← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Committee of the Whole Auto captions

Monday, October 13, 2025

6:30 PM · 2h 24m · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topics tracked across meetings:
2025-2026 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment AB 9053 2/6
North-South Traffic Study COM 0166 2/2
City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 12, 2025 City Council Committee of the Whole · Oct 13, 2025
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
North-South Traffic Study COM 0166
60 min · Emily Moon, Public Works Director · packet pp.5–147
Topics: Transportation
Staff report:
At City Council’s July 12, 2025 Committee of the Whole Meeting, Councilmembers discussed priorities identified in the most recent community survey. With "the flow of traffic” being a top priority and councilmembers desiring to focus on north-south mobility, City Administration was asked to return to Council with options for a “north-south traffic study” and explore a way to improve Talus residents’ access to their neighborhood from State Route 900.
3b
2025-26 Mid-Biennium Budget Adjustment COM 0170
60 min · Kristin Garcia, Finance Director · packet pp.149–181
Topics: Budget
Staff report:
Direction Needed from Council Pursuant to Chapter 35A.34 RCW and IMC 3.02.020, the City is to perform a mid-biennial review and modification of its budget no sooner than 9 months after the start of the first year of the fiscal biennium and no later than the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting in November of the first year of each biennial budget. This staff report summarizes the City’s current financial position and outlines the budget adjustments proposed as part of these mid-biennium budget updates.
0:08 Okay, welcome everyone. I, Council
0:10 President Walsh, call the October 13th
0:13 Committee of the Whole meeting to order
0:15 at 6:32 p.m. As a reminder, we will
0:19 continue to have remote aspects to our
0:21 meeting. So, members of the public and
0:24 staff may be participating tonight
0:25 remotely via WebEx. Um, there are
0:28 multiple public comment opportunities at
0:30 tonight's meeting. There's going to be a
0:32 general public comment opportunity at
0:34 the beginning of the meeting now or you
0:36 can make comments after the presentation
0:38 and council question and answer period
0:40 on tonight's two agenda items.
0:44 So, um, members of the public may
0:46 address council at this time in person
0:48 or virtually. Guess before I go through
0:50 all of it, let me check. Do we have any
0:52 members of the public online?
0:56 and we do not in person. So, I'm gonna
0:59 skip over all of that. Just saying that
1:02 if anybody joins later on, um we would
1:04 be happy to accept public comment. And
1:07 we always are happy to receive emails um
1:11 by sending them to city council
1:13 isawwa.gov.
1:15 And I will note that council member Hall
1:18 may be a little bit late and has an
1:21 excused
1:22 um instance for that. So we have two
1:25 items on our agenda tonight. The first
1:27 is comm 0166
1:29 the north south traffic study and the
1:31 second is comm 0170
1:34 the 2025 2026 midbenium budget
1:37 adjustment. And so we will start with
1:39 the north south traffic study uh
1:42 presented by Emily Moon our public works
1:45 director.
1:52 Good evening.
1:54 Share the presentation and then we'll
1:56 get underway here.
2:15 >> Great. Well, I'm happy to be here to
2:17 talk about everybody's favorite topic,
2:19 traffic.
2:22 Tonight, I am also joined online by John
2:25 Martinson, who is our transportation
2:27 engineering manager, and Trisha Davis,
2:30 who is King County's road super road
2:33 services director. Thank you, Trisha,
2:36 for being here.
2:39 And tonight we
2:44 get slides to advance. We are going to
2:47 talk about
2:50 council's direction from the July 12th,
2:53 2025 committee of the whole meeting
2:55 where in part you had a good discussion
2:59 about uh the community survey and the
3:03 results from that and one of the focal
3:06 points from the survey results was yet
3:09 again traffic in the city. And so, city
3:13 administration promised to come back to
3:15 provide some options in particular for a
3:18 north south traffic study and also to
3:22 explore a way to improve residents
3:24 access to Talis via State Route 900.
3:38 So before we dive into content, I'll
3:41 just say I know there will be ample time
3:44 in future meetings also to talk about uh
3:48 the topics that you have of interest.
3:51 Um, but tonight is really about learning
3:54 what other information you wish to have
3:56 for those discussions and how we might
3:59 prepare on staff sides for um answering
4:03 those questions and any resource plans
4:05 that would be needed in order to get you
4:07 that information or develop those plans.
4:10 So tonight we're hoping to get some
4:12 feedback regarding the proposed next
4:15 steps in the packet to improve north
4:17 south travel times in Isqua and also to
4:20 understand if you do wish to have some
4:22 additional conversations.
4:26 So as background
4:29 stating the obvious here we are
4:31 constrained by our topography and many
4:35 other factors. We have three access
4:37 points from the north but only two from
4:40 the south and that really constrains the
4:44 the throughput and the mobility um from
4:47 either side of I90 to the other.
4:52 City has very limited ability to
4:55 construct additional roadway capacity.
4:57 So I'm really talking about vehicle
4:59 traffic and uh the options that would be
5:03 available to us are also pretty
5:05 expensive.
5:06 Nevertheless, we have projects in
5:08 progress and many future projects
5:10 planned to help promote mobility in the
5:13 city, whether that's in a a vehicle or
5:17 on a bike or on foot.
5:21 So, tonight I'm going to talk a little
5:23 bit about four particular sources of our
5:27 mobility projects. So, I wanted to just
5:29 highlight what those are. We're going to
5:31 talk quite a bit about the Isqua Hobart
5:33 Road front street corridor study which
5:36 was completed in 2018. I'll also
5:38 reference the interchange justification
5:40 report that was completed soon
5:42 thereafter and included some projects
5:46 and then the intelligent transportation
5:48 systems or IT plan that was completed in
5:52 2023. And then lastly, but more
5:55 comprehensively, is our transportation
5:57 improvement plan that gets completed on
5:59 an annual basis and gets incorporated
6:02 into our overall citywide capital
6:04 improvement plan.
6:09 So in depth, I want to talk about Isqua
6:12 Hobart Road front street study.
6:15 The goal of this study, which we
6:17 completed with King County, was to
6:20 identify and evaluate safety, mobility,
6:22 and other related improvements to
6:24 provide the most efficient and reliable
6:27 traffic flow possible along the
6:29 corridor.
6:31 And how we went about that was we
6:33 collected a whole bunch of data
6:34 evaluating current conditions, analyzing
6:38 possible solutions, rating them across
6:41 different criteria, and then we
6:43 developed some implementation
6:44 strategies.
6:46 So the crux of the study was really to
6:48 understand and support traffic flow to
6:52 achieve enhanced management of
6:55 congestion. And I think that's important
6:57 to state, you know, did not look at ways
7:00 to um uh change what we cannot change
7:05 today. Those topography issues, the fact
7:09 that our uh north south connection
7:11 points are limited.
7:16 Port study had several key findings. I'm
7:19 not going to read to you what's on the
7:20 slide, but uh it stated the obvious that
7:23 this is a heavily traveled corridor
7:26 accommodating over 20,000 vehicles daily
7:30 on its most utilized segments and that
7:33 that is an unusually high volume for a
7:35 two-lane road.
7:38 northbound direction during the AM peak
7:40 has actually two peaks and the
7:43 southbound uh the peak is um in the
7:46 direction in the afternoon.
7:49 A good portion of the morning congestion
7:52 occurs in the county segment of the
7:54 corridor particularly around May Valley
7:56 Road and Cedar Grove Road whereas in the
7:59 afternoon the peak congestion occurs
8:02 mostly within the city.
8:04 That stop and go congestion
8:08 contributes to collisions and
8:11 particularly rear end collisions. In
8:13 turn, those collisions contribute to
8:15 travel times being pretty unreliable
8:17 each day. Other factors that affect the
8:21 traffic on this corridor and the
8:23 inconsistency of travel times include
8:27 school bus stops, um garbage collection,
8:31 midblock pedestrian crossings within the
8:34 city, parking maneuvers to get onto the
8:37 on street parking, and left and right
8:40 turn movements where there are no real
8:43 dedicated turn lanes.
8:47 I also wanted to point out one of the
8:49 key findings was that future
8:51 intersection and corridor operations do
8:54 not worsen in the corridor at least as
8:57 they were forecasted and as we believe
9:00 the forecast would still show today to
9:02 the degree that might be expected given
9:05 the uh magnitude of anticipated growth
9:08 in the area. And that's mainly due to
9:11 the fact that the corridor is already at
9:13 capacity
9:14 and uh we're not able to accommodate
9:18 more vehicles particularly in the peak
9:20 directions at those peak times. However,
9:23 there are intersections and corridor
9:25 segments which do degrade in the level
9:28 of service and are expected to have
9:32 increases and delay over time at those
9:34 intersections which would decrease
9:37 travel speeds again along certain
9:39 corridor segments.
9:43 The corridor study recommended a host of
9:46 projects. There are four for the city,
9:49 three for the county, and two that had
9:52 sort of joint ownership. And I'm going
9:54 to walk through each of those and where
9:57 we are with them today.
10:01 On the county's side, we had the Isqua
10:04 Hobart Road, May Valley Road interim
10:06 improvements, which was really about
10:08 extending some turn lanes until the
10:10 roundabout, which is the third project
10:12 listed here, could be constructed.
10:15 county decided not to pursue the interim
10:17 project and began doing the design of
10:20 the more permanent um improvement.
10:25 The middle project there um is not
10:28 funded. Uh it is being sequenced to get
10:32 attention after May Valley intersection
10:35 would see improvements.
10:38 So the improvement that they are working
10:39 on right now is a design of the
10:41 roundabout at Esqua Hobart Road and May
10:43 Valley Road intersection with some
10:45 additional lanes to get traffic around
10:48 that intersection
10:50 and they have uh grant funding to move
10:52 the project into final design next year.
10:55 However, the construction phase is not
10:57 funded at this time and has gone up
10:59 significantly in price.
11:04 On the city's side, there are four
11:07 projects.
11:08 Front Street and Sunset Way turning
11:11 lanes and timing adjustments is in our
11:13 future years CIP. And just to define
11:16 what I mean by future years, that's the
11:19 time period some x number of years after
11:23 the six-year CIP. So, it does not have a
11:26 targeted year per se, but it's on our
11:28 radar.
11:31 Second project is front front street and
11:33 northwest dogwood street intersection
11:35 improvements. That is in our current CIP
11:38 for design in a few years and
11:41 construction in 2032. Its cost today is
11:45 $3.92 million.
11:49 Third project was Front Street and
11:51 Dogwood Street. Uh sorry, Front Street
11:54 from Dogwood to second signal technology
11:58 and uh that includes
12:01 moving toward adaptive signal control
12:03 technology and Front Street right now is
12:06 part of our kind of citywide study where
12:10 we're analyzing that technology and
12:12 trying to determine where it would be
12:14 best utilized. So we expect to have
12:16 those results next year sometime and
12:18 then we'll decide which of the projects
12:20 including this one might proceed. And
12:23 then front street access management is
12:25 the last one and right now we're not
12:27 recommending that project. Certainly has
12:29 been something that we have talked about
12:31 over the last few years but there are
12:33 some concerns that that project would
12:35 affect our intracity mobility um and may
12:40 not have the the benefit um that it was
12:43 forecasted.
12:47 And then lastly, the kind of
12:49 jointlyowned
12:50 projects include DMS or dynamic
12:54 messaging signs. And so the study
12:57 recommended that some additional signs
13:00 be added to help travelers understand
13:02 which routes to take, under what
13:04 conditions, what they could expect terms
13:07 of travel times or road conditions. And
13:10 the city on our side has a couple DMS
13:15 boards planned uh to expand the number
13:19 that we have in the city right now. And
13:21 while we haven't settled on the exact
13:23 locations of those, we've been
13:25 contemplating putting one on SR900.
13:28 Should be be able to work that out with
13:30 the state and on Newport near Lake.
13:35 Again, helping people understand
13:39 once they get within the city what they
13:40 can expect.
13:43 Those travel time signs would be best
13:46 situated outside of the city limits so
13:48 that we can steer people another
13:51 direction if the travel times are not
13:53 favorable or if the volumes are really
13:55 heavy. And then the last project that
13:58 was listed here was kind of a combined
14:02 educational program or providing
14:04 incentives to try to get people to
14:06 choose alternative means of
14:08 transportation and every entity, county,
14:11 state, city uh continues to work on
14:14 that.
14:18 So in addition to the corridor study and
14:22 our CIP and our IT plan, this is a list
14:25 of a few other things that we have done
14:28 um since that time or around that time.
14:30 So we had a what we called a truck ban
14:33 freight prohibition that went into
14:35 effect. The JR the interchange
14:38 justification report was completed. Lots
14:41 of bike pad improvements across town. We
14:44 adopted the TBD sales tax and uh
14:48 dedicated that to a couple of projects.
14:51 You adopted the intelligent
14:53 transportation system plan. We've
14:56 continued to work on capital improvement
14:59 projects for north south mobility
15:01 including the design of Newport Maple to
15:04 sunset. Concurrency's been updated a
15:07 couple of times including policy
15:09 updates. We've tried programmatic
15:12 approaches as well.
15:13 and offered alternative transportation.
15:18 We have coordinated some signals in town
15:21 and we've gotten a huge grant to look at
15:24 video analytics so that we can study
15:26 what's really happening at intersections
15:28 and maybe uh design those intersection
15:31 controls so that we have fewer
15:33 collisions and and other things that
15:35 affect traffic.
15:37 And then I spoke about the adapted
15:39 signal control technology. We're working
15:41 on that study now. and
15:45 uh SR18 um improvements. The council has
15:49 been advocating for those for some time.
15:51 And I'm going to get a sip of water.
15:53 Just one sec.
15:55 >> Okay. And I think we have a question
15:57 while you are getting your water.
16:00 Deputy Council President D. Michelle.
16:01 >> Yeah. Uh thanks Emily. Could you talk a
16:04 little bit more about the school pool?
16:06 Was that a joint project with the school
16:07 district or was that uh just the school
16:09 districts? And um how long did it last
16:13 and do you have an idea of why it is no
16:16 longer operating?
16:21 >> Some questions I'm going to need to get
16:22 back to you on such as how many years
16:24 did it operate off the top of my head. I
16:26 could hazard a guess, but I won't do
16:28 that.
16:29 um it hasn't been operating I I I think
16:33 it shut down basically during the
16:35 pandemic or shortly before the pandemic
16:37 and it hasn't been resurrected.
16:40 Um city staff continues to have
16:42 conversations with the school district
16:44 and it was a joint project uh about how
16:47 to encourage car pooling etc.
17:05 All right, switching gears. Let's talk
17:07 talis.
17:09 So, the other question from your July
17:12 meeting was uh could we
17:16 develop a recommendation to improve
17:19 access for residents into the
17:21 neighborhood?
17:23 So the problem that we see is of course
17:26 congestion on State Route 900
17:30 and residents particularly in the
17:32 afternoon have difficulty uh being able
17:35 to even get to the turn into the
17:37 neighborhood. Track traffic is backing
17:40 up from Ron.
17:43 So we took a look at this issue and um
17:47 studied what could be a possible
17:49 solution. I think during your meeting
17:51 you had talked about was there a
17:54 potential to move the merge point
17:57 further to the um further to the sorry
18:01 extend the turn lane further to the
18:02 north to allow residents to access the
18:06 turn lane ahead of the backup and
18:08 therefore get into the neighborhood
18:10 without having to sit in traffic.
18:13 So we looked at that.
18:16 it would be extremely challenging
18:18 um probably very expensive
18:22 and uh it's not our recommendation. We
18:25 have a we have a second recommendation
18:27 for you that we think achieves much of
18:29 the same but hopefully would be um a
18:33 little easier to permit to get
18:35 permission from the state which is what
18:37 we would have to do and uh to ultimately
18:40 construct.
18:42 So, here's the problem with extending
18:44 the turn lane to the north. And I
18:46 apologize you have this in your packet.
18:48 I know it looks small on the screen,
18:51 but there are retaining walls, there are
18:54 environmentally critical areas, and um
18:58 in particular,
19:00 we believe that the city would have to
19:03 construct more fish passages. And that
19:08 um would be extremely expensive because
19:10 you'd have to uh rebuild SR900 in a few
19:14 spots in order to do that, possibly
19:18 elevating it, etc.
19:22 So, in lie of that, we kind of took a
19:25 look at the other end.
19:27 So after you pass Talis Drive and you're
19:31 still headed southbound toward Reton,
19:34 just before you get to the city line,
19:38 the zipper lane merges.
19:43 And we believe that if we were to
19:46 extend the merge point further to the
19:51 north,
19:53 we would be able to uh
19:57 allow more of the congestion hopefully
20:01 to queue up on past Talis Drive such
20:06 that hopefully there would be less
20:08 traffic
20:10 stacked up at the Talis Drive
20:12 intersection. and therefore enable
20:14 residents to get into the turn lane.
20:17 This is more feasible because we have
20:19 the land to do it. Um it's
20:24 not as constrained from either uh
20:28 engineering built structures or from uh
20:32 the natural landscape around it. And we
20:35 think it will be therefore less
20:37 expensive to do.
20:40 As we've looked at it, we think that an
20:42 additional capacity of 25 to 30 cars
20:46 might be possible there.
20:52 So, tonight our recommendation is to
20:55 continue to implement the 2018 study and
21:00 the IT plan, but we'd also love your
21:03 feedback about city council's desire to
21:06 have more discussions. And then we have
21:09 a recommendation about how to get
21:11 started. I wrote uh to design but really
21:14 it's pre-esign. It would be study uh do
21:17 a traffic study look at those
21:20 geotechnical conditions talk to wash all
21:23 the precursor events that we would need
21:25 to do.
21:27 >> I think we've got a question but we've
21:28 only got like two slides left. So
21:31 >> okay great.
21:35 So timing is just dependent on what you
21:38 would like for next steps
21:40 and again tonight we're looking for that
21:43 feedback on the proposed next steps and
21:46 uh whether you would like to have some
21:49 additional discussions or deeper dives
21:51 about these topics and the
21:52 recommendations.
21:55 >> Great. Well, we will start with
21:57 questions and Council Member Rays.
22:00 Um thanks Emily. Interesting stuff. Um,
22:04 in terms of moving the turn lane,
22:07 extending the turn lane north, did you
22:10 consider repurposing the right left turn
22:13 lane that is in the middle of SR900 and
22:18 with limited utilization?
22:21 >> Yes, we did talk about that. We think
22:24 will because of prior conversations we
22:26 have had with them will uh not be um in
22:31 favor of that. Plus, there has been a
22:34 little bit more development on that
22:35 south side or the east side of SR900.
22:40 So, the and given the speeds, they have
22:43 requirements for how much of the turn
22:46 lane capacity they need to maintain.
22:49 >> So, what was that the gist of uh Wash
22:51 Dot's objection to looking at maybe
22:54 repurposing that concrete or that
22:56 asphalt
22:57 or what was their objection? I'm just
22:59 curious.
23:00 >> And and this is historic. I just I I
23:02 want to say I have not had a
23:03 conversation with them um recently. That
23:06 has been their stance.
23:09 Plus, uh they they do have some concerns
23:11 about anytime they
23:14 touch the pavement in a certain way,
23:16 they'll have to uh add features or meet
23:19 new standards. And I think they
23:21 >> they have budgetary concerns as well.
23:24 >> Okay. Um because I agree with you. I
23:26 think trying to extend that turn pocket
23:28 is completely unfeasible, but I still
23:30 can't understand why we can't repurpose
23:32 that uh roadway that currently exists.
23:35 Um because if you drive it, it doesn't
23:38 get used and there's a way to deal with
23:39 the left turn traffic that would be less
23:42 complex than extending the merge point.
23:44 So, um I think it would be worthwhile, I
23:46 mean, this is a comment, but I'm going
23:48 to do it anyway. Um I think it would be
23:49 worthwhile to reopen that conversation
23:51 with WAD.
23:54 Council
23:56 member Shane, thank you.
23:57 >> Yeah, that was my question as well. You
23:59 know, like have we considered, you know,
24:01 how you could potentially repaint it?
24:04 Um, so it would be really interesting to
24:06 see that. I guess my question on the
24:09 extending the turn pocket or the merge
24:12 point slightly farther south. I mean,
24:15 it's pretty clear if you've ever driven
24:16 on SR900, adding capacity for 30 cars is
24:19 just going to move the uh traffic point
24:22 from, you know, where I90 is to.1 mile
24:27 past where I90 is. So, it's not going to
24:30 make that big of a difference, but I
24:31 will say I'm very curious. So, if we
24:33 were to do that, um, would there be the
24:36 potential to combine it with a few other
24:37 improvements? in particular, adding a
24:39 sidewalk on that side of SR900 and then
24:41 potentially also adding a crosswalk
24:43 across SR900. And the reason I ask is
24:45 because I know the uh Cougar Mountain
24:48 Middle School cross country team will
24:50 actually run on the side of SR900 to the
24:52 Bear Ridge Trail. And I'm like, I don't
24:54 I don't think that's great. So, if we
24:56 could use this as an opportunity to also
24:57 add pedestrian improvements, um I then I
25:00 would be like totally in favor of that.
25:02 And if we could have the, you know,
25:04 crosswalk there that also, you know,
25:06 allows people to connect from uh Cougar
25:08 Mountain to Squawk Mountain if you're
25:10 doing like a longer, you know, hike or
25:12 run or whatever, which is something that
25:13 I've personally really wanted for a long
25:15 time. So, just curious if that's
25:16 something that could be included in such
25:17 a project.
25:21 >> Well, uh possibly. I I think it's
25:24 important to keep in mind it's State
25:26 Roadway, so whose project would it be?
25:29 and um we can certainly examine it and
25:34 um invite their feedback on that
25:36 possibility.
25:40 >> Okay, another question. Have there ever
25:42 been studies because so it seems like
25:44 there's been studies of adding
25:44 roundabouts on Isqua Hobart Road. Have
25:47 there ever been studies of adding
25:48 roundabouts on SR900 in particular at
25:50 May Valley Road and then at like 164th
25:53 which is where JB's Cafe is to improve
25:55 traffic flow?
25:58 Yeah, I believe they have looked at
25:59 that. Um, I can certainly uh follow up
26:03 with King County and and pose that
26:05 question, but I think that's been
26:07 explored.
26:09 >> And then I guess if that's been
26:12 explored, do you know what the reasons
26:13 were that they didn't prioritize doing
26:16 it?
26:17 >> I do not. I do not.
26:23 Council member Mertz,
26:25 >> as we look at this problem, have we
26:28 identified that one of the ancillary
26:30 challenges of the traffic buildup on 900
26:34 is that Newport Way Northwest heading
26:37 west into that intersection gets backed
26:39 up and it gets backed up to turn, but it
26:42 gets backed up in the afternoon so far
26:43 that it actually backs up the straight
26:45 through on Newport Way northwest. So all
26:48 the traffic heading from downtown across
26:50 the top corner of Squawk Mountain
26:52 basically gets gets backed up as a few
26:55 cars make the turn onto 900. So that's
26:58 part of the challenge and part of the
26:59 opportunity right of of solving the
27:01 problem.
27:02 >> Yes. Yes.
27:03 >> So that is part of the equation if you
27:06 will.
27:06 >> It is part of the equation. So, uh, we
27:09 look at the performance of all of those
27:11 signals,
27:13 the performance of the the roads that
27:15 tie in or cross SR900. And I I think
27:19 you're right, it's it is a complex
27:21 issue. There's trade-offs between um how
27:24 well the state route functions versus
27:27 our local roads.
27:29 I agree,
27:33 >> Council Member Hall.
27:35 >> Thank you. Sorry for being a bit late. I
27:37 was listening to live on YouTube while I
27:39 was driving over. Um you said um going
27:42 back to the other question um for
27:45 tonight um when you were talking about
27:48 other things that we've done in kind of
27:49 the north south exploration, you talked
27:52 about video analytics project. Can you
27:53 remind us what that is?
27:55 >> Sure. So, we got a grant to analyze, and
27:58 I don't have the number off the top of
27:59 my head, but many intersections,
28:03 putting cameras up to look at traffic
28:06 behavior in those intersections so that
28:09 we could learn
28:12 what patterns are happening there, at
28:14 what times of day. Um, I'll say what
28:17 poor behavior that is counter to how the
28:20 intersection is really supposed to be
28:22 functioning. So, think about u late
28:27 left turns on flashing yellow that
28:30 result in collisions.
28:33 Um, as one example,
28:36 how how are we having close calls,
28:40 pedestrians versus cars, for example. So
28:43 we get that that data and we look at it
28:46 on an intersection by intersection basis
28:49 to try to figure out is there something
28:51 that we can change about this
28:52 intersection in terms of particularly
28:54 the signal timing that would help make
28:57 it safer or
28:59 uh be more responsive to the conditions
29:02 at those times of days or the the
29:04 pattern of use for different legs of the
29:07 intersection.
29:13 Okay, any other questions? Okay, before
29:17 we go to discussion, there is an
29:19 opportunity for public comment. Do we
29:22 have anyone in the audience who would
29:23 like to make public comment? No. And
29:27 anyone online?
29:30 >> We do have a member of the public online
29:32 with us.
29:32 >> Okay. So, so we have an opportunity
29:35 after this and the other um item on our
29:38 agenda to make public comment. If you
29:40 are on a computer and would like to or a
29:44 smartphone and would like to make public
29:46 comments, you can raise your virtual
29:50 hand or send the host a chat message. If
29:52 you're on the phone, you press star
29:55 three and that will indicate
29:58 that you are interested to speak.
30:02 And so I will just see if anybody is
30:04 indicating an interest to make comments.
30:08 >> Not seeing. Okay,
30:10 >> fantastic. Again, we always take emails
30:13 and we love to hear from folks. So, um,
30:20 I normally don't start comments and
30:23 everything, but I'm wondering if we can
30:25 take the two concepts of SR900 and kind
30:29 of the front street and rest of it a
30:31 little bit separately.
30:33 Um,
30:34 I think one of the things that has come
30:37 across for me is we've very clearly
30:40 stated what the problem is for SR900 and
30:43 Telus. Um, but I don't know if we've
30:46 done that as succinctly for the other
30:48 north south areas of the city. And as
30:51 council member Martz mentioned, you
30:53 know, there are other impacts throughout
30:55 the city. So, as we are thinking about
30:58 it, one of the things I would love to
31:00 hear is
31:03 what do you think the problem is that
31:05 people would like us to solve
31:08 and what are our priorities as we
31:12 address this? Because you know obviously
31:15 if our priorities are improve safety
31:19 there are going to be different projects
31:22 or areas of advocacy that we would go
31:25 after. Um similarly, if our goal is to
31:30 improve traffic flow to for communities
31:34 down to the south of us, we would choose
31:36 different projects versus intracity
31:39 um or inter
31:41 within the city.
31:44 So, um I just put that out there. uh
31:47 would love to hear from folks and maybe
31:49 we can start with that north south um
31:53 area
31:55 out maybe we'll start with SR900 because
31:58 I think we've heard a few questions and
32:00 some of the ideas there. So, anybody
32:02 want to start there?
32:06 Oh, goodness. Hey, Council Member Ray,
32:08 >> I'm gonna I'm gonna I was riffing on
32:11 something earlier today and somebody
32:13 else riffed on what I was riffing on,
32:14 which made it no longer riffing, but an
32:16 honest to God jam session. So, I'm going
32:18 to riff on uh Council Member Jang's
32:20 comments be on uh State Route 900 is um
32:24 I'm not sure I'm really psyched about
32:26 doing the engineering study to move the
32:28 merge point um further
32:31 uh south because I don't think it'll
32:33 make significant difference because
32:35 quite honestly, if you if you drive that
32:37 on a regular basis, a good day is when
32:39 it's only backed up to Newport. A bad
32:42 day is when it's backed up onto I90. Um
32:44 and and so and that and there are a lot
32:47 of bad days. Um so I don't think that
32:50 you know 30 cars doesn't doesn't do
32:52 anything of of any significance in terms
32:55 of of dealing with congestion. Um I I
32:59 really would like us to have a
33:00 discussion with uh WASHDOT again about
33:03 what their objections are because there
33:07 there there are problems we can solve,
33:09 but there is this huge lane of of
33:11 roadway there that is completely
33:13 unutilized and and could be a real
33:16 benefit to the people who live here in
33:17 Isiqua, particularly those of us who
33:19 live in Talis because um it you know it
33:23 it can be a half an hour from I90 to get
33:25 to the Talis turn and that's not and I'm
33:28 not being hyperbolic. That's that's the
33:30 impact. So, um do that by the number of
33:33 people who make that uh who live in this
33:35 in this community who make that that
33:37 commute. It's um and then put a dollar
33:39 figure per hour and it's a huge amount
33:41 of money. So, um I would like to before
33:44 we do anything um understand where wash
33:47 at and have them explain to us why they
33:50 can't do anything. So, that's my my two
33:53 cents.
33:56 Council member Jen.
33:58 >> Yeah, I would agree with that. I think,
34:01 you know, I I I have a hard time
34:03 understanding why repainting the road
34:05 would in, you know, raise all these
34:08 issues around adding fish passages or
34:10 whatever, but if that is the case, I
34:12 would love to understand that. Um, and
34:15 generally, I think,
34:18 you know, like council member Ray
34:20 driving down SR900, that middle lane is
34:24 not really used. There's also a pretty
34:25 wide shoulder on the right side of the
34:27 road which I use as a bike lane but you
34:30 know you could also
34:33 you know if in some cases like have that
34:35 as the extra lane. I'm also curious I
34:37 mean like what the requirements are for
34:39 lane width because you could make all
34:42 the lanes like one foot or two you know
34:45 foot and a half more narrow and then
34:47 actually you know once you turn five
34:49 into six then you could suddenly add
34:50 another lane. So, I'd be curious to see,
34:53 you know, what the what all the
34:55 different options are for repainting the
34:56 lane because I think that is just
34:58 ultimately just going to be so much
34:59 cheaper than having to add any new
35:01 pavement or infrastructure no matter
35:03 what.
35:07 >> Council member Hall.
35:10 >> Um, yeah, I agree with what's been said.
35:12 I think the only addition I would add to
35:14 the the SR900 issue, that's what we're
35:16 talking about, right, is I'm not a
35:19 traffic engineer by any means. So I
35:21 don't necessarily know what moving a
35:22 merge point actually does to a system.
35:24 So I'm wondering if when we talk about
35:26 this again, we could perhaps collect um
35:30 examples or does data actually tell the
35:32 story that moving a merge point in this
35:35 similar context actually does help
35:37 relieve stress on the system, traffic
35:39 congestion on the system um in move kind
35:42 of pass through commuters through more
35:44 quickly or more easily or more safely.
35:46 Um, I'm just wondering if that's
35:48 something we could collect for our
35:50 discussion.
35:58 >> Council member Jen.
36:00 >> Um, just a couple other points. I think
36:02 um, for our next discussion, I'd also
36:04 love to see any analysis that they've
36:05 done of roundabouts further south on
36:07 SR900 because, you know, similar with
36:09 Isqua Hobart Road, it's very clear that
36:11 there's a couple pinch points that are
36:12 the bottlenecks. And so without solving
36:14 those, you know, we can add roadway
36:16 capacity however we want, but then it
36:17 just makes the parking lot bigger. And
36:19 you can see, you know, with um SR900
36:22 right after I 90, it's like 10 lanes of
36:25 just giant parking lot that fills up. Um
36:28 so I'd be interested to see those
36:29 studies. I guess one other riffing on
36:33 Council Member Mart's point about, you
36:35 know, the the traffic jams going onto
36:38 Newport Way, you know, towards Target.
36:41 That seems like
36:44 I mean I'm curious to see if there if
36:47 because you know if you're going
36:48 straight from downtown Isiqua um west on
36:52 Newport Way then you're also stuck in
36:53 that left turning traffic which is also
36:56 I mean part of the whole issue with that
36:57 thing is that washd is controlling the
36:59 lights to try to not have traffic back
37:01 up onto the highway and so therefore it
37:03 results in you know worse traffic on
37:05 Isqua city streets. But I'm curious if
37:07 we could actually, you know, add a lane
37:09 there so that folks going straight don't
37:11 have to get stuck behind like a quarter
37:13 mile of cars blocking the whole lane
37:16 because they're trying to turn left. Um,
37:18 is that I mean, and that I think that
37:21 gets a little bit beyond the, you know,
37:22 north south, which is just SR900 and
37:24 Front Street, but that is actually a
37:26 significant issue that's related and I'm
37:29 curious if that's something that we
37:30 could explore as well.
37:39 So, I guess my feedback would be to plus
37:43 one the idea of
37:47 figuring out why we can't
37:50 utilize that central lane. Um, I think
37:52 that would be really important. And
37:58 we're not quite talking about our
37:59 legislative agenda yet, but if there is
38:03 a state
38:05 rule or reason why making a change to
38:09 the roadway surface would cause them to
38:13 have to make other changes to the
38:15 roadway. I would be willing to talk to
38:17 our delegation about that and see what
38:20 other options are out there. So, uh,
38:22 understanding not just why they're not
38:24 willing to do it, but what what the
38:26 reasoning is behind that. So, I think
38:29 that would be important. Anybody else on
38:31 SR900?
38:35 Okay. Going over to kind of the
38:40 other portion of the city. Um, I know,
38:44 uh, Director Moon, you kind of mentioned
38:46 one of the reasons we see as much
38:50 traffic congestion in the evening is
38:52 because we have three routes that all
38:55 merge into one and are bottlenecked
38:58 further down. Um, any comments on that,
39:01 Council Member Marks? I I I fear that
39:04 this is a highly nonlinear problem
39:07 because I fear that what's happening is
39:10 that residents in Black Diamond and
39:15 Maple Valley and Covington. Um, I think
39:19 we could build a pristine four-way
39:22 highway on Isiqua Hobart Road and all we
39:25 would do is we would divert every single
39:27 car from those areas onto that road and
39:30 that we would still have horrific
39:33 backups at the at the uh north south end
39:37 of town. So in an era when everyone
39:40 makes their traffic decisions
39:42 instantaneously based on their devices,
39:45 I worry that any of these solutions
39:49 um will won't make a substantive
39:52 difference because all it'll do is like
39:54 I said direct a larger fraction of the
39:57 traffic on. I think that the city's
39:59 ongoing efforts to try to encourage
40:01 Highway 18 and exit 25 as the as the
40:04 preferred route for the folks who live
40:06 on the south end um continues to be um a
40:09 better solution to reduce um uh pass
40:13 through traffic. So I I don't know what
40:15 to do. It's it's thoroughly different
40:17 than the problem we experienced even 20
40:20 years ago, right? Because these
40:21 algorithms adapt instantaneously to to
40:24 changes in the in the traffic system.
40:26 But so I don't mean to be a poopy pants,
40:30 but I don't I don't know what they I
40:32 started with the term nonlinear and end
40:33 with the term poopy pants. So that those
40:35 are my thoughts.
40:38 Deputy Council President D. Michelle.
40:42 >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm gonna uh as Council
40:45 Member Jen said, I'm going to riff on uh
40:47 Council Member Mart's comments. Um you
40:50 know, when I look at the study, the
40:52 North South study, and um I do love the
40:55 idea of a roundabout there at Isquah
40:58 Hobart Road in May Valley, I think that
41:00 would be perfect. But um we have had uh
41:04 council member uh Perry and Dembowski
41:08 uh uh initiating the idea of raising
41:12 taxes in order to fill the gap that they
41:14 have at the county. Uh apparently there
41:17 is a $200 million gap and um through the
41:21 Sound Cities Association we have pushed
41:23 back on that proposal uh for some very
41:26 good reasons um and because of local uh
41:30 projects that we would like to undertake
41:32 and we we don't want to see the county
41:36 um pushing up taxes at the same time
41:38 that we're looking at some very
41:39 important projects we want to achieve.
41:41 So, it's a little hard to go and um
41:45 lobby and advocate for a roundabout at
41:48 the Isqua Hobart Road in May Valley when
41:50 at the same time through the Sound
41:52 Cities Association, we're we're not
41:54 opposed to it, but we're asking Council
41:56 Member Perry and Demowski to pause that.
41:59 And so I believe, and anybody can
42:03 correct me, I may not have this right,
42:04 but I believe that council member Perry
42:06 has said that by 2030 that the roads
42:10 fund for the county will be empty. There
42:13 will not even be a hundred million
42:14 there. So I think that as a council, we
42:18 have to kind of figure out how are we
42:20 going to negotiate this. Um uh
42:23 advocating for projects on uh the Esqua
42:26 Hobart Road would directly benefit us in
42:28 many cases because it would improve the
42:31 flow if we could get some roundabouts
42:34 but um at the same time we have to
42:37 juggle our priorities for projects
42:40 within the city which is in our control.
42:43 So, I just want to point out that there
42:45 is a a conflict here in terms of how are
42:49 we going to get these projects funded
42:51 and are we saying one thing, we want a
42:55 roundabout or we want these improvements
42:58 on uh the Esqua Hobart road at the same
43:01 time that we don't want the county to go
43:03 out and try and find the funds to do it.
43:05 So, that would be my comment. I think we
43:08 need to figure out exactly what we are
43:10 asking and how are we going to ask it be
43:13 to be fund funded and um how are we
43:17 going to navigate those issues. So
43:20 that's my feedback. I do see some
43:22 promises in that north south but the big
43:26 question is how do you fund them and I
43:29 don't think we've resolved that. Thank
43:31 you
43:35 >> council member Jang.
43:37 Yeah, I think I I um want to agree with
43:39 what council member Mart said about, you
43:41 know, everyone is making their decisions
43:43 on where to drive based on what is
43:45 fastest at any given time. And so even
43:46 with Highway 18, just, you know, the
43:49 main problem is that we have mountains.
43:52 We have the Isqua Alves, which are
43:54 great, but then that really limits where
43:56 you can, you know, reasonably put
43:58 roadways. And so, you know, for example,
44:02 the most direct way to go from Isiqua to
44:04 Maple Valley would be to tunnel through
44:05 Squawk Mountain. That is not an idea
44:08 that we're going to be able that would
44:09 be way more expensive than any of these
44:11 other ideas. Um, and you know, with
44:14 Highway 18 going around the east side of
44:16 Tiger Mountain, it is so much longer
44:18 that even if it was moving at full
44:20 speed, which it isn't, you know, once
44:22 Isqua Hobart Road started moving faster
44:24 than like 15 miles an hour, that would
44:26 then become the preferred way because
44:27 it's so much more direct. And so I think
44:29 it is it is very nonlinear like if we
44:31 didn't if Front Street and Isqua Hobart
44:34 Road moved effectively then people would
44:36 go there until it didn't and then start
44:38 going around to Highway 18. So I think
44:39 there's kind of that dynamic of you know
44:42 if we improve traffic flow then we could
44:45 also induce more people to come. Um I do
44:48 think one thing you know in terms of the
44:50 traffic flow one of the things that
44:52 we're trying to do as a city and as a
44:53 region is have people drive less. And
44:57 you know, for folks living south of us,
44:59 they don't really have, you know,
45:00 reasonable transit options. And so I
45:03 think one of the things, you know, even
45:05 for us, it's it's not even necessarily
45:07 benefiting is residents to, you know,
45:09 have a bus that goes from like Maple
45:12 Valley to Redmond or Belleview or
45:14 wherever, except for the fact that it
45:15 reduces our traffic, so it does benefit
45:17 our residents. So, I'd be really
45:19 interested to see, you know, oh, are
45:21 there ways that we could add, you know,
45:23 potentially one lane to have a rapid bus
45:26 that can go past all the traffic on is
45:28 Hobart, um, or, you know, even on SR900.
45:32 And I do think we would actually
45:34 probably have to add a lane so that the
45:36 bus could get past all the traffic. But
45:38 probably the best way to convince
45:39 someone to ride the bus is to have the
45:41 bus pass them when they're stuck in
45:42 traffic. And you could say, "Oh, wow. I
45:44 could be doing that instead." And you
45:45 know, you could even have it be like
45:47 park and rides at those points. You
45:49 know, May Valley Road and Isqua Hobart
45:51 Road, Cedar Grove Road and Isiqua Hobart
45:53 Road, and have folks south of us park
45:56 and park there, take the rapid bus, cut
45:59 through 45 minutes of traffic through
46:01 Isiqua, and then, you know, the folks
46:02 that want to get around within Isiqua
46:04 can do so without having to deal with
46:07 like a 100,000 cars that are going to
46:10 Covington or whatever.
46:15 So, I'll jump on that idea. What options
46:19 then do we have or have we talked to the
46:22 county about any bus options? Um or, you
46:28 know, obviously this idea of widening or
46:33 creating a lane um on Isqua Hobart for
46:38 um transit.
46:43 I'd have to get back to you on that. I
46:45 lack a few years of Isqua history. Um,
46:49 and I I would say that
46:53 we have had ongoing conversations about
46:57 transit services for sure. Specific to
47:00 that corridor,
47:03 I have not been involved with many
47:05 conversations lately about transit on
47:09 that corridor. um nor have I been
47:12 involved with conversations about you
47:14 know adding any significant
47:16 infrastructure for all reasons you've
47:18 stated tonight cost in particular city
47:21 administrator
47:23 >> I'll put a little finer point on it uh
47:25 we've had no discussions uh we have been
47:27 focused on the transit side to make sure
47:29 residents can maintain the transit that
47:32 they have and we know that has been a
47:33 very difficult uh discussion u you know
47:36 our primary focus on moving traffic and
47:40 residents from south of us has been SR18
47:43 and you know we've had u tremendous
47:46 challenges with that. The state
47:47 legislature has been constrained
47:50 financially. Um thanks to the leadership
47:52 of our legislative delegation uh the
47:55 project continues. I mean there was a a
47:57 point 6 months ago, eight months ago
47:59 when it looked like it was going to just
48:01 stop in its tracks and the money was
48:02 going to be diverted other places. So,
48:04 uh I think as the council looks at
48:06 solutions, um there are local solutions,
48:10 there are regional solutions, uh we need
48:12 to balance where the proposed priorities
48:14 are. And you know, this all comes down
48:17 to money. All of the agencies you have
48:19 talked about today are really struggling
48:22 and those agencies that are looking for
48:24 additional tax increases are struggling
48:26 to justify those. So um you know we hope
48:31 that the council will help us with some
48:33 prioritization. You know you have
48:34 excellent staff that are willing to
48:36 advocate, willing to work with our
48:38 partners. uh but there are constraints
48:40 and so the best thing that you can do
48:43 for your staff is to say here are these
48:45 priorities and this discussion I think
48:47 has been excellent in trying to identify
48:49 some of those you know and we will be as
48:51 diligent as we can uh in following
48:54 through with the realization of
48:56 everything I've just talked about uh
48:58 primarily money uh that there is no
49:00 money um and the money that is there we
49:03 are competing against uh needs u
49:06 statewide and regionally that many would
49:09 say far outstrip the issues we're
49:11 discussing this evening.
49:16 >> Any other comments or thoughts here?
49:21 Council member Hall. Um just some quick
49:23 thoughts in that going back to kind of a
49:25 problem statement around this like you
49:27 were saying it's
49:29 we have a large a large volume of pass
49:32 through traffic that limits residents
49:35 ability to get around town quickly
49:36 safely easily etc. Um so as we continue
49:41 to have this discussion I think it's
49:43 important and good that we're kind of
49:45 focusing a lot on kind of external
49:47 levers that help reduce limit
49:52 um with flow of pass through traffic,
49:55 but I also think we need to have a focus
49:58 too on just residents ability to get
50:00 around town. Is there a way to make it
50:03 easier to just drive in the connector
50:06 loop around the city? Um to bike in the
50:08 connector loop around the city in our
50:10 different trails um that kind of can
50:14 live outside of the pass through
50:17 traffic. I don't even know if that's
50:19 possible because a lot of the times when
50:21 you're traveling south perhaps you're
50:22 also traveling east west to get to that
50:24 south route and so whatever benefit we
50:26 might think we're um creating for
50:29 residents um pass through commuters are
50:32 using it too. Um, so I would appreciate
50:36 any thoughts uh staff might have on what
50:39 are those specific targeted tools um
50:43 that can support our residents who are
50:46 just trying to get around town to their
50:47 appointment to Target back to their home
50:51 independent from pass through commuters.
50:54 I know that's a tall order.
50:57 >> Council member Ray.
50:59 >> Yeah, if these were easy, we'd have
51:00 solved this a long time ago. This these
51:02 are hard problems. They are seriously
51:05 constrained. They have many nonlinear
51:08 parts and um and we they have incredible
51:12 financial implications and so you know
51:17 if if director Moon had come to us today
51:19 with the silver bullet we would all be
51:21 praising her beyond and but we had no
51:25 expectation that she would though if
51:27 anybody would it would be her. Um but
51:29 this is a time for creativity. So this
51:31 is where we got to stop thinking about
51:33 how do we push the the same rock harder.
51:35 We got to think about how to do
51:37 something different. So I don't know
51:38 what that is, but I guess my my my ask
51:41 my challenge is um think about this
51:43 problem differently. Um I think we we
51:46 hit on the key point which is let's
51:48 focus on the objectives. what are we
51:49 trying to accomplish and and never lose
51:51 sight of the fact we work for the people
51:53 who live in Isiqua and how do we focus
51:55 on isiquans
51:58 isans and and um and then look at some
52:02 different and creative ways that we can
52:04 um make this happen because we're not
52:07 going to solve it with traditional
52:08 methods. I mean that's for sure.
52:12 >> Deputy Council President DM Michelle.
52:15 Uh yeah, I totally agree with those last
52:17 remarks and uh that was the reason I was
52:20 asking about the school pool. Um, and
52:22 having with my background from at Metro,
52:25 seeing how uh one by one, little by
52:28 little, if you can uh get people to ride
52:30 share and uh and as uh Council Member
52:34 Ray said, think creatively about how
52:36 they're going to get from uh where
52:40 they're going, where where they start,
52:41 where they're going, and do that
52:43 together rather than in each individual
52:46 uh vehicle. Um it slowly but surely
52:49 starts to make a difference. And
52:51 whatever we're talking about, whether
52:53 it's transit or roads or uh road
52:57 improvements or whatever, we're looking
52:58 at a long-term picture. It's not going
53:00 to happen overnight. We're not going to
53:02 change people's one ride in a car uh
53:06 behavior overnight. It takes persistence
53:09 and it takes showing people exactly how
53:11 it works and how it can benefit them. Um
53:15 and uh we're not going to be able to
53:17 mandate that. It has to be a choice that
53:19 people make to take transit or to ride
53:22 together or to create car pools and so
53:24 forth. But I think it's somewhere that
53:27 if we um are looking for things that can
53:30 help people sooner rather than later
53:33 that that's where we should be focusing
53:36 some of our efforts or maybe a lot of
53:38 our efforts on uh transit or
53:41 transportation demand management is I
53:44 believe what it's called. So, uh, that's
53:47 where I would put my eggs if I were
53:48 going to put my eggs somewhere. There
53:50 you go.
53:54 >> Thank you. So, um, I will just say I
53:58 think going back to what problem would
54:00 people like us to solve? I think it's
54:02 really important that we focus on our
54:03 residents. our residents are dealing
54:05 with problems caused by development down
54:09 in the south end um and caused by our
54:14 geography and all of those areas. So, it
54:18 is an important part of that to
54:22 deal with, but we cannot build our way
54:24 out of congestion. If we make
54:26 improvements to a roadway that allows
54:30 traffic off of I90 coming south to look
54:34 faster,
54:35 then the GPS systems will absolutely use
54:39 that as the route. So, I am hesitant to
54:42 invest a lot of money into these areas
54:45 for something that could um disappear
54:48 very quickly because of the GPS issues.
54:51 I would like to really look at our
54:54 intracity accessibility and
54:58 predictability of travel times. And so
55:02 that's one thing. Maybe if you're
55:05 commuting and you're know you're going
55:07 into an area that has um a lot of
55:10 backup, you will be more likely to use
55:12 your GPS. If you're just driving around
55:14 the city, you know, you may not. And so
55:17 sometimes you have that surprise of, oh,
55:23 the traffic is that bad. Um maybe the
55:28 um transportation the boards that say
55:31 how much that you know time takes would
55:35 address that. I don't know if it's worth
55:36 the cost when people have these fancy
55:39 smartphones in their pockets that they
55:41 could use on that. Um but I think it is
55:44 part of the problem is that
55:45 predictability. Um and then the other
55:48 thing is just getting across town. Um I
55:51 think that is an important one. And so
55:54 there are certain intersections like
55:57 front and sunset where you know the
56:00 ability to get across versus
56:04 um you know traffic that's turning etc.
56:08 Um that could be useful to look at. Um,
56:11 I'd also would love to look at um the
56:15 crosswalk there. Um, that's a very long
56:18 crosswalk and if we could do a scatter
56:21 across um that would speed up times for
56:24 people who are walking, especially when
56:26 it's cold and rainy and such. Um,
56:30 so I think I concur with folks that this
56:33 is a very very difficult problem. um and
56:39 maybe focusing more on some of our some
56:42 of the areas that are in our control um
56:45 that focus on our local residents um is
56:49 probably the better way to address that.
56:53 So that's a bunch of feedback and maybe
56:57 some of it is helpful and some of it is
56:59 also just very important to get the
57:03 information and to recognize that we
57:06 have continued to try at this multiple
57:10 years multiple studies multiple
57:12 agencies.
57:16 what next? city administrator.
57:18 >> Madame Mayor, Porttown, mayor, members
57:20 of the council, u thank you for the
57:23 feedback of certainly I think one of the
57:25 takeaways is that lane on SR900 and uh I
57:30 think that we can meet with staff over
57:33 the next little while um and and push
57:36 that point and bring back to you and
57:39 share if there are legislative issues uh
57:41 constraining it to identify what those
57:43 might be and come back to you. Um I
57:45 think the issue of transportation as you
57:47 talked about at your July retreat uh is
57:50 multifaceted and it's something that uh
57:53 you know we're trying as a city staff to
57:55 look at the resources that we have uh
57:58 both staff resources and cash resources
58:00 investing in equipment. Um and this is a
58:03 continuing discussion and my guess is
58:05 that a new mayor and a new city council
58:08 in the next few months uh will continue
58:10 to challenge us to continue working on
58:12 this. But uh for now uh we'll take this
58:15 feedback. We'll talk with WASHDOT. Uh
58:17 we'll let you know what we hear from
58:19 them. And my guess is that we will be
58:21 back at the beginning of the calendar
58:23 year to continue the discussion.
58:27 >> Okay. Thanks. Uh, Council Member Jen,
58:31 while we're on the topic of washd and
58:33 getting around town, um, there is a
58:36 north south traffic uh, improvement that
58:39 I would love to see Wash out do, which
58:41 is fixing the boardwalk on the side of
58:43 900, which is
58:46 Oh, really? They're doing it right now.
58:48 Great to hear. Um, yeah, I mean, I think
58:50 one of the things if we're really
58:51 talking about residents getting around
58:52 town is also, you know, building out the
58:55 um, bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
58:57 You know, we've talked to folks that
58:58 live in the Sycamore neighborhood who
58:59 basically are like, I can't leave my
59:01 house at certain times of the day
59:03 because there also is no safe way for
59:05 them to walk because there's no sidewalk
59:07 at that part of Isqua Hobart. So, I
59:09 think that's something that we want to
59:10 um look into and prioritize as well.
59:14 >> Uh, council member Marks,
59:18 >> I'm going to mention something uh as a
59:21 closing thought on this whole north
59:22 south traffic thing. Um, and it's gonna
59:25 sound crazy, but I think it should be
59:27 mentioned anyhow. Uh, people have
59:29 mentioned that we are fundamentally
59:30 constrained by the mountains that we
59:32 have. I don't understand how the
59:36 Europeans build tunnels the way they do,
59:39 but the most recent Pharaoh Island
59:41 tunnels cost about $50 million per mile.
59:45 That is nothing nothing compared to the
59:49 costs of even a moderate interchange
59:52 around here. So, I just want to put a
59:55 pin out there to say uh there are
59:58 solutions that would involve tunning
1:00:00 tunneling through Squawk and Tiger
1:00:02 Mountains that would be ecologically
1:00:05 sensitive uh would be effective. And
1:00:10 boy, the Europeans show it can be done
1:00:12 for reasonable amounts of money. So, I
1:00:15 realize it sort of sounds like a wild
1:00:17 hair except they do it right. This isn't
1:00:19 this isn't science fiction. This is how
1:00:22 Europe does it right now. So I don't I
1:00:26 think somebody in the legislature, I
1:00:29 don't know, should uh should talk about
1:00:32 this as an option. It would be a
1:00:34 complete gamecher to run a tunnel
1:00:36 through Tiger Mountain North South um
1:00:39 from exit 18 uh down to the Isco Hobart
1:00:43 Road uh State Route 18 interchange.
1:00:47 Thank you.
1:00:48 We can talk about abundance and
1:00:50 permitting costs and all of the things
1:00:52 that go into uh why our costs of
1:00:55 construction are so much higher. Um I
1:00:58 believe I John Mortonson.
1:01:03 >> I I do have a follow-up question. So
1:01:06 thank you for the direction. It's been
1:01:07 very helpful to listen to to help
1:01:10 implement what you guys were asking for
1:01:12 tonight. Um, but one of the things that
1:01:14 was in the recommendation was approving
1:01:17 $50,000 to
1:01:20 do this study work. And even though it's
1:01:22 different than what we had originally
1:01:24 talked about, I I did want to bring that
1:01:26 up as I guess as someone who's going to
1:01:30 be implementing it, I wanted to see if
1:01:33 the council will would support the extra
1:01:37 money for additional engineering
1:01:38 services so we can get make your
1:01:40 requests
1:01:42 happen with wash.
1:01:44 >> Yeah. Can you remind me is that for the
1:01:47 SR900 and extending the merge?
1:01:51 Yes, it was originally to study um
1:01:54 expending the merge, but really it's
1:01:56 just 50,000 is what we need in order to
1:01:58 do the get the consultant support to
1:02:01 help work with washd on trying to come
1:02:04 up with a solution.
1:02:05 >> Yep. I think what I heard was we wanted
1:02:09 to have a conversation with washd first
1:02:11 about the center lane before we would be
1:02:15 interested in looking at any additional
1:02:18 work on the merge past talis but any uh
1:02:23 council member hall. Yeah, and I think
1:02:25 the other thing that I said in this
1:02:27 space was I'd just like to learn a
1:02:29 little bit more about the movement of
1:02:31 merge points and what kind of overall
1:02:33 impact that has and kind of similar
1:02:35 contexts um to see if just to convince
1:02:39 me that it would might be a successful
1:02:40 tool before approving more work.
1:02:44 >> Yeah. So the the 50,000 would be
1:02:46 partially to model the merge but also
1:02:49 can also be used if washdout's wanting
1:02:52 us to look at the safety implications
1:02:54 because as an transportation engineer
1:02:57 when I hear someone wants to get rid of
1:02:59 a two-way left turn lane the first red
1:03:02 flag that goes off in my mind is that's
1:03:06 I'm going to say the opposite of a
1:03:10 countermeasure to reduce collisions. And
1:03:13 so I think if I'm washed out, I'm going
1:03:15 to say, okay, what are the safety
1:03:18 implications of doing that? And so
1:03:23 we can wait to ask for the money, but
1:03:25 I'm just thinking ahead of what washed
1:03:28 out would be looking for in order to
1:03:30 facilitate that conversation.
1:03:33 >> City administrator.
1:03:34 >> Yes. U I I think what we're hearing from
1:03:37 the council is you'd like us to have the
1:03:38 conversation first. So we'll have the
1:03:40 conversation first. If we need
1:03:41 additional resources, we'll come back.
1:03:44 >> Okay, sounds good. Council member Jen, I
1:03:48 guess my thought on the, you know,
1:03:50 reducing the um I guess I'm curious if
1:03:54 we were to reduce the um
1:03:57 uh center turn lane, would you also be
1:04:00 able to add some kind of, you know, like
1:04:01 jersey barrier divider thing that then
1:04:03 would like physically prevent cars from
1:04:05 crashing into each other and then
1:04:06 mitigate that safety concern? But
1:04:08 anyway, I'm not a traffic engineer, so
1:04:11 >> certainly council member Jane Weber is
1:04:13 at the council. Anything's possible. I
1:04:14 think again our colleagues at Wash DOT
1:04:18 have have an enormous challenge and I
1:04:20 think we'll be happy to take a meeting
1:04:22 with us and talk about uh what might be
1:04:24 possible. Uh but I think we need to take
1:04:27 that one step at a time and if it makes
1:04:29 sense that there's a larger project here
1:04:32 that the city's either willing to fund
1:04:34 that or we find other county resources,
1:04:37 statewide resources. Uh but I think the
1:04:39 first step is to sit with their
1:04:40 engineers and and share your concerns
1:04:43 and the thoughts expressed tonight and
1:04:45 see where we go from there.
1:04:49 >> Great. And hey, while we're talking
1:04:51 about all of these things that we don't
1:04:53 have money for, um, we've got another
1:04:57 item here coming up.
1:05:01 Hey, I I transition it how I see it. Uh,
1:05:04 COM 0170 2025 to 2026 midbian budget
1:05:09 adjustment. Um, with Kristen Garcia, our
1:05:12 finance director.
1:05:16 thank you, Director Moon. We appreciate
1:05:23 >> Right. Good evening. Thank you.
1:05:24 >> Hello.
1:05:25 >> Hello. Let me
1:05:28 get my presentation.
1:06:01 Just work through the technology.
1:06:03 >> Yes, fun stuff.
1:06:13 >> There we go.
1:06:14 >> Okay. Thank you, Tisha. All right.
1:06:40 We I think we have it. All right. Good
1:06:42 evening. Thank you, Council President
1:06:44 Walsh. So, I am here this evening to
1:06:47 talk through our mid bienium
1:06:49 adjustments. And I do want to take a
1:06:50 moment to thank Susie Monell, budget
1:06:53 manager, for working with me to pull all
1:06:55 these materials together. So, she did a
1:06:57 lot of work. So, I appreciate what she
1:07:02 let's see.
1:07:06 There we go.
1:07:09 I know. My apologies. I have a small
1:07:11 voice, so I need to talk louder. Can you
1:07:13 hear me? Okay. Okay. Thank you.
1:07:20 Okay. So, now I'm having difficulties.
1:07:25 I might need to have you uh
1:07:30 it's just
1:07:32 >> this is very slow.
1:07:34 >> Okay.
1:07:35 All right. So, we are here tonight. The
1:07:38 city adopts a bianial budget and we're
1:07:40 required by state law to perform a
1:07:43 midbanial review. So, that's what we're
1:07:46 doing this evening. And then we're also
1:07:48 here administration is seeking feedback
1:07:50 from the council committee of the whole
1:07:52 on the proposed budget um adjustments
1:07:55 and we have a lot to talk through
1:07:57 tonight. So we are planning to bring
1:07:59 back some information also at the
1:08:01 October 27th um special meeting. So we'd
1:08:05 also like some feedback on more
1:08:07 information or anything else that you
1:08:08 might want to see um at that time.
1:08:12 So I have a lot to unpack during
1:08:14 tonight's meeting. So, I just kind of
1:08:16 want to walk through the agenda really
1:08:18 quick. Uh, want to take a look at our
1:08:20 general fund revenue and expense
1:08:22 overview and what does our forecast look
1:08:24 like for our ongoing revenue and
1:08:26 expenses. Want to take a look at the big
1:08:28 four revenue forecasts. Um, I like to
1:08:31 look at that regularly as those revenues
1:08:33 represent about 75% of general fund
1:08:36 revenue. So, how they are performing
1:08:38 definitely has an impact on the general
1:08:40 fund.
1:08:42 I also want to check in to see how the
1:08:44 forecast and the proposed budget
1:08:46 amendments are impacting the general
1:08:48 fund fund balance. Then I'm going to
1:08:50 walk through the proposed expenditure
1:08:52 adjustments. We have previously approved
1:08:55 items which means there are items that
1:08:57 have been brought forward to council
1:08:59 individually earlier in the year that
1:09:01 have already been approved. We do have
1:09:03 some corrections in the budget. I didn't
1:09:05 plan to address those. They are in the
1:09:07 attachment A. I didn't plan to address
1:09:09 them in the presentation. Those are just
1:09:11 items that were previously they were
1:09:14 approved in the original budget. They
1:09:15 just weren't in the right place
1:09:16 according to where we actually spent.
1:09:18 So, we just need to true those up. And
1:09:20 then, of course, we have um our new
1:09:22 spending that we'll talk about.
1:09:24 There's also some items that are not
1:09:26 included in tonight's proposed uh budget
1:09:28 adjustments. So, um there will be other
1:09:30 items for uh consideration and those
1:09:33 will also be brought forward to the
1:09:35 October 27th meeting. And then as I was
1:09:38 going through this process, I was
1:09:39 thinking on some things that I want to
1:09:41 work on for 2026 and then as we prepare
1:09:44 for building our next bianial budget for
1:09:46 27 and 28. So those are um plans for the
1:09:49 next bianium I want to walk through.
1:09:51 Want to give a a capital project
1:09:53 summary. We don't have any planned
1:09:55 adjustments for the capital projects,
1:09:57 but just want to give you um some
1:09:58 highlights of of some things that have
1:10:00 been approved in the budget and planned
1:10:02 spending for 26 and then talk about next
1:10:05 steps on how we get through um the next
1:10:07 few pieces of the midby process and then
1:10:10 open it up for questions and input and
1:10:12 direction.
1:10:15 So, in terms of the the general fund, we
1:10:18 have a balanced budget in terms of our
1:10:21 ongoing revenue expenses by the end of
1:10:24 2026.
1:10:26 Um, so a couple pieces to unpack with
1:10:28 that. So, our 2025 adopted budget did
1:10:32 assume that the general fund was going
1:10:34 to use some of its fund balance to the
1:10:36 tune of about 1.4 million for ongoing um
1:10:40 to meet ongoing expenses. So meaning our
1:10:42 ongoing expenses would be exceeding our
1:10:45 ongoing revenues. We're seeing some
1:10:47 increased revenue going into 2026,
1:10:50 particularly in sales tax and BNO tax.
1:10:53 And with limited uh one-time additions,
1:10:55 our general fund ongoing revenues will
1:10:58 almost equal our ongoing expenses. So
1:11:01 that's where we get to the the balanced
1:11:03 piece, meaning that when we get to 2026,
1:11:06 we won't be needing to dip into fund
1:11:08 balance to meet our ongoing operations.
1:11:12 I do want to note that the proposed
1:11:14 budget uh adjustments along with the
1:11:17 planned use of fund balance for 2025 uh
1:11:20 will decrease our fund balance over um
1:11:23 the bianium.
1:11:26 So this slide just represents kind of
1:11:28 mathematically what I just want uh what
1:11:30 I just um covered. So I just kind of
1:11:32 want to walk through the numbers a
1:11:33 little bit so it makes a little bit more
1:11:35 sense. So if we start in the 2025
1:11:37 adopted column, you'll see our ongoing
1:11:39 revenues at 64 million and our ongoing
1:11:42 expenses at 66 million. So that's where
1:11:45 we had planned in the budget to use
1:11:47 about 1.4 million of our fund balance.
1:11:50 If you look at our forecast, we're
1:11:52 forecasting to to be close to that
1:11:54 number. And then if you move all the way
1:11:56 to the 2026 forecasting column, uh we
1:12:00 look at ongoing revenue about 66 million
1:12:02 and ongoing expenditures at 66 million.
1:12:05 So that's where we're getting to the
1:12:06 balance point of our ongoing
1:12:09 um revenue and expenses.
1:12:15 So this is our forecast for our uh big
1:12:18 four revenue. So overall, we're
1:12:21 anticipating that we're going to net um
1:12:26 below where we budgeted for 25 and then
1:12:30 we will expect to come just a little bit
1:12:32 over in 2026.
1:12:35 In terms of our property tax, we're
1:12:36 going to be about right on budget for
1:12:38 2025. Our forecast for 2026 looks like
1:12:41 we're going to come in over where we
1:12:42 budgeted. That's primarily due to new
1:12:44 construction. Our sales tax is going to
1:12:47 be about on target for 2025, just a
1:12:50 slightly less um than where we budgeted,
1:12:52 but we're going to see um a big increase
1:12:55 over 2026 and primarily uh driven by
1:12:58 construction
1:13:00 utility tax
1:13:02 for both 2025 and 2026. We're expecting
1:13:05 a a pretty significant variance um our
1:13:08 forecast compared to what we're budget
1:13:10 budgeted. Um that's really because we
1:13:13 overestimated what we had um budgeted
1:13:16 for the utility tax increase that we
1:13:19 assumed in the in the budget. Um so this
1:13:23 is not meaning that our revenues are
1:13:26 declining. It's really a budget issue
1:13:28 that we overestimated what we budgeted
1:13:30 in terms of what we're collecting. So if
1:13:32 you look at year-over-year our trend,
1:13:34 our revenues are actually trending
1:13:36 upward. And if you can see in our
1:13:39 forecast, we're actually forecasting in
1:13:41 26 to increase revenue. It's really we
1:13:44 just overestimated in our budget. So
1:13:46 that's why there's um a large variance.
1:13:49 Our BNO tax, that one's a little hard to
1:13:51 predict. We have been fine-tuning how
1:13:53 we're forecasting that. We're looking at
1:13:56 it at a more granular level, and we are
1:13:58 expecting both in 2025 and 2026 to come
1:14:01 in over where we budgeted.
1:14:06 So now I want to talk about fund balance
1:14:08 and where we think that we're going to
1:14:09 be by the end of the bianium.
1:14:13 The po the city has a policy to target
1:14:16 um unrestricted fund balance uh of about
1:14:19 15% of unrestricted expenditures. So the
1:14:23 adopted budget did assume that we were
1:14:25 going to meet that target both in 2025
1:14:27 and in 2026. Our current forecast right
1:14:31 now for 25 and 26 um does show that we
1:14:35 will fall below that minimum target
1:14:37 percentage.
1:14:39 Um and I want to explain what that
1:14:41 difference is. It's about a $5 million
1:14:43 difference. And the first part of that
1:14:46 is the 1.4 million in budgeted use of
1:14:49 fund balance in 2025. So that was a
1:14:51 planned reduction uh for 2025. We also
1:14:56 had an unusual um anomaly with respect
1:15:00 to the ARPA funds. Um there was an ARPA
1:15:03 correction that happened for accounting
1:15:06 purposes at the end of 2024 that
1:15:08 adjusted to the fund balance that
1:15:10 happened
1:15:12 after the budget had been adopted and
1:15:15 inadvertently the ARPA funds were still
1:15:17 showing in the unrestricted fund
1:15:19 balance. So it was a budgetary issue. It
1:15:23 wasn't additional spending. It just
1:15:25 means that our ending fund balance for
1:15:27 budget purposes was higher than it
1:15:29 should have been. The other difference
1:15:31 is the proposed amendments that council
1:15:34 has not approved yet. Um that's the 1.6
1:15:37 million and that we're going to talk
1:15:38 about in the next few slides.
1:15:41 And so again, this is just a visual
1:15:43 representation of uh the fund balance.
1:15:46 So, I just kind of want to walk through
1:15:48 a couple um columns just so you can
1:15:50 understand more of what I'm talking
1:15:52 about. So, in the 2025 budget column,
1:15:55 you'll see at the top the beginning fund
1:15:58 balance and the unrestricted beginning
1:16:00 fund balance of about 12.6 million.
1:16:02 That's where the um fund balance was too
1:16:05 high. Um if we remove the ARPA, that
1:16:07 should have been about 10.4 million.
1:16:10 Then if you go down to the unrestricted
1:16:12 revenue at 64 million, the unrestricted
1:16:14 expenditures of 66 million, that's where
1:16:16 we're planning to spend down the fund
1:16:18 balance. And then if you go down to the
1:16:20 bottom, the unrestricted um 10.3 and
1:16:23 unrestricted fund balance um again
1:16:25 that's too high because the ARPA funds
1:16:27 are included. So the 15% actually we
1:16:30 should have um been about 12%. Um and
1:16:33 then if you look in the 2025 forecast
1:16:36 column, the 64 million unrestricted
1:16:39 revenue um and the 67 in unrestricted
1:16:42 expenditures, that's just reflecting
1:16:44 again the planned use of bringing down
1:16:46 the fund balance. And then that also
1:16:47 includes the proposed amendments um that
1:16:50 we'll talk about in the next few slides.
1:16:55 So these were previously approved
1:16:57 adjustments. These were items that had
1:17:00 come to council individually outside of
1:17:02 this midbian review. Um, but they just
1:17:05 need to be formally codified in the
1:17:07 budget ordinance when we we get to the
1:17:09 final approval. Um, general fund
1:17:12 adjustments, we had the bucket truck. We
1:17:14 had added the communications specialist
1:17:17 and then 482,000 for the IHIP plan.
1:17:21 that's coming out of it's listed as
1:17:23 general fund adjustment, but that's a
1:17:25 part of the affordable housing, which
1:17:27 that money is currently in the general
1:17:28 fund, but as of next year, we're going
1:17:30 to be moving that out of the general
1:17:31 fund. So, I just wanted to clarify that
1:17:33 that was not technically general fund um
1:17:35 use of money. And then we have some
1:17:38 utility fund adjustments. Uh 2.9 million
1:17:40 for the Newport sewer relocation and
1:17:42 about 195 for the Highwood reservoirs
1:17:45 and retrofit.
1:17:47 >> Uh Kristen, we've got a question here.
1:17:48 Council member Marks.
1:17:50 >> Yes. I'm sorry. Can you go back to the
1:17:51 ending fund balance thing for a second?
1:17:53 >> Yeah.
1:17:54 >> So, remind me. I've been doing this for
1:17:57 a while. Um, in the olden days, we just
1:18:00 had ending fund balance and life was
1:18:03 simple.
1:18:03 >> And then we had a point where we said,
1:18:06 well, we have these essentially HR
1:18:09 liabilities. And so, we were going to
1:18:11 set some money aside for HR liabilities.
1:18:15 Um I I don't really understand this
1:18:18 whole restricted versus unrestricted and
1:18:21 >> have been doing this a while.
1:18:22 >> Yeah.
1:18:23 >> Um so can can you talk about that a
1:18:26 little bit because having 24% of
1:18:28 expenditures as a ending fund balance
1:18:32 regardless of everything else is a
1:18:34 reasonable number. Having 7% is an
1:18:36 unreasonable number. So I'm trying to
1:18:38 understand what this means as policy
1:18:41 makers and as holders of of good
1:18:45 financial prudence policy folks.
1:18:48 >> No, that's a that's a great question. So
1:18:50 right now the restricted revenues and
1:18:53 expenses that are included in the um in
1:18:56 the budget are related to our affordable
1:18:59 housing and our opioid money primarily.
1:19:02 Most of it's affordable housing. Um, I
1:19:06 would suggest it would be a because it
1:19:08 does make it complicated when we're
1:19:10 trying to explain restricted versus
1:19:13 unrestricted. So, unrestricted would be
1:19:15 like a property tax sales tax. There
1:19:17 isn't any legal requirement to spend on
1:19:21 a specific thing. Um, a restricted
1:19:24 revenue would be something that state
1:19:26 law or even city ordinance requires you
1:19:29 to spend that money on something
1:19:31 specific like the affordable housing
1:19:34 >> so so it's not real that the 24% then
1:19:36 isn't real in the sense that we can't
1:19:38 use it if if if a calamity happened we
1:19:42 would not be able to use it so 7% is
1:19:44 really the number
1:19:45 >> that is really the number yes
1:19:47 >> so so I would suggest as we start
1:19:49 thinking about our next bianual budget
1:19:51 for 272 28 is trying to remove the
1:19:53 restricted money out of the general fund
1:19:55 and having that separate I mean for a
1:19:57 lot of reasons for transparency
1:19:59 accountability there's often uh
1:20:01 reporting requirements so it would make
1:20:03 it more efficient to have them separated
1:20:05 and then it wouldn't create this kind of
1:20:07 complication to try to figure out what
1:20:10 target are we trying to reach and and
1:20:12 are we reaching it because I I think
1:20:14 that's kind of the question right now is
1:20:17 how how can we tell if we're reaching
1:20:20 that goal Okay. So,
1:20:22 >> did that answer your question? I'm
1:20:23 sorry.
1:20:24 >> Yeah, but it leads me into another
1:20:26 question. So, for for 15 of the last 16
1:20:28 years, I was very familiar with the
1:20:30 process whereby we shot we estimated we
1:20:33 we shot for a 15% ending fund balance.
1:20:36 We wound up with 20 or 25 or 30 or 40%
1:20:40 some of these huge numbers. Um, this is
1:20:42 the first time when lo and behold,
1:20:45 actuals look to be a lot lower than that
1:20:48 15% target. What are we going to do?
1:20:53 >> I think that's what we're here to talk
1:20:54 about and that's why we're planning to
1:20:56 have some follow-up conversations. I
1:20:58 think this is a policy discussion that
1:21:00 council needs to have.
1:21:03 >> Is the is the
1:21:06 supposition that we have to get back to
1:21:08 15% in this midyear that this midyear is
1:21:10 going to accomplish getting us back to a
1:21:12 target of 15% on the unrestricted? I I
1:21:16 think that's
1:21:17 >> city administrator.
1:21:18 >> Uh, council member March, members of the
1:21:20 council, let's get through the
1:21:21 presentation and then we'll we will
1:21:23 talk. I mean, part of the sequence of
1:21:25 events is to kind of lay out where we're
1:21:27 at, lay out what we think we need for
1:21:29 next year, get your feedback, and then
1:21:31 come back to you on the 27th, hopefully
1:21:33 with answers that address the issues
1:21:35 raised tonight.
1:21:37 >> All righty. Thank you.
1:21:39 >> I will ask one question. Um, and since
1:21:43 you are new finance director, I I will
1:21:46 ask it as a request for an email. Um
1:21:49 could you talk through um what
1:21:54 contributed to
1:21:56 a previous situation where we were
1:21:58 targeting 15% and came in above many
1:22:02 years to now other than this expenditure
1:22:07 piece there are other things that have
1:22:10 contributed to us being closer to our
1:22:14 projections. And so that was things
1:22:16 like, you know, we used to assume all
1:22:20 staff positions were going to be filled
1:22:23 100% of the year. Um, and so can I'd
1:22:27 like to get some information
1:22:29 particularly for our newer council
1:22:31 member on what goes into some of those
1:22:34 budget assumptions
1:22:36 um that would that maybe have changed
1:22:39 over the years. So I think Susie will
1:22:40 have a really good uh understanding of
1:22:42 that.
1:22:42 >> Okay. Thanks. All right.
1:22:46 Okay, I think we were here at the
1:22:49 previously approved adjustments. Now,
1:22:50 these are all the grant-f funded
1:22:52 adjustments. So, what that means is that
1:22:54 we're anticipating grants for these
1:22:56 projects. Uh we have one for the capital
1:22:58 projects fund, Washington state um
1:23:00 traffic conflict screening. Uh we have
1:23:02 1.7 million sustainability fund from the
1:23:05 department of commerce and about 70
1:23:07 750,000 from the US Environmental
1:23:09 Protection Agency. So, these are
1:23:12 revenues that we expect to come in. Um
1:23:14 but we just need to approve those
1:23:16 expenditures in the budget so we can
1:23:17 expend those grant funds.
1:23:21 So now these are the items that are
1:23:23 proposed for new spending. So we have
1:23:27 planned about 188,000 um 396 for
1:23:30 employee leave payouts. I did want to
1:23:32 talk about that because I don't think
1:23:34 it's been a historical practice to
1:23:37 budget for leave payouts, but they can
1:23:39 be sizable. we do have natural turnover
1:23:41 that occurs from retirements or people
1:23:43 leaving. Um so it would be my suggestion
1:23:46 that that's something that we start
1:23:47 planning for. Um we all know that we are
1:23:51 expecting and we'll be seeing um impacts
1:23:53 to our defense contracts. So we're
1:23:55 anticipating some budget hits for that.
1:23:58 Uh we have about 130,000 for street fund
1:24:01 operating needs, LED lighting, we had
1:24:03 some copper theft and then of course
1:24:05 result um clean up from the bomb bomb
1:24:07 cyclone.
1:24:09 about 12,000 for ARPA closeout. That
1:24:12 doesn't directly uh affect the general
1:24:14 fund. We just have some monies that we
1:24:16 need to allocate to that revenue that we
1:24:19 had already received and close that out.
1:24:21 And then about 30,000 for electronic
1:24:23 monitoring def uh devices for
1:24:25 defendants. And I believe there is a
1:24:27 funding um opportunity for that. So that
1:24:30 might not be a direct um hit to the
1:24:32 general fund. I think we might be able
1:24:34 to get some money to cover the cost for
1:24:35 that. And then the capital uh project
1:24:38 funds about 101,000 for the East Lakes
1:24:40 Samish Parkway pavement preservation
1:24:42 project.
1:24:45 And then for 2026, we're uh have planned
1:24:49 new spending for that. Um again
1:24:51 anticipating some upcoming retirements.
1:24:53 So we want to plan for that in the
1:24:55 general fund. We are planning for two
1:24:57 additional park positions. Those are
1:24:59 expected to be paid for by an increase
1:25:02 in the King County levy and for expected
1:25:05 increases in revenue from um event fees.
1:25:08 And again um anticipating increase in
1:25:10 the public defense contracts. The 30,000
1:25:13 for electronic monitoring devices would
1:25:15 be an annual ongoing cost. Plan for
1:25:19 about 150,000 for affordable housing
1:25:22 study. I believe council has discussed
1:25:23 this in previous meetings. and then
1:25:26 would like to um dedicate some money for
1:25:29 the Pickering Barn Generator and server
1:25:31 relocation project.
1:25:33 >> Okay, we have a question here. Deputy
1:25:35 Council President D. Michelle.
1:25:37 >> So, just I'll go back to that previous
1:25:39 slide. Um just for clarification, um
1:25:43 this these numbers do not reflect the uh
1:25:47 public safety levy income, right?
1:25:50 because we had in that proposal we had
1:25:54 uh 500,000 for uh an increase to public
1:25:58 defense contracts and I presume that if
1:26:01 we adopt that or you know that the
1:26:04 revenues start coming in as we expect
1:26:06 that that 26232
1:26:09 would be covered by those funds. Right.
1:26:12 >> So correct. So, the midbianual numbers
1:26:15 that you're seeing tonight do not
1:26:17 include anything from the public safety
1:26:20 sales tax. Um, we purposely left that
1:26:23 out because I we were planning to have
1:26:25 continuing conversations about how we
1:26:28 wanted to use that money. I have a some
1:26:30 slides coming up to uh remind council of
1:26:33 what was proposed on October 6th as just
1:26:35 some initial ideas, but correct, none of
1:26:38 these numbers um reflect the new revenue
1:26:41 from the public safety sales tax or any
1:26:43 related expenditures either.
1:26:46 Good question. Okay.
1:26:51 And then some proposed um spending in
1:26:53 the municipal arts fund. We're expecting
1:26:55 an increase in a grant from for culture
1:26:58 for the arts programming. So we just
1:27:00 want to chew up the expense to meet what
1:27:02 the expected grant will be about 26,000
1:27:06 for sewer fund on the Highlands and
1:27:08 Front Street lift station improvements.
1:27:10 Um that'll be paid for out of sewer fund
1:27:12 and then capital projects um fund
1:27:15 adjustment to close out bron bond
1:27:17 proceeds. So what that means is we still
1:27:19 have some remaining bond proceeds. We've
1:27:22 identified some projects that would be
1:27:23 eligible to use the bronze proceeds for
1:27:26 um and so we just want to close out that
1:27:27 money. So that's not new spending and we
1:27:30 have a funding source for that.
1:27:34 So these are budget items for
1:27:37 consideration for when we get back
1:27:39 together on October 27th. Um these none
1:27:43 of these items are currently included in
1:27:46 the midbanium review that we just went
1:27:48 over. So, the public safety sales tax.
1:27:51 Um, the proposed amendments. So, the new
1:27:53 spending is um another piece of what
1:27:56 council will need to make a decision on
1:27:57 on whether we move forward with those or
1:27:59 not. Some of the items that are
1:28:01 previously approved have already moved
1:28:03 forward, but the new spending um will be
1:28:06 up to council to decide if we move
1:28:07 forward with that. We've had some
1:28:09 conversation on metrlex. We needed to
1:28:11 decide um how we want to incorporate
1:28:13 that into the midbanial adjustments as
1:28:16 well as um emergency management. Do we
1:28:18 need any expenses or programs there? And
1:28:21 then what do we want to do with Fourth
1:28:22 of July and the World Cup?
1:28:26 >> And just a reminder,
1:28:27 >> question for you before you move on.
1:28:29 Yes. Um, when you're I was just
1:28:32 realizing the public safety sales tax,
1:28:35 >> it are we proposing to put that in a
1:28:39 separate restricted fund?
1:28:41 >> Oh, I Yes, I would I would recommend
1:28:44 that. Yes. So, how
1:28:48 I'm just thinking through if some of our
1:28:51 existing spending
1:28:53 moves
1:28:55 into that restricted bucket,
1:28:58 how does that impact our kind of
1:29:01 percentage 15%
1:29:04 target?
1:29:05 >> It will have an impact, right?
1:29:06 >> It would improve it.
1:29:08 >> Yeah. So, if we use some of the public
1:29:10 safety sales tax for our existing costs,
1:29:12 um like we like the public defense
1:29:14 costs, um yes, that would offset that
1:29:17 and then increase fund balance.
1:29:19 >> Okay. Thank you. Um city administrator,
1:29:22 do you have
1:29:24 >> Yes. So, we're we're nearly done. Yeah.
1:29:26 Um, and I and I think once we've had an
1:29:29 opportunity to finish the presentation
1:29:31 and answer initial questions, I'd like a
1:29:32 couple minutes to maybe talk some
1:29:34 strategy with you. Yeah. As to how you
1:29:36 can connect some of these dots. We
1:29:38 wanted to kind of lay everything out
1:29:39 this evening so that you had an idea of
1:29:43 what sort of the context of some of
1:29:45 these larger questions were before we
1:29:46 dived into solutions. Uh, so this is
1:29:49 being done purposely to kind of make
1:29:51 sure that you have the whole scene
1:29:53 before we start breaking it up into
1:29:55 pieces. So, for example, we need to come
1:29:57 back to all of the items on this slide
1:30:00 and talk a little bit more. So, at the
1:30:03 appropriate point, we'll bring the slide
1:30:04 back up and and talk a little bit more.
1:30:07 >> Yeah. Okay. We're eager. We're a little
1:30:09 little into the weeds and all of that.
1:30:11 >> And that's perfectly great. I just want
1:30:13 there's a method to the madness and
1:30:15 there's a path that I think that the
1:30:18 council you're really good at this guys.
1:30:20 Um, but we wanted to make sure,
1:30:21 especially with Kristen's arrival, we
1:30:23 wanted to kind of lay the scene out for
1:30:25 you first, rather than come to you and
1:30:27 say, "And here's all the solutions we
1:30:29 recommend," which is what we sometimes
1:30:31 do. But we felt given where we're at
1:30:33 and, you know, given Kristen's arrival
1:30:36 here, we wanted to take a slightly
1:30:37 different approach and kind of lay
1:30:39 everything out before we come up with
1:30:41 here's all of our solutions to your
1:30:43 troubles.
1:30:45 >> We appreciate the breadcrumbming. Okay.
1:30:47 Thanks.
1:30:49 Okay. So, this slide was just intended
1:30:52 um as a reminder. We had talked at the
1:30:54 October 6th um council meeting when the
1:30:57 ordinance was adopted to impose the
1:30:59 public safety sales tax. This was just
1:31:01 kind of some initial ideas of how the
1:31:03 public safety sales tax could be used.
1:31:05 Spending some on facilities, um public
1:31:08 defense to cover our known increases
1:31:10 that are coming. um 300,000 to support
1:31:13 existing fleet costs, some to support
1:31:15 existing costs for police officers, and
1:31:17 then some for capital equipment.
1:31:21 And then going forward, so in light of
1:31:24 going through this process to prepare
1:31:25 for the U midbenial adjustments, a
1:31:29 couple things that I want to plan for
1:31:30 2026, I think we've already talked a
1:31:32 little bit about that is taking a look
1:31:34 at the restricted revenues in the
1:31:36 general fund and moving those out for
1:31:39 better accountability and transparency.
1:31:41 I think it'll really kind of clean up
1:31:44 how we're looking at our targeted fund
1:31:46 balance. It'll just make a lot more
1:31:47 sense. Um so we do have plans already
1:31:51 and we've created the structure for the
1:31:53 affordable um housing dollars and so we
1:31:56 will plan to move that in January. And
1:31:59 then another project I want to work on
1:32:01 is a reconciliation of our capital
1:32:03 projects fund. Um just to give a little
1:32:05 backstory on why I want to look at that.
1:32:08 Historically, we've had a practice of if
1:32:11 we budget for projects in that fund that
1:32:13 are using um different funding sources
1:32:15 like mitigation funds or REIT funds or
1:32:17 even money from the general fund, we are
1:32:21 transferring that money at the beginning
1:32:23 of the year. Um but what I'm finding
1:32:25 isn't there isn't any reconciliation
1:32:28 done, at least that I've been able to
1:32:29 see to see how that money's been spent
1:32:32 or if the projects have even happened.
1:32:35 Um, so there could be um money left in
1:32:38 that fund that could be um undesated and
1:32:41 maybe repurposed. So I at least want to
1:32:43 go through the ex exercise to to see if
1:32:46 that's the case. And then plans for the
1:32:48 next bianial budget. Um want to continue
1:32:51 our operational balancing. I think
1:32:53 that'll be an important exercise for us
1:32:55 to make sure that our ongoing revenue is
1:32:58 in fact um meeting our ongoing expenses.
1:33:01 And then always a consideration when
1:33:03 we're um being asked to make ads to the
1:33:07 budget, how is that impacting our
1:33:08 ongoing operations and how is that
1:33:10 impacting fund balance? And then looking
1:33:13 to update the long range financial plan
1:33:15 and I I think that'll help give us a big
1:33:17 picture of where we are now and then
1:33:20 where we're heading in the future and
1:33:21 that will help drive some policy
1:33:22 decisions.
1:33:25 So capital outlay, I just want to touch
1:33:26 on this uh really briefly. As I
1:33:29 mentioned, we're not planning um I guess
1:33:32 I should take a step back. Projects are
1:33:34 can be spent over the bienium. Many
1:33:36 projects are often multi-year projects.
1:33:39 So projects can be spent over the
1:33:40 bienium. Um so we don't have any planned
1:33:43 adjustments right now. What will happen
1:33:45 in 2026 is we may true up and bring back
1:33:48 adjustments if needed at the end of the
1:33:50 bianium to close that out. And I just
1:33:52 wanted to highlight some of the projects
1:33:55 that have already been approved and plan
1:33:57 spending um for 2026.
1:34:00 And then timing and next steps. Uh so
1:34:03 we're here tonight, October 13th, to
1:34:06 review the midbenial um performance. And
1:34:10 we have a public hearing scheduled for
1:34:12 next Monday, October 20th. And then we
1:34:14 plan to come back to council on October
1:34:17 27th to have further discussion. And
1:34:19 then we plan to have the ordinance
1:34:20 brought to council to formally adopt the
1:34:23 the banial adjustments on November 10th.
1:34:29 Okay, I think we're now at the point of
1:34:31 the presentation where we can entertain
1:34:34 questions, input, and thoughts and
1:34:38 strategy discussions.
1:34:39 >> City Administrator Bob Quitz, do you
1:34:41 want to make your points now before
1:34:45 questions or after?
1:34:49 Okay, I think I will let us ask
1:34:53 questions.
1:34:56 Anything coming up? Uh, Deputy City
1:34:59 Administ
1:35:01 Deputy Council President D. Michelle, I
1:35:04 just gave you an upgrade. There you go.
1:35:07 >> Yeah,
1:35:09 thank you. Um, so, uh, we got all
1:35:13 discombobulated with that title. um
1:35:16 moving the um
1:35:19 restricted uh funds into a separate
1:35:22 account. So restricted um balance is
1:35:27 money that's unspent
1:35:30 but it's obligated.
1:35:34 And so if we move that into a general
1:35:37 fund, how are we going to uh under
1:35:40 revenues and expenditures account for
1:35:42 money that is unspent but obligated um
1:35:47 as we go through each year cycle? Does
1:35:49 the money roll over every year? Um how
1:35:52 do we account for that in a general fund
1:35:55 situation rather than showing it as a
1:35:58 restricted uh balance? So, we've already
1:36:01 gone through the my staff has already
1:36:03 gone through the exercise on the
1:36:04 affordable housing because that's the
1:36:06 largest piece right now of restricted
1:36:08 revenue that's sitting in the general
1:36:09 fund. So, what we did is from inception
1:36:12 on when we started collecting that um
1:36:15 we've documented all the revenue that
1:36:17 came in and then all the expenses that
1:36:20 have gone out. Now, there's still a
1:36:21 sizable large balance because we haven't
1:36:23 spent all of it. it has been
1:36:24 accumulating, but we have reconciled at
1:36:27 least through July of 2025 what that
1:36:30 fund balance for for affordable housing
1:36:33 looks like. So, we'll continue to go
1:36:35 through that exercise when we get to
1:36:37 1231 2025 so we know exactly what the
1:36:41 amount that is unspent in the general
1:36:44 fund and then move that over into its
1:36:46 own fund and then now all the revenue
1:36:49 will go into that new fund and then the
1:36:50 expenses will come out of that fund.
1:36:52 Does does that make sense? Yes. Okay.
1:36:57 >> Council member Jiang,
1:36:59 >> sorry if I missed this, but um I
1:37:01 remember earlier this year we were
1:37:03 talking about, you know, the expenses
1:37:04 that we incurred during the bomb
1:37:05 cyclone. Did we ever get reimbursed for
1:37:07 that? And is there any impact on of that
1:37:09 on our fund balance?
1:37:13 >> Go ahead if you want. that that I don't
1:37:16 I don't know um if we have been
1:37:18 reimbursed but I believe we are
1:37:20 expecting some reimbursement that we
1:37:21 have reflected in the budget adjustments
1:37:23 but I would need to confirm if we've
1:37:25 actually received
1:37:27 council member J members of the council
1:37:28 so the state of Washington and their
1:37:30 generosity uh has provided about a
1:37:32 million dollars uh for us uh most of the
1:37:36 expenses came out of the street
1:37:38 operating fund uh so some of it's a
1:37:40 little bit of an accounting uh issue
1:37:42 most of the street operating fund
1:37:44 dollars come from the general fund but
1:37:46 it does stand alone. Uh so there are
1:37:48 some deficits from the previous fiscal
1:37:51 year. Um so the previous bianium so not
1:37:54 only the previous fiscal year the
1:37:55 previous bianium that were not
1:37:57 replenished in the street operating
1:37:58 fund. So I don't know that we've come up
1:38:00 with an exact dollar amount. It's
1:38:02 probably between 750 and a million
1:38:05 dollars after the reimbursement from the
1:38:07 state. Is that a
1:38:11 1.37?
1:38:13 And I and I wasn't sure if some of that
1:38:15 goes back to the state for
1:38:17 administrative costs whether that was
1:38:19 that number, but we can as we come back
1:38:21 on the 27th, we can talk a little bit
1:38:23 more about where we stand with the bomb
1:38:25 cycle. But yes, I think the simple
1:38:27 answer is we did have not recovered all
1:38:29 of that. We were unsuccessful with the
1:38:31 federal government. Um we fortunately
1:38:33 through the work of our state
1:38:35 legislators did get some money directed,
1:38:37 but there's still a net cost that we was
1:38:40 not budgeted in the previous bianium.
1:38:43 Yeah, because I remember it was some it
1:38:45 was something like $3 million that we
1:38:47 spent and so recovering like 1.37 I mean
1:38:50 that's a pretty significant amount.
1:38:55 okay. Um one quick question. So I saw in
1:38:59 one of the previous slides there's 2.1
1:39:01 million in park acquisition spending.
1:39:03 What is that for specifically?
1:39:08 >> That would have been a a capital
1:39:09 project. So, we have an ongoing.
1:39:24 >> It was the capital outlay. Um, so it was
1:39:27 very close to the end.
1:39:42 Keep going to the end.
1:39:45 No, no, keep going. Keep going.
1:39:50 And next. There.
1:39:52 >> There we go.
1:39:57 >> So that uh Council Member Jen is a is a
1:40:00 budgeted uh amount. I know that Jeff
1:40:02 Watling, our parks and community
1:40:03 services director, is on the line. Um,
1:40:07 and he has texted me saying that we'll
1:40:10 be closing on the Kolkari property in
1:40:12 the first quarter. And so that is that
1:40:14 those dollars. Thank you, Jeff.
1:40:15 >> Great.
1:40:16 >> Thank you.
1:40:18 >> Maybe text the score of the National
1:40:20 League Championship Series, too.
1:40:24 >> Way to use all of our communication uh
1:40:26 points. Appreciate that. Um
1:40:30 just to follow up on the question that
1:40:32 council member Jen had about the bomb
1:40:34 cyclone. Um it would be nice to
1:40:38 understand
1:40:40 where we had kind of projected the end
1:40:42 of 24 beginning of 25 to be and what
1:40:46 adjustments we had to make because of
1:40:48 that that kind of impact um this as
1:40:52 another piece. So, thanks. Uh, Council
1:40:55 Member Hall,
1:40:57 >> um, two just quick clarifying questions.
1:41:00 So, the public hearing on October 20th,
1:41:02 can you remind me, is that a open and
1:41:04 close on that day or do you open it and
1:41:05 then you close it on a later meeting?
1:41:09 >> I think we were anticipating because we
1:41:12 were doing the follow-up on October 27th
1:41:14 of keeping the public hearing open.
1:41:16 Typically,
1:41:18 yeah, I think that's up to council, but
1:41:20 um, I think typically we open and close.
1:41:24 >> as long as we tell the city clerk what
1:41:25 we're doing, that's all that matters.
1:41:26 >> Okay. I was just curious because because
1:41:28 we would have the public hearing and
1:41:31 then a lot of the decisions would be
1:41:33 made afterwards or is the public hearing
1:41:36 really tied to the property tax
1:41:37 collection. Is that
1:41:40 >> because I know that's like statuto?
1:41:43 >> Sure. There are two public hearings, one
1:41:45 for the property tax and one for the
1:41:47 budget. And okay,
1:41:48 >> as the finance director stated,
1:41:49 council's past practice, if you still
1:41:51 have substantial deliberations, is to
1:41:53 keep the hearing open.
1:41:54 >> Okay.
1:41:55 >> Thank you.
1:41:56 >> But you've done it both ways.
1:41:57 >> What's up?
1:41:58 >> You've done it both ways. Oh,
1:41:59 >> okay. Um and then my other question was
1:42:03 one of the next steps that was outlined
1:42:04 was updating our like long range
1:42:07 financial plan.
1:42:09 >> Yes.
1:42:10 >> What is that? Is that a separate plan
1:42:13 from the budget or our financial
1:42:15 policies? So that would be looking out
1:42:18 past the current bianium. So looking at
1:42:22 probably two or three three bianiums. So
1:42:24 maybe a six or a 10 year horizon. Um I
1:42:27 think that's important for policy
1:42:29 decision making. Um the decisions that
1:42:32 you're making now um or in the next
1:42:34 bianium the 2728 could play a role in
1:42:38 future years. So it's important to kind
1:42:40 of take a long range look um seeing how
1:42:43 revenues are um when you might need new
1:42:45 revenues, how expenditures are
1:42:47 impacting. So that is kind of separate
1:42:49 and apart from the next bianial budget,
1:42:52 but they they kind of go together.
1:42:55 >> Okay. Yeah. No, it's not like an
1:42:56 official document or plan that we have
1:42:58 on file. It's more of an exercise.
1:43:00 Correct.
1:43:01 >> For us to think about long-term impacts
1:43:02 from what we're talking about.
1:43:03 >> Exactly.
1:43:04 >> Okay. Thanks. Any
1:43:07 other questions?
1:43:11 Okay, then I think I will take that step
1:43:13 to go to public comment um before we do
1:43:18 council direction. So, um public comment
1:43:21 on this. If you are on the on a
1:43:25 smartphone or computer, raise your hand
1:43:29 icon, click that or send the host a chat
1:43:31 message. If you're on the phone, press
1:43:33 star three. If you're in the room, raise
1:43:36 your hand and wave at me if you want to
1:43:38 make a comment. And are we seeing anyone
1:43:41 online and no one in person that would
1:43:45 like to make comments?
1:43:47 >> No one online is indicating a desire to
1:43:49 speak.
1:43:50 >> Okay, fantastic.
1:43:52 Um well, we will have several other
1:43:54 touches on um the midbian budget. So,
1:44:00 city administrator Bob Quitz, do you
1:44:01 want to start us off? Sure. Thank you.
1:44:05 Uh and I want to thank Kristen um coming
1:44:08 in and trying to to make sense of where
1:44:11 we are sort of midstream in the bianium.
1:44:14 I really appreciate her good work and
1:44:16 her plain spokenenness. Uh I think that
1:44:18 uh you know her ability to explain where
1:44:21 we're at, what we're doing uh really
1:44:23 makes a difference. So thank you very
1:44:24 much for that. Um you know from my point
1:44:27 of view there's a couple of key points
1:44:28 that have come up tonight. One is the
1:44:30 fund balance. Um the some of the
1:44:33 calculations that have been done, the
1:44:35 way uh Kristen is is I think looking
1:44:38 very precisely at designated versus
1:44:40 undesated fund balance, I think has uh
1:44:43 kind of changed the outlook of what that
1:44:45 undesated fund balance number is. And so
1:44:48 the administration's recommendation is
1:44:50 that we would take steps uh to bring
1:44:52 that undesated fund balance back up to
1:44:55 as close to 15% uh this bianium as we
1:44:58 can. Um, and so, uh, one of the ways to
1:45:02 be able to do that is looking at the
1:45:04 public safety sales tax. If you could go
1:45:06 back to the the slide when when we
1:45:09 brought this to the council um, several
1:45:12 weeks ago, you asked for us to come up
1:45:14 with a plan uh, when you approved the
1:45:16 sales tax last meeting. Uh, this was the
1:45:18 plan that was included uh, in there uh,
1:45:21 that covers about $2.2 million, which is
1:45:23 what we expect the revenue to be in
1:45:25 2026. uh we wanted to balance uh between
1:45:30 investments uh in uh facilities
1:45:33 investments in existing uh equipment
1:45:35 costs but also to take some credit for
1:45:39 ongoing assistance. So that $500,000
1:45:42 that is listed here would be uh
1:45:44 supplementing existing budgeted general
1:45:46 fund dollars uh for uh use of the public
1:45:50 safety sales tax. So that $500,000 if
1:45:53 you were to agree to this uh would then
1:45:57 fall to fund balance and so would incre
1:45:59 without any additional spending would
1:46:01 increase your fund balance by $500,000.
1:46:04 Um and so we think that continues to
1:46:06 make sense. The $500,000 on the public
1:46:09 defense costs um as we've worked more
1:46:13 closely with our partners who provide
1:46:15 that service, it looks as if those
1:46:17 dollars will not be $500,000. I think we
1:46:20 were looking at was a $298,000
1:46:24 uh increase. And again, those are all
1:46:26 very uh appropriate expenses for the
1:46:29 public safety sales tax. So that then
1:46:31 frees up approximately $200,000 of that
1:46:35 500,000. So now you have $700,000
1:46:39 uh going back to the general fund. So
1:46:41 that then leaves uh $750,000 for
1:46:44 facilities, $300,000 to support uh fleet
1:46:48 costs, and $150,000 for capital
1:46:51 equipment. Um the you've seen uh this
1:46:54 evening some costs for additional court
1:46:57 capital equipment for the uh uh ankle
1:47:00 bracelets uh that are being recommended.
1:47:02 Those dollars, for example, could come
1:47:04 out of that $150,000 for capital
1:47:07 equipment. So, we can continue to um
1:47:11 work through this if the council
1:47:13 believes that the $750,000 for
1:47:15 facilities, uh the $300,000 for fleet
1:47:18 costs, and then the balance for capital
1:47:20 equipment makes sense for spending in
1:47:22 2026. Uh the administration feels that
1:47:25 as we look at the next bianium uh that
1:47:28 we would want to reopen how those $2.2
1:47:30 million is spent or whatever it happens
1:47:33 to be at any given uh bianium. Uh so
1:47:36 this is just a sort of one-time
1:47:38 allocation of the $2.2 million for 26
1:47:41 and we would ask the council uh to
1:47:43 revisit that in future years. So I think
1:47:45 by looking at uh some of this we'll have
1:47:48 to crunch the numbers and see uh just
1:47:51 with those changes uh that should make a
1:47:53 nice dent to bring us probably close to
1:47:58 off the top of my head maybe a little
1:47:59 bit more. So, if the council's
1:48:01 comfortable with that, um, then I think
1:48:04 that would be the way the administration
1:48:06 would would recommend adjusting the
1:48:09 spending plan for 2026 for the public
1:48:11 safety sales tax. All
1:48:14 right, we go back to the slide that had
1:48:17 the other issues.
1:48:26 No, back to the It was just that
1:48:29 previous slide.
1:48:30 Yeah, that one. Um
1:48:34 proposed amendments we've we've talked
1:48:35 about and certainly are prepared to talk
1:48:37 further about. Uh Metroflex. Uh the
1:48:39 council has talked about doing that. Um,
1:48:43 uh, Mayor Paulie has expressed her
1:48:45 concern about, uh, moving forward with
1:48:48 this. It becomes, I think, a budgetary
1:48:50 issue for the city council that if the
1:48:52 council wishes to move forward with
1:48:54 Metroflex, um, an additional amount of
1:48:57 dollars needs to be identified to do
1:48:59 that. Um, you know, the council has
1:49:02 choices. You could spend general fund
1:49:04 dollars on this. Uh, you can also
1:49:06 consider spending um the, uh,
1:49:09 transportation improvement district
1:49:11 funds. Um I don't know if we have a
1:49:12 dollar amount and fund balance handy uh
1:49:15 but uh between either the public works
1:49:17 director or the finance director but uh
1:49:20 fund balance is healthy there and it is
1:49:23 healthy for a reason because the council
1:49:25 has indicated that there are two
1:49:27 priorities for spending uh that uh that
1:49:30 revenue. One is on intelligent
1:49:32 transportation systems and the other is
1:49:34 on uh the uh multimmodal project uh
1:49:38 along Lake Spamish. Um that project as
1:49:42 you know uh is a many many many million
1:49:45 dollar project. It will not be built for
1:49:48 uh several years. Uh but the council's
1:49:51 direction has been to retain as much of
1:49:53 the revenue from that tax as possible in
1:49:56 order to help pay for that project. Um,
1:49:59 if the council wishes to pursue
1:50:01 Metrflex, you may wish to take a small
1:50:03 portion of that tax uh and use it to pay
1:50:08 uh for the the difference portion of
1:50:11 Metroflex or you may choose to spend
1:50:14 more of that tax dollars on Metroflex,
1:50:17 thus freeing up additional general fund
1:50:19 dollars for fund balance or other
1:50:21 projects. So, that is something for you
1:50:23 to think about. Um, emergency
1:50:25 management, we talked about this over
1:50:26 the summer. Um we then came back to you
1:50:29 uh after the retreat uh concerned about
1:50:33 monies that we are spending for
1:50:35 emergency management. Uh the council's
1:50:37 direction uh in the late summer was that
1:50:40 you did not have an interest in amending
1:50:41 the budget in 2025 uh for additional
1:50:44 spending. Uh but the administration's
1:50:46 coming back to you now uh continuing to
1:50:49 have the concern. Um we have talked
1:50:51 internally about what would make sense
1:50:54 uh for additional spending and uh the
1:50:57 the what we've come up with is
1:50:59 additional spending on the uh the reader
1:51:03 boards, the message boards that we have.
1:51:05 We have a capital project right now uh
1:51:08 that is improving some existing uh those
1:51:10 message boards. We surprisingly got very
1:51:13 good uh bids for that. Um I think that
1:51:17 the project is what $186,000
1:51:20 under budget something in that general
1:51:22 neighborhood. Um and so we have thought
1:51:25 would it make sense to u do additional
1:51:28 work and and put in some additional um
1:51:31 these message boards. So if that is
1:51:33 something that you're interested in,
1:51:34 we'd like to come back on the 27th and
1:51:36 talk a little bit more about that uh and
1:51:38 also then try to identify a funding
1:51:40 source uh for that. Uh I also think
1:51:43 there are some staffing issues there. Um
1:51:46 but the priority would be those message
1:51:48 boards. So if there's interest this
1:51:50 evening, we would we would like to come
1:51:51 back on the 27th and talk a little bit
1:51:54 about that. Jared Schneider, our
1:51:55 emergency manager, is today back from
1:51:57 his uh family leave. Um as is Dale Marky
1:52:01 Crimp, who's on the call tonight. So
1:52:03 we're we're happy that uh our our new
1:52:05 parents are doing well and their new
1:52:07 children are doing well, but we're very
1:52:09 happy to have them back to work. Um, and
1:52:11 so perhaps we could have Jared here on
1:52:14 the 27th and talk a little bit about
1:52:15 this. And I know public works staff uh
1:52:18 um, Director Moon and and Bennett
1:52:21 Ashcraft have done um, Ashba have done
1:52:24 some work there. The last issue uh, what
1:52:27 we have not talked about at this venue
1:52:30 is um, the Fourth of July. Uh, Mayor
1:52:33 Paulie has appointed a Fourth of July
1:52:35 commission who are working diligently on
1:52:38 some projects uh in addition to a parade
1:52:41 uh that they would like to consider. Um,
1:52:44 but we have no money budgeted for that.
1:52:46 Um, and so if the council is interested,
1:52:48 we'd like to come back on the 27th and
1:52:50 talk about that order of magnitude is
1:52:52 probably somewhere between 25 and
1:52:54 $50,000
1:52:56 um all in. Uh, but then there's also the
1:52:58 World Cup. Um, I think many of you are
1:53:01 aware that the schedule for the World
1:53:04 Cup is uh a Juneish uh schedule leading
1:53:08 up to uh that the extended Fourth of
1:53:11 July weekend for the final game uh in
1:53:14 Seattle that will be played. Um, our
1:53:16 partners at Visitisqua have been working
1:53:18 diligently on some ideas. Um, I don't
1:53:21 believe any of them have really come to
1:53:23 fruition yet because they are waiting uh
1:53:26 for the draw to see which teams will be
1:53:28 here and to think if it makes sense to
1:53:31 have uh events that would be geared
1:53:33 toward our foreign visitors uh that are
1:53:35 coming. Uh but currently we have no
1:53:38 dollars budgeted for anything to do with
1:53:40 the World Cup or these extended Fourth
1:53:42 of July activities. So, if the council
1:53:45 is interested in talking more about
1:53:46 that, we'd also like to come back on the
1:53:49 27th and talk about that. So, with all
1:53:53 that said, um you know, I I feel that
1:53:56 what we have uh you know, is all very
1:53:59 doable. Obviously, the $2.2 million
1:54:01 public safety sales tax is a great tool
1:54:04 that is allowing us, I think, to make
1:54:07 the adjustments that we need without uh
1:54:09 reducing costs, without raising other
1:54:11 revenue. Um but uh it's kind of all tied
1:54:14 together. And so if the council is
1:54:17 interested in kind of the outline of
1:54:19 what the administration's proposing this
1:54:21 evening, uh we'll come back with some
1:54:23 more details on the 27th. um that will
1:54:26 help bring the fund balance closer to
1:54:28 15% uh perhaps address uh Metroflex and
1:54:33 again I would like some feedback on the
1:54:35 use of the uh the transportation
1:54:37 improvement district uh for that as a
1:54:40 revenue source and then any comments you
1:54:42 might have on the emergency management
1:54:43 piece tonight as well.
1:54:46 >> That is a great way to help us funnel
1:54:49 kind of our conversations there. Uh
1:54:52 Council Member Marks. Thank you, council
1:54:54 president. So, I asked a few minutes ago
1:54:57 about uh our financial policy and
1:55:02 whether
1:55:04 it is the goal in this, you know,
1:55:08 bianial budgets are fairly new for us.
1:55:10 Um, is it the goal to get to 15%.
1:55:14 Because it's $5 million, right? The
1:55:17 difference between where we're at today
1:55:19 and being at 15% is $5 million. So, is
1:55:23 that I mean that's the
1:55:27 it seems like that's the that's the
1:55:29 correct uh interpretation of our
1:55:31 financial policy. Is is is that in fact
1:55:34 correct?
1:55:37 >> That is correct. And what based on your
1:55:40 feedback tonight, we'd like to come back
1:55:42 with a proposal that gets us closer to
1:55:44 that 15%. I don't know that the
1:55:46 administration would be able to
1:55:47 recommend an amid bianium adjustment to
1:55:50 get all the way there. Uh but we'd like
1:55:53 to try.
1:55:53 >> Yeah. So as an engineer I work with
1:55:57 requirements, right? And it's either a
1:55:59 requirement or it's not a requirement.
1:56:00 If it's a requirement, we should get to
1:56:02 we should get to the 15%. If it's not a
1:56:04 requirement, maybe we don't have to
1:56:06 worry about it. But it it's h going
1:56:08 halfway
1:56:10 doesn't seem like an I don't know under
1:56:13 what solution going getting halfway is
1:56:15 is the right way to do it. So
1:56:19 >> okay I I mean you've answered my
1:56:20 question
1:56:21 >> and and it's and it's a requirement
1:56:23 based on the council's direction.
1:56:25 >> Yeah.
1:56:25 >> And so it it is not required by any law.
1:56:28 It's not required by local ordinance. U
1:56:31 but it is I guess a goal is as good a
1:56:34 term as any. And if the council's
1:56:36 direction this evening is we really
1:56:38 think it's important and administration
1:56:40 please come up with a plan that gets us
1:56:42 there then we will take that and we'll
1:56:45 work with Mayor Paulie and uh have more
1:56:48 to talk about on the 27th.
1:56:50 >> So So are we in the discussion phase or
1:56:53 still in the question phase? Okay. So I
1:56:55 would propose that we need to come up
1:56:56 with a solution that comes up with $5
1:56:58 million there. That 15% is there for a
1:57:01 reason. Um this to me is um at the risk
1:57:05 Hyperbole seems to be the the word of
1:57:07 the day. At the risk of sounding
1:57:08 hyperbolic, this is to me the biggest
1:57:10 financial challenge I've seen in 16
1:57:12 years on this council. Being at 7% puts
1:57:15 us at incredible risk um that if uh an
1:57:18 emergency situation came up, our funds
1:57:20 are essentially depleted. So, I would
1:57:23 like to see us come up with a solution
1:57:24 that comes up with $5 million because
1:57:26 that's what we're short. Thank you.
1:57:29 And I will just note if you're moving
1:57:33 some of our dollars out into another
1:57:37 basically designated fund that does
1:57:40 adjust the amount of expenses
1:57:42 coming out of the general fund. So that
1:57:46 5 million may actually be adjusted
1:57:48 because of other calculations. Correct.
1:57:51 >> Well, the unrestricted and the
1:57:54 restricted are reflected separately. So
1:57:56 that might not necessarily be true
1:57:58 because we tried to account for those
1:58:00 separately in the fund balance.
1:58:01 >> I'm thinking about the public safety
1:58:03 sales tax. If we're taking
1:58:06 >> a million dollars worth of expenditures
1:58:08 or whatever it is and moving that to
1:58:10 another fund, that would change the
1:58:13 formula.
1:58:14 >> Yes.
1:58:15 >> Okay. Um I believe Council Member Jiang
1:58:17 and then Council Member Ray.
1:58:20 >> Yeah. Um I also want to echo what
1:58:23 Council Member Mart said. I mean the 15%
1:58:25 is there for a reason. You know,
1:58:27 basically we have one month's worth of
1:58:29 runway in in terms of cash on hand. And
1:58:32 so if there were to be I mean our
1:58:33 current fund balance that we're
1:58:35 projected to be at 4.7 million at the
1:58:37 end of 2026. If we had another bomb
1:58:39 cycle and had to spend you know three or
1:58:41 four million we would really really be
1:58:43 in a tight spot. So I don't think that's
1:58:46 great. Um, and you know, even if we
1:58:50 apply a 100% of the public safety sales
1:58:52 tax to, uh,
1:58:56 you know, just existing expenses, that
1:58:58 only gets us like 40% of the way there
1:58:59 to closing the gap. So, I think we
1:59:02 really, I mean, we need to figure
1:59:04 something else out. I don't necessar I
1:59:07 mean just given how big the gap is
1:59:09 relative to the size of our budget. I'm
1:59:11 okay if we're our approach is kind of
1:59:14 like you know it's $5 million we do $2
1:59:17 million a year over three years. I I
1:59:19 could be open to that approach and I'm
1:59:21 curious what my council colleagues think
1:59:22 but I do think I mean we can't we're not
1:59:24 in a position to be able to be spending
1:59:27 on things that are outside of the budget
1:59:29 especi you know like the affordable
1:59:31 housing study or the um pickering
1:59:34 generator thing. I think that's when
1:59:35 we're actually we could get grants at
1:59:37 some point in the future and I would
1:59:38 like to see us try to get grant funding
1:59:40 for those types of projects. Um to your
1:59:43 point on the World Cup stuff, I think
1:59:45 there's we have a restricted fund that
1:59:47 is specifically for those types of
1:59:48 things called the lodging tax advisory
1:59:51 uh fund, the ELTAC. So I would love for
1:59:53 us to put that in that fund, not the
1:59:55 general fund. Um
1:59:57 and uh just another point, I strongly
2:00:00 support creating another separate
2:00:01 account for the affordable housing sales
2:00:02 tax. I think the fact that we've
2:00:04 comingled those funds is probably part
2:00:05 of the reason why we're in this weird
2:00:07 situation. Um, but yeah, I I think this
2:00:12 is uh we're it's not a great picture,
2:00:17 but I'm very grateful to uh Director
2:00:19 Garcia for uh giving it to us straight.
2:00:25 Okay, Council Member Ray and then
2:00:27 Council Member Cho.
2:00:30 a little bit um amplify.
2:00:34 We put the financial policy in place for
2:00:36 a reason and part of it was to make sure
2:00:38 that we were true to ourselves and
2:00:40 recognizing that we want to have some
2:00:42 kind of buffer and when we did the last
2:00:44 round on the financial policy there was
2:00:46 a small minority of one uh who actually
2:00:49 wanted to see it be a bigger number
2:00:50 because I think 15% is the low end of
2:00:52 what we should have. So, I really think
2:00:56 we have to find a way to be um if we are
2:01:00 going to be good stewards and um
2:01:03 proactive in our management of the
2:01:06 budget of the city, we have to find a
2:01:09 way to stay within the rules we set for
2:01:11 ourselves. And it's, you know, it's one
2:01:13 of those things where we could just say,
2:01:15 well, this case it doesn't count. And
2:01:17 then the next time it wouldn't count,
2:01:18 and then we would have a financial
2:01:19 disaster. So, it's it's a moment for
2:01:21 discipline. And I think we just need to
2:01:23 do that. Um I am very excited about
2:01:26 taking some of the unrestricted or the
2:01:28 restricted uh funds out of the general
2:01:31 fund because it does muddy things up and
2:01:33 they probably never
2:01:36 not no casting of espersions but never
2:01:37 should have been mingled in there. That
2:01:39 was originally intended to deal with a
2:01:41 very small uh sliver of funding related
2:01:45 to um leave balances. that was why we
2:01:48 created that restricted fund and and now
2:01:51 it's big as big as the general fund and
2:01:54 that's that's not good practice. So, so
2:01:56 do that. Um but then let's let's find a
2:02:00 way to find that
2:02:02 um 4.5 million maybe is all it is
2:02:06 because we'll do the adjusting of the of
2:02:07 the denominator or is it the numerator?
2:02:10 Whichever it is. Um and so yeah, we'll
2:02:14 adjust the the rates. So, um, that's
2:02:17 that's my take on it, but I think we
2:02:18 have an obligation of the people who
2:02:20 live here to, uh, have the discipline to
2:02:22 stick with our own policies.
2:02:26 >> Council member Joe,
2:02:29 >> thank you, Director Garcia, and um, city
2:02:33 administer and Bob Kitz for putting this
2:02:34 together, putting it in terms that we
2:02:36 can hopefully understand and digest. Do
2:02:39 appreciate that. Um I think uh emergency
2:02:42 management and fourth and the world cup
2:02:45 are a little bit interrelated. Um I
2:02:48 think we should do more for reader
2:02:49 boards because the World Cup is going to
2:02:52 impact us whether or not we have events
2:02:54 in the city or not. Um, people are going
2:02:57 to look at the map and they're going to
2:02:58 see that we're 16 miles away from
2:02:59 Seattle and they're going to flood our
2:03:01 hotels and our Burbos and our other
2:03:05 places and we're going to have uh a lot
2:03:07 of people in town that don't know where
2:03:09 they're going and don't know our city
2:03:12 and want some direction help along the
2:03:14 way. So, if we beef up our reader boards
2:03:17 through the emergency management fund,
2:03:19 uh it could help alleviate a lot of
2:03:22 problems in World Cup uh when it swings
2:03:25 around for us. Um, the city of Redmond
2:03:28 spent an hour and a half to two hours uh
2:03:31 last week talking with fire, police,
2:03:36 planning, human services, all their
2:03:39 different departments about what they
2:03:40 were going to do for World Cup because
2:03:42 they're a terminus for the line and
2:03:45 certainly that is an appropriate step
2:03:47 for them to do because they have that
2:03:49 transportation system. Our
2:03:51 transportation system isn't as
2:03:52 developed, but I can see people still
2:03:55 streaming here and coming here for World
2:03:58 Cup and and we should be prepared and
2:04:00 ready to go. Uh no matter who's playing,
2:04:03 you know, uh it's not really going to
2:04:05 make a difference. The crowds are going
2:04:06 to be here. Um I really appreciate uh
2:04:10 the the walkth through with the proposed
2:04:12 safety sales tax. I think the
2:04:14 distribution there is is uh pretty good.
2:04:17 Um I want us to keep in mind that the
2:04:22 the public defender uh money there is is
2:04:25 very important. Um
2:04:28 criminal defense have the right to an
2:04:30 attorney under you know and it's
2:04:33 constitutional right and so we need to
2:04:35 be make sure that we are doing
2:04:36 everything we can to make sure that our
2:04:38 courts um uphold that right for them and
2:04:41 make it a court that uh is really
2:04:44 justice for all along the way. So, I
2:04:46 really appreciate you putting money
2:04:47 aside and planning for that rather than
2:04:50 having it be a secondary thought or a
2:04:53 add-on thought along the way uh as we
2:04:56 go. And then finally, I think um I would
2:05:00 just comment that on the the uh
2:05:03 Metroflex project, I think we've had a
2:05:06 great conversation about that. I hope
2:05:08 that we can continue that conversation
2:05:09 at the next meeting. uh want to make
2:05:11 that uh work for all parties and see if
2:05:14 we can still um have that be an asset
2:05:18 for our citizens and would uh urge my
2:05:20 colleagues to take a close look at it
2:05:22 when it comes around on the 27th. Thank
2:05:28 >> Uh Deputy Council President D. Michelle.
2:05:32 >> Um I agree with the comments uh about
2:05:35 the 7% uh balance being uh a risky one.
2:05:40 Um, there's always a struggle between
2:05:43 what we keep for a balance and what we
2:05:45 spend on services for our community. And
2:05:48 so I would agree with Council Member
2:05:50 Jen's proposal or I would be okay if we
2:05:54 got halfway there this year and then got
2:05:57 the rest of the way next year and we
2:05:58 could phase it in. Uh, I think uh that
2:06:02 that would that that would work. Um,
2:06:07 and I had something else to say. Oh, the
2:06:11 World Cup, um, a letter just went out
2:06:14 today and, uh, was just sent to you
2:06:16 earlier or will be sent by, uh, city
2:06:19 administrator. um signed by uh myself uh
2:06:24 Karen How from Sebamish and Neil Black
2:06:27 from Kirkland and signed uh on by 16
2:06:31 other cities uh requesting that Metro
2:06:34 focus on the east side which they have
2:06:36 not done to um help improve our
2:06:40 preparation for the World Cup. Um and
2:06:43 again the the sample that was given
2:06:45 there of Redmond doing a lot of work but
2:06:48 it's not coordinated across the east
2:06:50 side and that is exactly the concern we
2:06:53 have is that people will be coming here
2:06:56 uh going to Airbnbs um and those kinds
2:06:59 of things and there's no additional
2:07:02 transit planned um and so we would like
2:07:05 to have uh a bigger focus from Metro and
2:07:08 more support from the organizing
2:07:10 committee to bring better transport
2:07:12 transportation planning to the east side
2:07:13 for the World Cup. So we will hope that
2:07:16 that uh voice is heard and uh I think uh
2:07:20 it obviously is very much needed and uh
2:07:23 we need something at a higher level that
2:07:25 helps us all get together for the World
2:07:27 Cup. Uh, and then finally, um, and my
2:07:32 heart breaks to say this, but could I
2:07:36 possibly and maybe share it with the
2:07:38 council and look at the pavement
2:07:40 management program and see if we could
2:07:43 get a historic look at like that program
2:07:46 in the last 10 years. One of the reasons
2:07:48 when I ran for council was to make sure
2:07:50 we were doing very well on our pavement
2:07:52 management program, but we have done
2:07:55 very well. And I'm just wondering if we
2:07:57 could look at that budget and see if
2:07:59 there's places where we could trim and
2:08:02 move that to our uh our ending fund
2:08:06 balance.
2:08:08 I'm going to cry over that one.
2:08:12 But we are looking for money. We're
2:08:13 looking for five million. And that is
2:08:16 one place where uh we've done so much.
2:08:19 And I see such really great roads and
2:08:21 beautifully paved roads. And maybe we
2:08:24 need to pause a little bit there and see
2:08:26 if we can trim that budget just a bit.
2:08:28 So that's that's one request I have is
2:08:31 maybe by next week or the week after we
2:08:33 could just have a historic look at where
2:08:36 have we gone over the last 10 years with
2:08:38 that program and how much have we been
2:08:39 expending over the last 10 years and is
2:08:42 there anything there that we could trim.
2:08:44 Thank you.
2:08:47 >> Uh Council Member Hall.
2:08:51 Um yeah, I mean happy to have the
2:08:52 discussion on each of these items in the
2:08:54 coming meetings. A couple initial
2:08:58 somewhat initial reactions on some of
2:09:00 these. The public safety sales tax, um
2:09:03 we adopted that ordinance at the last
2:09:06 meeting, right? Um and I'm glad we have
2:09:08 numbers and kind of categories. I'll
2:09:10 just put in another plug that I think we
2:09:11 should have some more substance to to
2:09:13 that too. something that describes
2:09:17 um something that looks more like a
2:09:18 planning document that the city has in
2:09:20 terms of here's the current environment
2:09:22 of why it's challenging to fund public
2:09:25 safety and it's like well here are our
2:09:26 goals with this funding and then the
2:09:28 kind of table that you've already
2:09:30 outlined to us before as a way um as a
2:09:34 benefit to us but also as a way for
2:09:36 community transparency for us to have
2:09:38 conversations with community and for
2:09:40 that to just be kind of upfront. Um
2:09:42 perhaps that could just be an element of
2:09:44 the mayor's budget letter. Um I can't
2:09:47 remember if she does a letter for the
2:09:49 midby or if it's just the start of the
2:09:51 benial but uh or an attachment to the
2:09:54 midby or something like that but
2:09:56 something that we can use to communicate
2:09:57 with community and um um write down kind
2:10:02 of our thoughts and be specific about
2:10:03 those there. um the TBD. So, when it
2:10:06 comes to Metrolex, touching even
2:10:09 considering touching the transportation
2:10:11 benefit district fund balance just like
2:10:15 really um concerns me. So if we were to
2:10:18 do that or consider doing that, I would
2:10:20 just want to make sure that we get and
2:10:23 this is very challenging, but as clear a
2:10:27 picture as we possibly can about what
2:10:30 potential payments on debt service would
2:10:33 look like for the Northwest Seamish Road
2:10:35 to just give us some semblance of
2:10:37 confidence that we would have enough
2:10:39 even if we were diverting some of that
2:10:41 to potentially Metroflex to be able to
2:10:44 also fund debt service on this very
2:10:46 important community priority we've all
2:10:48 talked about many many times up here. Um
2:10:51 so that's just kind of where my head is
2:10:52 at there. Reluctant but open to have the
2:10:55 conversation with more details. Um and
2:10:57 then I agree with getting as close as we
2:10:59 can to 15%. I think council member Bray
2:11:02 makes a good point about well and others
2:11:04 makes a good point about being
2:11:05 disciplined. So challenging um policy
2:11:09 trade-off conversations to come I
2:11:11 suppose. Um, it also makes me think that
2:11:14 like in our financial policies, if we
2:11:16 call out whether that 15% target is
2:11:19 specific to just general fund balance or
2:11:22 do we need to amend it to change it to
2:11:23 be um unrestricted general fund balance
2:11:26 just so it exists in policy? That could
2:11:30 happen at another time. But just wanted
2:11:32 to throw that out there, too. Um, those
2:11:35 are my initial thoughts.
2:11:39 Okay, I'm seeing another council member
2:11:41 Sheng.
2:11:43 >> Yeah, I guess just riffing a bit on what
2:11:45 council member Hall said about the
2:11:46 transportation benefit district funding.
2:11:48 I do agree that it seems like up to this
2:11:51 point we've kind of defined it as a fund
2:11:52 for capital projects for transportation
2:11:54 and now I guess I kind of opened this
2:11:57 can of worms of oh should we consider
2:11:58 using this for operating budget and I
2:12:00 think that and if the whole point of it
2:12:03 was that we were supposed to be using it
2:12:04 for capital projects and have that as a
2:12:06 dedicated funding stream for that then I
2:12:08 I just like the fact that I mean with
2:12:11 the public safety sales tax as well you
2:12:13 know kind of some of the original
2:12:14 thoughts were like oh yeah we can use
2:12:15 this to help fund the capital
2:12:16 improvements for facilities for you know
2:12:19 our police station and now we're
2:12:21 basically using it to uh you know
2:12:24 backfill operating costs um because of
2:12:27 our fund balance situation. So I think
2:12:29 we should be really clear about what the
2:12:31 intention and purposes behind all of the
2:12:33 different funds and make sure that we're
2:12:34 not you know basically just eroding away
2:12:37 some of these things that we adopted for
2:12:39 a specific reason. Um, I also,
2:12:42 you know, just on the whole like we cut
2:12:47 12% across the board in the last banal
2:12:49 budget and then somehow we're still like
2:12:53 in this position with the ending fund
2:12:55 balance. So I I'm
2:12:58 think I mean it should we have cut more
2:13:01 in the original bienial budget or
2:13:03 something like that? I mean I don't
2:13:04 know.
2:13:05 But it's not really a good picture right
2:13:08 now and so we need to find some uh
2:13:10 solutions.
2:13:17 Okay. Um my feedback um I think
2:13:22 toward Council Member Jeng's point about
2:13:25 um you know where we are now versus
2:13:28 where we were when we adopted the
2:13:30 budget. I'd like to get a better visual
2:13:34 of, and I say visual because I'm not a
2:13:37 numbers. I need the numbers, but I also
2:13:39 need to know what the flow was. But I
2:13:42 know some of this comes from, you know,
2:13:45 our 2024 ending fund balance being lower
2:13:49 than anticipated because of the bomb
2:13:51 cyclone and other things.
2:13:54 Some of this comes from the 2.2 2
2:13:57 million of ARPA funds that were should
2:14:01 have been in a restricted fund when we
2:14:03 were calculating out that budget
2:14:05 percentage. Um and then we've got kind
2:14:08 of three buckets that we're looking at
2:14:10 here um which is corrections, previously
2:14:15 approved budget adjustments, and then
2:14:17 new proposed um amendments. So, uh,
2:14:21 understanding how those contributed to
2:14:24 things and particularly if we we were
2:14:29 working off of certain assumptions when
2:14:31 we adopted the 2526 budget and some of
2:14:35 those because of the um ARPA dollars and
2:14:41 because of the
2:14:43 um bomb cyclone were wrong. So
2:14:47 understanding
2:14:49 where we actually were and how much
2:14:52 we've degraded from that would be really
2:14:55 helpful especially not just looking at
2:14:58 the bottom line numbers but the
2:14:59 percentage um because I think that that
2:15:02 will give us a better sense of we didn't
2:15:06 actually dip from 15% to 7%.
2:15:11 So that would be one of my requests
2:15:13 there. Um, I agree that 7% is too low
2:15:18 and we need to be very diligent diligent
2:15:21 about protecting our general fund
2:15:23 balance. So, I'm in agreement that we
2:15:26 need to look at all of our options at
2:15:29 this point. Um, I think two policy ideas
2:15:34 have come up for me at this point. Um,
2:15:37 one of which is we should consider
2:15:40 updating our financial policy to make
2:15:42 that determination about whether 15% is
2:15:45 the hard number that we're aiming for at
2:15:48 budget adoption
2:15:50 or whether it also is a superseding
2:15:54 point at mid bayanium. So I think that
2:15:57 would be an important financial
2:15:58 consideration for us. I think um as we
2:16:02 move to and have more dedicated funds,
2:16:06 you know, the transportation benefit
2:16:08 district, public safety, affordable
2:16:09 housing,
2:16:11 we need to set up statements about what
2:16:13 this should or shouldn't be used for. Um
2:16:16 and that's another area where we can
2:16:18 create discipline, but we can also be
2:16:22 creative and help understand what are
2:16:25 our goals for those things. Um
2:16:30 so I I think those are some ideas that
2:16:34 we should um think about. Um I think
2:16:39 looking at that 7% 8% number um for me
2:16:44 that means that all of the
2:16:46 administration proposed adjustments are
2:16:48 up for debate. Um, and that includes
2:16:51 things that, you know, maybe have a
2:16:55 dedicated revenue area such as the parks
2:16:58 um, maintenance staff because there are
2:17:01 other ways that we can still use that
2:17:03 um, money. So, I want everything to be
2:17:06 on the table for us um, as we consider
2:17:08 that for um, some of these general the
2:17:13 budget items for consideration. the
2:17:15 public safety sales tax. Um I'm really
2:17:19 concerned about setting up a separate
2:17:22 way that we're allocating this fund for
2:17:25 2026 just to cover budget holes and then
2:17:29 assuming we're going to be able to shift
2:17:31 that for a 2728 adopted budget. Um
2:17:35 because when we get into a habit of
2:17:38 using a fund in a certain way um for
2:17:43 ongoing operational expenses, I think
2:17:47 that puts us in a place where we have to
2:17:50 make then difficult decisions to move
2:17:53 off of that in the future. And so I want
2:17:56 us to take a really strong look at if
2:17:59 we're trying to use that to cover
2:18:04 expenses and anticipate we would use it
2:18:06 differently in the future that that
2:18:08 potentially sets us up for a problem. Um
2:18:12 for Metrolex, I am really interested to
2:18:14 learn about the transportation benefit
2:18:16 funding options for part or all of
2:18:19 Metrolex. I think this is a
2:18:23 transportation element. Um it is
2:18:26 operational rather than capital but I
2:18:29 think it provides 11,000 rides these um
2:18:34 that is very useful. Um but I do want to
2:18:37 know more about the fund balance and the
2:18:38 future planned uses. So I second what
2:18:41 council member Hall asked about there.
2:18:43 Um for emergency management, I think the
2:18:47 one project mentioned that has some
2:18:51 particular savings on it um is probably
2:18:54 a good thing to go after at this point.
2:18:59 For a larger idea around that, I think
2:19:01 we should look at the 27 budget. Um, and
2:19:04 then for World Cup, I think looking at
2:19:07 ELTAC is a great idea, but I think that
2:19:11 is one of those areas kind of like the
2:19:14 parks and recreation programs where
2:19:16 spending money brings in money. I think
2:19:19 this is one that we should really
2:19:21 consider what the potential economic
2:19:24 development benefit is to the city and
2:19:27 revenue and also what the dramatic
2:19:30 impact this um additional traffic and
2:19:34 people is going to bring into the city.
2:19:37 And so what things we can do now to help
2:19:41 prepare and lessen the impact on our
2:19:43 residents um is a really good
2:19:46 investment. So, I'm open to those as
2:19:50 ideas. Uh, Council Member Hall,
2:19:52 >> a quick question if that's okay. And
2:19:54 actually, maybe not quick. I should
2:19:55 probably know this, too, but the
2:19:57 legislature just made changes to sales
2:20:00 and use tax in particular, expanding the
2:20:03 kinds of services that are captured in
2:20:05 retail services. Um, and same for
2:20:08 retailing BNO tax. Is any of that
2:20:11 applicable to local sales tax collection
2:20:13 or is that all the state portion? No, it
2:20:17 could definitely impact our local
2:20:19 spending for those additional services
2:20:21 that are now subject to sales tax. We
2:20:23 haven't had an opportunity to really
2:20:25 understand what that impact could be,
2:20:26 but we could certainly see some
2:20:28 additional revenue from that. And that
2:20:30 took effect October 1st.
2:20:31 >> Okay. And potentially new expenditures,
2:20:35 too, if we're having to pay additional
2:20:37 sales tax on services that we might not
2:20:40 >> That is that is correct. So we as a city
2:20:42 if we are procuring those types of
2:20:45 services those now could be subject to
2:20:47 sales tax increasing our costs. Correct.
2:20:51 >> So that will eventually play into our
2:20:54 forecasting of sales tax
2:20:57 >> for 2026. Yes.
2:20:58 >> For6. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
2:21:04 >> Good question. as someone who's having
2:21:06 to pay that and navigate it, I would
2:21:09 love for some of it to go to our city
2:21:11 rather than external. Okay. So,
2:21:16 any other comments, questions,
2:21:20 any of that? No. Uh, Council Member D.
2:21:23 Michelle.
2:21:24 >> Um, it's been a very sobering
2:21:26 presentation, but I really appreciate
2:21:28 the, uh, support and the hard work
2:21:31 that's been done by staff and, uh, uh,
2:21:35 you've given us a lot of things to think
2:21:37 about, but thank you for the good work.
2:21:40 >> Thank you. Yeah, I will second that. You
2:21:43 know, we are still new to the midbian
2:21:46 budget, but I think our council has
2:21:49 always been very diligent about ensuring
2:21:52 that we are um doing the best for our
2:21:56 residents and um protecting our
2:21:58 budgetary options. So, thank you for
2:22:01 that. Um do you have what you need for
2:22:04 the next round? Okay, fantastic. Well,
2:22:08 thank you for pulling all of this
2:22:09 together in this way and helping us um
2:22:13 work through uh some of these pieces.
2:22:15 Very much appreciate it. Um so looking
2:22:19 back at our agenda, I believe we have
2:22:21 good of the order uh Deputy Council
2:22:24 President D. Michelle.
2:22:26 So over the weekend, I spent a long time
2:22:29 writing a memo about the pumpkin derby
2:22:32 and would you all check your emails and
2:22:36 there are some options given there for
2:22:38 when we can get together to decorate our
2:22:40 pumpkin um and some strategic planning
2:22:45 that needs to be done because we are in
2:22:47 it to win it this time. And uh so I need
2:22:50 all hands on deck. So, look at your
2:22:53 email, get back to me about when you can
2:22:56 help and uh and we're going to uh we're
2:22:59 going to do it. Oh, and I need uh I also
2:23:02 said that there's an option there. We
2:23:03 need a theme. So, if you have a really
2:23:06 classy theme to suggest, please send it
2:23:08 to me as soon as possible.
2:23:12 >> And I will let uh Deputy Council
2:23:14 President D. Michelle take that one on.
2:23:16 If you want to take it to the win, go
2:23:18 for it. Again, my goal is always get
2:23:22 down the ramp. That's that's the minimum
2:23:25 bar there. Get uh council member Jang,
2:23:29 >> I was just going to say a spooky scary
2:23:31 theme for the pumpkin could be 7% fund
2:23:34 balance.
2:23:39 >> Yeah, we did. One year we put all of the
2:23:42 funds uh all of our budgetary documents
2:23:45 on there and everything. Yeah, it was
2:23:47 very exciting. Yeah. Okay. I think with
2:23:51 that uh we will adjourn the meeting at
2:23:54 8:55 p.m. Thank you very much.

Attendance

Council / Members (8)
Barbara de Michele
Zach Hall (Arrived at approximately 6:50
PM)
Kelly Jiang
Russell Joe
Tola Marts
Chris Reh
Lindsey Walsh