← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Committee of the Whole Auto captions

Monday, April 6, 2026

6:30 PM · Council Chambers, 135 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA
Topic tracked across meetings:
Public Safety & Civic Facilities Update COM 0227 3/3
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3a
Public Safety & Civic Facilities Update COM 0227
Director · 60 min · Autumn Monahan, Administrative Services · packet pp.5–26
Topics: Public Safety
Staff report:
Administration recommends: • Not pursuing construction of a new City Hall at this time. • Leverage a councilmanic bond to fund the police remodel and pay the debt service using revenue from the public safety sales tax. • Temporarily retain City Hall South for police use during remodel. • Use one-time funds to purchase/renovate an existing building for City Hall use.
3b
Potential Park Bond Renewal COM 0228
Director · 60 min · Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services · packet pp.27–48
Topics: Parks
Staff report:
Voter-approved park bonds have been a primary funding tool for capital investments in the City’s parks and trails system over the past decades. Issaquah has successfully used this mechanism in prior years: • 2006 Park Bond ($6.25M): Proceeds funded park renovations, trail development, and land acquisition (approved by 74% of voters). • 2013 Park Bond ($10M): Proceeds funded Boehm Pool repairs, development of turf fields at Central Park, neighborhood park improvements, and land acquisition (approved by 77% of voters).
0:07 Welcome everyone. I, Council Member Tola
0:09 Marts, call the Monday, April 6th
0:10 committee of the whole meeting to order
0:12 at 6:30 p.m. As a reminder, we continue
0:16 to have a remote aspect to our meetings.
0:18 Both staff and members of the public may
0:19 be participating in tonight's meeting
0:21 remotely via WebEx. There are multiple
0:24 public comment opportunities at
0:25 tonight's meeting. There's a general
0:27 public comment opportunity at the
0:28 beginning of the meeting, or you can
0:30 make comments after the presentation and
0:32 council question and answer period on
0:34 tonight's agenda items. Members of the
0:36 public may address council at this time
0:38 in person or virtually. Those who signed
0:40 up in advance to make comments will be
0:42 called on first. If you are joining us
0:44 virtually and would like to make
0:45 comments, please raise your virtual
0:46 hand. If you are on the phone, press
0:48 star three. If you have joined by
0:50 computer or smartphone, look for a hand
0:52 icon or send the host a chat message. If
0:55 you're in the room and did not sign up,
0:56 I will ask for other speakers before
0:58 closing this portion of the meeting. I
1:00 will wait for a moment to see if anyone
1:02 wishes to raise their hand.
1:05 >> Clerk, has anyone signed up to speak or
1:07 indicated a desire to speak this
1:08 evening?
1:12 >> Not at this time.
1:13 >> Not at this time. As a reminder, written
1:15 comments can be submitted at any time to
1:17 city council iswah.gov.
1:24 Next up, uh, we have agenda item
1:27 COOM0227,
1:29 public safety and civic facilities
1:31 update.
1:34 This is Duty Autumn Monahan, our
1:35 administrative services director.
1:41 >> Thank you. Good evening, members of the
1:42 city council. My name is Autumn Monahan.
1:44 I'm the administrative services
1:45 director. I'm here tonight to talk about
1:48 public safety and civic facilities as an
1:50 update to council. So purpose of tonight
1:53 is to review our work to date and then
1:55 to collect your feedback on any
1:56 information you need and our proposed
1:58 next steps as administration.
2:02 So uh our proposal um has shifted a bit
2:05 uh since I was before you last in the
2:07 fall um which I'll review here uh the
2:10 next few slides. But uh to start out the
2:12 meeting at this time, administration is
2:14 proposing that we do not pursue
2:16 construction of a new city hall and that
2:19 to pay for the remodel of our police
2:21 station that we leverage a councilmatic
2:23 bond and pay for that debt service using
2:26 some proceeds from the public safety
2:27 sales tax. We would also temporarily
2:30 temporarily retain this building at City
2:33 Hall South for police use during our
2:35 remodel
2:37 and use one-time funds to hopefully
2:39 purchase and renovate an existing
2:41 building for city hall use.
2:46 Uh I went back uh and looked and I've
2:49 been before council to discuss or
2:51 present on city facilities 18 times
2:54 since 2023. So, I'm not going to bore
2:56 you too much tonight with uh too much
2:59 background. I know we've got some new
3:00 council members, so I'll go quickly on
3:02 this slide. We first started uh our most
3:05 recent space space planning efforts back
3:07 in 2018. I took on the project in 2023.
3:11 Uh at that time, we, you know, really
3:13 updated what the needs were for our
3:15 space and it very much affirmed that
3:18 police should stay in its current
3:19 building, which is what it was built
3:21 for, but to use the entire building and
3:23 that it needed a renovation. The council
3:25 was also uh very much interested in a
3:27 phased approach to our space needs in
3:31 but knowing all of that we also knew
3:33 okay where will city hall go because we
3:35 are using the top floor of city hall. At
3:38 that point council asked us to go to the
3:39 community and get feedback from the
3:41 community and the mayor appointed a task
3:42 force uh which met seven times to
3:45 develop some recommendations. We also
3:47 sold city hall northwest and then just
3:49 this year we have moved uh municipal
3:52 court out of this building into a lease
3:54 facility with King County Courthouse.
3:58 The task force recommendations were to
3:59 address space needs and um as soon as
4:01 possible. So that emerged as a top
4:03 priority. Um we heard from many of our
4:06 task force members who took tours of our
4:09 uh police station um that said how can
4:11 we how can we fix this now? Um, so there
4:14 was immediate sense of urgency that that
4:15 was our number one priority was to
4:17 remodel that space and give police uh
4:20 the space that they need. Next was to
4:22 relocate city hall and develop a plan
4:24 for building a new city hall on city-
4:26 owned property.
4:28 And there were two locations that were
4:29 proposed, city hall south and a site at
4:31 Pickering.
4:33 Next was further study uh locations for
4:36 that new city hall, developing a
4:38 comprehensive funding strategy, phasing
4:40 the projects if needed, knowing that
4:42 this was a lot of money, a lot of
4:43 resources, a lot of work, continued with
4:46 robust public outreach, and then
4:47 remained flexible and open to new
4:49 opportunities as they arise.
4:53 And quickly, this is our previous
4:54 building, City Northwest, which we
4:56 shuttered during COVID and we sold uh
4:58 last year for over 9 million.
5:01 Our
5:03 project goals that council developed um
5:05 and you know that we have um have been
5:08 our our guiding light since 2023 are to
5:10 ensure safety, responsibly steward
5:12 public dollars, provide community
5:14 accessibility and convenience, support
5:16 economic development, deliver enhanced
5:18 community amenities, and embody
5:19 environmental stewardship.
5:23 So, as part of our work with the task
5:25 force, we worked with DLR Group, which
5:26 is a consulting firm that helped us in
5:28 updating our space needs, supporting the
5:30 task force and all of its questions, and
5:32 really starting to shape up a what a
5:34 plan would look like for us. And as a
5:36 reminder, their estimated timelines for
5:38 police renovations would be two and a
5:39 half to three and a half years. Building
5:41 a new city hall would take three and a
5:43 half to four years. And then relocating
5:45 city hall would take about a year.
5:49 The cost estimates from 2025, police
5:51 renovations range from anywhere from 15
5:54 million to 26 million. And we had a
5:56 couple options we were looking at as far
5:58 as what could happen for renovations at
6:00 police. We need a bit more assessment on
6:02 a final design for that. So that's why
6:04 the range is is quite large. Uh building
6:07 at city hall south on this site would be
6:09 anywhere from 44 to 53 million. And then
6:12 city hall at Pickering anywhere from 48
6:14 to 57 million.
6:20 I put this slide in here just as a
6:22 reminder. There have been questions in
6:23 the past about just what lease costs
6:24 look like just as an option. Um so
6:28 updated these after talking to our
6:29 broker recently. Right now if we want to
6:32 move administration out that's about
6:34 14,000 square ft. Um that's top floor of
6:36 city hall, the Eagle Room, um the city
6:39 hall south top floor upstairs and
6:41 council chambers. Current lease costs
6:43 are anywhere from $40 to $50 per square
6:45 foot. So, we're looking at if we were to
6:47 lease city hall space uh for the interim
6:50 anywhere from $560,000 to $700,000 a
6:53 year. And that is um that's based on
6:57 availability of like what is actually
6:59 out there to lease. And so, this is just
7:01 back of the napkin numbers for you to
7:02 better understand lease costs.
7:08 So, as you'll hear later tonight, there
7:11 is a potential for a parks bond renewal
7:14 going to Islqua voters this year.
7:17 Knowing construction of a new city hall,
7:19 and you saw the cost of those numbers
7:21 would likely require voter approval.
7:23 Administration is not recommending that
7:25 approach at this time.
7:28 So, instead, we are um recommending that
7:30 we do not pursue building a new city
7:32 hall. again uh with police knowing that
7:35 that is our main priority, working
7:37 toward that remodel by leveraging a
7:39 council bond and then we can pay for
7:41 that debt service with the public safety
7:42 sales tax proceeds. Again, using this
7:45 building um for uh just overflow as
7:48 we're working on that PD remodel. We
7:50 know that they're going to that's going
7:51 to be a complex puzzle on remodeling
7:54 while police are still operating out of
7:55 that building. So, I think we'll need
7:56 some overflow space and then using a
7:59 one-time fund to purchase and renovate
8:02 an existing building for city hall use.
8:04 Uh, and as just as a a side note, we
8:06 have been looking for properties in
8:09 Isiqua for many, many years. It's very
8:13 limited as far as what's available, what
8:15 even exists in Isiqua. uh but know that
8:18 we are still pursuing that and and
8:20 looking for any opportunity knowing
8:21 though that when that opportunity does
8:23 come about we have to be really ready to
8:25 go uh because uh the market is fast. So
8:30 uh know that we are still uh looking at
8:32 those options.
8:36 So as a next step DLR did some initial
8:38 work uh with our police department. We
8:40 understand how much space they need. We
8:41 know that they can fit in that building
8:43 over at um at 130 East Sunset Way. The
8:46 next step now is to really refine some
8:48 of that design work. So finalizing a
8:51 proposed uh building layout, having um
8:54 really identified the intent of our
8:55 design, thinking through the
8:57 construction phasing as I mentioned, um
8:59 having a really nailed down project
9:00 schedule, and then we'll have much
9:02 clearer costs than that wide range that
9:04 I just provided you. So we are looking
9:06 to re-engage with DLR group and do that
9:08 next phase of work. Um and so we are
9:11 just finalizing that contract now. That
9:13 will also include other things we need
9:15 to consider our IT relocation of a lot
9:18 of our um kind of our hub IT generator
9:21 replacement which is is very much needed
9:23 in that building seismic upgrades. So
9:26 there is a whole lot that we'll be
9:27 identifying and looking at as far as
9:28 this project to really have a better
9:30 idea of the scope. And so that is really
9:32 the next phase of proceeding with the
9:34 the PD design work.
9:38 As for potential funding sources for
9:40 administration's recommendation, uh if
9:42 we are successful in finding uh a
9:45 building to renovate, purchase and
9:47 renovate, we have proceeds from city of
9:49 Northwest, which I mentioned, as well as
9:50 a food bank uh proceeds. We also have
9:53 $3.1 million from the Lakeside
9:56 Development Agreement that has been kept
9:58 aside for facility use, uh government
10:01 mitigation fees, and then interest
10:02 earnings that could be used uh for city
10:05 hall. All of these are one-time um
10:08 revenues. And so that is important to
10:09 mention. A lot of these have been set
10:11 aside with the intent uh they would be
10:13 used for future facility needs. And then
10:15 as I mentioned, the idea for police
10:17 renovations would be that we uh could
10:19 leverage some of that public safety
10:20 sales tax. Um so in talking with our
10:24 finance director, she estimated um you
10:27 know, a debt service about $1.5 million
10:29 would be a 20-year counc.
10:34 That would get us about $21 million.
10:36 Like I said, we need to do further
10:37 scoping and really refine that design
10:40 work for the PD building for us to come
10:42 back to you and say, "Here's what the
10:43 actual cost is going to be." And so,
10:45 this is just giving you an idea of kind
10:47 of the middle of the road of what that
10:49 would look like. And so, that's what
10:51 we're shaping up towards. Uh but again,
10:53 we'll need to refine some design first.
10:57 >> Council member Nichols,
11:00 >> how many square feet are involved in
11:01 that police station renovation?
11:04 Oh gosh, it is
11:11 I I'm thinking of also with jail so I'm
11:14 trying to remember. I think it's I can
11:17 get back to you on that number.
11:20 >> Okay.
11:20 >> Yeah,
11:21 >> that's fine.
11:22 >> Or I have Jeie on the line. She might be
11:25 able to answer that here in a moment.
11:26 Look it up for us.
11:27 >> I mean there's otherwise reference
11:28 14,000 square feet for the current city
11:31 hall administration space. So
11:33 >> yeah, that includes some of the space in
11:35 this building as well that we've been
11:36 using.
11:37 >> Okay.
11:38 >> Yeah.
11:42 >> I'll actually ask a question while we're
11:44 waiting. Can you remind me Lakeside was
11:47 originally 10 million. What did we do
11:48 with the other 6.8?
11:54 >> I don't recall. It was 10 million. Do
11:56 you remember?
11:56 >> I thought it was 10.
11:59 I can get back to you on that as well as
12:01 far as a list.
12:04 >> Yeah.
12:04 >> All right. Yeah, I can follow you for a
12:06 later date. I'm I'm just curious. I'm
12:07 sure I'm sure we invested it in in
12:09 something serious. I just don't remember
12:11 what what we did with the rest of it.
12:13 >> It's been a long time, but yes. Yeah.
12:15 >> Thank you,
12:17 >> Council Member Adair. Again, while we're
12:19 here, there's a few questions along the
12:20 way, but what this one since this slide
12:22 is up for the public safety sales tax,
12:24 the 1.5 million a year, how much of the
12:28 revenues of sales tax revenue, is that
12:30 just saying we'd take 1.5 million of
12:31 this or is the entirety of the sales tax
12:33 that's coming in 1.5 million?
12:35 >> No, that would just be a portion of the
12:36 sales tax.
12:37 >> Do we know how much the total is looking
12:38 like? I know it's new, but
12:40 >> yeah, the total was.1
12:48 Okay.
12:49 >> I believe it was 2.1.
12:51 >> 2.1. Okay. So then we'd have another
12:53 600,000 a year towards public safety.
12:57 Should we go proceed with that? Got it.
13:05 >> Council member Adair. This is uh Deputy
13:07 State Administer Andrea Leonard. Um I
13:10 believe the original estimate was 2.2
13:12 million annually. Uh that said, there
13:15 have been changes at the state
13:16 legislature which may change that number
13:19 as more things become exempt. And so I
13:21 know we're we're just trying to do
13:23 estimates right now, but we're really
13:24 going to have to see how those numbers
13:27 adjust um once uh we feel the impacts of
13:30 those changes to the sales tax, which
13:32 will not be um for a few years, but
13:35 still something that will cause us to
13:37 adjust our estimates. Yeah, the numbers
13:39 of what that change looks like for
13:41 Isiqua specifically is something that
13:43 I'm hoping to see at some point. Yeah,
13:49 >> Council Member Walsh,
13:51 >> thank you. I just looked up a previous
13:55 um time, one of the 17 or whatever times
13:58 you were here that showed Isiqua um
14:01 police square footage currently is
14:04 13,683,
14:07 which includes dispatch and jail
14:09 administration.
14:11 >> And in total, both floors are about
14:12 28,000 square feet. I did phone a
14:14 friend. I I apologize. I I forget the
14:17 square footage based off of it's the
14:18 jail or not. So, yeah. Deputy Council
14:20 President Jang.
14:22 >> Um, so to confirm the $21 million in
14:25 renovation costs is for both the
14:27 existing police area as well as the
14:30 upstairs.
14:31 >> Okay. Thank you. Yes.
14:33 >> Yes.
14:38 >> Council member Nichols.
14:40 So, I know you said you'll come back to
14:42 us with more op with more detail on
14:44 that, but how many how many options have
14:47 we looked at as far as
14:51 this is this looks like a very high
14:53 square footage dollar per square footage
14:55 cost from a tenant improvement
14:56 perspective? Um,
14:59 have we looked at lower lowering that
15:01 and what are some trade-offs that might
15:03 be there so that we don't have to use
15:04 quite this much money?
15:06 >> Sure. And part of this project is
15:08 renovation for police use and part of it
15:11 is a midlife renovation for this
15:12 building. And so there is other work
15:14 just to I mean this is an an older
15:16 building that that does need some um
15:19 midlife renovations as well. But we will
15:22 be looking at ways that we can reduce
15:23 costs knowing that that target of about
15:26 21 million I think is important exercise
15:28 to go back now and say okay what is it
15:30 that this uh project can include? Um and
15:34 so that will be a big part of this work
15:35 as first design. Our first step was just
15:38 what you know what would be what would
15:40 police want right in a in a perfect
15:43 world and uh you know we've come through
15:45 with a couple options but I think now is
15:47 really the time to refine that. Um and
15:49 like I mentioned some of this too is not
15:50 just remodel for PD but it's replacing a
15:53 generator that the building needs or um
15:55 seismic upgrades that need to happen as
15:57 we have an older building now.
16:00 But yes, we will be looking at how to
16:01 reduce costs.
16:04 >> Council member Adair,
16:05 >> I can just add to that since I was on
16:07 that task force is that that question
16:09 was brought up and there was some of the
16:11 answers that were given to us at that
16:12 time was about police specific
16:15 renovations are a higher cost than a
16:17 standard renovation due to a lot of the
16:20 requests that are part of this are also
16:21 a lot of their own uh safety and
16:23 security type upgrades and changes that
16:26 they needed. So that some of the police
16:28 specific costs to this would increase
16:31 their their like their square footage
16:33 rate versus just like the city hall
16:35 square footage rate.
16:40 So as far as a timeline, our property
16:42 search remains ongoing for city hall
16:44 space. We would then proceed um with our
16:47 building renovation concept report with
16:49 DLR in Q2 and three. return the council
16:52 with a more refined remodel plan with uh
16:55 more refined costs and details on how to
16:58 pay for that and then begin the police
17:01 um design remodel in 2027 and start with
17:04 um further design and permitting.
17:08 And with that, I'm looking just for your
17:10 direction on any other information you
17:12 need as we work through next steps and
17:14 uh your feedback on administration's
17:16 proposal.
17:19 And of course, we're going to split that
17:20 into first Q&A and then have a separate
17:24 deliberation.
17:25 Council, I think council member,
17:28 uh, a couple of just other the specific
17:30 questions had along going on. It brought
17:32 you brought up that interest earnings
17:33 was one time and so why is that one time
17:36 when theoretically it's ongoing or is
17:39 that counting multiple years of
17:41 interest? How is that being?
17:42 >> You know, I'll I'll ask our finance
17:44 director to get back to you on that. She
17:46 had identified this as a one-time
17:47 opportunity we could use toward
17:48 facilities, but I don't know about
17:50 ongoing what the recommendation would be
17:52 for that. But yes, I can have her follow
17:54 up.
17:54 >> Okay. Another just small question I'm
17:57 just curious about. So, um, if police
17:59 ends up using this space as overflow, so
18:01 council chambers would also need would
18:02 move during that process or
18:05 >> I think a lot of that depends on what we
18:06 find for space for city hall and if
18:08 there is room for council chambers or
18:10 not. Um, or we can think through other
18:12 options too. But that will be a part of
18:13 us better understanding in this next
18:15 design phase how much space we may need
18:17 that would use this building or others.
18:19 >> Yeah.
18:25 >> Other questions before we move to
18:27 deliberation? Deputy council president.
18:30 Um, out of that 21 million for
18:33 remodeling the police station, do you
18:34 have a rough breakdown of, you know,
18:36 what portion of it is for the police
18:38 renovation versus, you know, just like
18:40 regular building rehab type things?
18:44 >> Um, I can get back to you on that. I
18:46 don't think it's that clear of a
18:48 breakdown. Um, it was a lot of it was
18:51 very much estimates by square footage.
18:53 Um, but I can I can look into that and
18:56 get back to you.
18:57 >> Great. Thank you.
19:00 Council member Joe.
19:04 >> Thank you. Um Autumn, thanks for all
19:07 your hard work on this. I had a little
19:09 bit more of a future looking question
19:12 for you. Um when the Highlands were
19:14 built, we built the police station with
19:16 the understanding that when the
19:18 Highlands was fully built out, we would
19:19 need to expand our police to that full
19:22 level. And now we're there 25 years
19:24 later, 20 years later. Um, looking at
19:27 our future growth, will this police
19:29 station sustain us for a while or will
19:31 we need to look for another one? And if
19:33 so, what kind of timetable are we
19:35 looking at for a future facility?
19:37 >> The DLR group and their assessment,
19:39 we're looking out 20 years and this
19:40 building will um will take care of
19:43 police's needs for that amount of time.
19:44 So, we are good.
19:47 >> That's great that we are good. Thank you
19:48 very much.
19:49 >> Yes.
19:52 >> Other questions?
19:55 All right. Right. Well, then before we
19:56 move into deliberation on this, um I
19:58 mentioned at the top of the meeting that
20:00 we were going to have two opportunities
20:02 for the public to speak to us, this is
20:04 the second opportunity. So, if you have
20:05 been um holding your opinion, waiting to
20:08 talk specifically about this subject,
20:10 now would be the time to indicate uh to
20:12 the clerk's office uh or to the the
20:16 meeting host um that you are interested.
20:19 Again, that would be uh pressing star
20:21 three if you were on the phone or
20:23 looking for the hand icon um to send the
20:26 host or sending the host a chat message.
20:28 And I will ask the clerk's office if we
20:30 have anyone indicating they wish to
20:32 address us.
20:35 >> Not at this time, chair.
20:40 >> All right.
20:43 Deliberation on this.
20:48 Can you remind me the additional
20:50 feedback that you were looking for?
20:53 >> Yeah, we're looking for feedback on
20:54 administration's proposal um for next
20:57 steps on
20:57 >> Will you put will you put the elements
20:58 of the proposal back up, please?
21:04 >> Great.
21:05 So, try Havoc and let let's lift the
21:08 dogs of war.
21:10 >> Uh Council Member Walsh,
21:12 >> thank you. Um, Autumn, I appreciate you
21:16 continuing to bring this up to us. Um,
21:19 as we have gone through the phases of
21:21 deciding whether or not City Hall
21:22 Northwest was good to keep or sell. And
21:26 as we're going through the process here,
21:29 um, I would assert that I'm still on the
21:35 path that we need a new city hall. um
21:40 and that I do not like the idea of
21:43 leasing long-term. And so the hope is
21:47 that we can find a way so that we don't
21:50 have to accomplish that. Understanding
21:52 that if we have to lease during a
21:53 renovation um or something that is
21:57 understandable,
21:59 um I like the fact that we have funding
22:03 out there. I am
22:06 hesitant to think that that will cover
22:08 all of our costs including renovations
22:11 and anything um needed during the
22:14 adjustment. So I think we should just
22:16 keep that um in our minds as we are
22:18 looking through all of this um kind of
22:23 your timeline of Q2 Q3 building
22:26 renovation concept report and Q4 return
22:28 to the city council with a remodel plan.
22:31 I appreciate that we are seeing what
22:34 that looks like ahead. Um
22:38 I would ask that the remodel plan come
22:42 to us with several options, not just
22:47 here's what it all looks like. um
22:50 because then it becomes much more
22:51 difficult for us to figure out you know
22:54 how could we adjust based on you know
22:58 rising costs or um availability to do
23:01 this. So I would look hopefully for a
23:05 kind of minimal viable product would be
23:08 enable the police um use of the top
23:11 floor. A medium would be upgrade
23:14 everything for police use um so that
23:18 they can use that building very well for
23:20 the next 20 years and then a high would
23:23 be including the midlife building res
23:25 renovations including seismic um because
23:27 I think we need to evaluate this on
23:30 multiple dis different aspects. Um,
23:34 I agree that we need to have the
23:36 building um moved over, but I also know
23:39 that we are really good at, you know,
23:41 stretching our sho strings and all of
23:44 those things. And um, I would not want
23:46 to evaluate this just on a
23:48 top-of-the-line plan. Um, so that's what
23:51 I would hope going through as we are
23:53 kind of looking at this. Um,
23:58 I also want to assert that at this point
24:02 I appreciate the potential funding
24:04 options and kind of the idea out here. I
24:07 want to make sure we recognize that is
24:09 still a budgetary decision. So just
24:11 because this has been presented as a
24:14 potential and is good useful information
24:17 for us in evaluating whether that's
24:20 possible with funding sources. there
24:23 still may be other priorities um that we
24:25 have as council for that money. And so I
24:29 just want to make sure especially for
24:30 newer council members that they
24:31 understand this is not us signing off on
24:34 something. This is a potential idea that
24:37 is out there and we will still have that
24:39 ultimate discussion during um budget
24:42 season. So thank you
24:46 >> council member Adair.
24:50 Uh yes, I want to also echo thank you
24:52 for such hard work on this and the
24:54 options that have come before us. You
24:56 know, as a member of that task force,
24:57 there was a sense of like, wow, this is
24:59 a real problem and no idea how to
25:02 actually achieve it. Um due to the, you
25:04 know, the issues of the cost to build in
25:07 city hall and to try to pay for that.
25:09 And I agree with the decisions of trying
25:11 to, you know, purchase a building
25:12 instead of building a new one. Even
25:14 though I, you know, personally love have
25:17 my heart set on the idea of a city hall
25:18 in downtown, I understand that is lot
25:20 likely the, you know, the final option.
25:23 Um, but appreciate all the hard work
25:25 that's gone into and that this there
25:26 does seem to be a viable path here to
25:29 address these needs as dictated in the
25:31 priority list. Um so so yeah I want to
25:34 echo I I agree with these proposals in
25:37 terms of the next steps but also echo uh
25:40 council member Walsh's points about how
25:42 we decide the money of this in that you
25:44 know I've also come to council now and
25:47 they have real concern about the budget
25:49 in terms of this era where we're kind of
25:51 on our own and making sure that we hold
25:54 money appropriately but spend money
25:56 appropriately at the same time and this
25:57 is obviously an important need but you
25:59 know to like the earlier questions of
26:00 like is interest really only one time.
26:03 Um, are we going to use up all of our
26:04 public safety tax on this when yes, this
26:07 is important, but there could be other
26:08 uses. So, I want us equally want us to
26:10 be clear like the options of what to
26:13 spend as well as the options of the
26:15 money that's coming in really clear
26:16 ideas of this is the money we have or
26:18 don't have and what we will lose out
26:20 when we spend it on this. Um, so just
26:22 make sure that those are very clear as
26:24 it comes forward. So, thank you,
26:27 >> Council Member Joe.
26:29 >> Thank you, Council President. Um
26:32 generally I am in favor of the way this
26:35 plan is coming together. Thank you for
26:37 all that hard work. Um I think the focus
26:40 that we have in the sense of moving the
26:43 police over concentrate on concentrating
26:46 on making sure that they have the
26:47 specialized equipment that they need.
26:49 They have the um proper facilities to
26:54 preserve the chain of evidence for
26:56 evidence that they're getting from
26:57 different crimes. they have the proper
26:59 facilities to detain people in a humane
27:02 way and also detain our youth in a
27:06 humane way should that become necessary.
27:08 Those are special facilities and special
27:11 uh rooms that are needed. So, I
27:13 appreciate that we're giving thought to
27:15 moving everything over to a more
27:16 permanent facility right now, investing
27:18 in it using the dollars that we're
27:20 talking about so that we can um have a
27:23 long-term facility that, as you pointed
27:25 out, will last for 20 years going into
27:27 the future. Um
27:30 for the administration, accounting, and
27:32 the other departments, um
27:36 we saw during CO that it's a little bit
27:37 easier for them to work from anywhere if
27:39 they have to. Um, having a nice desk and
27:42 a nice view out the window with the
27:44 computer is a is a great thing, but
27:46 we're a little bit more flexible in what
27:48 we can do with uh those departments. So,
27:51 making the investments in the police,
27:52 it's going to it's going to be
27:54 specialized equipment, I think, is the
27:55 right focus. Keeping the administration
27:57 flexible in the future as we go and look
27:59 for other places, I think is the right
28:01 way to go as well. So, I do support this
28:03 plan going forward. Thank you,
28:07 >> Council Member Nichols.
28:09 Uh once again echoing uh all the thanks
28:11 for the hard work here. I appreciate
28:13 these 17 other times that you have uh
28:15 presented these types of data. Um I will
28:18 say uh first off on the as far as the
28:22 city hall space goes, I am in general
28:24 agreement that we have needs there. Uh
28:26 and I support pursuing approaches that
28:28 would meet the goal of fixing the
28:30 problems we have. Um I also to your
28:33 question I agree that we should not
28:35 pursue construction of a new city hall
28:36 at this time and we should look for
28:38 other parcels. Um, I am not myself
28:41 concerned with leasing long term. Um, I
28:43 think it's it just depends on what the
28:46 numbers look like. It's not a it's not a
28:48 um I wouldn't rule something out because
28:51 of that because I know how difficult it
28:52 could be to find the perfect option and
28:54 if that was a trade-off that was
28:55 necessary. Uh I that would not concern
28:58 me versus other things, we might have to
29:00 weigh against that. Um also towards
29:02 temporarily retaining the city hall
29:04 south um for police use during model.
29:06 That seems very reasonable. Um, on the
29:09 police station itself, um, I agree with
29:14 Council Member Walsh on the desire to
29:16 have some options. I would really like
29:18 to see this book ended. Basically, like
29:20 what is what what does this look like if
29:24 they get every single thing they want?
29:25 Um, and what does it get if they get
29:27 what does it look like if they get the
29:28 absolute bare minimum that is necessary
29:31 for
29:33 things like having places, you know,
29:35 outside to better uh deal with people as
29:38 they're going through the system, etc.
29:40 Like what what are the list of the bare
29:41 minimum things they need and then what
29:43 is the high-end and then hopefully
29:44 something in the middle. Um, I'd also
29:47 really like to see what other uses this
29:49 money could be spent on entirely. um
29:51 especially the the the public safety um
29:54 sales tax. Um that has a very broad set
29:56 of things by my superficial
29:58 understanding of that law that we could
29:59 be spending that on. Um in including
30:02 things like fire and we have very we
30:03 have ballooning fire costs that are we
30:05 have not succeeded in getting under
30:07 control yet if we we have that has the
30:09 money has to come from somewhere. It's
30:10 ultimately coming from the public. Uh I
30:12 think we should make those trade-offs
30:13 here as well and not think of this
30:15 solely as necessarily for the police.
30:17 Um,
30:19 finally, um,
30:22 when we are looking at remodeling, I'd
30:24 really like to see
30:26 when what whatever options we're
30:28 presented with both on the book ends of
30:30 low cost, high cost, and in the middle
30:32 as well as other options that we could
30:33 look at in the context of the rest of
30:35 the budget season. Uh, I'd like to
30:37 really understand what the what what the
30:41 the per the the square footage cost is
30:44 of this type of remodel because that raw
30:46 the the rough order of magnitude number
30:47 there looked extremely high to me. Um,
30:50 having been involved in very complex
30:52 buildouts in the Seattle area in the
30:54 past 3 years. Um,
30:57 I appreciate fire or police stations
31:00 probably have complex cities greater
31:02 than um your typical office, but there,
31:06 you know, there's lots of other complex
31:08 things out there that get built in the
31:10 area that have much much much lower cost
31:12 than this. Like less than half of a
31:13 square footage if that's really 21
31:15 million divided by 20,000 ft. Um, so I
31:17 would be really skeptical of that number
31:19 if that's real. Um so bookends would be
31:22 good high low as well as a a firm
31:25 justification of the cost per square
31:27 foot on any tenant improvements that are
31:29 needed. Um in comparing also to other if
31:32 we can police remodels in the area
31:33 knowing that that costs are typically
31:35 higher here as well as other highcost
31:37 remodels of other high-tech or things
31:39 like that. um facilities that require
31:42 additional infrastructure that might
31:43 justify additional cost so that we can
31:44 understand whether the the the design is
31:47 reasonable compared to other equivalent
31:49 types of designs in the area.
31:53 >> Deputy Council President Chang.
31:56 >> Yeah, I think this proposal is generally
31:59 good. Um, I think, you know, wanting to
32:01 make sure that we're maximizing the use
32:03 of the money that we already have and
32:04 not having to go back out to voters for
32:07 a large bond to build a new city hall at
32:09 $800 per square foot, given that that's
32:12 where construction costs are, I think is
32:13 a very reasonable approach. Um, speaking
32:16 of cost per square foot, so if the uh
32:19 cost to build a new building is $800 per
32:22 square foot, um, if we're mathing the 21
32:24 million divided by 28,000, that's $750
32:26 per square foot, which is, you know,
32:29 definitely in the ballpark of building
32:30 something new. So, I definitely want to
32:32 see, you know, how we're coming up with
32:34 those costs. And it very much could be
32:37 that, you know, this is just a back of
32:38 the napkin calculation, but then once we
32:40 get the actual design, the cost could be
32:42 lower. But I would definitely want to
32:43 understand what that actually looks like
32:46 and you know what are some of the areas
32:48 where we don't necessarily need the most
32:50 goldplated thing while still giving our
32:52 police the facilities and um resources
32:55 they need to you know do their jobs. Um
32:59 and uh yeah, I think um I'm aligned with
33:03 this approach. So I'm looking forward to
33:06 seeing what the you know final costs are
33:08 as we move forward in the design
33:09 process.
33:12 So, I uh share Council Member Walsh's
33:15 concern about leasing. Um leasing is
33:18 just a trap, right? You get into
33:20 optimizing for cash flow and it's very
33:22 attractive and then all of a sudden it's
33:24 20 years later and you spend a
33:25 ridiculous amount of money that you're
33:27 without any equity. So, um I continue to
33:29 have that as as a large concern. Um one
33:32 way to think about, you know, you've
33:34 heard variety of different ways from the
33:36 council about wanting to see options.
33:39 Uh, one way is to think about
33:41 operational versus aspirational, right?
33:43 And which pieces of this um are part of
33:47 the operational. We have we have one of
33:49 the smallest police forces per capita in
33:52 the United States. If you say there's
33:53 1,200 municipalities in the in the
33:56 United States, we're like 50 from the
33:58 bottom or something like that in per
33:59 capita per or officers per capita. So
34:02 that induces operational
34:05 uh constraints on the IPD and uh some of
34:09 the improvements um have to do with uh
34:12 sort of force multipliers on on
34:14 operational. Uh an example would be you
34:17 know updating the port cullis control
34:19 system is operational. Uh a new weight
34:22 room is aspirational right just to pick
34:24 just to pick on that particular topic.
34:27 Um it also strikes me that um it may
34:31 well be that a majority of this current
34:33 council and almost certainly majority
34:35 once we have a seventh member hasn't
34:37 done the tour right and so the people
34:40 who did the tour that was so the chief
34:42 did such a good job of explaining to us
34:44 the strengths and limitations of that
34:46 building um a minority of us have have
34:49 done that tour. I would do it again. Um,
34:52 so just speaking speaking as as myself,
34:54 but I think it would help as when when
34:56 we then get to conversations about what
34:58 would be in and what would not be in.
35:00 Um, but I I generally support the
35:03 administration's plan here. Um, does
35:05 anybody want to go for a second? Uh,
35:07 additional thoughts. Have you have you
35:09 Sometimes you say your piece, then you
35:11 hear somebody else talk, you go, "Oh,
35:12 yeah, that's that one thing." Anybody
35:14 else? Additional thoughts?
35:18 Going once?
35:20 advice and I will ask the administration
35:23 if you have the information that you
35:24 need from us on this bit on this
35:26 measure.
35:26 >> I do. Very helpful feedback. Thank you.
35:28 >> All right. Well, thank you uh Miss
35:31 Monahan. And we will move on to COOM
35:34 0228 potential park bond renewal with
35:37 Jeff Watling, our parks and community
35:39 services director.
35:41 Welcome, Director Watling.
35:43 >> Thank you so much, Council President
35:45 Marts. Uh good evening, council. Pardon
35:47 me as I juggle and begin the share
35:50 screen here.
36:05 Okay, here we go.
36:15 All right, I think we're going. We're
36:17 good. Thank you again uh for that. Uh
36:20 always fun to do that juggle. Uh well,
36:22 thanks um here tonight. Uh as uh Council
36:26 President March mentioned, let's hope I
36:29 can advance the screen now.
36:47 Show tunes.
36:52 >> Okay, we'll do it down below.
36:53 >> Oh,
36:55 >> saved from the show. Andrea
36:58 >> Tech help. All right. uh tonight. Uh
37:01 yes, the purpose as council president
37:03 Martz mentioned is um we have a prior
37:06 park bond uh that's expiring um at the
37:08 end of this year uh creating this really
37:11 strategic consideration uh for the
37:13 residents of Isiqua. Um tonight uh the
37:17 intent unlike the 18th time of a
37:19 conversation, this is the first
37:20 conversation to to talk about um uh this
37:24 opportunity with you and in taking a
37:26 possible park bond renewal uh back to
37:29 the residents um of Isiqua this uh
37:32 November. Um as a renewal, uh this would
37:36 not represent a tax increase, but would
37:37 rather um represent an extension of the
37:41 the current levy rate.
37:51 uh in terms of direction uh requested uh
37:54 needed tonight. Uh what we're seeking as
37:56 a as a first conversation is really just
37:58 overall feedback on this. Um I broke
38:00 this into really four sections. Uh would
38:02 be very interested to get council
38:04 feedback on the ballot measure um
38:06 itself. uh in this opportunity to uh
38:09 consider a renewal um at the same levy
38:12 rate on this expiring park bond. Uh
38:14 second um feedback on um the approach
38:18 we're taking of utilizing uh previously
38:21 prioritized projects uh for creating a
38:25 uh package of projects uh for this bond
38:27 renewal uh that the bond renewal would
38:29 would fund. Uh third, uh based on that
38:32 approach of utilizing prior community
38:34 feedback through our park strategic plan
38:36 and CIP processes, um would really
38:39 appreciate your feedback on um an
38:42 initial uh list uh that I've been
38:44 working on with mayor and administration
38:46 of potential projects uh that I'll share
38:49 with you tonight in this presentation.
38:50 And then last uh just feedback on
38:53 additional information uh you would like
38:56 um as um we move forward into a possible
38:59 decision-making process um on this
39:01 rather um shortened or or compressed I
39:04 won't want to say timesensitive but time
39:06 compressed um opportunity over these
39:09 over these coming months.
39:14 So, some background um bonding um is um
39:19 often used voter approved bonds are used
39:22 um to fund capital projects and have
39:25 have been done successfully here in the
39:27 city of Isiqua as I'll I'll highlight.
39:29 Um a note I want to make um on
39:31 background and on this slide is bonding
39:33 does differ from operating levies. Um,
39:37 put really simply, not as a finance
39:40 director, but put rather simply, uh,
39:42 bonds, uh, provide funding upfront. Uh,
39:45 when you go to a bond, you're you're
39:47 seeking um a a levy, a sale, a property
39:52 tax increase, but, um, you're getting
39:54 the the funding upfront. Um, and then
39:56 you're paying uh that funding makes it
39:59 available for you to do capital
40:01 projects. Uh, the property tax is then
40:03 in essence paying the debt. Um, and
40:05 that's often bonds are all over a longer
40:08 term. Uh, so typically a 20-year term
40:10 for bonding. Um, unlike operating levies
40:13 which provide provide proceeds um and
40:17 received and spent year-over-year. So
40:19 yearbyear you're spending rather than
40:21 putting um putting debt on that. Um, and
40:24 that's often a shorter term. Uh, you'll
40:26 often see operating levies that the
40:28 county does and others done that are
40:30 typically a six-year term. Uh this is a
40:33 this would be a bond measure that's
40:34 expiring and Isiqua has um uh some
40:38 history some recent history and success
40:41 um in utilizing bond funding and going
40:43 to the community for bonds. Um both in
40:45 2006 and 2013 this community um approved
40:49 park bonds. Uh both of those uh were for
40:52 20-year terms. Uh it's that 2006 bond
40:55 that u I believe is is expiring. Um
40:59 um both of those bonds were approved uh
41:02 well over 70% uh voter approval. Uh the
41:06 2006 bond um funded a mix of park
41:10 renovations, some trail development and
41:12 and land acquisition. Uh the 2013 bond
41:16 um helped to fund um some needed
41:19 facility improvements and system
41:21 improvements at the Julius Bone Pool uh
41:23 development. It partially funded
41:25 development of the turf fields at
41:26 Central Park Pad 1. Um it partially
41:29 funded Confluence Park phase 2
41:31 completion, the the photo of the bridge
41:33 there, as well as some other
41:35 neighborhood park improvements.
41:38 And again, both of those measures passed
41:40 um by a significant margin. Um, another
41:44 difference between bonds and levies, um,
41:46 I'm sure you're aware, uh, a bond
41:48 measure requires 60% voter approval,
41:51 whereas an operating levy, uh, requires
41:54 50% plus one.
41:57 Some initial analysis as we look at the
41:59 revenue side of of what does this what
42:02 would this bond renewal um, generate? U,
42:05 this was work um, done with uh, support
42:08 and assistance of finance director
42:10 Kristen Garcia. So, thank you for that,
42:13 uh, Kristen. Uh, um, this same levy rate
42:16 of 8 cents per 10,000 that's expiring,
42:19 um, renewed over a similar 20-year term,
42:23 uh, would generate, uh, just over $17
42:25 million in bond revenue.
42:28 Um, as we look at funding current park
42:31 needs and priorities, we have an
42:33 opportunity to leverage then that $17
42:35 million with uh, some other revenues. Uh
42:39 currently we have about a $3 million
42:40 balance in park impact fees. Uh this
42:43 would be a great opportunity. Park
42:44 impact fees need to be need to be spent
42:47 on capital projects that increase
42:48 capacity. Uh the projects that you'll
42:51 see and we're considering all all
42:53 increase capacity uh within our park
42:55 system. Uh so uh that $3 million could
42:58 be leveraged on top of the 17.3 as well.
43:01 the mix of of projects um impactful
43:04 projects that we're um considering in
43:06 this package and that communities
43:08 identified as priorities are some great
43:10 opportunities for grant revenue uh and
43:11 other revenues. Um conservatively, we're
43:14 saying we could generate another three
43:15 million. So when um all told uh we could
43:19 be looking at a package um in the
43:21 neighborhood of just over $23 million.
43:29 So, as we look at at um a potential um
43:33 generation of additional revenue from
43:35 this bond renewal, uh we need to take a
43:37 look at how do we want to consider uh
43:40 projects and what projects um this
43:42 community sees as important within its
43:44 park system. Um
43:47 this community's identified many many
43:50 capital investment needs and and
43:51 priorities within our parks, trails, and
43:54 open space system. Um that feedback has
43:57 really come um um from our uh both the
44:01 2018 park uh plan update but also or
44:04 park plan u as well as the 2024 park
44:07 plan update that was completed. Uh so
44:09 thankfully in many ways in terms of
44:11 community engagement, we're not starting
44:12 from scratch in terms of how to
44:14 prioritize projects. Um we have the
44:17 opportunity to to really uh see and
44:20 understand the community needs and
44:21 priorities that were identified in that
44:23 plan. uh that also um help to inform our
44:26 parks uh six-year CIP as well.
44:30 Um the overall vision of the plan um
44:33 also helps us in this effort. Um uh what
44:37 we see is really an opportunity to look
44:39 at um as as we develop criteria um
44:44 considering multiple small to medium-siz
44:46 priorities um all of which uh singularly
44:50 make a really big impact uh but
44:52 collectively make even a a greater
44:53 impact uh to really incre increase and
44:56 improve function um of our existing park
44:59 system as well as improve connectivity
45:01 um of our park system. Both of which are
45:03 very very high priorities. um identified
45:06 from the community. Um an important
45:09 thing to note as we consider
45:10 prioritizing these projects um is that
45:14 uh these near-term priorities uh when
45:16 you include um all the near-term
45:18 priorities of the park system plan
45:20 update as well as recent work we've done
45:23 uh with the community on a real creative
45:25 solution for expanding the Julius Bones
45:27 pool. If we were to look at all of those
45:29 near-term priorities, uh funding all of
45:32 those magically would require us uh
45:35 about 80 to hundred million dollars of
45:36 funding. And so just that context
45:39 reminder as we look at a a a great
45:42 opportunity of this community to invest
45:44 $23 million into its park system, um
45:47 it's not going to fully fund all those
45:49 near-term priorities. So there will need
45:50 to be prioritization of those of those
45:53 priorities. Um, some other really
45:56 important factors that that we think um
45:59 are worth considering is um making sure
46:02 we're we're hitting a variety of
46:04 interests um a variety of uses uh that
46:08 our community expects and wants within
46:09 our park system. No one household uses
46:12 and interacts with the Isqua park system
46:15 the same way. Uh so how are we making
46:17 sure we're hitting that that mix of of
46:19 uses and priorities and also looking at
46:21 the geography um of our uh community and
46:26 um uh considering spreading out those um
46:28 investments within the within the
46:30 system.
46:33 Then following are really a list of um
46:37 possible projects to consider. Um as we
46:40 went through that vetting and looked at
46:42 our uh park system plan priorities,
46:45 near-term priorities as well as the the
46:47 park CIP. Uh these are eight projects
46:50 that I'll I'll quickly highlight um and
46:53 talk about um the project itself uh what
46:57 the impact and benefit would be and also
46:58 just highlight quickly um who our
47:01 partners might be in this work. Um I
47:03 think all this work um all these
47:05 projects have um a variety of partners
47:07 that um are are very very intested in
47:11 seeing this work happen. Um all of these
47:13 projects too as we're um doing what we
47:16 can. Robin Spear is here. Thank you.
47:17 Robin park planning and development
47:19 manager. Uh we're doing all we can to
47:21 begin doing a little more deeper dive
47:23 into cost estimating these projects. But
47:26 even as we do an initial cost
47:27 estimation, all these projects range in
47:30 the 2 to4 million um um range. Um so
47:35 again, a way to um provide multiple um
47:39 impactful projects uh with a package of
47:41 this size. Uh so first off, uh the e
47:44 house. Um we're all familiar. Oh, I did
47:48 not mean to do that. Um,
47:52 see if I can move this so I can actually
47:54 read the screen. That's great. Uh, we're
47:57 all familiar with the Yak House. Uh,
47:58 this is a historical uh, farmhouse uh,
48:01 that is on the northeast corner of
48:03 Confluence Park. Um, has long been, uh,
48:07 sitting there undeveloped, ready, uh, to
48:09 be reinvested in. Uh we really feel like
48:12 this um this uh potential bond would be
48:15 a great opportunity to fully fund uh
48:17 that work uh to uh really accomplish
48:20 multiple goals. One is really uh
48:23 celebrate and um landmark uh that
48:26 building uh but landmark it in a way uh
48:29 that also activates it publicly and and
48:32 um community is able to to use it. Uh
48:35 we've heard time and time again through
48:37 Oldtown, through the creative district,
48:39 uh the need and interest for more
48:41 community space. Uh this would be a some
48:44 space that could u host um art exhibits
48:48 u something the art uh commission and
48:50 and creative districts very interested
48:51 in, but also could be a um indooroutdoor
48:54 pavilion uh that uh the community could
48:57 rent uh for multiple multiple um um
49:01 ways. um through our uh work um as we
49:05 were considering ARPA funding uh for
49:07 those council members that were here as
49:08 we were doing that you may recall uh
49:10 this site um in this project was
49:13 considered for ARPA funding um in doing
49:15 that work. We've already reached out to
49:17 King County Landmark Commission. They
49:18 would be a very interested um and um
49:22 enthusiastic partner in this work as
49:25 would um our partners at the Isqua Horis
49:28 historical museum as well.
49:33 Council member Verair. Uh
49:35 >> I had a question on this project
49:36 specifically um in that like I'm I'm
49:39 very interested in like community space
49:40 because I've heard that a lot of a
49:41 desire for that. So I'm a little um
49:43 curious like some clarity on how the
49:45 community space for this would work. I
49:47 see like in the design there's that
49:48 outdoor pavilion which seems similar to
49:49 like the senior center um you know
49:51 awning you know cover right there. But
49:53 how would it work interior? like it's
49:55 like the house would just have rooms
49:57 that you book or you book the whole
49:58 house or what how would that function as
50:00 a community space?
50:01 >> So, great. What what we've talked about
50:03 conceptually is um and as we talked to
50:06 the landmark commission um the
50:09 historical significance of this
50:11 farmhouse is really the exterior, the
50:12 shell. And so imagine if the interior
50:15 becomes one big room. So take out the
50:18 second floor, have one room with big
50:20 vated ceilings. Um, interestingly, the
50:24 back of the house is least historical.
50:27 And so, historically preserving the the
50:30 front and two sides, um, and then the
50:32 back of the house having some type of
50:34 rollup or accordion doors that would
50:37 create that opportunity for it to be
50:39 fully indoor um, in the winter and in
50:42 the, you know, rough season months, but
50:44 then, uh, really welcoming and inviting
50:47 back out to that back pavilion, which
50:49 also happens to be right by the
50:50 playground. Uh so again, a great way to
50:54 have this building be historical but
50:56 really relate to Confluence Park um in a
50:59 pretty significant way.
51:01 >> Okay. And so if it was so you moved the
51:03 second floor in its big area about how
51:04 much like what size of gatherings could
51:06 you have on the interior if it was like
51:08 interior only so to speak?
51:09 >> Great question. Um glad you didn't ask
51:11 square footage because I don't have that
51:13 on top of mind. But I know as we talked
51:15 about it, we're talking capacity of 50
51:17 to 70 again depending on the type of of
51:21 meeting that you're having.
51:24 >> Deputy Council President,
51:26 >> um, so you mentioned landmarking the EK
51:28 House. I'm curious like what the
51:29 benefits of landmarking the EK House
51:31 are. Is it just, you know, civic pride
51:33 type thing or are there other benefits
51:35 with regards to funding or things like
51:36 that?
51:37 >> Great, great question. I think one of
51:38 the real benefits of of landmarking and
51:40 considering it is access to grant
51:42 funding.
51:45 So, does that mean that we could use
51:47 grant funding to help fund this
51:48 restoration?
51:50 >> Yes, exactly. As you pursue landmarking,
51:53 you're eligible for a lot of state um
51:55 and in some cases federal money to to do
51:57 the capital restoration. Yep.
52:00 >> Thank you,
52:00 >> Council Member Nichols.
52:02 >> Have we looked at grant funding in the
52:04 context of landmarking this building or
52:07 not? Um outside the context of this
52:10 bond?
52:11 uh very briefly, but I yeah, I don't
52:14 have I don't have a specific list of of
52:16 of grant projects, but that would be
52:18 certainly an important next step. Um and
52:20 as we're doing cost estimating on each
52:22 of these projects, we're also looking at
52:24 and listing um each of the grant uh
52:27 sources that we may be able to pursue uh
52:29 for those.
52:37 All right, next slide.
52:43 Next project uh that could be considered
52:46 and um also on our our park strategic
52:49 plan as well as uh sixyear CIP is the
52:51 improvements to the Senator Bill Ramos
52:54 memorial trail head. We're all familiar
52:56 with where this trail head is on the end
52:58 of uh edge of Sunset. uh really serves
53:01 as um a gateway into both West Tiger
53:04 Mountain um as well as many mountain
53:06 bikers will use it as their starting off
53:08 point uh to go into Grand Ridge. So, a
53:10 really really important trail head
53:12 serving both of those um um portions of
53:16 the Isqua Alps. Um uh this work would
53:20 look at um um creating a more functional
53:24 um surfacing for the parking area. Um
53:28 adding restrooms, adding wayfinding and
53:30 historical sign signage um and other um
53:33 amenities that you would see um for a
53:36 fully developed, fully built uh trail
53:38 head.
53:41 Moving
53:45 on, uh these next two these next two
53:47 options and opportunities really
53:49 leverage um strategic acquisitions that
53:51 we've been so successful on uh these
53:54 last five years. Uh the first on Cougar
53:56 Mountain uh with the purchase of the
53:59 Bergsma property, now uh referred to as
54:01 Harvey Manning Park. Um we have a 33
54:05 acre corridor that really connects the
54:07 valley floor um and Tibbitz Valley Park
54:11 um up into Cougar Mountain and to the
54:14 regional uh park and the King County
54:16 Parks regional uh system. Um uh this um
54:21 potential bond renewal gives us the
54:24 opportunity to fund actual trail design
54:26 and development um uh that would also
54:29 connect not only to Cougar Mountain
54:32 Regional Park but um provide a
54:33 connection for the Talis community uh to
54:36 come down um and have a pedestrian
54:39 connection to the valley floor.
54:41 >> Council member Dair
54:42 >> um when you just say trail development,
54:44 would the trail actually get built or
54:46 would it just be designed? Okay.
54:47 >> Yep. Yep. trail trail construction.
54:49 Okay.
54:49 >> Yeah. Yeah.
54:51 >> Yep.
54:53 King County Parks has been a long
54:54 partner. They were a partner in this
54:56 acquisition if you remember back in
54:58 2019. They remain a partner in uh
55:00 looking at trail design. Um our partners
55:03 at Isqua Alps Trails Club as well as
55:06 local tribes um would be very interested
55:08 in um um assisting us in this design um
55:13 and construction work.
55:19 Next uh similarly um through uh some two
55:24 very strategic acquisitions in this case
55:26 uh the the what we call the waymouth
55:29 property way property uh acquired 20
55:32 acres and now just the recently closed
55:35 uh Kilkari 3 um acquisition of 17 acres
55:39 creates a 37 acre uh corridor um again
55:43 from the valley floor up into this case,
55:46 Squawk Mountain and the and the regional
55:48 trail system within Squawk Mountain
55:50 State Park. Again, a terrific
55:52 opportunity to um take and celebrate the
55:55 acquisitions that we've done and do the
55:57 trail design and trail construction um
56:00 uh that would serve u as a as a way to
56:04 get up into Squawk Mountain. Also, with
56:06 the the width of this corridor, some
56:08 great opportunities to do some
56:09 neighborhood trail loops uh that support
56:12 uh the residential communities. um
56:15 around that uh around that portion of
56:16 Squawk Mountain.
56:21 Again, partners are are ready and
56:23 excited to um assist the city and um
56:27 help us leverage uh not only their
56:29 resources and and knowledge, but also uh
56:32 grant funds.
56:35 Next on the list, um a very another
56:37 strategic opportunity we've heard time
56:39 and again from the the community and
56:41 that's um renovations and improvements
56:43 to our athletic fields. Um as council
56:47 member Adair knows as his time on the
56:49 park board um we've really had to think
56:52 strategically about what how do we solve
56:55 athletic field needs here in this
56:56 community. uh we are not rich as a
56:59 community in flat accessible uh
57:02 developable land. Um, and so what that's
57:05 really um um allowed us to do and I
57:08 think required us to do in the park
57:10 system plan is present a um a plan that
57:14 looks at leveraging not only our
57:16 athletic fields and making sure we're
57:18 maximizing their capacity and looking at
57:20 things like uh multi-use synthetic turf
57:23 uh but also how do we partner and
57:25 leverage with the Isqua school district
57:27 um how do we partner also with the state
57:30 park uh which obviously we've been doing
57:32 to make sure access to those fields as a
57:34 priority as well. What you see in this
57:36 opportunity is before us is um how do we
57:40 actually um have now now have the
57:42 opportunity not just to talk about it
57:44 and we've certainly been in great
57:46 conversations with this school district.
57:48 They remain very interested now in this
57:50 idea of community sports fields on their
57:52 campuses. Uh but this um uh levy renewal
57:55 would be an opportunity to fund probably
57:58 not all four of these examples, but um
58:00 what we're looking at is likely two of
58:02 these examples. Um all three of the
58:04 elementary schools uh that exist within
58:06 the city of Isua, Isqua Valley
58:08 Elementary. um Clark Elementary School,
58:11 both here on the valley floor, and then
58:12 Grand Ridge Elementary up in the Isqua
58:14 Highlands are are terrific candidates
58:17 for uh creating this partnered project
58:19 where we would invest funding, make the
58:21 synthetic turf improvements to their the
58:23 play areas, uh the the field areas, uh
58:26 on their campus, uh which would then
58:28 become a much improved school asset uh
58:31 while school is in session uh for
58:33 students at recess. uh but then would
58:36 become a a terrific additional capacity
58:39 uh for the community to be able to use
58:41 on evenings, weekends, um uh the the
58:44 full summer months as well. Another
58:46 opportunity we've identified within our
58:48 park plan on our own property is Central
58:51 Park pad 2. Similar to pad one, um the
58:55 soil conditions on that on that site are
58:57 extremely poor. Drainage is extremely
59:00 poor. We have two baseball fields that
59:01 are very very underutilized. Uh there's
59:04 an opportunity again much like we did
59:06 with pad 1 to create um multi-use
59:09 synthetic turf which creates year-round
59:11 use um and also multiport use uh
59:14 lacrosse, soccer, uh baseball, softball,
59:17 cricket uh etc.
59:24 >> Deputy council president. Um, so on that
59:27 on the school thing, how will we ensure
59:30 that the school district actually
59:32 provides public access? Because there
59:34 are already a number of turf fields on
59:37 school property that do not have public
59:38 access, um, including the one in my
59:41 neighborhood, Cougar Mountain Middle
59:42 School, and I would love to see us make
59:44 sure that we get public access to those
59:46 before spending millions of dollars
59:48 creating new
59:49 >> Yeah, that's an excellent question. And
59:51 thankfully, our conversations with the
59:52 district have have been um um
59:56 multiaceted. And so, we are updating the
59:59 joint use agreement um and are very
1:00:01 close to finalizing that update to the
1:00:03 joint use agreement. In that new draft
1:00:05 of the joint use agreement that you all
1:00:06 will see and the school board will see
1:00:08 is is specific language that talks about
1:00:10 capital improvement, partnered capital
1:00:12 improvements and it spells out a method
1:00:15 with which as a partnered capital pro
1:00:18 improvement is identified an addendum is
1:00:20 created to that joint use agreement that
1:00:23 spells out the specifics. Um and in this
1:00:25 case what we've laid out as
1:00:27 administration is um as a city makes
1:00:30 that investment as a community makes
1:00:31 that investment uh the city would then
1:00:34 be the scheduler of of that said field
1:00:38 um thus um creating um a much more um um
1:00:44 it's the right word assurance uh that um
1:00:48 it would be scheduled in a way that um
1:00:50 community has has full access to those
1:00:53 fields. So they would function very much
1:00:55 like central park pad 1 where it'd be
1:00:58 open to the community off hours. Um it
1:01:01 would could be scheduled and rented by
1:01:03 by sports groups and again scheduled and
1:01:05 managed by the city.
1:01:08 >> Um I guess my other question was is
1:01:10 there any progress on getting public
1:01:13 access to some of the existing sports
1:01:14 fields that currently exist on school
1:01:16 district property?
1:01:17 >> That is a that is another great
1:01:19 question.
1:01:20 slightly different, but uh certainly
1:01:22 something that we've pursued and shared
1:01:24 with the district. Um there appears to
1:01:26 be more of an openness um to um um
1:01:31 encourage community to utilize that. I
1:01:34 believe there's a way that residents can
1:01:35 sign up um for access to that field. Um
1:01:40 I can get you that information. It's
1:01:41 something that in that case, since the
1:01:43 city didn't make an investment in that,
1:01:45 the school district manages those uh
1:01:47 those spaces on their own. But I can um
1:01:50 I can get you that in information from
1:01:52 the district.
1:01:53 >> Yeah, I've I've signed up and paid the
1:01:54 $75 before. Um but you know, it's not
1:01:58 great to have to pay money when it
1:02:03 should be anyway.
1:02:06 >> I don't disagree. But again, that's a
1:02:08 that's a school district administered um
1:02:10 program.
1:02:12 But if we're but if we're going to have
1:02:14 a partnership, you know, precisely, we
1:02:16 want to have a a real partnership that's
1:02:18 beneficial for everybody. Can you go
1:02:20 back a slide for a second?
1:02:25 I don't want to litigate today where
1:02:27 we're going to where we would put these,
1:02:28 but I'm going to I'm going to do that a
1:02:29 little bit anyhow. Um, isn't isn't Grand
1:02:32 Ridge Elementary School like 5t from
1:02:34 Central Park?
1:02:36 >> Yeah. ish a little little longer but
1:02:38 >> I'm hyperbole for effect but yes very
1:02:41 basically right there
1:02:42 >> where we already have some some proof
1:02:44 fields so um you know I'll just
1:02:47 >> put that out there that geographic
1:02:49 equity is important as well and and uh
1:02:53 >> I would love to do all of these I mean
1:02:55 you know we
1:02:56 >> there are very few things in this city
1:02:57 that um people seem to universally love
1:03:00 but certainly Turfields is you know as
1:03:02 close as people get to universal joy in
1:03:04 a bottle Uh, okay. Other questions right
1:03:07 now before?
1:03:09 >> No. Carry on.
1:03:11 >> Appreciate that point, Council
1:03:12 President. You're right. Geographic
1:03:14 equity is something we really need to
1:03:16 consider.
1:03:19 >> All right, moving on. Uh, these next two
1:03:21 slides uh pertain to opportunities to
1:03:23 make investments at Tibets Valley Park.
1:03:25 Um, as you know, uh, Tibbitz Valley Park
1:03:29 has a great history. It's lived a great
1:03:31 life. It has many many years uh to look
1:03:34 forward to as a community park, but it
1:03:35 needs it needs a new vision. Um its
1:03:38 neighborhood is about to change. Um we
1:03:40 are in the midst of of kicking off um
1:03:42 some revisioning work um at Tibbitz
1:03:44 Valley Park. Uh we believe that this uh
1:03:47 potential bond renewal has the
1:03:49 opportunity to at least um um identify
1:03:53 um two really critical investments that
1:03:55 will likely be part of that that
1:03:57 revision work. Uh, one is um an expanded
1:04:01 community park- sized uh play area um at
1:04:04 the park uh that would provide um
1:04:07 universal design um an all-inclusive
1:04:10 playground. Uh many of these are called
1:04:12 um uh with the the quite frankly the
1:04:16 neighborhood growth that's happened uh
1:04:17 since that park was developed in the
1:04:19 80s, much less the future development or
1:04:22 future growth that's likely to come
1:04:23 through the central Isqua plan just
1:04:25 north of the park. um expanding uh play
1:04:28 facilities in that park is a is a really
1:04:30 really um um great opportunity and a
1:04:33 much needed investment. Um as I
1:04:35 mentioned earlier that revisioning work
1:04:37 that we would be um engaging with and
1:04:40 like likely completing with the
1:04:41 community next year um will inform the
1:04:44 location of where this play area would
1:04:47 Similarly
1:04:50 um um
1:04:53 before the pandemic we had uh engaged a
1:04:56 lot with the community about a possible
1:04:58 dog park at off leash dog area at
1:05:00 Tibetsz Valley Park. Uh we feel like
1:05:02 this funding is the opportunity to to
1:05:05 complete that commitment. Um again um uh
1:05:09 the revisioning work happening at Tibets
1:05:12 Valley Park would would inform where
1:05:13 this off leash area would go. Uh we're
1:05:16 getting a lot of excitement as we're
1:05:18 nearing completion of the Reineer Trail
1:05:20 um off leash area. If you've been down
1:05:22 there recently, you've seen how close
1:05:23 that's being done. We're going to
1:05:25 celebrate a ribbon cutting here April
1:05:27 20th with all of you. Um uh but if you
1:05:30 remember uh we realized um again with
1:05:34 how land constrained we are as a city to
1:05:36 find one
1:05:38 5 to 10 acre off leash dog area that
1:05:40 would serve our whole community is
1:05:41 really really hard for us to do in our
1:05:43 park system where we have opportunity
1:05:45 and really um can be strategic and
1:05:48 innovative is look at multiple smalleriz
1:05:52 dog parks uh throughout the community.
1:05:54 So, as Reineer Trail Dog Park will
1:05:56 really serve this side of town, um a
1:05:59 similar sized off leash area at Tibbitz
1:06:01 Valley Park um could really serve that
1:06:04 surrounding neighborhood.
1:06:08 And then lastly, um certainly we've
1:06:12 heard um through the park plan process
1:06:15 uh with the emergence of pickle ball uh
1:06:17 but also the resurgence I would say of
1:06:20 tennis. There's been a real resurgence
1:06:22 of tennis. Uh there's a lot of interest
1:06:24 on ways that we can creatively expand uh
1:06:27 court space within our existing park
1:06:29 system. Um and thankfully uh there there
1:06:32 is an opportunity that we think that
1:06:34 this bond um investment could fund and
1:06:37 there that's utilizing the additional
1:06:39 space. Um if you're familiar with
1:06:41 Central Park, the lower fields, what's
1:06:42 known as pad 3, uh there is a um grass
1:06:46 area um um in front of between the
1:06:49 parking lot and the courts that's u not
1:06:52 utilized really at all. Um other than
1:06:54 having existing restroom there, there's
1:06:56 enough space there to create um four
1:06:58 tennis courts andor eight pickle ball
1:07:00 courts or overlays. um create a much
1:07:03 more defined plaza space uh with a
1:07:06 restroom um and some shelter space uh
1:07:09 that would serve both those courts but
1:07:11 also better create a better gateway and
1:07:14 and plaza into uh the field area. Uh so
1:07:18 this would be a another um similar that
1:07:21 small to mediumsiz investment that can
1:07:23 make a really really huge impact on our
1:07:26 uh existing park system.
1:07:31 And there you go. There's an overview of
1:07:32 of eight possible projects that could um
1:07:37 be packaged together. Um again, as we're
1:07:40 looking at cost estimation, but all in
1:07:42 the neighborhood of 2 to4 million, um we
1:07:45 feel like that 23ish million um could
1:07:49 fund um that level of work uh throughout
1:07:53 uh throughout town. Um a look ahead,
1:07:56 some timing and next steps. Um or should
1:07:58 I pause there for questions?
1:08:00 >> Yes. Yes, please. Council member Joe.
1:08:03 >> Thank you, Council President. Um, to
1:08:05 steal Council President's Thunder, uh,
1:08:07 he always talks about cricket and I just
1:08:10 wanted to see if we are meeting the
1:08:12 demand of our Cricut community and, um,
1:08:16 if we are, that's fantastic. If it's
1:08:19 something we still need to work on and
1:08:20 should be part of this, I'd also like to
1:08:22 talk about that a little bit more, too.
1:08:24 Thank you.
1:08:24 >> Yep. You bet. That's a that's a great
1:08:26 question and something that we are
1:08:28 pursuing as well. Um thankfully um our
1:08:32 partnership we embarked with state parks
1:08:35 last year um in uh taking over uh
1:08:38 maintenance and scheduling and and
1:08:40 revenue collection for the the fields um
1:08:43 there at state park. We've actually
1:08:45 created two two cricket pitches. Uh so
1:08:49 uh that is certainly been a a um a huge
1:08:53 um appreciation from the cricket
1:08:54 community. We also um have cricket
1:08:57 scheduled on pad three uh the turf
1:08:59 fields I just showed you um where a
1:09:01 cricket pitch is put between the two
1:09:03 soccer fields. Um as we look at whether
1:09:06 it's the elementary schools or Central
1:09:08 Park pad 2, we'll need to look at
1:09:10 configuration, but we'll definitely keep
1:09:12 that um in mind and realize that um as
1:09:16 we look to meet all of all of our sports
1:09:18 needs, cricket is a real priority as
1:09:20 well.
1:09:20 >> Great. Thank you very much,
1:09:22 >> Deputy Council President. Okay, bear
1:09:24 with me. I have a bunch of questions.
1:09:26 Um, so you mentioned the total list of
1:09:29 near-term priorities is about 80 to 100
1:09:31 million in total costs. Could you um
1:09:34 give an overview of what projects
1:09:35 weren't selected for this package? Cuz
1:09:37 my understanding is the package that's
1:09:39 being presented to us is basically, you
1:09:41 know, roughly the size of what the bond
1:09:43 could be. Um, so I'd love to learn more
1:09:45 about what was not presented and kind of
1:09:47 what the prioritization criteria were.
1:09:50 >> Sure. Sure. Um boy, I'm going to do this
1:09:53 by memory um a little bit, but yeah,
1:09:56 those those near-term projects also
1:09:58 include some pretty significant
1:10:00 projects. Um Tibbitz Valley Park, um
1:10:04 completing the next couple phases of I'm
1:10:06 pointing, but forgive me. Um our uh
1:10:08 pedestrian park, uh memorial field,
1:10:11 depot park, um improvements. Again, a
1:10:14 rather large um next investment. Um, as
1:10:18 I mentioned earlier, uh, renovation of,
1:10:21 uh, the Julius or not res renovation,
1:10:23 expansion of the Julius Bone Pool. Um,
1:10:26 part of that as well. Um, again, all
1:10:28 three of those represent, um,
1:10:31 multi-million, probably 20 plus million
1:10:34 dollar investments on their own. Uh so
1:10:36 that became that question of do we
1:10:38 consider a if we're considering a bond
1:10:40 renewal do we put a majority of the eggs
1:10:43 in one basket or do we try and g
1:10:46 geographically um spread uh the
1:10:48 interests. There are a number of other
1:10:50 um um small um smaller level investments
1:10:55 uh that again could be considered. One
1:10:57 um is the what's known as Anthology the
1:11:00 Anthology neighbor on neighborhood on
1:11:02 Newport if you're familiar. Uh there's a
1:11:05 a boardwalk and trail system that we
1:11:08 manage and maintain functions really
1:11:09 well. There's two really small grass
1:11:12 areas uh there that we've identified uh
1:11:15 for opportunities for improvements. Um
1:11:18 th those aren't on this on this
1:11:20 potential package list, but certainly
1:11:22 could be considered. Um I'd have to take
1:11:24 a look at the actual plan to to remember
1:11:27 all the other ones as well, but um those
1:11:29 two those three big ones really
1:11:30 represent a large amount of funding.
1:11:33 Before
1:11:35 we before we move on to the next
1:11:36 question, I mean confluence master plan
1:11:38 is like $25 million, isn't it?
1:11:41 >> Yes. To to fully do confluence um well
1:11:44 phase three of confluence that also
1:11:46 considers moving the maintenance
1:11:47 facilities, it's probably I mean if you
1:11:49 throw in the cost of moving the
1:11:50 maintenance facilities, that's a that's
1:11:53 probably 80 million on its on its own.
1:11:55 Um so confluence is certainly a
1:11:56 priority. um wasn't identified as a
1:11:59 near-term priority just because of that
1:12:02 need to move maintenance. The
1:12:04 maintenance facilities would need to be
1:12:05 moved before any park improvements could
1:12:07 be done.
1:12:09 >> Great. Yeah, I would love to see the
1:12:10 whole list as well as the rationale for
1:12:12 including versus not including all the
1:12:14 other ones. Um okay, next question. Um
1:12:19 so this bond is 20 years. So, I mean,
1:12:23 are there going to be other
1:12:25 opportunities for additional capital
1:12:26 improvements over the next 20 years? And
1:12:27 would they, you know, how would that the
1:12:29 scale of that compare to the size of
1:12:31 this bond?
1:12:32 >> Yeah, it's a great question. Um, I would
1:12:34 say, you know, considering if we, if we
1:12:36 go back and look at 2006 and 2013 bonds,
1:12:40 um, as the 20 we're still, this
1:12:42 community is still paying off the 2013
1:12:44 bonds. Um other capital projects have
1:12:48 certainly been considered and done as
1:12:50 well with uh with other funding um be it
1:12:53 grant funding or or other. So um again
1:12:57 not to say I know exactly what it's
1:13:00 going to look like but um a bond renewal
1:13:02 like this wouldn't preclude
1:13:05 um other capital conversations or
1:13:08 priorities or work being done.
1:13:12 >> Great. Thank you. And last question. Um,
1:13:13 so on the pickle ball fields, have we
1:13:15 considered other locations that we could
1:13:17 put pickle ball fields?
1:13:20 >> Uh, we've considered a few. Yes. Um, I
1:13:22 think these strategically
1:13:25 um probably make the most sense when you
1:13:27 look at um proximity or lack of
1:13:31 proximity of residential um houses near
1:13:34 it. Uh so we really feel like this is
1:13:36 probably the most viable cost-effective
1:13:39 candidate uh for uh for doing them.
1:13:44 >> Um yeah, that makes sense. I know I
1:13:46 don't know people get upset about the
1:13:47 pickle ball noise. Um I will note that
1:13:50 there is an um in a neighboring city in
1:13:51 Kirkland, they actually converted one of
1:13:53 their old park and rides to have these
1:13:54 like pop-up pickle ball courts. So hope
1:13:56 I hope that that's something that we
1:13:57 could consider as well, especially given
1:13:59 that our park and rides are incredibly
1:14:01 underutilized.
1:14:02 >> Cool.
1:14:03 Council member Nichols,
1:14:07 >> thank you. And uh as others have said,
1:14:10 uh appreciate that putting together a
1:14:12 list like this is hard. Um I' I'd like
1:14:16 to ask
1:14:18 if you could go through a little bit
1:14:19 first of all what your overall thought
1:14:21 if you had what your overall goals were.
1:14:23 I think you alluded to this in the
1:14:25 beginning, but if you could be explicit
1:14:26 about that. So in in part to help us
1:14:27 understand what was considered and what
1:14:29 wasn't. Um, so that's part one of my
1:14:32 question, but I think I can give them to
1:14:34 you all at once because they I think
1:14:35 they'll tie in together. Um, associated
1:14:37 with that, did you look at larger bonds
1:14:39 or were you constrained to this as as
1:14:42 part of the the constraints that you
1:14:44 were declared yourself working on under
1:14:47 or and also um the list that you have,
1:14:51 did you look at was one of your goals to
1:14:54 try to have a large number of things um
1:14:56 or is that did you look at having was
1:14:58 was it possible in the in the way you
1:15:01 were going through your thought process
1:15:03 to have a fewer number of bigger things?
1:15:05 Um, so those are they're kind of nested.
1:15:07 So I'll give them all together even
1:15:08 though it's three separate questions. So
1:15:10 what were your overall
1:15:12 what was your mental model when you were
1:15:14 putting this together so we can
1:15:15 understand what else other things might
1:15:16 be out out there and what were all the
1:15:18 constraints that you either were working
1:15:21 under explicitly or implicitly?
1:15:23 >> Yeah. Okay. I'll I'll do my best. Um, I
1:15:26 would say in terms of overall goal, um,
1:15:29 again knowing that we engaged with this
1:15:31 community, uh, in a rather robust way in
1:15:34 updating the park system plan, it was
1:15:36 really leaning heavily on the feedback
1:15:38 and priorities we heard from that plan.
1:15:40 Um what we heard from that plan from a
1:15:43 vision and goal standpoint is
1:15:46 we have a park system that in is
1:15:49 wonderful and is great but in some cases
1:15:51 is a little tired in other cases isn't
1:15:54 performing or functioning to the level
1:15:56 that we want to. Um um a desire to add
1:16:00 um um city park amenities that residents
1:16:04 and see and utilize in other cities. um
1:16:08 how can we add those to our existing
1:16:10 parks? So um again really playing on
1:16:12 that vision of um adding amenities and
1:16:16 adding performance to what we have in
1:16:18 the park system. And then another I
1:16:20 think real central part to the vision
1:16:22 council member Nichols was we've heard
1:16:23 time and again our community wants a
1:16:26 connected system. It wants a system
1:16:27 that's connected both internally and it
1:16:30 wants a s a system that is connected to
1:16:32 the regional lands around us. And so
1:16:34 that idea of connectivity um um
1:16:38 resonated really really highly with us
1:16:40 through the park plan process and now um
1:16:43 as as we've been again pretty quickly
1:16:46 pursuing this over the last three
1:16:48 months. Um and that's it. Um um
1:16:51 engagement with the park board twice has
1:16:53 really reaffirmed um hey let's let's
1:16:57 utilize that engagement that's been done
1:16:59 with the community. Um and so um the the
1:17:02 guiding principles again of of improving
1:17:05 functionality of our existing parks and
1:17:08 connectivity uh really really big goal.
1:17:10 Another central goal is balance was a
1:17:15 big theme that came out of the park
1:17:16 system plan. And when we mean balance,
1:17:18 it's hey, we're a system and we have
1:17:21 residents that really value how the
1:17:24 importance that our park system plays in
1:17:25 open space and we have other residents
1:17:28 who really value and feel like our the
1:17:30 importance of our park system is
1:17:33 developed city parks. And so balance in
1:17:36 terms of the vision of the plan and
1:17:38 balance in terms of how do we how do we
1:17:41 replicate that sense of balance in a
1:17:43 package that we would consider taking to
1:17:45 residents is how are we meeting both
1:17:48 passive um recreation goals and uses in
1:17:53 the system but how are we also
1:17:54 addressing um active or developed
1:17:57 elements of the park system. Uh so those
1:17:59 were sort of macrolevel considerations
1:18:02 as we looked at this. Um as I said
1:18:03 earlier in the presentation um um
1:18:08 looking at geography and how how these
1:18:10 investments can be spread through the
1:18:12 community um was was a really really
1:18:15 high priority. Um to your question about
1:18:18 have we considered an expanded bond uh
1:18:20 we have not. Um, as we've um again
1:18:23 engaged this um opportunity and with the
1:18:26 mayor and with administration, uh we
1:18:29 really um feel compelled in in this
1:18:32 initial presentation and and
1:18:34 conversation is how do we see this as a
1:18:37 moment to go to the voters and say,
1:18:39 "Hey, we're not asking for any new
1:18:40 revenue. We're not asking for any new
1:18:42 tax. We're just asking for um a um um a
1:18:48 renewal um of the current levy rate that
1:18:51 you have. And here's here's what we
1:18:52 could let's demonstrate what investments
1:18:55 could be made with that same levy rate.
1:18:57 Uh so we consider if we are moving
1:19:00 forward with this if we're putting
1:19:02 together the the elements of a campaign
1:19:06 that again is a relatively short
1:19:08 timeline. um uh as administration and as
1:19:11 park staff, we feel um a renewal uh
1:19:15 presents a a much higher potential um of
1:19:19 approval uh than than considering an
1:19:22 expansion. So, not to say uh that isn't
1:19:25 a possibility, but those were criteria
1:19:27 that we've considered again as we've put
1:19:30 this together as a as a potential
1:19:32 package. What a potential package could
1:19:34 look like.
1:19:38 Council member Walsh.
1:19:41 >> Thank you. I feel like I have to address
1:19:43 the elephant in the room, which I feel
1:19:45 like is the pool expansion. Um, can you
1:19:48 talk about why that isn't in this
1:19:51 project and how we will address
1:19:54 community concerns if we go forward on
1:19:57 this? Um, in saying we've either
1:20:00 depprioritized it or it's it's just not
1:20:05 one of the areas that we feel like we
1:20:07 can fund. Yeah, great, great, great
1:20:09 question. Um, I would say it remains a
1:20:12 super super high priority. Um, I guess
1:20:16 we're faced with choices and trade-offs.
1:20:18 So, um, a pool expansion in and of
1:20:22 itself is probably 20 20 plus million
1:20:24 dollars. So, is this a bond renewal that
1:20:28 pretty much solely funds um, a pool
1:20:30 expansion? And is that um,
1:20:34 more supportive? Does that provide more
1:20:37 community benefit than a array of
1:20:43 investments throughout the park system?
1:20:45 Um, not that one is more important or a
1:20:48 higher priority than the other, but I
1:20:49 would say as administration, we really
1:20:51 feel like a a spectrum of improvements
1:20:56 done throughout the system that all have
1:20:58 a significant impact in the function of
1:21:00 the system provides a broader community
1:21:03 impact for considering an ask to the
1:21:07 residents for renewing this park bond um
1:21:10 to the pool expansion. um as well. Um as
1:21:14 we've talked and as you recall those
1:21:16 conversations when we did the
1:21:17 feasibility study, we don't necessarily
1:21:19 want to be the only funer of that. Um
1:21:22 and we feel like um as a as a county
1:21:27 built pool 40 years ago. Um hey King
1:21:31 County, you don't get to just not be
1:21:32 part of this solution. So we feel like
1:21:35 there is need and opportunity to seek
1:21:37 some county funding. Uh we also um again
1:21:41 in our everinccreasing partnership and
1:21:43 collaboration with the school district
1:21:45 um as as they're considering a fourth
1:21:47 high school um if that fourth high
1:21:49 school has um intercolastic sports like
1:21:52 the other three they're going to need um
1:21:55 to likely have that pool be an asset for
1:21:59 that school as well. And so we've asked
1:22:01 and would hope that uh there is some
1:22:03 funding coming from that agency as well.
1:22:06 When you consider a bond and if we're
1:22:09 taking something to the voters in
1:22:10 November, uh we do not have that other
1:22:12 funding line lined up. And so um I don't
1:22:16 know that we would be ready to say,
1:22:18 "Hey, we're going to we're going to
1:22:20 partially fund the pool and we have to
1:22:22 wait and try and get funding from these
1:22:23 other two partners." And so, um, not to
1:22:26 say it's it's not a priority, it just
1:22:28 has it has a number of other moving
1:22:31 pieces, uh, that some of these other
1:22:33 projects, um, don't. Does that help? It
1:22:36 becomes a trade-off trade-offs
1:22:38 conversation.
1:22:40 >> Deputy Council President.
1:22:42 >> Um, okay. So, uh, tacking on to that
1:22:45 pool conversation. So it looks like the
1:22:47 King County Parks levy does have
1:22:48 significant funding for, you know,
1:22:50 aquatic facilities and there's specific
1:22:52 things in there that are al, you know,
1:22:54 there's allocations for specific cities.
1:22:56 Is that something that we've had
1:22:58 conversations with King County about
1:22:59 included being included in their levy as
1:23:01 well?
1:23:02 >> Yes. So that aquatic funding is twofold.
1:23:05 Um I'm I'm not party to which why what
1:23:08 some cities got dedicated funding and
1:23:11 others don't. Um, I can tell you that
1:23:14 most of that funding is done through a
1:23:15 competitive a very competitive grant
1:23:17 process. And so, um, that's something
1:23:20 we're very aware of. Um, and again, as
1:23:23 we feel like we have answers from the
1:23:25 school district and maybe when funding,
1:23:27 their funding would be available. Uh,
1:23:29 we've pursued King County, they're aware
1:23:31 of our desired pool expansion and
1:23:33 whether um, we seek funding through the
1:23:37 grant process is what we would
1:23:38 absolutely do because that's available
1:23:40 to us. Um um sorry I can't really speak
1:23:44 to why um some others were identified as
1:23:48 as direct funders.
1:23:50 >> That's fair. Thank you.
1:23:53 >> So I have a question. I'm just as we've
1:23:55 been chatting I've been taking a look at
1:23:57 the capital improvement plan the part
1:23:59 the parks portion.
1:24:00 >> Um do do synthetic turf fields sort of
1:24:04 swamp everything else so to speak
1:24:06 metaphorically. I did not intend that as
1:24:07 a pun, but I guess it came out as a pun.
1:24:09 funding cost.
1:24:10 >> The funding cost is it really a
1:24:11 different order of magnitude than some
1:24:13 of the other items we have here? Because
1:24:14 I look at pad 2 and in the plan that's
1:24:18 $9 million.
1:24:20 >> Yeah. And that's $9 million because do
1:24:23 we consider completely moving a restroom
1:24:25 and a sewer system? And I mean there's
1:24:27 other elements that aren't just turf.
1:24:29 >> Okay. um as we evaluate this and and
1:24:32 wouldn't necessarily play with a school
1:24:33 site, but um to your initial question, I
1:24:37 wouldn't say they they swamp
1:24:38 necessarily, but they are they are
1:24:41 expensive, much more expensive per
1:24:43 square foot.
1:24:44 >> They are a different class of solution.
1:24:47 A lot of these are 2 million, 3 million
1:24:50 kind of solutions, but they're they're
1:24:52 bigger, right?
1:24:53 >> Yeah. And again, we will do each each
1:24:56 school site if we're looking at those
1:24:58 three school sites provide or have um
1:25:01 some different site considerations that
1:25:03 we need to keep in mind. None of which
1:25:05 are as big or as complex as Central Park
1:25:08 pad 2. Um so again, we'll have an idea,
1:25:13 but yes, if we did two of them, it's
1:25:15 probably in the order of magnitude to
1:25:17 complete those two 8 to10 million of the
1:25:20 work. Yes. And I just said 10 minutes
1:25:22 ago how much people love Turfields,
1:25:24 right? So I'm I'm not I'm not suggesting
1:25:26 it's a bad idea. I'm just pointing out
1:25:27 that it's in a different, you know, as
1:25:29 you t-shirt these, right? Small, medium,
1:25:31 and large. They're, you know, there's a
1:25:32 bunch of these that are by capital
1:25:34 improvement plan standards sort of
1:25:36 small. Turfields are not small. They're
1:25:38 at least they're they're they're a
1:25:40 decent size investment. They're also um
1:25:42 great projects for uh grant funding. You
1:25:45 may be familiar when we when the 2013
1:25:48 bond funded um Central Park Pad 1. Um
1:25:52 only about a million dollars of the bond
1:25:54 funded that $5 million project. Um that
1:25:57 $5 million project was found with other
1:25:59 some other grant sources and other
1:26:01 funding sources. So we um again feel
1:26:04 those projects um especially and done in
1:26:06 the form of a partnership between two
1:26:08 public agencies could really be great
1:26:10 candidates for some grant funding.
1:26:14 Deputy Council President.
1:26:16 >> Um, so is there going to be an
1:26:18 opportunity for us to, you know,
1:26:23 consider adding additional projects to
1:26:26 this list?
1:26:32 >> Sorry, had to get a drink of water. It's
1:26:34 much better. Um,
1:26:39 your pleasure. Yes. If you want to
1:26:42 either add um I think as we get a sense
1:26:44 of cost of these it's probably add
1:26:47 addition and subtraction
1:26:49 um if there's a desire to add something
1:26:51 you know something else probably needs
1:26:53 to be taken off um but absolutely you
1:26:56 know as we again try and really explore
1:26:59 this over the next couple of months um
1:27:02 those are are definitely considerations.
1:27:06 >> Thank you. I mean I I will add I think
1:27:09 there would be I mean you know we have
1:27:11 we have a list of the the touches that
1:27:13 we potentially have in front of us
1:27:15 services if parts is is is one of them.
1:27:17 I mean, I I I think I I may be hearing
1:27:20 from the council a question about
1:27:23 whether the requirement of just having
1:27:25 it be a replacement um versus something
1:27:28 else um might be a question that we'd
1:27:31 want to address before we said exactly
1:27:34 what was in it because what I'm hearing
1:27:36 is that there are council members I what
1:27:38 what I think I'm hearing is that there's
1:27:40 there's some interest in considering
1:27:42 something more than just a replacement
1:27:44 and and we should think about that um
1:27:46 before we decide decided to add or
1:27:48 subtract things from a administration
1:27:50 recommendation.
1:27:52 I guess we're getting into the the
1:27:56 I just want to point that out to your
1:27:58 question about opportunities for touch.
1:28:00 There's also opportunities for strategic
1:28:02 conversations as well. I'm not notice I
1:28:04 wasn't recommending one or the other.
1:28:05 I'm just saying it could be a
1:28:07 conversation that we would have.
1:28:10 >> I'm sorry, Deputy Council President.
1:28:12 >> Um okay, another question. So, you
1:28:14 mentioned there's the 2013 park bonds as
1:28:16 well. Um, do you know when those are
1:28:18 going to be expiring because potentially
1:28:20 that would be another park bond renewal
1:28:22 opportunity?
1:28:24 >> Yes. And again, I can confirm that with
1:28:26 with finance and as we work a little
1:28:28 closer with the bond council. I if if
1:28:31 they weren't um um
1:28:35 well just 20-year clock that'd be 2033
1:28:38 that we're likely looking at those
1:28:41 expiring. Yep.
1:28:44 >> Great. Thank you.
1:28:45 >> You got it.
1:28:54 Okay,
1:28:56 great questions. Really appreciate it.
1:28:58 Um, timing and next steps. Uh, we've
1:29:00 touched on these a little bit. Um, we've
1:29:03 had some some prior discussions. The
1:29:04 mayor joined Mayor Mullet uh joined us
1:29:07 as staff at the February uh parkboard
1:29:09 meeting to initiate this idea um and
1:29:12 begin to get parkboard feedback. We then
1:29:14 followed up at the March meeting. Um
1:29:16 lots of questions, lots of support um um
1:29:20 in that discussion. More to be had. Here
1:29:22 we are tonight. Um community outreach is
1:29:25 something that is going to be really
1:29:26 really important. And I think as I've
1:29:28 shared with some of you um given the
1:29:30 timing of of this potential bless you
1:29:32 renewal um uh we're um kind of uniquely
1:29:38 doing community engagement at the same
1:29:40 time we're having really really
1:29:41 important council discussion. And I just
1:29:43 I want to be very intentional about and
1:29:45 obvious. I think it's going to be
1:29:46 important to do both of those in
1:29:48 parallel. Not that we're trying to get
1:29:50 out in front of you. Uh but I think
1:29:52 informing and beginning to have
1:29:53 conversations with the community is
1:29:55 important. Uh we're looking at some
1:29:56 creative ideas of doing that. Um
1:29:59 something we would love to do is take
1:30:00 the presentation as we've shared with
1:30:02 you tonight. um share that with uh board
1:30:05 and commission liaison um and invite um
1:30:08 an opportunity for Robin or I or both of
1:30:10 us to go to board and commission
1:30:12 meetings and and get begin to get some
1:30:14 feedback from those residents um and
1:30:16 just find ways to uh begin to percolate
1:30:19 conversation about this idea um um
1:30:21 within the community um obviously as we
1:30:24 head into spring summer as we're doing
1:30:26 potentially more I don't want to jump
1:30:28 the gun but if if there's interest from
1:30:29 council exploring this further um we
1:30:32 would want to be doing community
1:30:34 engagement at some of our spring and
1:30:35 summer events um while at the same time
1:30:38 having uh these possible conversations
1:30:40 and further conversations with uh with
1:30:42 all of you.
1:30:44 So opportunities both as as council
1:30:47 president mentioned uh some upcoming
1:30:49 services, safety and parks committee
1:30:50 meetings, also the city council retreat
1:30:52 on May 9th if this is pera perhaps an
1:30:56 agenda item. um that that meeting um
1:31:00 we're looking for having a park board
1:31:03 recommendation to you um sometime there
1:31:06 late May early June ideally working back
1:31:09 from a November 3rd election uh June
1:31:12 early July we would really be uh really
1:31:15 an important decision point for council
1:31:17 uh to consider making a decision at that
1:31:19 time um it's August 4th that we would
1:31:22 need um ballot measure information to
1:31:25 King County elections
1:31:27 to get on to the November election. So,
1:31:30 just some important dates to keep in
1:31:32 mind as as we consider what further
1:31:35 discussion looks like on this item.
1:31:39 And with that, I thank you so much for
1:31:42 uh the questions through the
1:31:43 presentation.
1:31:45 Is the mouse is getting kind of funny on
1:31:47 me here.
1:31:51 It seriously will not stay in one place.
1:31:56 Um back to the discussion, the direction
1:31:57 needed um uh these four points um in
1:32:01 terms of the idea um how we prioritize
1:32:04 and consider uh projects uh what size
1:32:07 package looks like um and just
1:32:10 additional information. Um appreciate
1:32:12 any and all discussion and feedback you
1:32:14 can give us tonight. Thanks.
1:32:18 Council Council Member Nichols, do you
1:32:20 have a question?
1:32:22 So this is if we don't have any
1:32:24 otherformational questions and are ready
1:32:26 to consider deliberation of the
1:32:28 direction needed, I will ask again to
1:32:31 the public. This is the third and um
1:32:34 hypothetically final opportunity for
1:32:36 public comment this evening um on the
1:32:38 particulars of this item. So once again
1:32:40 it is press star three or look for the
1:32:44 hand icon. Uh or if anybody in the room
1:32:47 looks like we have someone in the room
1:32:49 who's interested in speaking if you uh
1:32:51 would like to give us your name and your
1:32:53 relationship to the city that would be
1:32:54 swell.
1:32:55 >> Yes. Hello. Uh good evening council
1:32:57 members. Uh my name is Christian Canam.
1:32:59 I'm a property owner up in the Squawk
1:33:02 neighborhood in 1080 Ridgewood Circle
1:33:05 Southwest. Um yeah I like the list put
1:33:08 together tonight. I think um it has a
1:33:12 fair balance between as you mentioned
1:33:14 like the city parks and the more
1:33:16 traditional rural parks. Um I'm
1:33:19 definitely someone who leans more
1:33:20 towards the royal parks. Um I bought the
1:33:24 house I have now in Isqua for the sole
1:33:27 purpose or for the primary reason but
1:33:30 that for the trail system in Isiqua for
1:33:33 Cougar Mountain, for Squawk and for
1:33:35 Tiger. Um, I think that's what makes
1:33:37 Isiqua uh sets Isqua apart from the
1:33:40 neighboring towns and what makes it
1:33:42 really special and we should lean into
1:33:44 that. Um, I also think we should
1:33:48 consider some of the recurring costs
1:33:50 that are incurred. Um, like for example,
1:33:53 if you want a pool, um, that's not going
1:33:56 to be cheap to maintain year after year.
1:33:59 I think that's a great idea, but that
1:34:00 should be considered as well. Um
1:34:03 something like a trail would have uh I
1:34:06 believe like more minimal reoccurring
1:34:08 costs. Um so I'd like to see that cost
1:34:11 versus benefit breakdown over time and
1:34:14 how it factors in reoccurring costs. Um
1:34:17 I would like to specifically voice my
1:34:21 support for three of those projects. Um,
1:34:25 so the Bill Ramos trail head, I drive by
1:34:29 that trail head all the time and I see
1:34:32 oftentimes overflowing with cars
1:34:34 spilling out into the neighborhoods and
1:34:35 it's kind of a safety concern. I don't
1:34:37 think the proposal was to expand that
1:34:40 trail head at all, but paving it and
1:34:42 putting lines down will make it more
1:34:44 organized and improve safety. Um, same
1:34:48 with the bathroom. people tend to
1:34:52 figure out their own ways to go to the
1:34:54 bathroom at trail heads and it's not
1:34:56 always the most sanitary conditions. Um,
1:34:58 so I believe a bathroom there would help
1:35:00 a lot. Um, Cougar Mountain and the
1:35:04 Squawk Mountain corridors,
1:35:06 that's kind of my own selfish thing. I'm
1:35:08 on the trails every day running or
1:35:10 hiking. More trails the better. Um, and
1:35:15 also I would like to propose
1:35:18 uh additional project there. Um, there's
1:35:21 the bullet fireplace trail head up in
1:35:22 the Squawk neighborhood that I believe
1:35:25 um should be considered for a bathroom
1:35:27 as well. Um, I also see I've know seen
1:35:32 friends who have gotten their cars
1:35:33 broken into in the neighborhood or that
1:35:35 trail head. I think it's sort of
1:35:37 neglected. Um, so if we can put cameras
1:35:41 kind of up in that um, trail head area
1:35:45 and also the East Sunset or the Bill of
1:35:47 Ramos trail head, I think that would be
1:35:49 a huge benefit as well. Um, yeah, thank
1:35:54 >> Thank you. Thank you for your comment.
1:35:56 And I will ask the clerk whether we see
1:35:58 any indication that anyone online wishes
1:36:01 to speak to us at this time.
1:36:04 >> Not at this time.
1:36:05 >> Not at this time. All right. So, we can
1:36:07 move into the deliberation on the four
1:36:09 points above. Um, I think we can take
1:36:13 them as a group. I don't think we have
1:36:15 to go through them item by item. Uh, I
1:36:17 see I saw Council Member Nichols uh uh
1:36:20 flick his camera first.
1:36:23 >> Technically, it's a microphone. Sorry,
1:36:25 not your camera. Your microphone. Um, it
1:36:28 was close. I so I I really only have
1:36:31 highlevel comments and that's in part
1:36:33 because my comments are really about the
1:36:35 way that I think this was constructed
1:36:37 that might have limited
1:36:40 it coming up with the best possible
1:36:42 options. Um
1:36:44 I want to start by saying that I don't I
1:36:46 don't really believe in the concept of a
1:36:48 bond renewal. Um if we don't renew it,
1:36:51 taxes go down. Um and that we should be
1:36:53 very cognizant of that. like this is
1:36:55 something that people should be vote
1:36:56 when they're voting on are aware of and
1:36:58 we need to be as well. Um so it's not a
1:37:02 renewal. We're asking for more money to
1:37:04 do new things. Yes, it's at the same
1:37:06 rate that people have been paying, but
1:37:08 fundamentally this is a new ask. Um and
1:37:10 I don't think we could we should or it's
1:37:12 fair to justify to voters just based on
1:37:15 the fact that they got used to paying a
1:37:16 certain amount. Um,
1:37:20 I think that's important also because I
1:37:21 think the voters are primarily voting on
1:37:24 how important they feel a a thing or a
1:37:26 package is. Um, and in whether the
1:37:29 public really believes in funding that
1:37:31 or those those that concert of
1:37:32 activities. I I think we saw this very
1:37:39 this this point was very well made uh
1:37:41 over the course of the the school
1:37:43 district's recent bond efforts to fund a
1:37:45 new high school. Like the fact that the
1:37:48 significant decrease in the second
1:37:49 effort there and the total cost of that
1:37:51 high school having essentially zero
1:37:53 impact on the overall outcome of that
1:37:57 vote is indicative of the fact that
1:37:58 voters are they're they're looking at
1:38:00 the value of the specific thing.
1:38:02 whether they can get excited about it,
1:38:04 whether they're really interested in it,
1:38:05 and if we do a good job picking the
1:38:08 right things and selling them on it, um
1:38:10 that it's that it's worth spending their
1:38:12 their hardearned tax dollars on. Um
1:38:15 that's what we should be focusing on. I
1:38:16 think setting the overall vision first,
1:38:18 not being constrained necessarily
1:38:20 constrained to the specific dollar
1:38:22 value. Now, of course, we we we have to
1:38:24 still be reasonable. Like, at the end of
1:38:25 the day, we're we're going to want to
1:38:27 propose reasonable
1:38:30 bond packages, but having that as an
1:38:32 initial constraint, I think might have
1:38:34 impacted this in a way that is is kind
1:38:36 of catastrophic for the overall set of
1:38:40 things to come together. Because when
1:38:41 when I look at this, um it looks like we
1:38:45 don't really have a vision that we were
1:38:47 going towards. It looks like we have a a
1:38:49 kind of a laundry list or it looks kind
1:38:51 of like a Frankenstein effort in some
1:38:52 ways where we're trying to piece
1:38:54 together a variety of independently
1:38:56 useful appendages. Um, but without
1:38:59 necessarily a master plan except that it
1:39:01 has to fit X dollars. So without that
1:39:05 central vision, it's really hard for me
1:39:07 to imagine myself showing up at
1:39:09 somebody's door and selling this thing.
1:39:12 like I like all these things
1:39:13 individually, but I don't genuinely know
1:39:15 what I would say to somebody if I was
1:39:16 trying to convince them to vote for
1:39:18 this, at least with those those packages
1:39:20 as is, without a better central vision
1:39:22 that ties it all together. Um, which is
1:39:24 not to say I don't like any of these
1:39:26 things. I I like that whole list. I
1:39:27 would I love them all. They all sound
1:39:28 great. Um, they also maybe sound like
1:39:31 kind of smalish things that we could
1:39:33 consider doing on a year-to-year basis
1:39:35 or looking for grant funding, as you
1:39:36 mentioned, for some of those. Um so my
1:39:39 my perspective is that this needs
1:39:43 one of a couple things. A central vision
1:39:46 that ties these things together in a way
1:39:48 that we can broadly understand and
1:39:51 believe ourselves and then communicate
1:39:53 to the public that um says what these
1:39:56 things are um and why we should why they
1:39:59 why they make sense together as a single
1:40:01 package. I don't want to debate that
1:40:03 right now. I think that needs a lot of
1:40:04 input and there's a lot of good ideas
1:40:05 there. That central vision could be a
1:40:07 halo project like a pool. Um it could be
1:40:09 a trail system that really connects alto
1:40:11 together. There's a b bunch of things
1:40:12 that I could imagine that that could
1:40:14 where you could have a vision and then
1:40:16 part of your approach of getting there
1:40:18 is coming up with the right things that
1:40:19 meet that vision. But just
1:40:22 being constrained at the beginning to
1:40:26 a dollar value and then trying to pick
1:40:30 kind of peanut butter around different
1:40:33 projects that are all kind of smallalish
1:40:35 to different areas to fit within that
1:40:36 that dollar value feels uncompelling to
1:40:39 me in a way that I think the voters may
1:40:42 also not buy into. Um, and it also seems
1:40:45 like a missed opportunity in part
1:40:46 because some of these projects we really
1:40:49 could probably do on a on a year-to-year
1:40:51 basis if we get grant funding for them,
1:40:53 etc. We can't probably do that with some
1:40:55 of the bigger things or with some of the
1:40:57 more visionary things that we that you
1:40:59 could in principle put together as part
1:41:01 of a more unified
1:41:03 I would dare I say visionary package.
1:41:09 Thank you. Uh, I believe it was Council
1:41:11 Member Adair was next.
1:41:14 Um, so obviously I want to lead with
1:41:18 very much appreciate all your hard work
1:41:20 and all the time with this. Um, I can so
1:41:23 for me and especially coming from the
1:41:25 parks board, I can say when this was
1:41:28 brought to me and I looked through it, I
1:41:29 became very excited. You know, I'd
1:41:31 worked in there for a while. I'd seen
1:41:32 many of these projects and others be
1:41:34 listed as these things we want to do one
1:41:36 day. and seeing a list of oh, we can
1:41:38 knock we can actually do these um now
1:41:41 made me very excited and happy to see
1:41:43 this package. You know, I support this
1:41:45 idea a lot because I do think our city
1:41:48 takes a great deal of pride in our
1:41:50 parks. something that anytime I talk
1:41:52 about people love Isiqua Parks and so
1:41:55 the idea of a vote you know that they
1:41:57 need to continue taxes or new taxes I
1:41:59 think is would be widely supported in
1:42:02 this community because it's some it's
1:42:03 just I think our parks are a point of
1:42:06 pride and so I I I do think this um I
1:42:09 would encourage the full council to if
1:42:12 you haven't to read the park plan uh
1:42:14 which actually at least a lot of these
1:42:16 you know the short-term ones that are
1:42:17 listed here as well as others that are
1:42:19 in there as well as I do think there is
1:42:21 a vision in it. Um though I can see your
1:42:23 point council member goes about you know
1:42:25 how we sell that vision within these
1:42:27 because it is a bunch of disparate
1:42:28 ideas. How I've seen it is that I I feel
1:42:32 it's as as stated so many people get
1:42:36 take something different out of the
1:42:37 parks. What they think of isqua parks is
1:42:39 different and some people think it's the
1:42:40 trails some people think it's the
1:42:41 playgrounds some people you know think
1:42:43 it's the fields that they get to use.
1:42:45 And so by having this where it addresses
1:42:48 multiple needs, it's us telling the
1:42:50 community, hey, we hear all of you and
1:42:52 we are want to improve our parks, add to
1:42:55 our parks, and we're trying to um answer
1:42:58 m multiple needs for everybody here. So
1:43:01 I feel like there is a vision in this.
1:43:03 Maybe there's a better way to clarify it
1:43:05 and that might help. Um but I, you know,
1:43:09 saying I fully, uh endorse and like this
1:43:12 plan. My kind of notes to it is that one
1:43:15 of the big things for me which was
1:43:17 brought up is and also in connection to
1:43:19 our earlier discussion about city hall
1:43:21 is that community space has been a big
1:43:23 priority and I've heard it a lot and I
1:43:26 see that we are addressing it a bit with
1:43:28 the e house and I look through the plan
1:43:30 to try and see if there were others.
1:43:32 That's something I would just want to be
1:43:34 considered if there is other
1:43:35 opportunities for community space within
1:43:38 some of our other plans. I I don't know
1:43:40 that there is. I did do a pass on it and
1:43:42 I did not see that but I do know that
1:43:44 that is um desired a great deal and
1:43:47 demanded a lot and if there is any other
1:43:49 opportunity that may add one more space
1:43:52 amongst our projects would be great. Um
1:43:55 the other thing that would be nice is
1:43:57 because I know you've been so successful
1:43:59 at grants and things like that if there
1:44:01 is like a second tier list that's like
1:44:04 if we're able to get grants and actually
1:44:05 have money left over of some other
1:44:08 little projects that could be done. For
1:44:09 example, I know also the other big ask
1:44:11 has been the different types of park
1:44:12 amenities, you know, more community
1:44:14 gardens, archery, you know, other types
1:44:17 of activities that we might be able to
1:44:19 incorporate that could be maybe cheap,
1:44:21 but like where we could fit in another
1:44:23 little activity here and there to again
1:44:26 continue making a very well-rounded and
1:44:29 accessible park space for everybody. So,
1:44:31 those are kind of the two thoughts I've
1:44:32 had in this, but um overall um I support
1:44:36 this a lot and this vision. Thank you,
1:44:39 Council Member Walsh.
1:44:42 >> Thank you. Um, as I look at this, I
1:44:45 mean, my first reaction is gosh, we
1:44:48 really love our parks in Isiqua. We
1:44:50 highly value our open space, our sports
1:44:53 facilities, our playgrounds, our trails.
1:44:55 All of this can be seen by the users of
1:44:58 our parks and um, also by the portion of
1:45:02 our budget that we already commit to the
1:45:06 park system. Um,
1:45:09 all of that being said, I want to take a
1:45:12 step back from everything because
1:45:16 this does feel like it's coming up
1:45:18 because there is a potential for a
1:45:21 renewal and it's not coming up at the
1:45:24 same time as our budget season where we
1:45:26 can really highly understand and
1:45:30 evaluate all of our potential needs and
1:45:34 costs.
1:45:37 and so that's that's part of my concern.
1:45:41 Um, also when I look at page 37 of our
1:45:46 capital improvement project or plan, I
1:45:49 see that of the 53.8 million in parks
1:45:53 projects that are allocated for that
1:45:55 six-year period, we already have 46.1
1:45:59 million of identified revenue. that
1:46:02 covers 85% of what we have said we were
1:46:06 going to do over a six-year period. Now,
1:46:10 that doesn't include all of these
1:46:12 projects that are being presented here.
1:46:14 Um, but for the four projects in this
1:46:18 proposal that are in the six-year CIP,
1:46:20 there's only a gap of $4.5 million in
1:46:23 needed revenue. And so the rest of that
1:46:28 is already
1:46:30 proposed to be funded by REIT and park
1:46:33 impact fees and grants.
1:46:36 So I come back to this. Do we need to
1:46:40 pause for something?
1:46:42 No. Okay. Um, I come back to this and on
1:46:48 the one hand, I want to celebrate our
1:46:49 ability to prioritize and find funding
1:46:51 for our parks needs, but also question
1:46:56 whether this is truly the place where we
1:46:58 need additional revenue and a bond. um
1:47:03 when I am taking that step back and
1:47:05 looking at all of our comprehensive
1:47:07 needs in the city, I would say there are
1:47:10 many areas where we have a lot of both
1:47:14 capital needs and operational needs that
1:47:17 we don't have revenue for. So when we're
1:47:20 looking at our CIP, our municipal
1:47:22 facilities area where we have six years
1:47:24 of projects, our identified revenue only
1:47:26 covers 45%. And so that's an area where
1:47:29 I feel like we have bigger gaps and
1:47:32 maybe more of a need to go out to voters
1:47:35 for coverage, but I'm also really
1:47:38 concerned about tax fatigue. Um, we are
1:47:41 not the only ones that are going to be
1:47:43 going to voters asking for funds. Uh,
1:47:46 King County certainly has uh projects
1:47:49 out there that they're planning to take
1:47:51 to voters. And I think we need to take
1:47:54 our consideration. you know, we had a
1:47:56 plan for the different revenue sources
1:47:59 that we felt like we could go to voters
1:48:02 for. Um, and then there are other things
1:48:05 that have come up such as East Side Fire
1:48:07 and Rescue. And so that's going to be
1:48:10 potentially a big ask to the community.
1:48:13 Um, I also get concerned that doing this
1:48:17 smaller $17 million bond may eliminate
1:48:20 or postpone our ability to effectively
1:48:23 go to the community for a larger park
1:48:26 district, which could cover not only
1:48:28 capital needs, but also operational
1:48:30 needs at potentially a much higher rate.
1:48:33 So, I want to make sure we are not
1:48:34 shooting ourselves in the foot either
1:48:36 for additional revenue needs um such as
1:48:40 Eastside Fire and Rescue, but also
1:48:42 larger revenue from a park district that
1:48:44 could create that kind of comprehensive
1:48:46 idea of here are the things that we love
1:48:50 about our parks. Um and then finally, I
1:48:53 will say our operational needs. I I
1:48:57 if we are going to go to the voters for
1:49:00 anything, I feel like uh we can make
1:49:03 choices to cut back on capital projects.
1:49:07 Um where we cannot make as easily make
1:49:12 cuts is many of our operational and
1:49:14 staffing needs. And so when I'm just
1:49:17 coming through all of this, I love these
1:49:19 projects, but I also feel like many of
1:49:21 these projects are already have
1:49:23 identified revenue in RCIP. I know CIP
1:49:26 is not a budget. I get all of that, but
1:49:30 seems like we already have a plan for
1:49:32 many of these. So, I'm not connecting
1:49:35 the need for a bond with these projects
1:49:39 being something that um voters would
1:49:42 necessarily pass.
1:49:44 >> Thank you, Deputy Council President
1:49:46 Chang.
1:49:47 >> Um great. Thank you, Council President.
1:49:49 So um on the point of REIT, so if you
1:49:52 look at in the capital improvement plan,
1:49:54 I think last year when we were talking
1:49:55 about this, we we said for the first
1:49:57 time ever, we actually don't have a
1:49:59 balanced cap capital improvement plan
1:50:01 for the first two years of this one
1:50:03 because we don't know with economic
1:50:04 uncertainty. And so our projected ending
1:50:07 balance in REIT by 2032 is $42 million.
1:50:11 So projects that have identified REIT as
1:50:12 a potential source, that doesn't
1:50:14 actually mean that we're going to have
1:50:15 the money to do them from REIT. Um, so I
1:50:17 just want to make that clear that just
1:50:18 because we think that we, you know, it's
1:50:20 like, oh, what money are we going to
1:50:21 use? Well, REIT is a funding source that
1:50:23 exists, that is not actually the case.
1:50:26 Um, and the amount of revenue we're
1:50:28 bringing in from REIT is just nowhere
1:50:30 near the amount of projects that we've
1:50:32 identified that we think are going to be
1:50:33 funded from that. On the point of
1:50:35 community space, this is a little bit
1:50:37 tangential to this discussion, but I do
1:50:39 think we could be doing a better job of
1:50:40 advertising some of the community spaces
1:50:42 that already exist. For example, did you
1:50:44 know that every fire almost every fire
1:50:46 station has a meeting room that can be
1:50:48 used? It is really easy to book them,
1:50:50 which indicates to me that people don't
1:50:51 know about it. And so I think that could
1:50:53 be something like on the website, you
1:50:55 know, oh, are you looking for community
1:50:56 space? Here are some places. Um,
1:50:59 and and before I I think this kind of
1:51:03 goes to my point on, you know, the turf
1:51:05 fields, like before we spend $5 million
1:51:07 on a new turf field, can we at least try
1:51:09 our best to get public access to the
1:51:10 turf field that has already been built
1:51:12 and exists. Um, I want to echo council
1:51:15 member Walsh's point on the need for
1:51:17 operational funding. So, Isiqua's park
1:51:20 staff are amazing. Last year I actually
1:51:22 had the opportunity to volunteer at this
1:51:23 elementary school um cross country meet
1:51:26 and when I was there I mean Isiqua had
1:51:29 the biggest team by far. We had like a
1:51:31 hundred something kids. The next biggest
1:51:33 one was 30ome kids. I ran into my friend
1:51:35 who lives in Belleview who sends his kid
1:51:37 to the Isiqua program because he says it
1:51:39 is just so much better. And and so you
1:51:42 know these are the types of programs
1:51:43 that are beneficial to our residents.
1:51:45 And I think
1:51:48 we really do need to think about, you
1:51:50 know, how we continue those. Um, when I
1:51:53 was talking with some of the staff
1:51:54 there, you know, given where we were at
1:51:55 in the last budget cycle, there were
1:51:56 some budget cuts. And so, there are some
1:51:58 things they weren't able to do last year
1:51:59 that or this year that they were able to
1:52:01 do in previous years. I would hate to
1:52:03 see that cut more. And so, I'd love for
1:52:05 us to think about, you know, what's the
1:52:07 right balance of operational versus
1:52:09 capital funding when we go out to
1:52:10 voters. That said, I am generally very
1:52:13 excited about the bond. Um I do
1:52:15 especially the trail uh projects given
1:52:17 that I'm president of Isiqua Alps trails
1:52:19 club. I think you know we've done a lot
1:52:21 of great work on acquisitions but you
1:52:24 know we haven't really activated those
1:52:26 ac acquisitions. Um so this is a really
1:52:29 good opportunity for us to do that. Um I
1:52:31 also want to echo um council member
1:52:33 Dar's point on the additional amenities.
1:52:35 Um, I have another friend who uh
1:52:37 basically had to wait 3 years to get a
1:52:39 community garden plot because there's
1:52:41 only, I don't know, a couple dozen in
1:52:43 the entire city. This doesn't seem like
1:52:45 something that would be really
1:52:46 expensive, but you know, especially as
1:52:49 we want to build more dense housing and
1:52:51 folks aren't going to have backyards.
1:52:53 Um, I think this is going to be
1:52:55 increasingly an important amenity for
1:52:57 folks, you know, who want to move to
1:52:58 central Isiqua. So, I would encourage
1:53:00 the inclusion of that. It's honestly
1:53:02 probably like really small compared to
1:53:04 putting in a huge turf field. So would
1:53:06 encourage that as well. Thank you.
1:53:09 One more thing. Sorry. Um so I would
1:53:12 also love to see um a breakdown of for
1:53:15 each project, you know, what's the
1:53:16 expected cost and how much grant money
1:53:18 we're able to leverage. My understanding
1:53:20 is this one, you know, it's like 17
1:53:21 million and we think we're going to be
1:53:23 able to leverage about 3 million grant
1:53:25 funding. That seems really low. Um, our
1:53:28 2013 bond, I found some PDF that says
1:53:31 the bond amount to voters was 10 million
1:53:34 and the grant amount was 6.3 million. So
1:53:36 that's 60% of the bond value that we
1:53:40 leveraged in grants. So I would love to
1:53:41 see our number for this bond be, you
1:53:43 know, closer to that instead of like 16%
1:53:46 or whatever. Um, but overall, you know,
1:53:48 I think I want to thank you for all the
1:53:50 hard work on this. Um, but definitely
1:53:52 want to see some more of these details
1:53:54 on projects that weren't included, how
1:53:55 much grant funding are we expecting to
1:53:56 leverage, etc., etc.
1:53:59 >> Council member Joe.
1:54:02 >> Thank you, Council President. Um,
1:54:05 Jeff, thanks for all your hard work on
1:54:07 this. Uh, I remember being on council in
1:54:10 2006 when we passed the first one of
1:54:13 these. And it does take 60% of the
1:54:16 public to to um approve them. And uh the
1:54:21 way that we had put them together when
1:54:23 Margaret Mloud was with the parks
1:54:26 department and when Anne McIll was
1:54:28 running things is we wanted to make sure
1:54:30 that the bond had an appeal to a wide
1:54:33 audience. A little bit to kids, families
1:54:36 with kids, a little bit for people that
1:54:39 had kids in the little league program,
1:54:42 little bit for the trail system. It
1:54:44 wasn't a great deal of money that we put
1:54:46 aside, but we took a little bit aside
1:54:48 every year and and squirreled it away.
1:54:51 Because we did that, we were able to
1:54:53 leverage those monies to get the Kolkari
1:54:56 property. We're able to leverage that
1:54:58 money to get the other pieces of
1:55:00 property, to preserve our wooded
1:55:02 hillsides, and to preserve our streams.
1:55:06 And when we do that, as many of my
1:55:08 council members recall, we're able to
1:55:10 come to the table with some money. And
1:55:13 when we do that, we're able to say, "We
1:55:15 are committed to this project. We are
1:55:18 putting our own money in that we have
1:55:19 saved and had a vision for our future
1:55:23 and we're putting that money on the
1:55:24 table." Doing that increased our
1:55:27 viability or our b our rating for that
1:55:30 particular application and got us
1:55:33 further up in the scale so that we could
1:55:34 be eligible for those funds. Um the
1:55:37 projects that we put aside in 2006 and
1:55:40 2013 weren't big, but we put away a
1:55:42 little bit of money every year um so
1:55:44 that we could make that happen. Um
1:55:47 getting to the point of the the park
1:55:49 plan because we started that back in
1:55:51 1999 because we did it in 2006. The park
1:55:55 plan that came out that council member
1:55:56 Adair uh mentioned outlines
1:56:00 the system that we would like to see and
1:56:03 the investments that we would like to
1:56:05 see in the future as we go forward. So,
1:56:08 we've acquired the Kolkari property and
1:56:10 the other other pieces and as council
1:56:12 member as deputy council president Jen
1:56:14 points out, we're trying to leverage
1:56:16 that trail system now by getting uh
1:56:19 amenities near that trail system so that
1:56:21 we can make it accessible to as many
1:56:22 people as possible. and we want to
1:56:24 continue to work on acquiring land
1:56:25 around our creek and preserving our
1:56:27 forested hillsides. Um so in general I
1:56:31 think that this plan has been well
1:56:33 thought out. It has appealed to
1:56:35 different uh audiences in the in the
1:56:38 group. We heard from um our audience
1:56:40 commenter who talked about why the trail
1:56:42 system was important to him and he even
1:56:44 suggested some additional things that we
1:56:46 could consider when we're trying to
1:56:48 leverage our funds for uh funding from
1:56:51 King County and the state and other
1:56:53 organizations that might come forward.
1:56:55 That conversation is important, but
1:56:58 getting this piece in place so that in
1:57:02 November it can be on the ballot is that
1:57:04 first touchstone that makes everything
1:57:07 else possible. And so I'm really excited
1:57:10 about the program that's here. I'm
1:57:12 excited about the pieces that are in
1:57:13 there. Um, and I would hope that we
1:57:16 would be able to move forward with them
1:57:18 so that it reaches a wide audience and
1:57:20 as many people as possible and leverages
1:57:23 the money that we have in a way that is
1:57:25 going to be long-term vision for the
1:57:28 future of our community. As we look at
1:57:30 this from 2006, 20 years later, here we
1:57:34 are, but we started from very, very
1:57:35 humble and small beginnings. I want to
1:57:37 thank you for all the work that was done
1:57:39 and um, I'll call Ann McIll um, tomorrow
1:57:42 morning to thank her as well. Thank you.
1:57:45 >> Tell her I said hi. Uh, so I want to try
1:57:50 to put some thoughts around what I've
1:57:53 I've heard in the last 20 minutes from
1:57:56 the rest of the council. Um, boy, do we
1:57:59 feel passionately about our parks.
1:58:02 You know, we talk about traffic and we
1:58:04 talk about housing and we talk about a
1:58:06 lot of things. Um, but clearly what you
1:58:09 what you've heard tonight is is just an
1:58:11 amazing passion. um for our park system
1:58:14 and uh a real desire to have uh uh any
1:58:19 bond that we move forward with be
1:58:20 impactful, right? Um
1:58:24 tangentially maybe a little bit is this
1:58:26 this conversation around community
1:58:27 spaces. I just want to mention um I I
1:58:30 love the idea of us trying to do force
1:58:32 multipliers on our community spaces. I
1:58:34 miss meeting at the Isqua Trail Center,
1:58:36 right? I for years and years I loved
1:58:38 meeting in that space and um you know
1:58:41 it's just an example of community
1:58:43 spaces. But um this question about a
1:58:45 replacement bond versus what I think of
1:58:47 as swinging for the fences. I mean
1:58:48 they're both viable solutions, right? Um
1:58:52 when you go with a replacement bond,
1:58:54 what you're saying is historical
1:58:55 stewardship, right? You're saying um
1:58:57 we've done this before. You've told us
1:58:59 that it was important before and we are
1:59:02 going to uh we would like to continue
1:59:04 doing it, right? we would like to
1:59:06 continue putting together uh things that
1:59:09 uh like we have done in the past, right?
1:59:12 And I think that's a viable conversation
1:59:14 you can have with the public. I think
1:59:16 it's also possible that swinging for the
1:59:18 fences is important, right? Um just to
1:59:22 pick the one that I always love to think
1:59:23 of, Confluence Park could be the number
1:59:26 one municipal party park in King County.
1:59:29 It could be, you know, it could top the
1:59:32 lists of of municipal parks in this
1:59:34 entire county. I believe um and it's a
1:59:37 and there's a huge investment to get
1:59:38 there, right? To to integrate and
1:59:41 connect to the creeks um in the way that
1:59:44 it would take in the way that it wants
1:59:46 to be in the way that we've talked about
1:59:47 would would be a large investment,
1:59:49 right? But that would be an example of
1:59:50 swinging for the fences, right? And
1:59:51 there's other things that we could do.
1:59:53 You know, finishing we don't call it the
1:59:54 green necklace anymore, but you know,
1:59:56 doing the green necklace, being able to
1:59:58 walk from the south end of of of the of
2:00:01 the city to the lake would be amazing,
2:00:03 right? that that's a swing for the
2:00:05 fences. And I think that the public
2:00:07 genuinely responds to that. And and the
2:00:09 challenge, you know,
2:00:12 I'm not going to critique what what we
2:00:14 came up with here today, but the the the
2:00:16 passion that you're hearing in the room
2:00:18 is because the transportation bond that
2:00:20 we floated a few years ago was a camel,
2:00:22 right? It was a a camel is a horse
2:00:23 designed by committee, right? And so we
2:00:26 want to not have a c we don't want to
2:00:28 present a camel to the public. And I
2:00:30 don't know, you've certainly heard a lot
2:00:32 of feedback and and and about what's
2:00:34 fundable and what's not fundable. And I
2:00:36 and anticipate and look forward to
2:00:38 hearing back from you in the future and
2:00:39 hearing back from the work of services
2:00:41 and safety and parks to address some of
2:00:43 these questions. But I I think you're
2:00:44 hearing, you know, just a a love for the
2:00:46 park system and a wanting to make sure
2:00:48 whether we do a replacement bond or
2:00:51 whether we do something that is more
2:00:52 swing for the fences. Um but a a love of
2:00:55 our park system and wanting to engage
2:00:57 with our constituents in a in a way that
2:00:59 that everybody's excited about. So
2:01:01 that's just my own thinking on it this
2:01:03 evening. And I see deputy council
2:01:05 president wants a second round.
2:01:07 >> Um just a quick question. Would you be
2:01:09 able to share this confluence park
2:01:11 master plan document because I don't
2:01:13 I haven't. This is like the first time
2:01:15 that I'm hearing about it and I would
2:01:16 love to read more.
2:01:18 >> Sure, we can we can get that. I believe
2:01:19 it was adopted in probably 2014ish
2:01:23 13ish somewhere in there, but yeah, we
2:01:25 can we can find it. Yeah.
2:01:26 >> And then deferred ever since
2:01:29 >> again again yeah phase three implies
2:01:32 moving the shops facility somewhere. Um
2:01:35 but yes, happy to happy to share that.
2:01:37 It is it's very exciting and
2:01:39 aspirational.
2:01:43 other uh second round of of thoughts.
2:01:47 I'm not seeing anybody rushing for the
2:01:49 mics. I will of course ask the question
2:01:52 that I was asked, which is did you get
2:01:53 the feedback and the direction that you
2:01:55 were looking for from the council this
2:01:57 evening?
2:01:58 >> We sure did. Uh thank you. Really
2:02:00 appreciate and applaud your passion for
2:02:02 parks um as a first conversation on on
2:02:05 this opportunity. I really really
2:02:07 appreciate the feedback and uh certainly
2:02:10 uh do not feel um offended in the least.
2:02:14 Uh all of your feedback is is fantastic.
2:02:16 So thank you. We will get to work and uh
2:02:19 continue to work with you council
2:02:20 president during council leadership and
2:02:22 identify if we want to target one of
2:02:24 those services, safety and parks
2:02:25 committee meetings as a as a next step.
2:02:28 But thank you very helpful.
2:02:31 All right. Well, with that we are done
2:02:32 with COM228 and I will ask if anyone um
2:02:36 uh uh any council members have anything
2:02:38 for the good of the order this evening
2:02:42 hearing none. We are adjourned. Oops.
2:02:46 at 8:33 p.m. Thank you.

Attendance

Council / Members (6)
Paul Adair
Kelly Jiang
Russell Joe
Tola Marts
Kevin Nichols
Lindsey Walsh