:47 ↗ is, I think, you know, for communities,

52:49 ↗ right? Or like a trigger where we would

52:51 ↗ recommend something like that. Um, you

52:53 ↗ know, a good a good challenge for us,

52:55 ↗ right? Something that we are actively

52:57 ↗ thinking about is is really trying to

52:58 ↗ prevent the situations in which that has

53:00 ↗ to happen, right? So, you take those LA

53:02 ↗ wildfires, right? And you had people

53:04 ↗ evacuating on foot because traffic got,

53:07 ↗ you know, completely stopped by blocked

53:09 ↗ vehicles. So, so that's something where

53:12 ↗ okay, we take that information and we're

53:14 ↗ like, okay, we need to we need to be

53:16 ↗ sure that we can clear vehicles that are

53:18 ↗ either stalled or impeding an

53:20 ↗ evacuation, right? So, so evacuation

53:22 ↗ plan more speaks to actions like that. I

53:24 ↗ would say less than like a necessarily

53:26 ↗ trigger where we would say, you know,

53:28 ↗ this is the moment where, you know, um,

53:30 ↗ yeah, I would I think you should try to

53:32 ↗ walk out or something like that. Okay.

53:34 ↗ because I've talked to Epher about this

53:36 ↗ many years ago and I know that they

53:38 ↗ envision scenarios where you tell people

53:40 ↗ to shel to shelter in place which is not

53:42 ↗ something that's a that that is a

53:45 ↗ situation where you are down to bad

53:46 ↗ options. Yes indeed. Yeah. in the

53:49 ↗ shelter in place option. Exactly. It is

53:51 ↗ it is one where yeah it is there's no

53:55 ↗ viable really way to evacuate right um

53:57 ↗ safely that is and you know another good

54:00 ↗ example is like healthcare facilities

54:01 ↗ right typically they find themselves

54:03 ↗ sheltering in place cuz you know if

54:04 ↗ you're moving the whole patient load

54:06 ↗ from Swedish that's a that's a huge

54:07 ↗ challenge and I think you know there's

54:10 ↗ more room for us to explore what that

54:12 ↗ would look like and um in Isukqua and

54:14 ↗ even uh recommendations right around

54:17 ↗ when we would feel a location is safe

54:19 ↗ enough to do something like that I think

54:21 ↗ is still just this gap that we don't,

54:23 ↗ you know, currently have completely

54:24 ↗ figured out for Western Washington,

54:26 ↗ right? For our drive force more so, but

54:29 ↗ for our situation, I think it's

54:30 ↗ something that we could explore more.

54:32 ↗ Thank you. Any other questions? U

54:35 ↗ council member Joe.

54:38 ↗ Thank you, Jared, for this presentation.

54:40 ↗ It's been um enlightening and and

54:42 ↗ somewhat frightening at the same time.

54:45 ↗ Um

54:47 ↗ let's go back to the readerboard uh

54:49 ↗ subject. Could could you clarify? You

54:51 ↗ indicated that um some of the reader

54:53 ↗ boards uh if they're static would cause

54:57 ↗ more trouble than they were worth or

54:58 ↗ something like that. Could you expand on

55:00 ↗ that a little bit? Yeah. So, so the

55:02 ↗ challenge with static evacuation signs,

55:04 ↗ right, is you know, typically the way

55:06 ↗ they look, right, if you can imagine a

55:07 ↗ circle that says wildfire evacuation

55:09 ↗ route and it's like an arrow pointing

55:11 ↗ down SR 900. Now, SR900, let's just say

55:15 ↗ an hour and a half into wildfire

55:17 ↗ evacuation, let's just say, you know,

55:18 ↗ the the fire was on Squawk or Cougar.

55:20 ↗ Um, after a while, firefighters are

55:23 ↗ going to say, "This route is no longer

55:25 ↗ safe for vehicular travel to continue um

55:28 ↗ in this direction." Now, if you're a

55:30 ↗ community member who's left um 2 hours

55:33 ↗ right after from their home, and you see

55:36 ↗ a sign up there, maybe illuminator or

55:38 ↗ something that says wildfire evacuation

55:40 ↗ route, turn right. You say, "Perfect."

55:42 ↗ right? We're in a wildfire. I'm turning

55:44 ↗ right. You know, little little does the

55:46 ↗ resident unfortunately know that

55:47 ↗ they're, you know, driving into into a

55:50 ↗ more challenging situation. And, you

55:52 ↗ know, obviously the the counterpoint to

55:53 ↗ that, right, is like, well, maybe

55:55 ↗ through traffic control measures, right,

55:56 ↗ we would block off that road and then,

55:58 ↗ you know, it would be um it wouldn't be

56:01 ↗ as obvious, right, to make that that

56:03 ↗ choice. But um given the fast and moving

56:05 ↗ nature of some of these wildfires,

56:07 ↗ there's no really guarantee that we'll

56:08 ↗ have resources always available to man

56:10 ↗ every single um type of traffic

56:12 ↗ barricade or every type of uh traffic

56:14 ↗ revision. And so, um if we can have

56:17 ↗ variable signage, right, that we can

56:19 ↗ program or access from a alternate

56:21 ↗ location and adapt it to real-time

56:23 ↗ information, it's just I think a better

56:25 ↗ solution for for that type of uh

56:27 ↗ scenario. Okay. But as I was thinking

56:30 ↗ about the variable signs uh today, um

56:34 ↗ has there been a discussion with the

56:36 ↗ school district to perhaps use Isqua

56:39 ↗ Elementary's variable sign and the high

56:42 ↗ school's variable sign in the event of

56:44 ↗ emergency to give additional information

56:46 ↗ to people that are trying to find the

56:48 ↗ safest rate out route out, excuse me.

56:50 ↗ That's a that's a great um question. We

56:52 ↗ have not actually broached that topic

56:53 ↗ with them, but that is something that

56:54 ↗ I'll follow up with them on when we meet

56:56 ↗ them. Please look into that. Thank you.

56:58 ↗ Yeah. Thank you. Uh, council member

57:00 ↗ Hall.

57:03 ↗ Uh, thank you. I had a question about

57:04 ↗ science, too. So, I think I buy the

57:06 ↗ argument that the dynamic signs were

57:09 ↗ able to adapt easier in the moment

57:10 ↗ during evacuation.

57:12 ↗ Do we see the benefit or is is there a

57:16 ↗ complimentary nature of having static

57:17 ↗ signs in addition in like kind of the

57:20 ↗ like when you're not in evacuation mode?

57:22 ↗ I mean, I think of like the smoky smoky

57:24 ↗ the bear signs, right? Low, medium,

57:26 ↗ high, fire risk. like is that common to

57:28 ↗ see in kind of urban settings just in

57:30 ↗ terms of like where should your head

57:32 ↗ space be right now given the fire risk

57:34 ↗ in the area? Yeah, certainly. Like I

57:36 ↗ think more of those kind of public

57:38 ↗ education signs, yeah, are something

57:39 ↗ that is beneficial. Actually, part of

57:41 ↗ that community wildfire protection plan

57:43 ↗ once we once we get through that

57:44 ↗ process, we can actually put up little

57:46 ↗ like signs that say like fire ready uh

57:48 ↗ community and things like that that kind

57:50 ↗ of serve as a soft reminder. Um and I

57:53 ↗ think that yeah, that'll kind of speak

57:54 ↗ that'll maybe accomplish some more of

57:56 ↗ that just public awareness around oh

57:58 ↗ yeah, wildfire is something that we need

58:00 ↗ to live with here, you know, in our

58:02 ↗ community. And I should say the variable

58:04 ↗ signs too, you know, they're pretty

58:06 ↗ advanced, right? So if there is other

58:08 ↗ pertinent like community information,

58:09 ↗ right? If we do have a red flag day, you

58:11 ↗ know, we could say something like

58:13 ↗ wildfire risk high, you know, today or

58:16 ↗ something like that, you know, avoid

58:17 ↗ burning or like check your chains on dra

58:20 ↗ for dragon change things like that,

58:22 ↗ right? So that is an added an added

58:24 ↗ advantage of a technology solution like

58:26 ↗ that.

58:29 ↗ Uh, Council President Walsh,

58:33 ↗ thank you. Um, two questions. Uh, in the

58:36 ↗ case of an emergency or evacuation

58:39 ↗ period, would we be able to change the

58:41 ↗ traffic light timing? Um, and

58:44 ↗ particularly I'm wondering about those

58:45 ↗ traffic lights that are near the

58:48 ↗ on-ramps for I90 since I know we

58:51 ↗ coordinate those with the state. um or

58:54 ↗ as ways to prioritize like the primary

58:57 ↗ evacuation routes. Yeah, absolutely. So,

59:00 ↗ um signal timings can be changed through

59:02 ↗ our uh traffic control center. Um those

59:05 ↗ are the ones that we own, of course.

59:07 ↗ Now, as you mentioned, you know, wash

59:09 ↗ does um maintain ownership of some of

59:11 ↗ those key ones. So, uh they're also

59:13 ↗ invited to our wildfire evacuation

59:15 ↗ exercise to kind of hammer out just this

59:17 ↗ actually and the coordination of those

59:19 ↗ signal timings. That's something that,

59:21 ↗ you know, would obviously serve us very

59:22 ↗ well in a wildfire evacuation and um

59:25 ↗ something that we're pursuing.

59:28 ↗ Okay. And then um for the dynamic signs

59:32 ↗ idea, have we considered or would we

59:34 ↗ have the option to utilize multiple

59:36 ↗ languages or is it just an English

59:39 ↗ option? Yeah, you know, I haven't had

59:42 ↗ those official sitdowns yet with like

59:44 ↗ the um the the people who sell them,

59:46 ↗ right? But I would imagine so um at

59:49 ↗ least from the examples that I've seen,

59:50 ↗ you know, they're used really all over

59:52 ↗ the world in different forms. So I'm

59:55 ↗ sure we could definitely uh develop some

59:57 ↗ prescriptive messages that we could uh

59:59 ↗ that we could portray on those boards,

1:00:00 ↗ but that's something I will ask when we

1:00:02 ↗ have those initial scoping meetings.

1:00:06 ↗ All right. Does anybody else have

1:00:07 ↗ question?

1:00:09 ↗ Uh Council Member Joel and then Council

1:00:11 ↗ Member Jane.

1:00:13 ↗ Um

1:00:16 ↗ sometimes during uh natural disasters

1:00:19 ↗ they'll open up freeway lanes that are

1:00:22 ↗ going the opposite direction. Have we

1:00:24 ↗ thought about opening up both lanes of

1:00:27 ↗ Isqua Hobart Road, for example, to let

1:00:29 ↗ just everyone go down there and um head

1:00:32 ↗ away from the fire or other roads that

1:00:35 ↗ might fit that bill? Yeah, that's a

1:00:38 ↗ that's a really great question. It's one

1:00:40 ↗ that I would say we're still we're still

1:00:42 ↗ trying to figure out which roads that

1:00:44 ↗ would actually be viable on. Really the

1:00:47 ↗ challenge with that is you're preventing

1:00:49 ↗ ingress if you do something like that.

1:00:50 ↗ So supporting elements from fire

1:00:53 ↗ jurisdictions from around the area,

1:00:54 ↗ right? If we have something happening in

1:00:56 ↗ Isqua, we're going to be pulling from

1:00:58 ↗ Maple Valley south, you know, east

1:01:00 ↗ really every everywhere we can get them.

1:01:02 ↗ And so when you contraflow a road like

1:01:04 ↗ that, you know, you need to be very

1:01:06 ↗ intentional about making sure that there

1:01:08 ↗ still is good access into your

1:01:09 ↗ community. And so that's just a that's

1:01:12 ↗ another level, right? And kind of

1:01:14 ↗ another level of planning that we will

1:01:16 ↗ get to at some point. Currently, we

1:01:19 ↗ don't know the safest roads to do that

1:01:21 ↗ with. And two, there is some challenges

1:01:23 ↗ as well, right? Just making sure that

1:01:24 ↗ the road can actually, you know,

1:01:26 ↗ accommodate travel in an opposite

1:01:27 ↗ direction without there being u too many

1:01:29 ↗ other issues. So, it's something we've

1:01:31 ↗ talked about a little bit, but something

1:01:32 ↗ that we will explore more in the future.

1:01:38 ↗ Um, this might be an ignorant question,

1:01:40 ↗ but you know, for me as a resident, how

1:01:42 ↗ would I be notified that I need to

1:01:44 ↗ evacuate? Oh, no, that's a that's a

1:01:46 ↗ great question. So, um, Alert King

1:01:48 ↗ County is our preferred method um, for

1:01:51 ↗ emergency notification. If you're going

1:01:53 ↗ to be sign up for one platform for

1:01:56 ↗ anything emergency related, Alert King

1:01:58 ↗ County is a shared resource that um all

1:02:01 ↗ the cities including the county uses

1:02:03 ↗ within within King County to notify

1:02:05 ↗ people of emergencies. And the way that

1:02:08 ↗ those emergency messages are delivered

1:02:10 ↗ are through text, call, email, TDD, um

1:02:14 ↗ in 13 different languages at this point.

1:02:18 ↗ And um you can add as many phone numbers

1:02:19 ↗ as you want. we can geo target certain

1:02:22 ↗ areas. Uh good examples with water main

1:02:24 ↗ break. We actually sent out a uh code

1:02:26 ↗ red message um or lurking county message

1:02:28 ↗ to the residents that were impacted by

1:02:30 ↗ that water main break just over um a

1:02:32 ↗ couple weekends ago um that that they're

1:02:35 ↗ you know that uh the of a situation

1:02:37 ↗ going on. So lurking county is the best

1:02:39 ↗ way. Now we will use me many and every

1:02:42 ↗ type of uh platform that we have

1:02:44 ↗ available for us in an event like this.

1:02:47 ↗ We call it the Swiss cheese method,

1:02:49 ↗ right? Right? We know that one like one

1:02:51 ↗ method of communication will not cover

1:02:52 ↗ everyone, right? So the more like layers

1:02:55 ↗ that you put on top of each other, you

1:02:56 ↗ close the holes. So that looks like

1:02:58 ↗ social media, news, you know, even a

1:03:01 ↗ blaring siren, right? Going down um the

1:03:03 ↗ highway, right, is something that kind

1:03:05 ↗ of ticks people off to to letting them

1:03:07 ↗ know something's going on and and always

1:03:09 ↗ encouraging people to share with their

1:03:10 ↗ neighbors and their community, right,

1:03:11 ↗ that something's happening. Um is uh is

1:03:14 ↗ something that will help us, too.

1:03:16 ↗ So, do you have to sign up for Alert

1:03:18 ↗ King County to get the text? You do. So,

1:03:21 ↗ one of the other methods of

1:03:22 ↗ communication that we would use in an

1:03:24 ↗ event like a wildfire is something

1:03:25 ↗ called wireless emergency alert. Um, if

1:03:27 ↗ you've ever gotten an Amber alert on

1:03:29 ↗ your phone, that is what that technology

1:03:31 ↗ is. And so, if you have public safety

1:03:34 ↗ alerts enabled on your phone, um, you

1:03:37 ↗ will you will get or you should get a

1:03:39 ↗ wireless emergency alert. Now again,

1:03:42 ↗ that's just one method and that's just

1:03:43 ↗ text and that only goes out in English

1:03:45 ↗ and Spanish and so it's a little bit

1:03:47 ↗ more limited. Um, but that is another

1:03:49 ↗ thing that we will use in our back

1:03:50 ↗ pocket, but alert King County is a much

1:03:53 ↗ more surefire way to get notified,

1:03:54 ↗ especially too the way that those

1:03:56 ↗ wireless emergency alerts are initiated.

1:03:58 ↗ They draw polygons around a certain area

1:04:00 ↗ and once they hit launch, if you're not

1:04:02 ↗ in that polygon, um, then you will not

1:04:05 ↗ receive that information. So if you were

1:04:07 ↗ at work per se outside of the area and

1:04:09 ↗ there was something happening in Isiqua,

1:04:11 ↗ you might not know.

1:04:15 ↗ Thanks. Super interesting. I never knew

1:04:16 ↗ how uh Amber Alerts worked. No problem.

1:04:20 ↗ All right. Any further questions from

1:04:22 ↗ anyone?

1:04:24 ↗ So I did have one and that's uh you know

1:04:27 ↗ we have all the bus vehicles and all of

1:04:29 ↗ that figured out. Are there strategic

1:04:32 ↗ places throughout the plan where a human

1:04:35 ↗ being might be important to direct

1:04:37 ↗ traffic or could be a police officer,

1:04:40 ↗ could be a cert, could be is that built

1:04:42 ↗ into this plan? Mhm. And so that so that

1:04:46 ↗ is something that we could study more.

1:04:48 ↗ So we can simulate, you know, putting um

1:04:50 ↗ a traffic control individual at key

1:04:52 ↗ intersections to essentially function as

1:04:54 ↗ like a stoplight would, right? Um

1:04:56 ↗ letting certain people go. But in our

1:04:59 ↗ first discussions when we were talking

1:05:00 ↗ about what we wanted to model first, the

1:05:02 ↗ key finding of it primarily being like a

1:05:04 ↗ capacity issue, we um in in talks with

1:05:07 ↗ like the contractor as well, they said

1:05:09 ↗ that like it might not end up impacting

1:05:11 ↗ it as like or decreasing the amount of

1:05:14 ↗ time to evacuate as much as you think it

1:05:15 ↗ would only because it's really just the

1:05:18 ↗ capacity problem, right? It's not like

1:05:19 ↗ the efficiency of the flow that's the

1:05:22 ↗ issue per se. Yeah. But it is something

1:05:24 ↗ that we could explore, you know, in the

1:05:26 ↗ future too.

1:05:28 ↗ Great. All right. Um, any more

1:05:31 ↗ questions?

1:05:33 ↗ All right. Uh, city clerk, do we have

1:05:36 ↗ anyone signed up for uh, public comment?

1:05:41 ↗ No one has signed up. We do still have

1:05:43 ↗ someone with us virtually. So, if they'd

1:05:45 ↗ like to comment, if you'd like to

1:05:47 ↗ comment, please raise your hand by

1:05:49 ↗ pressing star three.

1:05:56 ↗ Not seeing an indication. Does anyone in

1:05:59 ↗ the room want to make public comment?

1:06:06 ↗ Going, going, gone. Okay. So, uh, we

1:06:09 ↗ have the question before us. Does the

1:06:11 ↗ city council have additional ideas for

1:06:13 ↗ wildfire evacuation risk reduction

1:06:16 ↗ scenarios that the administration should

1:06:19 ↗ consider?

1:06:20 ↗ Uh, who would like to start off?

1:06:25 ↗ Council member Joe.

1:06:27 ↗ Um, one thought that that I had is

1:06:30 ↗ looking at this entire plan, um, Pet

1:06:34 ↗ Sound Energy goes through and they cut

1:06:36 ↗ down the trees that are going to impede

1:06:39 ↗ or have a chance of falling down and

1:06:41 ↗ taking out a power line. Um, have we

1:06:44 ↗ thought about um as a city going through

1:06:48 ↗ some of our major routes and clearing

1:06:51 ↗ brush away from the the roads like we

1:06:54 ↗ are advised to do for the WOOI wildland

1:06:58 ↗ urban interface around our homes? Have

1:07:01 ↗ we considered moving some of the brush

1:07:03 ↗ away from the side of the road so that

1:07:05 ↗ there's less of a chance that that road

1:07:06 ↗ could be impacted by either falling

1:07:09 ↗ trees blocking it or just fire and smoke

1:07:12 ↗ going across it because there's less

1:07:14 ↗ burnable

1:07:15 ↗ fire material along along those roads.

1:07:18 ↗ And that's um just one suggestion. I

1:07:21 ↗ know it's probably the cost is really

1:07:23 ↗ high and the benefit may be really low,

1:07:26 ↗ but just one thought that that I had as

1:07:28 ↗ I was looking at the material.

1:07:30 ↗ Yeah, that's a that's a great um

1:07:32 ↗ consideration um and something that we

1:07:34 ↗ could certainly explore more honestly.

1:07:36 ↗ And I think just understanding too the

1:07:38 ↗ cost and the areas in which we'd want to

1:07:39 ↗ do that I think is probably a good next

1:07:41 ↗ step for something um like that cuz

1:07:43 ↗ again yeah that's that's mostly been the

1:07:46 ↗ way that we've approached it in the past

1:07:47 ↗ is just that the cost and to m to

1:07:49 ↗ maintain that may be prohibitive but in

1:07:51 ↗ certain key areas it certainly seems

1:07:53 ↗ like it's worth looking into. And then

1:07:55 ↗ just one last comment on this. Uh I

1:07:59 ↗ really appreciate the information that's

1:08:01 ↗ there. I think that the message that we

1:08:02 ↗ got was um this plan can help, but a lot

1:08:07 ↗ of it is dependent on the individual to

1:08:09 ↗ be ready with that go bag to get in

1:08:12 ↗ their car in that first 30 minutes and

1:08:14 ↗ try to get out of harm's way along the

1:08:16 ↗ way. And I think the more we can stress

1:08:19 ↗ that at the trivia nights or any

1:08:21 ↗ education um u events that we have, I I

1:08:25 ↗ think our citizens would be willing to

1:08:27 ↗ do that preparation when they understand

1:08:29 ↗ how that curve works and the risk

1:08:31 ↗ increases substantially should they be

1:08:34 ↗ caught in in the city. So, thank you.

1:08:35 ↗ Absolutely.

1:08:37 ↗ Uh Council Member Mart,

1:08:42 ↗ um I think we've talked before. Um it's

1:08:44 ↗ my understanding that on the west side

1:08:48 ↗ of of uh the pass that the risk from uh

1:08:53 ↗ the wildfire risk over here is

1:08:56 ↗ considered higher from building fires um

1:09:00 ↗ being the inception points versus

1:09:02 ↗ lightning. And so I say as a member of

1:09:06 ↗ the board on East Side Fire and Rescue,

1:09:08 ↗ are there things that we can and should

1:09:10 ↗ be doing um in operationally

1:09:14 ↗ um on these high fuel load days, on

1:09:16 ↗ these high wind load days um so that if

1:09:19 ↗ there was a house fire that's burning

1:09:22 ↗ hot, we can help make sure that um we

1:09:24 ↗ reduce the risk of inception of a of a

1:09:27 ↗ major fire on on one of these mountains.

1:09:30 ↗ Yeah, absolutely right. the thing the

1:09:32 ↗ thing actually that causes wildfires to

1:09:34 ↗ spread isn't necessarily the flames,

1:09:35 ↗ it's the embers, right? And so um

1:09:38 ↗ controlling of fire and aggressive

1:09:40 ↗ tactics on them is is certainly key. You

1:09:43 ↗ know, I'm I'm sure that the side fire

1:09:44 ↗ and rescue probably has specific

1:09:47 ↗ recommendations even too, right, on how

1:09:48 ↗ to minimize that risk. I'm just

1:09:51 ↗ wondering if there's gear that can be

1:09:52 ↗ involved, right, investments that can be

1:09:54 ↗ made in foam technologies or whatever.

1:09:58 ↗ Um my understanding is foams can be very

1:10:00 ↗ effective in helping reduce the spread

1:10:03 ↗ of embers and and whatnot. So should we

1:10:05 ↗ be as a city should we be talking to

1:10:08 ↗ Epher about um those sorts of

1:10:11 ↗ investments as part of this

1:10:12 ↗ conversation? Yeah, that's a you know

1:10:14 ↗ that conversation has not happened yet

1:10:16 ↗ between Epherai, but I'm I'm really

1:10:17 ↗ happy to look into that more and and

1:10:20 ↗ follow up with them on that. Thank you.

1:10:21 ↗ Thank you.

1:10:24 ↗ Any other comments?

1:10:27 ↗ Uh, Council President Walsh, did you

1:10:30 ↗ would you like to um make a suggestion?

1:10:35 ↗ Well, sure. If I'm being called out, I

1:10:37 ↗ will do so. Um, you know, I I will just

1:10:40 ↗ take a moment to advocate for the

1:10:43 ↗ Highlands. um seeing the large

1:10:46 ↗ difference in the evacuation estimate

1:10:50 ↗ times um between that neighborhood and

1:10:54 ↗ others was really surprising for me. I

1:10:57 ↗ mean I know as a resident up there that

1:11:00 ↗ um

1:11:02 ↗ when we have traffic in front of the

1:11:04 ↗ schools or other things like that that

1:11:06 ↗ it is very difficult um getting down.

1:11:09 ↗ So, I think I would be very interested

1:11:11 ↗ in pursuing things that would

1:11:14 ↗ potentially look at long-term um

1:11:17 ↗ improvements there. And um so I

1:11:21 ↗ appreciate you bringing that to our

1:11:23 ↗ attention. Great. Thank you.

1:11:27 ↗ Anyone else? Uh Council Member Hall, I

1:11:29 ↗ guess just really quick and I don't know

1:11:31 ↗ if it's it's helpful. Um um cuz I feel

1:11:34 ↗ like even during questions we provided

1:11:35 ↗ some feedback like the school signing

1:11:37 ↗ science was like a really good idea um

1:11:40 ↗ for like alternate roads for like some

1:11:42 ↗ of these longer term solutions too. I

1:11:44 ↗ feel like

1:11:46 ↗ part of

1:11:49 ↗ part of that will be people recognizing

1:11:51 ↗ that they're there in the first place

1:11:52 ↗ and being comfortable using them too. So

1:11:54 ↗ it's almost like we also need to

1:11:56 ↗ consider some element of permanently

1:11:59 ↗ opening some of these roads, right? Like

1:12:00 ↗ if we're looking at Blacknugget Road,

1:12:02 ↗ like people need to know it's there and

1:12:03 ↗ they know how to go down that road and

1:12:06 ↗ they're comfortable doing it and they've

1:12:07 ↗ done it before. So I don't know. I I

1:12:09 ↗ feel like perhaps even a conversation

1:12:11 ↗ too alongside these alternate evacuation

1:12:14 ↗ paths is or does it just make sense to

1:12:16 ↗ open the road to the community as like a

1:12:19 ↗ additional normal everyday egress? So

1:12:23 ↗ that's probably something for us to just

1:12:24 ↗ chew on as we as we continue to have

1:12:26 ↗ this conversation because people are

1:12:27 ↗ creatures of habit, right? if they don't

1:12:29 ↗ necessarily know or haven't driven down

1:12:31 ↗ Black Nugget Road like they're going to

1:12:33 ↗ go down Park and Highlands Drive. So, I

1:12:35 ↗ don't know. That's just kind of one

1:12:36 ↗ thought I had. Okay.

1:12:42 ↗ Anyone else?

1:12:45 ↗ Okay, a couple thoughts. Um, I did I

1:12:49 ↗ like the idea of our having signs out

1:12:51 ↗ there saying high wildfire risk. Um, I

1:12:55 ↗ think council member Jen and I both were

1:12:58 ↗ expressed a little bit of concern about

1:12:59 ↗ early warnings or how we might handle uh

1:13:03 ↗ handle uh letting people know that

1:13:05 ↗ something's coming and that sounds to me

1:13:07 ↗ like a good solution to that. Um, and

1:13:10 ↗ then that would also keep it on the top

1:13:12 ↗ of people's minds um as uh we get into

1:13:15 ↗ wildfire season. So, um, the other thing

1:13:18 ↗ I'll go back to what I was asking about.

1:13:20 ↗ It seems to me like if you've got human

1:13:23 ↗ beings out there with some kind of

1:13:25 ↗ official designation, again, maybe a

1:13:27 ↗ police officer, maybe somebody with a

1:13:29 ↗ cert jacket or, you know, some kind of

1:13:31 ↗ official, um, it may not be any more

1:13:35 ↗ efficient, but there's a uh, a factor of

1:13:38 ↗ keeping people calm and assured that

1:13:41 ↗ people are in charge. And so I kind of

1:13:43 ↗ would like us to explore what kind of

1:13:45 ↗ situations uh what would be appropriate.

1:13:48 ↗ Um you know we don't want people getting

1:13:51 ↗ caught in the wildfires doing that

1:13:52 ↗ volunteer service or something like

1:13:54 ↗ that. So uh it needs to be explored in

1:13:58 ↗ depth a little bit more but I think that

1:14:00 ↗ might be a critical factor just in

1:14:02 ↗ keeping people calm and hey we can get

1:14:05 ↗ through this and get we can get out of

1:14:08 ↗ town. So those are my suggestions. Um,

1:14:12 ↗ anybody else want to provide any more?

1:14:15 ↗ Uh, Council Member Jen. Um, one thing

1:14:17 ↗ I'd be interested in seeing is, you

1:14:19 ↗ know, if there's any way, cuz I mean,

1:14:23 ↗ basically this modeling shows that, oh,

1:14:25 ↗ there's going to be tons of traffic. I

1:14:27 ↗ wonder if there's any way, you know, to

1:14:29 ↗ get some public transit vehicles being

1:14:31 ↗ like, hey, here's the spot to meet up if

1:14:33 ↗ you want to get on the bus. even, you

1:14:35 ↗ know, have like some confirmation that

1:14:37 ↗ it's going to be faster because people

1:14:38 ↗ don't want to like drive sitting in

1:14:40 ↗ traffic for three hours or whatever. Um,

1:14:42 ↗ and that can also, you know, take more

1:14:44 ↗ cars off the road, make it just smoother

1:14:45 ↗ for everyone. Um, and especially, you

1:14:48 ↗ know, the school district has all their

1:14:49 ↗ buses at this base in Isiqua. That could

1:14:52 ↗ be something that we could partner with

1:14:53 ↗ them on. So, I'd be interested to see,

1:14:56 ↗ you know, some analysis that

1:14:57 ↗ incorporates that. Yeah, absolutely.

1:15:01 ↗ Okay.

1:15:04 ↗ Council member Martz. So

1:15:07 ↗ incident command on a fire that

1:15:11 ↗ incorporates our city and unincorporated

1:15:13 ↗ King County. Who would be the lead on

1:15:15 ↗ that? Yeah. So that so it' be a unified

1:15:17 ↗ command situation in that in that

1:15:19 ↗ aspect. So it's a collaborative approach

1:15:22 ↗ in the instant command system. Um

1:15:25 ↗ everyone kind of owns a piece of it.

1:15:26 ↗ Another part of it is to in in large

1:15:29 ↗ wildfires, if it's far enough away,

1:15:31 ↗ there will be a fire incident management

1:15:32 ↗ team that actually, you know, manages

1:15:35 ↗ the the wildfire fighting response,

1:15:37 ↗ especially if it starts in like DNR

1:15:38 ↗ land, for example, or state lands. And

1:15:40 ↗ so in that case, what more what it looks

1:15:43 ↗ like, right, is is we're a component of

1:15:45 ↗ that of that instant command system in

1:15:47 ↗ that unified command area. And so, um,

1:15:50 ↗ it's a shared kind of a shared ownership

1:15:52 ↗ there. Yes. So we stress test those comm

1:15:55 ↗ systems and the command systems and

1:15:56 ↗ decision making and all that for things

1:15:59 ↗ like Cascadia rising for uh subduction

1:16:03 ↗ fire. Do we stress test those systems

1:16:06 ↗ for

1:16:08 ↗ urban wildland interface fire? Yeah. And

1:16:11 ↗ I think that's part of what this July um

1:16:13 ↗ exercise is going to be, right? And um

1:16:16 ↗ spoiler alert for some of the people in

1:16:17 ↗ the room that are part taking in it, you

1:16:19 ↗ know, um there's a lot of individuals

1:16:21 ↗ who can actually authorize an evacuation

1:16:23 ↗ for Isqua, right? And so what if someone

1:16:25 ↗ breaks from that, you know, chain

1:16:27 ↗ outside of that unified command system,

1:16:29 ↗ right? How do we respond to to someone,

1:16:32 ↗ you know, um being a little maybe uh

1:16:34 ↗ preemptive, right? Making that decision

1:16:35 ↗ preemptively. And so to answer your

1:16:37 ↗ question, yes, you know, but honestly,

1:16:39 ↗ every every exercise you learn so much

1:16:42 ↗ more, right? And so I me personally as

1:16:44 ↗ an emergency manager I'd say we can

1:16:46 ↗ never do too many knee exercises. Maybe

1:16:48 ↗ Wall-Ally disagrees but but you know

1:16:50 ↗ from where I stand yes like we yes

1:16:53 ↗ should be stressing that specifically

1:16:55 ↗ for a wildfire as it's one of our

1:16:56 ↗ hazards too that we don't have as much

1:16:58 ↗ you know here and and will you be coming

1:16:59 ↗ back and telling us after that uh

1:17:02 ↗ exercise how it went? Yeah absolutely if

1:17:04 ↗ that's something that um the council

1:17:06 ↗ would benefit committee that would be

1:17:07 ↗ very interested

1:17:10 ↗ to suggest. Thank you. Right. I see the

1:17:13 ↗ city administrator. Did you want to

1:17:14 ↗ contribute? Yes. Uh thank you, uh deputy

1:17:17 ↗ council president. Uh there's a lot of

1:17:19 ↗ information for you this evening. Um

1:17:22 ↗ from the administration standpoint, I

1:17:24 ↗ just want to go through a couple of

1:17:25 ↗ things that we plan to do um over the

1:17:28 ↗ next 3 months or so. Uh and I think we

1:17:30 ↗ can commit to come back with an update

1:17:32 ↗ in September or October uh from the work

1:17:34 ↗ that we've done this summer. Um the

1:17:36 ↗ variable signs I think is probably the

1:17:38 ↗ most impactful thing that uh this report

1:17:40 ↗ brings up. Um and so we are going to

1:17:42 ↗ move expeditiously. Uh there's six on

1:17:45 ↗ the map that you have seen this evening.

1:17:48 ↗ So we're going to start there. Um and uh

1:17:51 ↗ we'll be working with our IT staff and

1:17:53 ↗ and Jared and uh to make that happen as

1:17:56 ↗ quickly as possible. So you may see us

1:17:58 ↗ coming back to you with a budget request

1:18:00 ↗ uh for that. Um you know, my estimation

1:18:02 ↗ is of all the things you've heard

1:18:03 ↗ tonight, that's probably the most

1:18:05 ↗ impactful thing uh that we can do. um

1:18:07 ↗ the uh education pieces with Alert King

1:18:10 ↗ County um enable emergency alerts on

1:18:13 ↗ mobile phones, the educate your own

1:18:14 ↗ preparedness. Um you know, we're going

1:18:16 ↗ to continue to look for creative ways to

1:18:18 ↗ do that. Um you know, we we hesitate to

1:18:21 ↗ do direct mail uh because of the cost

1:18:23 ↗ and because people don't read mail

1:18:25 ↗ regardless of the content. Um we may

1:18:28 ↗ rethink that uh for this uh in order to

1:18:30 ↗ come up come up with some key messages

1:18:32 ↗ there. Um so that's what we're going to

1:18:34 ↗ be focusing on over the next few months.

1:18:36 ↗ Uh again with the exercise that that

1:18:38 ↗ Jared described, we want to keep talking

1:18:40 ↗ about this. Uh it's important, I think,

1:18:42 ↗ to keep talking about this with you,

1:18:44 ↗ with the larger community. Um there are

1:18:46 ↗ no easy answers. There is no easy fix.

1:18:49 ↗ Uh but communication is probably the

1:18:51 ↗ single most impactful thing we can do

1:18:53 ↗ and you have uh Mayor Paulie's

1:18:55 ↗ commitment, the administration's

1:18:56 ↗ commitment to continue to move forward

1:18:58 ↗ with that. So again, Jared, thank you

1:19:00 ↗ for your leadership. Thank you members

1:19:01 ↗ of the council for your input tonight

1:19:04 ↗ and uh we'll come back in September

1:19:06 ↗ October with the next update. Wonderful.

1:19:08 ↗ Thank you Jared. Thank you always a very

1:19:11 ↗ thorough and informative presentation.

1:19:13 ↗ Really appreciate the work that went

1:19:14 ↗ into this. So thank you very much. Just

1:19:17 ↗ one last round. Make sure everybody has

1:19:19 ↗ had a chance to provide all their

1:19:22 ↗ suggestions. Okay. Council President

1:19:24 ↗ Walsh. Yep. All right. So thank you so

1:19:27 ↗ much. All right. Thank you.

1:19:30 ↗ And our next item on the agenda is

1:19:33 ↗ COOM0102

1:19:36 ↗ 2027 to 2032 capital improvement plan.

1:19:39 ↗ And it's going to be presented by Deputy

1:19:42 ↗ City Administrator Andrea Snider.

1:19:59 ↗ Good evening, city council.

1:20:01 ↗ Uh I am Deputy City Administrator Andrea

1:20:04 ↗ Snyder

1:20:06 ↗ and uh we are here to talk about the

1:20:08 ↗ CIP.

1:20:10 ↗ This is our um once every two-year

1:20:14 ↗ update to the CIP. We have already

1:20:18 ↗ talked about um specific asset category

1:20:23 ↗ types within each of the council

1:20:24 ↗ committees. So this is our opportunity

1:20:26 ↗ to bring all of those conversations

1:20:28 ↗ together as a whole and consider the CIP

1:20:31 ↗ document as a whole and some of the

1:20:33 ↗ decisions and policy choices that are

1:20:35 ↗ within that document.

1:20:42 ↗ Uh so tonight we ask for some feedback

1:20:46 ↗ and specific direction from you. Of

1:20:48 ↗ course, we always want to hear feedback

1:20:49 ↗ from you, any type of feedback you have

1:20:51 ↗ to offer, but specifically tonight,

1:20:53 ↗ we're hoping to hear from you on uh any

1:20:57 ↗ feedback about the priority of

1:20:59 ↗ maintenance over new assets within the

1:21:01 ↗ CIP, the transportation priorities,

1:21:04 ↗ focusing on light rail and projects that

1:21:07 ↗ support light rail. um this conversation

1:21:09 ↗ over largecale visionary projects,

1:21:12 ↗ projects that have a high impact but

1:21:15 ↗ also very high cost and are very

1:21:17 ↗ long-term versus smaller projects that

1:21:20 ↗ are more immediate impacts but smaller

1:21:22 ↗ impacts um and also smaller costs

1:21:25 ↗ associated with those

1:21:28 ↗ also facilities maintenance. There's a

1:21:30 ↗ lot more facilities maintenance in this

1:21:32 ↗ CIP than in previous CIPs in recognition

1:21:35 ↗ that we have uh really been trying to

1:21:38 ↗ figure out what our our needs are in

1:21:41 ↗ facility maintenance. And we also as the

1:21:44 ↗ administration feel as though we've

1:21:46 ↗ kicked the can down the road uh far too

1:21:49 ↗ many times when it comes to our

1:21:50 ↗ facilities and delaying facilities

1:21:53 ↗ projects at this point we don't feel is

1:21:55 ↗ a really good option. We wanted to

1:21:57 ↗ understand if council had any more

1:21:58 ↗ feedback on that. Also notably wanted to

1:22:02 ↗ pull out that the IPD renovations in

1:22:04 ↗ city hall are in this CIP just as they

1:22:07 ↗ were in the last version of the CIP and

1:22:10 ↗ that um those costs are beginning in

1:22:13 ↗ 2027.

1:22:16 ↗ and any other feedback this council may

1:22:18 ↗ have on parks, IT or utilities uh types

1:22:22 ↗ of infrastructure.

1:22:30 ↗ Uh so wanted to pull out a couple of

1:22:32 ↗ themes and changes of this CIP versus

1:22:35 ↗ past versions of C of the CIP. One is

1:22:39 ↗ that needs continue to outpace the

1:22:41 ↗ revenues. We talked about that a lot

1:22:44 ↗ during the budget season. The same is

1:22:46 ↗ true in our capital planning and

1:22:48 ↗ specifically more competition for

1:22:51 ↗ general fund uh revenues and the real

1:22:54 ↗ estate excise tax while also

1:22:57 ↗ anticipating fewer federal grants and

1:22:59 ↗ other types of funding.

1:23:02 ↗ With uh as we all know the future feels

1:23:04 ↗ a little bit uncertain at this point in

1:23:06 ↗ terms of the economy but also escalating

1:23:08 ↗ costs of certain types of infrastructure

1:23:11 ↗ projects that may be related to tariffs.

1:23:13 ↗ And so knowing that this CIP covers 2027

1:23:18 ↗ and beyond, planning for the future is

1:23:21 ↗ difficult and more difficult uh than

1:23:24 ↗ it's really ever been. And so therefore,

1:23:27 ↗ we're keeping the updates pretty simple

1:23:28 ↗ and the process simple this round

1:23:30 ↗ knowing that we have um next year in the

1:23:33 ↗ budget drafting process where we

1:23:35 ↗ anticipate knowing a little bit more

1:23:36 ↗ about what our revenues might look like

1:23:38 ↗ and we can focus on making some

1:23:40 ↗ decisions then.

1:23:43 ↗ Also, as I said before, one of the main

1:23:45 ↗ themes of this CIP is prioritizing

1:23:47 ↗ maintenance and those replacement

1:23:48 ↗ programs versus new assets. This is

1:23:51 ↗ direction that we've heard from the

1:23:52 ↗ council from previous years, making sure

1:23:54 ↗ that we're accounting for our

1:23:56 ↗ maintenance and that's something that

1:23:57 ↗ we've emphasized in this CIP as well.

1:24:00 ↗ Also, uh just wanted to point out that

1:24:03 ↗ the additions to this CIP capture the

1:24:05 ↗ latest in the utility rate study. So,

1:24:07 ↗ there are updates to the utility

1:24:08 ↗ sections that uh council should already

1:24:11 ↗ have seen in other conversations

1:24:13 ↗ regarding utility rates, including the

1:24:15 ↗ new water treatment plant, which is

1:24:17 ↗ something we've discussed in the past

1:24:18 ↗ and is a large expense that's going to

1:24:20 ↗ be hitting our water utility within the

1:24:23 ↗ frame of the CIP, the timeline of this

1:24:25 ↗ CIP.

1:24:29 ↗ Um, this CIP

1:24:31 ↗ departs from previous CIPs in that

1:24:36 ↗ typically we have had the first two

1:24:37 ↗ years of the CIP really try to be as

1:24:41 ↗ balanced as possible when it comes to

1:24:44 ↗ anticipated revenues and anticipated

1:24:46 ↗ expenses. And this is the first CIP that

1:24:50 ↗ departs from that trend. uh we have way

1:24:55 ↗ more needs than what we have identified

1:24:58 ↗ funding for in throughout the CIP, but

1:25:00 ↗ certainly for the first two years. Um

1:25:03 ↗ some of the reason for this is because

1:25:05 ↗ we're in ongoing conversations about

1:25:07 ↗ potential new revenues like we've talked

1:25:09 ↗ about with city hall and IPD

1:25:12 ↗ renovations, for example. Um, and also

1:25:16 ↗ because we know that putting projects in

1:25:20 ↗ our CIP is an important way to be able

1:25:22 ↗ to be eligible for grant funding. And

1:25:25 ↗ so, um, we have projects in there that

1:25:27 ↗ we're hoping to receive grants on.

1:25:29 ↗ Whether we are able to fund those

1:25:31 ↗ projects depends our on our success of

1:25:33 ↗ achieving those grants. But that said,

1:25:37 ↗ this CIP is not just a wish list.

1:25:40 ↗ uh we did vet the projects in this CIP.

1:25:43 ↗ We wanted it to be more realistic than a

1:25:46 ↗ complete uh a wish list or or fantasy.

1:25:49 ↗ Um and so what we've done to try to get

1:25:52 ↗ the expenses down and more match the

1:25:54 ↗ anticipated revenues is we've reduced

1:25:57 ↗ scope of projects. We've phased some of

1:25:59 ↗ these projects out pushing some of those

1:26:01 ↗ phases out in the timeline. um pushed

1:26:04 ↗ whole projects out uh including out to

1:26:06 ↗ future years beyond the time frame of

1:26:09 ↗ this CIP.

1:26:11 ↗ We've moved projects to more stable

1:26:13 ↗ funding or other types of funding

1:26:14 ↗ sources. Uh and again keeping that

1:26:18 ↗ priority where we have more choices on

1:26:21 ↗ maintenance over constructing new

1:26:23 ↗ assets.

1:26:28 ↗ So, next I wanted to go over what some

1:26:30 ↗ of those policy questions were to each

1:26:32 ↗ of the committees and review some of the

1:26:34 ↗ feedback that we've heard from those

1:26:36 ↗ committees. Um, so that all of council

1:26:39 ↗ has an understanding of what those

1:26:42 ↗ conversations were. For the planning,

1:26:44 ↗ development, environment committee,

1:26:46 ↗ their focus is really restricted to

1:26:48 ↗ storm water projects in the CIP. So, we

1:26:50 ↗ reviewed those um especially as

1:26:53 ↗ suggested by the rate study. This

1:26:55 ↗ committee, the committee of the whole

1:26:56 ↗ had given previous feedback in late

1:26:59 ↗ winter, early spring uh talking about

1:27:02 ↗ storm water projects and really looking

1:27:05 ↗ at um reducing the increase of the storm

1:27:09 ↗ water rates by focusing on what are the

1:27:11 ↗ most urgent projects available. We took

1:27:13 ↗ that feedback and we used it in the

1:27:15 ↗ drafting of the CIP. So when PTE

1:27:19 ↗ reviewed those storm water projects,

1:27:20 ↗ they were largely in support of those

1:27:22 ↗ projects and reinforced the desire to

1:27:25 ↗ delay less critical projects in order to

1:27:27 ↗ reduce that um increase in storm water

1:27:30 ↗ rates.

1:27:36 ↗ Services, safety, and parks committee.

1:27:40 ↗ Um we talked about facilities. As I said

1:27:44 ↗ before, there's a lot more maintenance

1:27:46 ↗ uh within the facility section of this

1:27:49 ↗ CIP. The committee said they were

1:27:51 ↗ largely in support, but acknowledged

1:27:53 ↗ that there are still tough decisions

1:27:55 ↗ that we have to make as part of the

1:27:56 ↗ budget process because we simply cannot

1:27:59 ↗ afford all of the needs that we

1:28:02 ↗ anticipate.

1:28:04 ↗ Timing and funding for the Isiqua Police

1:28:06 ↗ Department and City Hall facilities

1:28:08 ↗ projects. Uh the committee is generally

1:28:10 ↗ in support of this prioritization though

1:28:13 ↗ still had concerns about those funding

1:28:15 ↗ sources because we have yet to identify

1:28:16 ↗ those. And also uh they requested an

1:28:20 ↗ update on the public safety and civic

1:28:22 ↗ facilities task force that was in uh

1:28:24 ↗ your packet and essentially the the task

1:28:27 ↗ force has a few meetings left including

1:28:29 ↗ tomorrow to provide um their

1:28:32 ↗ recommendations.

1:28:35 ↗ the uh proposed parks, trails, and

1:28:37 ↗ facilities I it projects. The feedback

1:28:39 ↗ that we received on those was that the

1:28:41 ↗ committee was largely in support, but

1:28:43 ↗ again still have some concerns about how

1:28:45 ↗ we were to fund those projects and um

1:28:48 ↗ there was a desire to complete the

1:28:50 ↗ vision of Confluence Park.

1:28:55 ↗ So since we first published the CIP, the

1:28:58 ↗ proposed CIP, there have been some small

1:29:00 ↗ adjustments that the administration has

1:29:02 ↗ made, including adjusting the

1:29:04 ↗ contingency, art fund contribution, and

1:29:08 ↗ inflation on some projects to make sure

1:29:09 ↗ we had a consistent approach across the

1:29:12 ↗ CIP.

1:29:13 ↗ Um, no scopes or timelines were changed

1:29:16 ↗ as a result of this, but there were some

1:29:18 ↗ changes to anticipated expenditures that

1:29:21 ↗ hit the general fund, schools on safety

1:29:23 ↗ fund, and sustainability fund as

1:29:25 ↗ outlined on this slide. Again, the CIP

1:29:29 ↗ is a plan. It's not a budget. And so,

1:29:32 ↗ there's a lot more decisions that we

1:29:34 ↗ need to be making um really next year in

1:29:37 ↗ the budget drafting process.

1:29:42 ↗ So this timeline should look familiar.

1:29:44 ↗ Uh we as I said we have met with all of

1:29:46 ↗ the committees to discuss the specific

1:29:48 ↗ asset types under the purview of each

1:29:50 ↗ committee. Today is June 16th. Uh trying

1:29:55 ↗ to get general feedback from the city

1:29:56 ↗ council and we hope for potential

1:29:59 ↗ adoption on June 23rd. The reason why

1:30:02 ↗ we're hoping for adoption on June 23rd

1:30:04 ↗ is that Washington state law requires us

1:30:06 ↗ to have an annual update to the

1:30:09 ↗ transportation improvement plan and by

1:30:12 ↗ July 1st and the transportation

1:30:14 ↗ improvement plan is a component of the

1:30:17 ↗ CIP.

1:30:20 ↗ Andrea,

1:30:21 ↗ did we did you cover the mobility and

1:30:23 ↗ infrastructure committee feedback?

1:30:26 ↗ You know, thank you council member. I

1:30:30 ↗ might have inadvertently skipped over

1:30:32 ↗ it. Let me go back here. I don't I don't

1:30:35 ↗ I don't remember you going over it, but

1:30:38 ↗ maybe I dozed out. I don't know. But I

1:30:41 ↗ because uh we were talking specifically

1:30:43 ↗ about the light rail and I I know that

1:30:46 ↗ there were some comments on that from

1:30:47 ↗ council members. Right.

1:30:52 ↗ This is exactly when I will experience

1:30:54 ↗ tech issues just to make it more

1:30:56 ↗ difficult. Great.

1:30:58 ↗ Ah,

1:31:30 ↗ Um, so let me just walk through it

1:31:32 ↗ verbally since I'm having a hard time

1:31:33 ↗ sharing my slides. I apologize. I do

1:31:35 ↗ think I um inadvertently skipped over

1:31:38 ↗ it, doubleclicked or something. So um

1:31:41 ↗ and now it's refusing to cooperate. So

1:31:43 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee,

1:31:44 ↗ thank you council member or deputy

1:31:47 ↗ council president. Uh we asked a couple

1:31:49 ↗ of questions including prioritizing

1:31:52 ↗ maintenance and light light rail related

1:31:54 ↗ projects. Those light rail related

1:31:56 ↗ projects include um much of the station

1:31:59 ↗ area planning but also the I90 crossing

1:32:02 ↗ that is to be um constructed in

1:32:06 ↗ coincidident to the light rail station.

1:32:09 ↗ Uh thank you Tisha.

1:32:12 ↗ And the committee feedback was generally

1:32:14 ↗ supportive of prioritizing maintenance

1:32:16 ↗ and light light rail related projects.

1:32:19 ↗ Boy, that's hard to say.

1:32:22 ↗ um but also had some concern about the

1:32:24 ↗ ability to complete these visionary

1:32:26 ↗ projects like the I90 crossing. We do

1:32:29 ↗ not have funding identified for that. So

1:32:31 ↗ we had a larger conversation about these

1:32:35 ↗ visionary projects that are high impact

1:32:38 ↗ but also very high cost and long-term

1:32:40 ↗ over smaller scale projects that have

1:32:44 ↗ smaller impacts but are more immediate

1:32:45 ↗ and certainly less costly. Um and so

1:32:49 ↗ examples of these types of projects,

1:32:51 ↗ those long-term visionary projects would

1:32:53 ↗ be the I90 crossing. Uh and then smaller

1:32:57 ↗ projects would be things even even like

1:33:00 ↗ you would consider maybe the PMP or

1:33:02 ↗ pavement um management program um or

1:33:05 ↗ other smaller scale um types of

1:33:08 ↗ transportation projects. And the reason

1:33:10 ↗ why we're having this conversation is

1:33:12 ↗ because we are concerned about a lack of

1:33:15 ↗ revenues. we cannot fund everything that

1:33:17 ↗ we would like to fund. And so there are

1:33:20 ↗ some real choices that council will have

1:33:22 ↗ to make certainly in the budget process.

1:33:25 ↗ And so um if council remains committed

1:33:28 ↗ to funding these large-scale visionary

1:33:30 ↗ projects in a certain year but maybe

1:33:34 ↗ uh the ability to pay for the completion

1:33:37 ↗ of these projects is not yet identified.

1:33:40 ↗ There will be some other projects we

1:33:42 ↗ can't complete. So we have to make

1:33:44 ↗ choices and there's trade-offs to those

1:33:45 ↗ choices. So we had a discussion about

1:33:46 ↗ that at the mobility and infrastructure

1:33:48 ↗ committee and what we heard was concern

1:33:52 ↗ from the committee members about

1:33:54 ↗ investing in projects that maybe we

1:33:57 ↗ cannot guarantee the completion of

1:34:00 ↗ because we lack the funds and we have

1:34:02 ↗ not identified those funds.

1:34:04 ↗ Um, one of those, uh, longer term

1:34:08 ↗ projects and somewhat visionary

1:34:09 ↗ projects, certainly very high dollar, is

1:34:12 ↗ um, some of the Newport projects,

1:34:14 ↗ Newport Way projects. These are projects

1:34:15 ↗ the city has been working on for a long

1:34:17 ↗ time. The Newport Way Maple to Sunset

1:34:20 ↗ project in particular is one that we

1:34:22 ↗ made some changes to versus the last

1:34:24 ↗ version of the CIP and we have delayed

1:34:27 ↗ that project and the timing of that

1:34:28 ↗ project in order um, to try to be able

1:34:31 ↗ to afford it in future years. and we

1:34:34 ↗ heard support from the committee in

1:34:35 ↗ doing that.

1:34:38 ↗ Other things uh that the mobility and

1:34:40 ↗ infrastructure committee discussed were

1:34:41 ↗ the proposed water and sewer projects

1:34:44 ↗ and we heard uh general support for

1:34:46 ↗ those projects uh and that we heard

1:34:50 ↗ strong support especially for the sewer

1:34:51 ↗ extension and the water treatment plant.

1:34:57 ↗ So I'm I apologize for skipping over

1:35:00 ↗ that slide. Thank you, Deputy Council

1:35:02 ↗ President. Going back to uh if you

1:35:05 ↗ could, city clerk, the uh

1:35:10 ↗ next steps again would be adoption

1:35:15 ↗ on uh June 23rd

1:35:18 ↗ and uh specific direction needed,

1:35:23 ↗ prioritizing maintenance over new assets

1:35:25 ↗ if there's feedback from council on

1:35:27 ↗ that. the transportation priorities,

1:35:30 ↗ projects that support light rail. Um any

1:35:33 ↗ feedback you have on the uh question of

1:35:36 ↗ largecale visionary projects versus

1:35:38 ↗ smaller, more immediate projects and how

1:35:40 ↗ we should prioritize those

1:35:43 ↗ facilities maintenance. Um and then the

1:35:46 ↗ IPD renovations and city hall

1:35:48 ↗ construction or rather the costs

1:35:50 ↗ beginning in 2027

1:35:52 ↗ and um any other feedback that council

1:35:54 ↗ may have on the CIP. Great. Thank you.

1:35:57 ↗ Uh we'll start with questions and

1:35:59 ↗ council member Marts

1:36:02 ↗ and can you talk about the status of

1:36:03 ↗ Northwest Seamish Road non-motorized

1:36:05 ↗ improvement projects?

1:36:07 ↗ Yes, it is uh still in the CIP. I am

1:36:12 ↗ going to forget the exact date of when

1:36:14 ↗ we are constructing it but it is still

1:36:16 ↗ in relation to the Washington um the

1:36:18 ↗ washd project. So we have to complete

1:36:20 ↗ the wash project and then uh we will

1:36:23 ↗ begin work on that. And I do have

1:36:26 ↗ Director Moon here who's trying to mouth

1:36:29 ↗ the date to me.

1:36:32 ↗ 2028 is when it's in uh the plan. So, it

1:36:36 ↗ is still there. And as you may recall,

1:36:39 ↗ council had passed the transportation

1:36:41 ↗ benefit district sales tax and we have

1:36:46 ↗ um anticipated using the revenues from

1:36:49 ↗ that tax to help fund the debt service

1:36:52 ↗ on that project.

1:36:56 ↗ So,

1:36:58 ↗ so we are intending to build it in 2028.

1:37:01 ↗ That's correct. It's not just a

1:37:02 ↗ placeholder. It's it's not just a

1:37:04 ↗ placeholder. Uh we are intending to

1:37:07 ↗ build it in 2028. There are still

1:37:09 ↗ opportunities to make changes to that

1:37:12 ↗ plan. Uh, for example, if there's delay

1:37:14 ↗ in washdot projects that cause us to

1:37:17 ↗ delay that project or if at a future

1:37:20 ↗ council decision um the future council

1:37:23 ↗ may also choose not to fund that project

1:37:25 ↗ and prioritize something else. Thank

1:37:27 ↗ you.

1:37:29 ↗ Other questions?

1:37:33 ↗ Oh, I'm sorry, Council Member Hall.

1:37:36 ↗ Thank you. I also had some questions on

1:37:37 ↗ Northwest Mammish Road, so you helped me

1:37:40 ↗ out there. Thank you, Council Member

1:37:41 ↗ Mart. Um although it's it's 2027 and

1:37:44 ↗ 2028, right? I thought I saw some

1:37:46 ↗ funding in both columns there, right?

1:37:48 ↗ Okay. Um does this actually first

1:37:51 ↗ question, does this count as a large

1:37:53 ↗ visionary project? Is this something we

1:37:55 ↗ should be weighing in that space or or

1:37:58 ↗ not? Um so

1:38:01 ↗ so it's a good question. It is a high

1:38:04 ↗ dollar project. Um when we're thinking

1:38:07 ↗ about these larger other projects, if

1:38:09 ↗ you look at uh transportation funding

1:38:12 ↗ and transportation projects, what are

1:38:13 ↗ going to be highcost projects? Um I90

1:38:17 ↗ crossing is one of those that we haven't

1:38:19 ↗ identified funding for and we're not

1:38:21 ↗ sure about our ability to get grants for

1:38:23 ↗ that project. So for me, that is the

1:38:26 ↗ project that's really at the top of the

1:38:28 ↗ list. Um, and then what is still unknown

1:38:30 ↗ is our ability to provide a match for

1:38:33 ↗ sound transit if we need to provide a

1:38:35 ↗ match for the anything that's light rail

1:38:38 ↗ related or some of the city projects

1:38:39 ↗ that would be in support of the light

1:38:40 ↗ rail project. The um Northwest Seamish

1:38:44 ↗ uh non-motorized improvements still very

1:38:47 ↗ high cost. Those dollars we anticipate

1:38:50 ↗ to come from the TBD sales tax. Uh so we

1:38:54 ↗ have an identified funding source for

1:38:56 ↗ that. But with every project we fund,

1:38:58 ↗ there are projects that it means

1:39:01 ↗ necessarily we're not going to fund just

1:39:03 ↗ because we lack the revenues to fund

1:39:05 ↗ everything. So for example, for

1:39:07 ↗ Northwest Seamish non-motorized

1:39:09 ↗ improvements, um that using TBD sales

1:39:13 ↗ tax money, we also anticipated the IT

1:39:16 ↗ projects or intelligent tra

1:39:18 ↗ transportation system projects to come

1:39:20 ↗ out of that source of funding. So, it

1:39:22 ↗ could be that in the years that we're

1:39:24 ↗ paying off the debt service for

1:39:25 ↗ Northwest Seamish non-motorized

1:39:27 ↗ improvements that maybe we're doing

1:39:29 ↗ fewer uh IT related projects.

1:39:33 ↗ Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. That

1:39:35 ↗ really helps put that in perspective.

1:39:37 ↗ Um, and then

1:39:39 ↗ are we as confident as we can be at this

1:39:42 ↗ point in time also knowing that this is

1:39:43 ↗ a planning document that this is what we

1:39:45 ↗ would this is what we would need or this

1:39:48 ↗ is what we anticipate needing to spend

1:39:50 ↗ on construction of the non-motorized

1:39:53 ↗ improvements. This would capture

1:39:54 ↗ everything. These are our best estimates

1:39:57 ↗ to date. Okay. Thank you. Um, and then I

1:40:00 ↗ had a question about um fire station 71.

1:40:04 ↗ So in the previous CIP

1:40:07 ↗ um

1:40:09 ↗ funding is identified there as coming

1:40:12 ↗ from fire mitigation and impact fees and

1:40:16 ↗ I couldn't necessarily find we removed

1:40:18 ↗ that and we have a reason for removing

1:40:20 ↗ that in this um CIP version and I have

1:40:23 ↗ some comments on that later but I

1:40:24 ↗ couldn't necessarily find where the fire

1:40:27 ↗ mitigation and impact fees are in the

1:40:29 ↗ current CIP. So I just wanted to confirm

1:40:31 ↗ with you does that necessarily mean that

1:40:33 ↗ they would be sitting in our account

1:40:36 ↗ available to use on fire infrastructure

1:40:38 ↗ needs in the future or are those

1:40:40 ↗ committed elsewhere and if that's too

1:40:41 ↗ difficult a question we can talk about

1:40:43 ↗ it later too.

1:40:46 ↗ Uh so those funds are available for the

1:40:49 ↗ expansion of um fire infrastructure. So

1:40:54 ↗ we would be able to use those.

1:40:57 ↗ But just because they're not in this CIP

1:40:59 ↗ doesn't mean we're using them in some

1:41:01 ↗ other way that's not an infrastructure

1:41:03 ↗ related thing. Okay, that's correct.

1:41:04 ↗ Okay. Thank you,

1:41:08 ↗ Council Member Jen. Um, yeah, just to

1:41:10 ↗ respond to Council Member Hall's

1:41:12 ↗ question also on page 28, it shows like

1:41:14 ↗ what's the expected balance in every

1:41:17 ↗ fund. So, fire impact fees is in there.

1:41:20 ↗ Um, so I had a question about um the

1:41:24 ↗ light rail planning. So, I was reading

1:41:27 ↗ about how in Redmond, you know, part of

1:41:30 ↗ the reason they were able to get their

1:41:31 ↗ project like under budget and way ahead

1:41:33 ↗ of schedule is that they actually bought

1:41:35 ↗ right away back in like 2008. Is that

1:41:37 ↗ something that we're looking into in

1:41:39 ↗ terms of our planning process? Um cuz I

1:41:42 ↗ to me it seems like, you know, doing a

1:41:44 ↗ lot of planning on that and getting

1:41:45 ↗ ahead of that could, you know, help

1:41:47 ↗ mitigate against some of these just like

1:41:49 ↗ absolutely astronomical cost increases

1:41:51 ↗ that we've been seeing in other Sound

1:41:53 ↗ Transit projects. And then, you know, if

1:41:55 ↗ we get savings because we're able to

1:41:57 ↗ like acquire help them acquire the land

1:41:59 ↗ at a lower cost, then maybe it's like,

1:42:00 ↗ oh, now we have all this extra money

1:42:02 ↗ that we can then use to build the

1:42:03 ↗ Lakemont provisional station with the

1:42:05 ↗ parking over there instead of having

1:42:06 ↗ like a giant parking lot in central

1:42:07 ↗ Isiqua.

1:42:10 ↗ Certainly, that's something that uh is a

1:42:13 ↗ possibility. I know that we're

1:42:15 ↗ interested in doing what we can to

1:42:17 ↗ facilitate the buildout of light rail to

1:42:19 ↗ Isiqua. we are starting um the kickoff

1:42:23 ↗ process for a preferred alignment uh and

1:42:27 ↗ to be able to select that preferred

1:42:29 ↗ alignment for light rail. We also need

1:42:30 ↗ to make sure that Sound Transit uh is

1:42:33 ↗ supportive of that. I think one of the

1:42:36 ↗ advantages that the light rail um

1:42:39 ↗ portion in Isiqua has is that uh we do

1:42:42 ↗ have a lot of rightofway and I90 that's

1:42:45 ↗ anticipated to be used for this project

1:42:47 ↗ and that's something that wash and Sound

1:42:50 ↗ Transit anticipate and so that's that's

1:42:52 ↗ strongly in our favor already. Um when

1:42:55 ↗ it comes to station placement that's

1:42:57 ↗ still something we're going to have to

1:42:58 ↗ sort out um and understand how we can

1:43:01 ↗ then facilitate the preferred

1:43:03 ↗ alternative. So those are decisions that

1:43:04 ↗ I think we can make in the future. We

1:43:06 ↗ have some time to be able to make those.

1:43:08 ↗ And we certainly want we certainly are

1:43:09 ↗ trying to adopt all of the lessons

1:43:12 ↗ learned by the cities who have built out

1:43:15 ↗ light rail before us to help facilitate

1:43:18 ↗ the process.

1:43:20 ↗ Thanks. I had another question on the

1:43:22 ↗ northwest road. So it looks like the

1:43:24 ↗ funding it there's like $17 million in

1:43:27 ↗ TBDbacked debt. Like so my understanding

1:43:31 ↗ was that with the TBD sales tax in the

1:43:33 ↗ first year we're expecting like $2.2

1:43:35 ↗ million of revenue. So that's like it's

1:43:37 ↗ basically like eight or nine years worth

1:43:39 ↗ of TBD sales tax revenue going to this

1:43:41 ↗ one project is kind of what we're

1:43:42 ↗ anticipating.

1:43:44 ↗ The Yes. Depending on the cost of that

1:43:46 ↗ debt service. So, we the um the debt

1:43:52 ↗ markets are in a lot of flux at this

1:43:55 ↗ point and because we're a couple years

1:43:56 ↗ away from needing to borrow that money,

1:43:58 ↗ we haven't made any estimates on what

1:44:00 ↗ that debt service could look like. Um

1:44:02 ↗ but that's certainly an exercise that

1:44:04 ↗ we'll perform in the future.

1:44:06 ↗ Yeah, makes sense. Okay,

1:44:09 ↗ other questions.

1:44:13 ↗ Okay, I have none. Um,

1:44:17 ↗ uh, city clerk, do we have anyone

1:44:19 ↗ wishing to make public comment?

1:44:26 ↗ No. All right. Anybody in the room want

1:44:28 ↗ to make a public comment?

1:44:32 ↗ No. Not seeing anyone. Uh, we will go to

1:44:35 ↗ the questions. Uh, do we want to put

1:44:38 ↗ those back up on the screen? There we

1:44:42 ↗ go. Thank you. So, this is the time for

1:44:46 ↗ council feedback on the uh questions

1:44:49 ↗ that we were being asked or other

1:44:51 ↗ feedback on the plan. So, council member

1:44:54 ↗ Martz uh you may lead us off. I I will

1:44:57 ↗ go back to the well once again and uh

1:45:01 ↗ make a plea for uh our existing

1:45:03 ↗ commitments. You know, there was a night

1:45:06 ↗ and uh I think it was over in Old City

1:45:09 ↗ Hall Northwest. We had a meeting over

1:45:11 ↗ there about resources and I'm thinking

1:45:14 ↗ it was five years ago and somebody's

1:45:15 ↗ going to tell me it was 10 or 15 years

1:45:17 ↗ ago because time flies when you're

1:45:19 ↗ having fun. We got down to the point

1:45:21 ↗ where it was like our two biggest

1:45:23 ↗ priorities were the stoplight at

1:45:25 ↗ Providence Point and the improvements in

1:45:28 ↗ Northwest Seamish or uh Northwest

1:45:31 ↗ Seamish Road. And so we're like gosh

1:45:33 ↗ darn it, we're going to do those two

1:45:34 ↗ things. But okay, we'll do Providence

1:45:37 ↗ Point first. Um because I don't know, it

1:45:39 ↗ was slightly less expensive at the at

1:45:41 ↗ that moment. And uh you know, I just I

1:45:44 ↗ just want to remind this council um you

1:45:47 ↗ know, we're we get to do what we want to

1:45:48 ↗ do, but there's a long and deep history

1:45:51 ↗ in this community um of wanting to get

1:45:54 ↗ these pedestrian improvements um done on

1:45:56 ↗ Northwest Samish. And you know, I've

1:46:00 ↗ never I've never understood why um you

1:46:04 ↗ know, Newport the improvements on

1:46:06 ↗ Newport are just astronomical amounts of

1:46:09 ↗ money. And um we've been wrestling with

1:46:12 ↗ those since before I was on council. We

1:46:14 ↗ were I remember the first I I see we are

1:46:19 ↗ in the season where potential city

1:46:20 ↗ council members are uh join us to sit in

1:46:23 ↗ on our meetings uh so they understand

1:46:26 ↗ the issues better. I was sitting out

1:46:27 ↗ there in the audience in 2009 talking

1:46:30 ↗ about improvements uh on Newport Way and

1:46:33 ↗ uh the stretch in front of Isqua Valley

1:46:35 ↗ Elementary and here we are 16 years

1:46:38 ↗ later um having made only minimal

1:46:41 ↗ improvements there. Nobody in the public

1:46:43 ↗ comes to me and says gosh um our city is

1:46:47 ↗ so close to to being great but we need

1:46:49 ↗ to just improve Newport Way. whereas um

1:46:52 ↗ Northwest Seamish, I mean, I've had a

1:46:55 ↗ hundred people who live up there tell me

1:46:57 ↗ how important it is to make these

1:46:58 ↗ improvements. So, um I I trust you when

1:47:01 ↗ you say it's not just a placeholder. The

1:47:03 ↗ the numbers are eye watering. Um but we

1:47:06 ↗ need to do it. And I just want to remind

1:47:07 ↗ my fellow council members that there's

1:47:09 ↗ just been this is this has been a long

1:47:12 ↗ and and heavy pull, but we need to just

1:47:15 ↗ keep at it. and and I want to be on

1:47:17 ↗ council uh when we are able to walk

1:47:21 ↗ safely along that stretch all the way

1:47:23 ↗ from um those great communities into the

1:47:26 ↗ city. Thank you.

1:47:31 ↗ Other comments,

1:47:37 ↗ Council Member Hall. Sure. I'm still

1:47:39 ↗ chewing on some of these other

1:47:41 ↗ questions, so maybe I'll come in for

1:47:42 ↗ round two um as well. But um echoing

1:47:46 ↗ council member Martz in terms of uh

1:47:48 ↗ emphasizing our continued commitment to

1:47:51 ↗ Northwest Smamish Road and that project

1:47:54 ↗ um I think it is helpful to know what

1:47:55 ↗ kind of impact that could have on its

1:47:57 ↗ and other potential DVD sales taxf

1:48:00 ↗ funded projects but um think that this

1:48:03 ↗ is a priority and that we should

1:48:05 ↗ continue to have this project. So, I was

1:48:06 ↗ happy to see that it was funded or

1:48:09 ↗ planned, not not a budget, a planning

1:48:12 ↗ document, planned. Um,

1:48:16 ↗ I also

1:48:19 ↗ I feel really I feel like we should keep

1:48:21 ↗ fire station 71 in in the capital

1:48:23 ↗ improvement program. I think that

1:48:25 ↗ there's value in in keeping that here. I

1:48:28 ↗ I can't none of us can say with any

1:48:30 ↗ certainty what's going to happen in

1:48:32 ↗ terms of station ownership even if um

1:48:36 ↗ even if Eastside Fire and Rescue becomes

1:48:39 ↗ a separate authority. I mean it's just

1:48:42 ↗ as likely that we consider other answers

1:48:46 ↗ to the Epher question like annexing into

1:48:48 ↗ fire districts as a city or something

1:48:50 ↗ like that. So in fact I think that might

1:48:52 ↗ even be more likely. Of course, those

1:48:54 ↗ conversations are evolving and so we

1:48:56 ↗ won't know for several years, but the

1:48:57 ↗ point is it'll be several years. Like,

1:48:59 ↗ we'll be at the next CIP before we're

1:49:02 ↗ even close to having an answer to this

1:49:05 ↗ question. And and in the meantime, I I

1:49:07 ↗ think it's kind of important that we

1:49:09 ↗ continue to track this thing in the CIP.

1:49:11 ↗ Um, and from my understanding, it looked

1:49:14 ↗ like it was just the fire um, mitigation

1:49:18 ↗ and impact fees that we had fund that we

1:49:21 ↗ had used for funding improvements to

1:49:23 ↗ that project, at least in previous CIPs,

1:49:25 ↗ right? Recognizing that need is greater

1:49:27 ↗ than what's in that account, but but

1:49:30 ↗ still keeping that page alive makes

1:49:34 ↗ sense to me. And um I'm curious what

1:49:36 ↗ other council members um feel that way

1:49:40 ↗ cuz you know we also had a conversation

1:49:42 ↗ too around potentially building a new

1:49:44 ↗ fire station and we got a kind of

1:49:46 ↗ glimpse into the need that exists in

1:49:48 ↗ that station. I think that there are

1:49:49 ↗ more immediate needs too that we could

1:49:51 ↗ potentially

1:49:52 ↗ um be capturing in a CIP page. Um

1:50:00 ↗ yeah, and that might be challenging too.

1:50:02 ↗ I don't know. I just wanted to kind of

1:50:03 ↗ throw that out there and hopefully we

1:50:04 ↗ can have a conversation as council about

1:50:06 ↗ that tonight. Okay. Uh, Council

1:50:08 ↗ President Walsh.

1:50:12 ↗ Thank you. Um, well, first of all, I

1:50:15 ↗ appreciate Council Member Mart's uh,

1:50:17 ↗ reminder of how important our

1:50:19 ↗ commitments are and again the priorities

1:50:22 ↗ we have heard consistently from the

1:50:24 ↗ community over and over again. So when I

1:50:29 ↗ look at these questions in the direction

1:50:31 ↗ needed and say yes I support smaller

1:50:34 ↗ immediate projects over largecale

1:50:37 ↗ visionary projects. I I want to

1:50:40 ↗ distinguish and say

1:50:42 ↗ there are certain areas that we have

1:50:45 ↗ made big commitments and have been

1:50:49 ↗ pushed back by um Wash DOT's um

1:50:53 ↗ construction timeline, but that is not a

1:50:57 ↗ large scale visionary project that we

1:51:00 ↗ would ever seek to abandon. Um, but

1:51:06 ↗ I do think that during my time on

1:51:08 ↗ council, we have kept many large

1:51:11 ↗ projects, um, including a lot of the

1:51:14 ↗ Newport Way projects on the list without

1:51:18 ↗ the ability to fund them and we're still

1:51:21 ↗ progressing with planning costs and, you

1:51:25 ↗ know, documentation. And so I I think we

1:51:27 ↗ should take a step back and keep track

1:51:29 ↗ of those needs, but our time and money

1:51:33 ↗ really should prioritize things that we

1:51:35 ↗ can accomplish in the short term. Um,

1:51:39 ↗ and from my perspective, that includes

1:51:43 ↗ maintenance. Um, and that also includes

1:51:46 ↗ projects that are about pedestrian and

1:51:50 ↗ other mobility safety. Um, anything that

1:51:54 ↗ is sidewalks or crosswalks, I think we

1:51:57 ↗ should definitely look at prioritizing.

1:51:59 ↗ Um, as for supporting maintenance over

1:52:02 ↗ new assets, um, yes, yes, please. Um, I

1:52:07 ↗ think the important thing to recognize

1:52:09 ↗ there is whenever we build a new asset,

1:52:12 ↗ it just gets us even farther behind on

1:52:16 ↗ our maintenance needs. And so we really

1:52:19 ↗ need to step up the investments that we

1:52:23 ↗ make on those maintenance areas um

1:52:27 ↗ so that we do not see things crumble. So

1:52:30 ↗ those would be my preferences. Thank

1:52:32 ↗ you.

1:52:33 ↗ Thank you. Anyone else? Uh Council

1:52:36 ↗ Member Ray. Um thanks. Uh a couple

1:52:38 ↗ things. Really tough year to build a

1:52:40 ↗ CIP. I mean, it it is I'm just want to

1:52:43 ↗ acknowledge that this was um a

1:52:46 ↗ incredible jigsaw puzzle to put

1:52:48 ↗ together. So, um it's even going to be a

1:52:51 ↗ harder process next year to put the

1:52:53 ↗ budget together to fund 27 and 28. So,

1:52:57 ↗ um so that's just kind of as preamble.

1:53:00 ↗ Um I believe that maintaining our

1:53:02 ↗ existing infrastructure always should

1:53:04 ↗ take priority over new investments. And

1:53:06 ↗ we have found time and time again when

1:53:07 ↗ we don't do that, we really hate

1:53:09 ↗ ourselves and then we end up having to

1:53:10 ↗ make a large investment to play

1:53:12 ↗ catch-up. Which really leads into the

1:53:14 ↗ next thought, which is our facilities

1:53:17 ↗ have been ignored for far far far too

1:53:20 ↗ long. Um, and we need to address them.

1:53:22 ↗ This is a can that's been kicked and

1:53:23 ↗ kicked and kicked and kicked. And then I

1:53:25 ↗ just want to finish with my take on

1:53:28 ↗ South Lake Seamish non-motorized

1:53:29 ↗ improvement project which is super

1:53:32 ↗ important and it's also has is in the

1:53:35 ↗ next phase of the CIP. It is clearly

1:53:37 ↗ identified um what the cost estimates

1:53:40 ↗ are where the funding is going to go. So

1:53:42 ↗ I think it captures the CIP captures

1:53:44 ↗ that priority really nicely. Uh again

1:53:47 ↗ it's going to be a challenge for the

1:53:48 ↗ council next year to figure out how to

1:53:49 ↗ fund the CIP. From a planning

1:53:52 ↗ perspective, um I'm kind of a I kind of

1:53:54 ↗ like where we are and I think it it's a

1:53:57 ↗ a tough road map to lay out, but it's a

1:53:59 ↗ road map that tries to fill the the

1:54:02 ↗ holes as

1:54:04 ↗ effectively as possible.

1:54:09 ↗ Council member Jing.

1:54:12 ↗ Yeah, I think I want to echo what

1:54:14 ↗ everyone else said about the importance

1:54:15 ↗ of maintenance. you know, like if you

1:54:18 ↗ don't maintain your roads and they fall

1:54:20 ↗ apart, it costs way more to just

1:54:22 ↗ completely, you know, resurface them and

1:54:23 ↗ all that stuff. Um, also I didn't mean

1:54:27 ↗ in any of my comments to, you know,

1:54:29 ↗ express skepticism about the importance

1:54:30 ↗ of the Northwest Seamish Road pedestrian

1:54:32 ↗ improvements. Just wanted to make sure

1:54:34 ↗ that, you know, we're really

1:54:35 ↗ acknowledging like this is a really, you

1:54:38 ↗ know, it's a large cost and there's

1:54:40 ↗ going to be tradeoffs and, you know, for

1:54:43 ↗ years to come. um with that. Um but

1:54:46 ↗ ultimately, you know, again, as you

1:54:49 ↗ mentioned, uh deputy city administrator,

1:54:51 ↗ we're in such an uncertain period. You

1:54:53 ↗ know, we have no idea what the debt

1:54:54 ↗ markets are going to look like in 3 to 6

1:54:57 ↗ months, let alone like 2 years when we

1:54:59 ↗ actually do these projects. So, I think

1:55:01 ↗ as far as the plan goes, it's it's good.

1:55:03 ↗ It captures a lot of the projects that

1:55:04 ↗ we're working on. I also do want to echo

1:55:06 ↗ what council president Walsh said about,

1:55:08 ↗ you know, with some projects that are

1:55:10 ↗ maybe less likely to get funded, maybe

1:55:13 ↗ those are areas where there's some like

1:55:14 ↗ planning costs that we could potentially

1:55:16 ↗ cut back on. Um, but ultimately, I

1:55:19 ↗ think, you know, it's we're going to

1:55:21 ↗ have some tougher decisions to make in

1:55:23 ↗ the budget next year.

1:55:29 ↗ Right. Anybody else want to make

1:55:31 ↗ comments?

1:55:35 ↗ All right. Um, I too am a strong

1:55:39 ↗ believer in uh prior prioritizing

1:55:42 ↗ maintenance and I think I've expressed

1:55:44 ↗ that pretty clearly in other settings.

1:55:48 ↗ Uh, especially our facilities that again

1:55:51 ↗ have been let go for years and years and

1:55:54 ↗ now need uh major work done. Um, and

1:55:58 ↗ either way they're going to cost us

1:55:59 ↗ money if we don't do something. uh

1:56:02 ↗ eventually we're going to have to uh

1:56:04 ↗ remove them and that is also a cost

1:56:07 ↗ costly process. So um these are things

1:56:10 ↗ that have been on our books and we need

1:56:11 ↗ to pay attention to their needs. Um and

1:56:15 ↗ same thing for roads and pavement. I

1:56:17 ↗ agree with council president Walsh um on

1:56:21 ↗ the need for maintaining our roads uh

1:56:23 ↗ the road system that we have before we

1:56:26 ↗ start uh building other roads. However,

1:56:29 ↗ I don't re I don't regard the Northwest

1:56:32 ↗ I never get the name of that right.

1:56:34 ↗ Northwest

1:56:36 ↗ Samish Road. I for some reason it just

1:56:38 ↗ doesn't compute in my brain, but um that

1:56:41 ↗ to me is is an existing roadway that

1:56:43 ↗ needs uh major improvements and so and

1:56:46 ↗ safety improvements that are really

1:56:48 ↗ important. So I agree with the comments

1:56:51 ↗ that have been made uh in that

1:56:52 ↗ direction. I am going to put in a plug

1:56:54 ↗ again for light rail and for the

1:56:56 ↗ planning we do on that. That again is a

1:56:58 ↗ commitment we've made. We've made it for

1:57:00 ↗ a long time. It is coming even though

1:57:03 ↗ it's still 16 17 years away but we used

1:57:06 ↗ to say 20 years. So it will be here and

1:57:10 ↗ we had better be ready for it because

1:57:12 ↗ this is going to be like the major

1:57:14 ↗ project uh for this city when it finally

1:57:18 ↗ gets here for construction. So we need

1:57:21 ↗ to keep investing in those plans and

1:57:23 ↗ keep investing um uh personnel in

1:57:27 ↗ planning uh along with sound transit and

1:57:30 ↗ metro and the other players that are in

1:57:32 ↗ that and our fellow cities around us. Uh

1:57:35 ↗ we need both people and uh equipment in

1:57:38 ↗ that project. So so I want to shout out

1:57:41 ↗ on that one. Um and then I am really

1:57:46 ↗ anticipating the results from our task

1:57:48 ↗ force from our facilities task force and

1:57:50 ↗ what they are going to come back and say

1:57:53 ↗ to us uh with regard to how we could

1:57:55 ↗ possibly

1:57:57 ↗ um fund what projects first of all they

1:58:00 ↗ think are top priority and then secondly

1:58:02 ↗ how we can possibly fund them. So um is

1:58:06 ↗ there anybody else before we conclude

1:58:07 ↗ that would like to make additional

1:58:09 ↗ comments or hasn't had a chance? Uh,

1:58:11 ↗ Council Member Hall. Yeah. I just wanted

1:58:13 ↗ to ask a question, too, because you had

1:58:15 ↗ some really specific direction needed

1:58:17 ↗ questions, too. Is there anything you're

1:58:20 ↗ not hearing that you were hoping for us

1:58:22 ↗ to have conversation around in different

1:58:24 ↗ areas or or can you interpret um us not

1:58:28 ↗ bringing it up as um endorsement of all

1:58:31 ↗ your great work in the different areas

1:58:33 ↗ of the CIP? Thank you, Council Member

1:58:35 ↗ Hall. I believe we have all the feedback

1:58:37 ↗ that we were hoping to receive tonight.

1:58:39 ↗ So, thank you.

1:58:42 ↗ All right. If there are no more

1:58:43 ↗ comments, um, and let me just say to

1:58:47 ↗ going through I, uh, put a goal for

1:58:50 ↗ myself to go through the CIP page by

1:58:52 ↗ page. Uh, I again, I'm looking at and

1:58:55 ↗ thinking this was, uh, an amazing amount

1:58:57 ↗ of work, very good work. Um, it really

1:59:01 ↗ does help us when we get to the budget

1:59:04 ↗ time. Even though it is a planning

1:59:05 ↗ document, it really helps us when we get

1:59:08 ↗ to actually talking about the money. And

1:59:10 ↗ so I really want to compliment staff for

1:59:12 ↗ the work that was done on that. Um uh it

1:59:15 ↗ is uh so I think that's our roundup.

1:59:18 ↗ You've got everything that you need. And

1:59:20 ↗ the next item on the agenda is good of

1:59:22 ↗ the order. If there's anybody that would

1:59:24 ↗ like to provide good of the order.

1:59:29 ↗ Not seeing anything. I

1:59:35 ↗ Oh, council president. Oh, sorry. Sorry.

1:59:37 ↗ Sorry. Go ahead.

1:59:40 ↗ That's okay. I'm just floating up here.

1:59:41 ↗ I understand. Um, so I wanted to talk to

1:59:45 ↗ the council for just a moment. Um, I

1:59:48 ↗ have received requests and support from

1:59:51 ↗ the community um, with the idea of

1:59:54 ↗ renaming the East Sunset Trail Head in

1:59:58 ↗ memory of Senator Bill Ramos.

2:00:02 ↗ And so I've talked to the administration

2:00:05 ↗ about this a little bit. Um, our typical

2:00:07 ↗ process is to go through a new business

2:00:10 ↗ request item and I'd like to ask the

2:00:13 ↗ council to wave that process um and just

2:00:17 ↗ ask the administration to come back with

2:00:20 ↗ a way to accomplish this. They've

2:00:22 ↗ actually already done the initial

2:00:24 ↗ research anticipating this idea and um I

2:00:27 ↗ believe have suggested that they could

2:00:29 ↗ return at the meeting on July 9th for

2:00:33 ↗ our consideration. So, first I wanted to

2:00:35 ↗ just check in with the council and see

2:00:37 ↗ if there were any concerns with waving

2:00:40 ↗ our new business request process.

2:00:43 ↗ Thank you. Um, this is a um council uh

2:00:48 ↗ Yes, you can take a motion. I in in

2:00:50 ↗ working with the council leadership. Um,

2:00:53 ↗ I think if there is general direction

2:00:55 ↗ that there's no objection this evening,

2:00:57 ↗ we'll move forward. Uh, we would ask

2:01:00 ↗ that it be a multi still be a multi-step

2:01:02 ↗ process. um we would like to come on

2:01:04 ↗ July 9th and share uh the council has an

2:01:07 ↗ existing process. We want to share the

2:01:09 ↗ history of the use of that process and

2:01:11 ↗ then let you consider how you'd like to

2:01:13 ↗ move forward. And so depending on that

2:01:15 ↗ discussion, come back then at a of a

2:01:18 ↗ future meeting with some action, but to

2:01:20 ↗ have the July 9th be a review of current

2:01:24 ↗ policy and then the use of that current

2:01:25 ↗ policy. Right. So is there I'm sorry,

2:01:28 ↗ July 7th. July 7th. Are there any

2:01:30 ↗ objections to moving forward with uh the

2:01:34 ↗ process as described by the city

2:01:35 ↗ administrator?

2:01:38 ↗ Well, seeing no objections. Thank you.

2:01:40 ↗ Yeah. All right. Anything else for the

2:01:43 ↗ good of the order?

2:01:45 ↗ My apologies to Council President Walsh

2:01:48 ↗ for uh almost missing that. Uh all

2:01:51 ↗ right. We are adjourned at uh 8:30.

2:01:55 ↗ Looks like 8:33.

2:01:58 ↗ Here we go.

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, Chair

Zach Hall

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh (Attended Virtually)