City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, May 9, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 14, 2023

Carried 3-0

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 5:36 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-14-23 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. March 14, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

Roll call:

Moved by DEPUTY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HALL · seconded by COUNCILMEMBER DE MICHELE

In favor: Chris Reh, Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall

4. AGENDA ITEMS

2024 - 2029 Capital Improvement Plan ID 1318

90 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.7–56

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 0:29 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends the Committee support the councilmanic 0.1% TBD sales tax and that the tax be used to fund ITS projects and the NW Sammamish Road Non-Motorized Improvements.

2576 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ there we go

0:08 ↗ uh good evening and welcome I'm Chris

0:10 ↗ Ray and with me this evening is the

0:12 ↗ Deputy council president Zach Hall and

0:14 ↗ council member Barb D Michelle I'm going

0:17 ↗ to call them May 9th 2023 city council

0:19 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee to

0:22 ↗ order this evening we have one item on

0:25 ↗ our two items on our agenda first is

0:27 ↗ public comment

0:28 ↗ um

0:29 ↗ and then we have a agenda item id

0:33 ↗ 1318 the 2024

0:36 ↗ 2029 Capital Improvement plan so the

0:39 ↗ first order of business tonight is

0:41 ↗ public comment

0:43 ↗ there will be multiple public comments

0:46 ↗ this evening there will be a general

0:48 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:50 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you can make

0:52 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:54 ↗ Council question period on tonight's

0:56 ↗ agenda item

0:58 ↗ members of the public May address the

1:00 ↗ council at this time in person or

1:02 ↗ virtually

1:03 ↗ those who signed up in advance to make

1:05 ↗ comments will be called first if you

1:07 ↗ join us virtually and would like to make

1:09 ↗ comments please raise your virtual hand

1:10 ↗ if you are on the phone plus star three

1:13 ↗ if you're joined by computer or

1:15 ↗ smartphone look for a hand icon this

1:18 ↗ varies by device one option may be to go

1:20 ↗ to the participant panel and choose the

1:22 ↗ raise hand icon in the lower right

1:24 ↗ corner if you're in the room and did not

1:27 ↗ sign up I'll ask for other speakers

1:29 ↗ before closing this portion of the

1:30 ↗ meeting

1:32 ↗ I'm going to wait for a moment to see if

1:34 ↗ anyone wishes to raise their hand

1:36 ↗ so you Clerk chair right wait

1:40 ↗ we have no virtual attendees at this

1:42 ↗ time okay

1:43 ↗ anybody in the room room like to speak

1:46 ↗ please join us

1:52 ↗ hi my name's Connie March I live on

1:54 ↗ squawk mountain and I guess the first

1:58 ↗ thing is to notice how many people are

1:59 ↗ in the room and how many people are

2:01 ↗ online

2:02 ↗ watching you discuss about

2:05 ↗ raising taxes and then again last night

2:09 ↗ that just was last night right how many

2:11 ↗ people were in the room and were

2:13 ↗ listening when you were talking about

2:16 ↗ raising taxes

2:18 ↗ and then there was the conversation

2:20 ↗ about when is the public going to be Pro

2:22 ↗ brought in to the conversation about

2:25 ↗ raising taxes and the answer was well

2:29 ↗ when we figure out what exactly it is we

2:33 ↗ want to do and then we'll go out to the

2:36 ↗ public with exactly what we've decided

2:41 ↗ they want

2:43 ↗ and uh I see this as a fatal flaw

2:47 ↗ because you are most likely to be wrong

2:51 ↗ if you don't incorporate people into

2:54 ↗ what you want initially they want

2:57 ↗ initially because you are guessing as to

3:00 ↗ actually what is preferred and so when I

3:03 ↗ hear well we're just going to come back

3:05 ↗ with this one item when I think it was

3:07 ↗ almost five years ago we were promised

3:10 ↗ that we would get always get three

3:11 ↗ choices when these decisions were being

3:14 ↗ made and one of them would be nothing

3:15 ↗ and then the other two would be

3:18 ↗ reasonable options that one could pick

3:20 ↗ and choose from as an educated community

3:23 ↗ and so I I resist

3:27 ↗ doing one and I sort of insist that

3:31 ↗ there is more but I also realize that by

3:34 ↗ insisting for on a better public process

3:37 ↗ then I'm actually aiding in the

3:40 ↗ potential passing of taxes which I'm

3:44 ↗ generally not a huge fan of so it's hard

3:46 ↗ for me to stand up here and tell you how

3:48 ↗ to do it better when I don't know that I

3:50 ↗ want you to so I'm somewhere in between

3:52 ↗ rah-rah you just keep going because

3:54 ↗ that'll help you lose

3:56 ↗ and you know please do it right from the

3:59 ↗ get-go because then we can have a

4:01 ↗ mutually beneficial Community instead of

4:03 ↗ a city telling the community what it

4:05 ↗ thinks the community wants without too

4:07 ↗ much conversation and so I'm gathering

4:12 ↗ the whole ball and you guys are being

4:14 ↗ told to talk about a corner of the whole

4:17 ↗ ball and you're being told that it's

4:19 ↗ going to be splintered out for some time

4:21 ↗ and I as a count if I were a council

4:24 ↗ member I would start chafing at that too

4:26 ↗ because uh it needs to be Blended

4:30 ↗ from the get-go even if it is more

4:32 ↗ confusing because making decisions one

4:37 ↗ little bit at a time

4:40 ↗ you know it's like cooking

4:43 ↗ one small ingredient at a time anyway

4:47 ↗ there you go I think you get the picture

4:49 ↗ thank you

4:51 ↗ thank you Connie appreciate it anyone

4:54 ↗ else like to comment tonight

4:56 ↗ okay

4:57 ↗ no anyone online we have one virtual

4:59 ↗ attendee did there are there is anybody

5:02 ↗ um online interested in making comment

5:04 ↗ this evening

5:11 ↗ sorry if you are online and you wish to

5:13 ↗ make a comment would you please raise

5:15 ↗ your virtual hand

5:18 ↗ is crashing

5:23 ↗ okay I do not see a virtual hand raised

5:25 ↗ okay it sounds like no well thank you um

5:27 ↗ appreciate the the comments public

5:30 ↗ comment is important part of our process

5:32 ↗ and we do take your comments seriously

5:34 ↗ I'm going to move on to the next agenda

5:36 ↗ item which is approval of the minutes

5:40 ↗ any uh

5:41 ↗ any discussion

5:43 ↗ I'm literally I move we accept the

5:46 ↗ minutes has presented second all right

5:48 ↗ all in favor of accepting minutes say

5:51 ↗ aye aye

5:53 ↗ opposed

5:54 ↗ all right minutes have been accepted all

5:57 ↗ right we're going to move on to our

5:58 ↗ first and only

6:00 ↗ um agenda item for this evening which is

6:02 ↗ ID 1318 the 2024 2029 Capital

6:05 ↗ Improvement plan and Andrea Schneider

6:08 ↗ our Deputy City administrator is I'm

6:11 ↗ going to lead a cast of presenters it

6:13 ↗ looks like so Andrea thank you

6:21 ↗ good evening

6:23 ↗ there we go it's a bang that's a good

6:25 ↗ sign hi I'm Andrea Snyder I'm the deputy

6:28 ↗ City administrator uh with me here

6:30 ↗ tonight is Robert hamoud uh this is the

6:34 ↗ wrong presentation hold on uh this is

6:38 ↗ the the issue with doing multiple

6:41 ↗ presentations throughout this week and

6:43 ↗ next is sometimes that means

6:46 ↗ having too many open so

6:49 ↗ sorry about that

6:52 ↗ okay there we go

7:02 ↗ all right

7:04 ↗ um

7:05 ↗ let me try that again good evening

7:08 ↗ again my name is Andrea Snyder with me

7:10 ↗ here is not Susie Munsell the budget

7:12 ↗ manager but in fact Robert hamoud rcfo

7:16 ↗ he will be joining in the presentation

7:18 ↗ in a little bit and we are here to talk

7:20 ↗ about the proposed 2024 to 2029 CIP this

7:25 ↗ is the first of the city council

7:27 ↗ committee meetings on the CIP and

7:30 ↗ mobility and infrastructure is

7:32 ↗ specifically assigned according to

7:34 ↗ council rules and procedure sewer water

7:37 ↗ and transportation type projects within

7:39 ↗ the CIP so those will be the projects

7:41 ↗ we'll be discussing tonight

7:45 ↗ um here's a bit of a preview in terms of

7:48 ↗ our agenda we will talk about the

7:49 ↗ direction needed from you all tonight uh

7:52 ↗ we'll give a little bit of a background

7:53 ↗ on the CIP process and how we got here

7:56 ↗ today then we'll go over uh just a brief

7:59 ↗ overview of the draft CIP especially as

8:02 ↗ it pertains to those three

8:03 ↗ infrastructure types and then we're

8:05 ↗ going to have a focus on the proposed

8:08 ↗ TBD Transportation benefit district

8:10 ↗ sales tax and Associated projects to

8:14 ↗ that

8:15 ↗ potential new Revenue source and then we

8:18 ↗ are very eager to hear council's

8:20 ↗ feedback on those items

8:24 ↗ so Direction needed in terms of tonight

8:26 ↗ and this is a question that we'll be

8:28 ↗ asking all of the city council

8:30 ↗ committees throughout the process is

8:31 ↗ does the proposed CIP seem to respond to

8:35 ↗ the council goals and outcomes for this

8:36 ↗ process so far if not what can we

8:39 ↗ improve

8:41 ↗ and then specifically for this Council

8:44 ↗ for this committee the mobility mobility

8:46 ↗ and infrastructure committee

8:49 ↗ is the committee supportive of a

8:51 ↗ councilmatic 0.1 percent

8:53 ↗ Transportation benefit district sales

8:55 ↗ tax

8:57 ↗ and if so is the committee supportive of

9:01 ↗ the projects to be funded by the new

9:04 ↗ Revenue stream that are proposed within

9:06 ↗ this CIP and that includes the

9:08 ↗ intelligent Transportation Systems

9:10 ↗ projects the Northwest Sammamish

9:13 ↗ non-motorized improvements

9:15 ↗ or should the city consider other

9:19 ↗ unfunded projects instead

9:24 ↗ so first let's go into a little bit of

9:27 ↗ background about how we got here there

9:29 ↗ have been many changes since the last

9:31 ↗ CIP the city does an update to the city

9:35 ↗ to the CIP every two years

9:38 ↗ and a couple of things have changed

9:39 ↗ since the last two years

9:41 ↗ first we formed the Capital Finance

9:44 ↗ Community task force and they met and

9:47 ↗ provided many recommendations those

9:49 ↗ recommendations to the full report are

9:51 ↗ linked in your packet of materials

9:53 ↗ tonight but briefly they recommended

9:56 ↗ that the city do more to invest in

9:58 ↗ infrastructure and it was their

10:01 ↗ conclusion that the city does not have

10:03 ↗ enough existing revenues to pay for the

10:05 ↗ level of infrastructure Investments that

10:07 ↗ we should be making so they suggested

10:10 ↗ the city pursue new Revenue Tools in

10:13 ↗ order to make those Investments

10:15 ↗ they also recommended that mobility and

10:18 ↗ transportation was the first priority

10:20 ↗ meaning that's something that we should

10:22 ↗ invest in first ahead of the other

10:24 ↗ infrastructure types

10:26 ↗ and in order to do that invest in more

10:29 ↗ Transportation projects they recommended

10:31 ↗ a TBD sales tax to fund that

10:33 ↗ infrastructure

10:35 ↗ the task force also said that parks and

10:38 ↗ trails and Facilities were also really

10:40 ↗ important but again that transportation

10:42 ↗ and Mobility were number one

10:45 ↗ also in the past two years the city has

10:48 ↗ looked at adopting new and improved

10:50 ↗ criteria

10:51 ↗ so you may recall we discussed this at

10:53 ↗ the city council retreat in January the

10:56 ↗ administration proposed new criteria

10:58 ↗ that are be that were to be used to vet

11:00 ↗ projects and evaluate projects going

11:02 ↗ into the CIP

11:04 ↗ and we've gone through a process with

11:06 ↗ the boards and commissions with four of

11:08 ↗ the boards to refine that criteria we'll

11:10 ↗ be talking more about that tonight but

11:12 ↗ big big change in the CIP and we've also

11:17 ↗ moved to a yellow I'm sorry a red yellow

11:20 ↗ and green rating before we had criteria

11:23 ↗ that we would use for the CIP and it

11:24 ↗ would be more of a check the box yes no

11:26 ↗ does this meet an environmental criteria

11:29 ↗ yes or no we wanted to raise the bar

11:31 ↗ this year in terms of evaluating our

11:34 ↗ projects and understanding how

11:36 ↗ beneficial is this according to the is

11:38 ↗ this project according to those criteria

11:41 ↗ so those are some of the big changes

11:43 ↗ since last time I'm going to turn it

11:44 ↗ over to our CFO Robert hamoud to talk

11:46 ↗ about the city council goals that you

11:49 ↗ established in your January retreat

11:52 ↗ Robert

11:56 ↗ thank you Andrea good evening good to

11:58 ↗ see you Robert before you uh leap in

12:01 ↗ um so the PowerPoint that's in the

12:03 ↗ packet is slightly different than what

12:05 ↗ we're looking at here

12:10 ↗ I know this because it has five boxes

12:12 ↗ instead of four

12:17 ↗ you are right

12:19 ↗ no um this is multiple versions but what

12:22 ↗ I can do is go to the version that's

12:24 ↗ available online sorry I shared an

12:26 ↗ earlier oh and and I'm looking at the

12:29 ↗ wrong slide are you yeah

12:31 ↗ um I there's umbrella goals and then

12:33 ↗ there's the city council golf school

12:34 ↗ okay okay we're good so we were good

12:37 ↗ actually yeah sorry to put you down a

12:39 ↗ rabbit hole

12:41 ↗ okay we're gonna get there together

12:42 ↗ tonight it's gonna be okay

12:46 ↗ all right

12:48 ↗ let's get back

12:49 ↗ presentation mode here we are I think

12:51 ↗ all on the same page yeah we need we are

12:54 ↗ hero

12:55 ↗ thank you okay thanks

13:01 ↗ okay so what the umbrella goals

13:04 ↗ we started the CIP wanting to integrate

13:08 ↗ as much as we can both feedback from the

13:12 ↗ council integrating the council goals

13:13 ↗ but also feedback from the community and

13:15 ↗ again we did have the board Summit The

13:18 ↗ Advisory Board and commissions give us

13:20 ↗ feedback on the red yellow green

13:22 ↗ criteria and what worked and what didn't

13:25 ↗ work and we had a lot of discussion

13:27 ↗ internally when we were awaiting these

13:28 ↗ projects so the project list that is

13:30 ↗ attached tonight a lot of thought went

13:32 ↗ into it a lot of thought went into the

13:34 ↗ waiting how do we weight it there's a

13:35 ↗ lot of challenges internally a lot of

13:37 ↗ discussions internally so this is weeks

13:39 ↗ and weeks of work very strong product

13:41 ↗ that you see is everything was carefully

13:44 ↗ evaluated every project you see was

13:47 ↗ carefully evaluated for each criteria

13:49 ↗ how does it fit

13:51 ↗ how does it fit our goals how does it

13:52 ↗ fit each each line and where it is and

13:55 ↗ so tonight again you're going to see the

13:59 ↗ integration of the culmination of this

14:01 ↗ work with looking at those main goals

14:04 ↗ that we started this process out which

14:06 ↗ is first realigning the capital

14:07 ↗ Improvement plan with Community

14:08 ↗ aspirations for the city as provided and

14:11 ↗ adopted plans so again

14:13 ↗ we looked at in in this case for example

14:16 ↗ the transportation plan the utilities

14:18 ↗ plans anything else that that fit under

14:21 ↗ master plans that were already adopted

14:24 ↗ that was part of it

14:26 ↗ um in addition to the feedback in any

14:28 ↗ updates that happened and then again the

14:30 ↗ next one providing a transparent CIP

14:32 ↗ update process that allowed for groups

14:34 ↗ and individuals to engage in the process

14:36 ↗ this is where the boards and commissions

14:38 ↗ came in but also staff we actually had

14:40 ↗ an internal group of department heads

14:43 ↗ and leadership team evaluate all the

14:45 ↗ projects in the city and so for example

14:48 ↗ we had

14:49 ↗ you know participation from all our

14:51 ↗ department heads all of our departments

14:52 ↗ and looking at other the other projects

14:54 ↗ in the other departments so we had

14:55 ↗ cross-departmental interactions on this

14:57 ↗ we had a lot of touch points within the

15:01 ↗ city as well as having the advisory

15:03 ↗ boards and commissions take a look at

15:05 ↗ the criteria and so inside the city

15:07 ↗ we've added the projects we've added the

15:09 ↗ goals we looked at the red yellow green

15:11 ↗ how does this with Council how does this

15:13 ↗ fit with Equity sustainability and again

15:16 ↗ this was a very robust and transparent

15:19 ↗ process as much as we could

15:21 ↗ the next one reforming project planning

15:23 ↗ and delivering for improved efficiency

15:25 ↗ Equity consistency and pre

15:27 ↗ predictability so again

15:30 ↗ what is what does the project do how is

15:32 ↗ it delivered how can we deliver it in a

15:34 ↗ timely manner how does it fit within the

15:36 ↗ 24 to 29 CIP some projects for example

15:39 ↗ we moved out because we looked at them

15:40 ↗ and we said looking at our project

15:42 ↗ schedule the timeline of the resources

15:44 ↗ available we wouldn't be able to do it

15:46 ↗ within the timeline so there are some

15:48 ↗ Community projects some CIP projects

15:51 ↗ that are actually moved out into the

15:53 ↗ future years section that you have in

15:54 ↗ the budget or the CIP budget document

15:59 ↗ so addressing current laws and best

16:01 ↗ practices so again this is making sure

16:04 ↗ there's a lot of Law changes and

16:06 ↗ especially with

16:07 ↗ um

16:08 ↗ the the Departments under m i you look

16:11 ↗ at a lot of the utilities the storm

16:13 ↗ water

16:14 ↗ Transportation there's a lot there and

16:17 ↗ so how do these projects address those

16:19 ↗ and again weighing it evaluating it and

16:22 ↗ then internally presenting this

16:24 ↗ information internally and now to the

16:26 ↗ council as far as

16:28 ↗ what goals you know what are we trying

16:30 ↗ to achieve with these projects how do

16:31 ↗ they fit into any laws any requirements

16:34 ↗ that we have to get fulfilled

16:40 ↗ so the specific CIP goals again projects

16:43 ↗ have to have a clear path to inclusion

16:45 ↗ in the CIP and this is again kind of

16:49 ↗ like you hear about who what when where

16:50 ↗ why and how we did this with all of our

16:52 ↗ projects we had descriptions we had

16:54 ↗ explanations

16:56 ↗ we also had you know identify the

16:57 ↗ resources available identify the project

16:59 ↗ plan the timeline and we did this for

17:02 ↗ each and every project that's in the CIP

17:03 ↗ so again how are those processes and

17:06 ↗ priorities clearly communicated with the

17:08 ↗ city council the community again you

17:10 ↗ have the packet we already released the

17:12 ↗ CIP document which again is a work in

17:15 ↗ progress until the CIP is finally

17:16 ↗ adopted then we'll update it based on

17:19 ↗ any project changes in any

17:20 ↗ prioritization changes we'll update the

17:22 ↗ document after it's

17:24 ↗ the cap is ratified and approved by

17:26 ↗ Council

17:27 ↗ but making sure at all times when all

17:29 ↗ changes are completely conveyed so

17:32 ↗ during this process if there are changes

17:34 ↗ with the deliberations of the next few

17:35 ↗ weeks convey those updates convey those

17:37 ↗ those changes if any in the in the

17:40 ↗ document and the CIP as you you have

17:43 ↗ outlined but also the projects have

17:45 ↗ accountable path towards execution or

17:47 ↗ completion this is something that we

17:49 ↗ really talked about a lot internally

17:50 ↗ making sure we have the resources I know

17:53 ↗ Public Works came to council earlier

17:55 ↗ this year with an organization plan for

17:57 ↗ more engineering and more resources to

17:59 ↗ execute more projects and so this is

18:01 ↗ kind of a product of that it's with the

18:03 ↗ new resources what can we accomplish

18:05 ↗ with the resources that we have in the

18:06 ↗ city over this next six year period that

18:09 ↗ we're looking at with the CIP and how do

18:12 ↗ we hold those accountable and again

18:13 ↗ that's what I'm saying when I mentioned

18:15 ↗ before there's certain projects that we

18:18 ↗ determined as a group

18:20 ↗ Citywide not just in this community that

18:23 ↗ those projects couldn't be executed

18:24 ↗ within that six-year time frame so we

18:26 ↗ put those ones out

18:27 ↗ for example

18:29 ↗ and again Equity inequities one that

18:31 ↗ we've talked about quite a bit the

18:32 ↗ pleasure of attending the equity board

18:34 ↗ meeting last week with Andrea and

18:36 ↗ getting some good feedback this is

18:37 ↗ something that we really talked about

18:39 ↗ internally a lot I think at least in my

18:41 ↗ opinion there's no right answer in

18:43 ↗ equity so looking at the criteria the

18:45 ↗ way we waited it in the document and we

18:48 ↗ had very robust discussions on certain

18:50 ↗ projects internally about is this

18:53 ↗ Equitable for the community is this

18:54 ↗ Equity is this project going to impact a

18:56 ↗ disproportionate group for example we

18:58 ↗ have some water connections and areas

19:00 ↗ that are still aseptic for example

19:02 ↗ that's bringing them to the city system

19:04 ↗ our pavement management plan we're

19:06 ↗ trying to get to as many neighborhoods

19:07 ↗ as possible for example sidewalk

19:10 ↗ the concrete maintenance plan as well so

19:12 ↗ looking at those projects looking at

19:14 ↗ parks or in in other in other committees

19:18 ↗ for example looking at parks how are

19:20 ↗ they inclusive how are they maintaining

19:22 ↗ access some of our Mobility projects for

19:24 ↗ example in transportation how does that

19:26 ↗ fit into equity

19:27 ↗ and those are things that we we talked

19:29 ↗ about I think it's always something

19:30 ↗ where we'll have lessons learned this

19:32 ↗ year and we learned a lot during this

19:34 ↗ process about what is Equitable and how

19:36 ↗ do we apply it to these measures

19:39 ↗ and then clearly Define funding

19:40 ↗ strategies that's always the

19:42 ↗ multi-million dollar question when we go

19:43 ↗ in front of any council at any time what

19:46 ↗ is our funding strategy we have a lot of

19:48 ↗ projects and a lot of need in this

19:50 ↗ community especially in the

19:51 ↗ transportation the utilities side and

19:53 ↗ what is the funding sources or funding

19:55 ↗ options that we're going to pay for it

19:57 ↗ in the future so again we had a lot of

19:59 ↗ internal discussions about it there's

20:01 ↗ going to be a lot of ongoing discussions

20:02 ↗ of course with this group and later

20:04 ↗ tonight

20:04 ↗ on those priorities and those options

20:07 ↗ for funding as well

20:12 ↗ and I'll turn it back over to Andrea

20:16 ↗ thank you Robert

20:18 ↗ so process

20:21 ↗ um

20:22 ↗ let's talk about how how we've gotten

20:24 ↗ here today where we're going so as I

20:26 ↗ said earlier we worked at the boards in

20:29 ↗ February to help further refine the

20:33 ↗ criteria that we initially proposed to

20:35 ↗ you in January

20:36 ↗ we got four board feedback on how the

20:41 ↗ draft CIP meets the criteria so we

20:46 ↗ um we went to the equity board the

20:48 ↗ transportation Advisory board and the

20:50 ↗ park board so far we're meeting with the

20:52 ↗ environmental board tomorrow to get

20:55 ↗ their feedback on how

20:57 ↗ we've applied those criteria if they

20:59 ↗ have any changes that they would

21:00 ↗ recommend and to take that feedback and

21:02 ↗ bring that back to you so in your packet

21:04 ↗ tonight there is the compiled feedback

21:07 ↗ from the board Summit that we held with

21:09 ↗ those four boards back in February

21:11 ↗ that's an attachment in your packet also

21:14 ↗ in your packet in the memo is a summary

21:16 ↗ of the feedback we received from the

21:18 ↗ boards since

21:19 ↗ since we released the draft CIP so you

21:23 ↗ can see all of that summarized for you

21:25 ↗ there

21:26 ↗ now we're in the stage of talking to

21:28 ↗ council committees starting this evening

21:30 ↗ of reviewing the sections of the CIP

21:33 ↗ we're going to come back together in

21:36 ↗ June with the committee of the whole to

21:37 ↗ discuss the entire CIP and then we'll

21:40 ↗ look towards Council adoption one of the

21:42 ↗ key things I wanted to mention was that

21:45 ↗ while we hope for Council adoption by

21:48 ↗ July 1st because there is a state

21:50 ↗ mandate for the transportation

21:51 ↗ Improvement plan which is a component of

21:54 ↗ the capital Improvement plan there's a

21:57 ↗ state requirement for the tip to be

22:00 ↗ adopted by July 1st so we're hoping for

22:02 ↗ the the entire CIP adoption by July 1st

22:05 ↗ but that does not mean the adoption of

22:07 ↗ the TBD sales tax we're talking about

22:09 ↗ this evening what we're hoping to hear

22:11 ↗ is is this a concept we should continue

22:13 ↗ to explore is Council comfortable with

22:15 ↗ that and if council is comfortable with

22:17 ↗ that then we want to move forward take

22:21 ↗ the rest of the Year and have Community

22:23 ↗ engagement additional meetings and

22:25 ↗ discussions about that Transportation

22:27 ↗ benefit district sales tax so we're not

22:30 ↗ asking Council to adopt a tax when

22:33 ↗ Council approves the CIP we're just

22:35 ↗ asking council is this a concept that we

22:38 ↗ should continue to discuss and we should

22:40 ↗ start to discuss with the community

22:44 ↗ new criteria we've been saying we've had

22:47 ↗ new criteria I'm just going to run over

22:48 ↗ this quickly because I know we have a

22:49 ↗ lot to do tonight there is another

22:52 ↗ attachment in your packet for this

22:54 ↗ evening that further defines these

22:55 ↗ criteria and that also talks about those

22:59 ↗ red yellow green thresholds and how we

23:01 ↗ assigned those red yellow and green

23:03 ↗ thresholds and how they were defined so

23:06 ↗ I'll let you refer to that of of these

23:08 ↗ things we've done some tweaking of the

23:09 ↗ criteria we've used in the past

23:11 ↗ considerably and really again have

23:14 ↗ raised the bar on how we Define these

23:16 ↗ criteria the expectations of the

23:18 ↗ projects that we have in order to meet

23:19 ↗ these criteria in addition there are two

23:22 ↗ new criteria brand new ones that were

23:26 ↗ not there before one of those is equity

23:27 ↗ and the other one is long-standing

23:31 ↗ commitment that's how we've identified

23:33 ↗ it that last one long-standing

23:34 ↗ commitment was something we heard from

23:36 ↗ Council in January that was really

23:37 ↗ important to you and we plan on coming

23:41 ↗ back to you at that Committee of the

23:42 ↗ whole in June to look over that list of

23:45 ↗ projects because Council said we wanted

23:47 ↗ to see we're going to know it when we

23:48 ↗ see it so we're going to bring that list

23:50 ↗ of projects before you in June so you

23:53 ↗ can have a discussion and make sure that

23:55 ↗ that list of projects the right ones are

23:57 ↗ included that apply to the long-standing

23:59 ↗ commitment that we have a chance to

24:01 ↗ evaluate those so that discussion is

24:02 ↗ still coming

24:04 ↗ um but and wanted to make sure that

24:05 ↗ you're aware of that any questions so

24:07 ↗ far on process criteria Etc

24:10 ↗ Deputy council president Hall uh yeah

24:13 ↗ thank you could you talk a little bit

24:14 ↗ about

24:15 ↗ um

24:16 ↗ a board and commission feedback about

24:17 ↗ those two criteria the equity and the

24:20 ↗ long-standing commitment I think it was

24:21 ↗ really helpful to read over that but

24:22 ↗ just for the sake of

24:24 ↗ flooring if you could kind of go into

24:26 ↗ that a little bit more thank you thank

24:28 ↗ you for the opportunity to talk about

24:29 ↗ that Equity we heard some of the similar

24:32 ↗ concerns uh from our boards especially

24:36 ↗ the equity board on that Equity criteria

24:38 ↗ as we heard from Council in January that

24:41 ↗ we needed to Define that a lot better

24:42 ↗ and as our CFO hamoud said we really

24:45 ↗ talked about it a lot more after we got

24:48 ↗ that feedback and so we were able to

24:50 ↗ incorporate more of the concepts from

24:52 ↗ the equity framework than we had in our

24:54 ↗ initial proposal to really ask more

24:57 ↗ questions in terms of

24:59 ↗ um who is harmed has this been is this

25:03 ↗ project going to correct a historic harm

25:08 ↗ or

25:09 ↗ um or

25:11 ↗ disproportionate level of service for a

25:14 ↗ certain population or certain

25:15 ↗ neighborhood for example so we were able

25:18 ↗ to flesh that out quite a bit and really

25:20 ↗ incorporate more of the framework so

25:23 ↗ that was some of the feedback that we

25:24 ↗ heard from the equity board on on that

25:27 ↗ criteria and certainly we heard similar

25:29 ↗ feedback from the other boards as well

25:30 ↗ and we certainly Incorporated that in

25:33 ↗ our Equity definition and how we applied

25:35 ↗ that criteria to the projects in the

25:37 ↗ proposed CIP

25:38 ↗ the long-standing commitment was really

25:41 ↗ the thing that we heard a lot of

25:42 ↗ critical feedback from many of our

25:46 ↗ boards that they thought that of course

25:48 ↗ it was less defined than the other

25:51 ↗ criteria they were a little

25:52 ↗ uncomfortable with long-standing

25:54 ↗ criteria or long-standing commitment

25:56 ↗ because they

25:58 ↗ they were concerned that maybe the city

26:01 ↗ had made a commitment to do a certain

26:03 ↗ project in the past without thinking

26:04 ↗ about Equity so there might be some

26:07 ↗ projects that were committed to in the

26:08 ↗ past that may not meet the equity goals

26:11 ↗ and they were concerned that it just

26:13 ↗ didn't feel very transparent at that

26:15 ↗ point we had a conversation following up

26:17 ↗ to make sure that they're aware that

26:19 ↗ city council was going to have this

26:21 ↗ conversation about what fits the

26:23 ↗ long-standing commitment in open public

26:26 ↗ meetings that it was going to be a

26:27 ↗ public discussion and to do it in the

26:30 ↗ most transparent way possible and they

26:32 ↗ they seemed to be a little bit comforted

26:35 ↗ by that that at least it would be a

26:36 ↗ discussion that happens on camera but

26:38 ↗ they still just had concerns and wanted

26:40 ↗ to make sure that Council on the one

26:42 ↗ hand uh they agreed that yes let's keep

26:46 ↗ our promises that we make and that's

26:47 ↗ really important but at the same time

26:49 ↗ let's also take the opportunity to

26:51 ↗ reevaluate and make sure that those

26:52 ↗ long-standing commitments still meet our

26:55 ↗ current values that we hold today

27:00 ↗ good I'll go ahead uh thank you that's

27:04 ↗ great

27:05 ↗ um and then part of the equity criteria

27:07 ↗ also

27:09 ↗ was the board not being sure if it

27:12 ↗ should be its own criteria or if it

27:14 ↗ should live and all the other ones so

27:16 ↗ can you talk a little bit I think your

27:18 ↗ first response was great great context

27:19 ↗ as well but can you talk a little bit

27:20 ↗ too about how the administration

27:22 ↗ thought through that conundrum yeah

27:26 ↗ that's that's great and this was also

27:28 ↗ included if you want to hear a more

27:31 ↗ detailed response this was also included

27:33 ↗ in

27:34 ↗ um uh your packet it was a memo that I

27:36 ↗ wrote back to the the board saying how

27:38 ↗ we've Incorporated their feedback but

27:40 ↗ the equity board was saying it shouldn't

27:42 ↗ just be restricted to to one criteria at

27:44 ↗ one point in time we talked about is

27:48 ↗ um this this CIP uh necip is really

27:52 ↗ first of all one step out of many steps

27:55 ↗ and how a concept becomes a project that

27:58 ↗ we implement it starts at that Master

28:00 ↗ planning phase and that visioning phase

28:03 ↗ then we talk about it when it comes to

28:05 ↗ putting it into the CIP then the CIP

28:09 ↗ becomes more real as we put it into a

28:11 ↗ budget and assign budget to it and the

28:13 ↗ council adopts that budget and then we

28:15 ↗ go into the project adoption Equity

28:17 ↗ needs to be considered just like many of

28:18 ↗ our other values environmental

28:20 ↗ sustainability as well and every step of

28:23 ↗ that phase and so yes Equity needs to be

28:26 ↗ considered throughout the concept to

28:29 ↗ implementation phase

28:31 ↗ the other response that we had uh so not

28:35 ↗ only is this Equity is going to be

28:37 ↗ considered not just one point in time

28:39 ↗ when it gets into the CIP but throughout

28:41 ↗ that process

28:42 ↗ uh in addition we were uncertain of how

28:45 ↗ to ensure that Equity

28:48 ↗ um was incorporated into Community

28:49 ↗ priority for example or legal mandate

28:52 ↗ and addressing safety life and safety

28:54 ↗ concerns yes it needs to be part of our

28:56 ↗ daily practice and how we think but we

28:58 ↗ also wanted to be able to hold ourselves

28:59 ↗ accountable and make sure that we're

29:01 ↗ calling it out and really thinking about

29:02 ↗ it and focusing on it and we felt like

29:05 ↗ um we were concerned with our ability to

29:08 ↗ hold ourselves accountable to those

29:10 ↗ Equity values without calling it out

29:12 ↗ specifically and making sure that we are

29:15 ↗ talking about it that we're evaluating

29:16 ↗ it that we're able to

29:18 ↗ provide well thought out responses in

29:21 ↗ terms of how does this project meet our

29:23 ↗ Equity values and so that's why we felt

29:25 ↗ that it should still stand on its own at

29:27 ↗ this point because we wanted to make

29:30 ↗ sure that it didn't get lost in the

29:32 ↗ processes we tried to incorporate into

29:35 ↗ the other criteria

29:38 ↗ anything else

29:41 ↗ rock on great

29:45 ↗ so overview of the 24-2029 uh CIP in

29:52 ↗ general here are some of the themes and

29:54 ↗ it's it's a big CIP there's lots of

29:56 ↗ projects I'm definitely not going to go

29:57 ↗ over every project with you today

29:59 ↗ um I wanted to focus more on themes and

30:01 ↗ overall there's a lot more funding for

30:04 ↗ maintenance programs than we've had in

30:05 ↗ the past we've really paid attention to

30:07 ↗ maintenance and replacement and uh

30:11 ↗ planning for those costs and if you

30:13 ↗ recall that's something that's mentioned

30:15 ↗ specifically within the Strategic plan

30:16 ↗ as well under the infrastructure goals

30:19 ↗ for us to really be thinking and

30:20 ↗ planning for maintenance so you'll see

30:22 ↗ that throughout all of the

30:23 ↗ infrastructure categories that we have

30:26 ↗ in addition the CIP responds to feedback

30:29 ↗ that we heard from you and from the

30:32 ↗ Capital Finance Community task force

30:34 ↗ that we need to be making more interest

30:35 ↗ investments in our infrastructure and

30:38 ↗ and at the same time that we need to

30:40 ↗ make sure that the CIP is realistic and

30:43 ↗ so we tried to balance both of those

30:44 ↗ things and how do we balance both of

30:46 ↗ those things we have to ask for more

30:48 ↗ resources

30:49 ↗ and so this CIP does contemplate new

30:53 ↗ revenues for transportation as we're

30:55 ↗ going to talk about more this evening

30:56 ↗ but we also want to have that

30:59 ↗ conversation about Public Safety related

31:01 ↗ facilities which we began a little bit

31:03 ↗ last night

31:05 ↗ um and parks and trails and so there's

31:08 ↗ um assumptions in the CIP right now

31:11 ↗ Revenue assumptions built into the CIP

31:14 ↗ for transportation there are not Revenue

31:17 ↗ assumptions built in for facilities nor

31:20 ↗ for parks and trails what we do have is

31:23 ↗ you will see if you look at parks and

31:25 ↗ trails many of the projects in parks and

31:28 ↗ trails are pushed out to later years

31:30 ↗ like 2026 20 27 2028 and that's because

31:34 ↗ that's when we anticipate having those

31:36 ↗ conversations about an additional

31:37 ↗ Revenue source for parks

31:40 ↗ that's also in alignment with some of

31:42 ↗ the task force recommendations of

31:44 ↗ contemplating a new revenue for parks

31:49 ↗ so I'm going to go over uh quickly again

31:52 ↗ themes Within These different asset

31:54 ↗ categories most of our conversation I

31:57 ↗ would like to focus on Transportation

31:59 ↗ this evening because that's the biggest

32:01 ↗ policy question is whether this

32:03 ↗ committee supports a TBD sales tax or

32:05 ↗ supports exploring that further so I'm

32:08 ↗ not going to devote a lot of time to

32:10 ↗ water or sewer tonight but certainly

32:11 ↗ let's talk about those themes if you

32:13 ↗ have questions about them have feedback

32:15 ↗ would love to hear that as well so we

32:18 ↗ have 17 water projects in the six-year

32:20 ↗ plan this is about on par with what

32:22 ↗ we've had last year

32:24 ↗ many of the projects within the water

32:27 ↗ utility uh scored well on the

32:30 ↗ replacement and maintenance Criterion

32:32 ↗ again that theme that we've seen

32:34 ↗ throughout the CIP is still within the

32:36 ↗ this category as well a lot of

32:38 ↗ Maintenance and replacement we've had

32:40 ↗ neutral or yellow scores on community

32:43 ↗ priority but only because

32:47 ↗ that priority and our thresholds are so

32:50 ↗ high so to get green

32:53 ↗ in community priority it means that that

32:56 ↗ project must be suggested in more than

32:58 ↗ one city plan so most of our water

33:02 ↗ projects are just referenced in the

33:05 ↗ Water Systems plan so that yellow

33:07 ↗ scoring doesn't necessarily mean bad but

33:09 ↗ we have such a high threshold for green

33:12 ↗ you're also going to see that theme

33:13 ↗ throughout this conversation today that

33:15 ↗ we've really tried to raise the bar on

33:17 ↗ ourselves

33:19 ↗ next year also just wanted to raise this

33:23 ↗ that we are contemplating a water rate

33:25 ↗ study to help fund a water

33:27 ↗ infrastructure in the future as you know

33:30 ↗ uh

33:32 ↗ costs for construction have gone way up

33:35 ↗ in the past couple of years not

33:36 ↗ contemplated by the water rate study

33:38 ↗ that we completed in 2019

33:40 ↗ but also the previous study did not

33:42 ↗ forecast Beyond 2025 and so we want to

33:45 ↗ be able to plan and prepare

33:47 ↗ appropriately for that

33:49 ↗ any questions on water

33:53 ↗ really quickly I I just think it's

33:56 ↗ interesting the neutral score because it

33:58 ↗ was only in one system plan but where

34:01 ↗ else would it be other than one plan I

34:04 ↗ mean it's kind of a self-limiting uh

34:07 ↗ criteria

34:13 ↗ climate action plan

34:16 ↗ um or

34:18 ↗ um you know Mobility projects might be

34:19 ↗ referenced in a couple of different

34:21 ↗ plans including icap for example so we

34:24 ↗ do have some projects that scored green

34:25 ↗ because they were just cross-referenced

34:27 ↗ in so many places but water

34:30 ↗ unfortunately did not did not meet that

34:32 ↗ threshold and so again part of this is

34:35 ↗ we have these new criteria we have these

34:37 ↗ thresholds are we are we having the

34:39 ↗ right approach should we be thinking of

34:41 ↗ it in this way and I welcome feedback

34:43 ↗ that you may have yeah no um you know

34:47 ↗ really good good point I mean the hard

34:48 ↗ thing is you want to build criteria but

34:50 ↗ then you want to have an evaluation

34:51 ↗ model that makes sense and

34:54 ↗ um and reflects our reality so

34:57 ↗ um you know if if you run the model and

35:00 ↗ you don't get the results you want then

35:01 ↗ there's either something wrong with your

35:02 ↗ data or something wrong with your model

35:03 ↗ so either fix the date or you fix the

35:05 ↗ model so I mean let's let's move forward

35:07 ↗ and see where we end up but I think it's

35:09 ↗ uh I mean I love having criteria I think

35:11 ↗ that's really the way to go but um that

35:14 ↗ this you know water's like really

35:16 ↗ important like every day to everybody so

35:19 ↗ that you know maintaining a water system

35:21 ↗ is

35:22 ↗ you know one of our primary missions in

35:24 ↗ life

35:25 ↗ and yes uh the other thing that we

35:29 ↗ didn't talk so much about is with the

35:31 ↗ criteria that we have we look at all the

35:33 ↗ criteria in Balance one of those

35:34 ↗ criteria is life safety

35:37 ↗ and uh and so uh water score is much

35:41 ↗ higher than than other projects in life

35:44 ↗ safety and you know it's really an art

35:48 ↗ in terms of applying these criteria

35:49 ↗ versus a science because sometimes

35:51 ↗ something is more of a life safety

35:53 ↗ concern than other things sometimes it's

35:56 ↗ more of a life safety concern in certain

35:58 ↗ years versus other years so it's kind it

36:01 ↗ is more of an art and how we apply it

36:04 ↗ which is why we're asking for feedback

36:06 ↗ and are we approaching it the right way

36:09 ↗ any other questions before we move on to

36:11 ↗ sewer

36:12 ↗ let's move

36:14 ↗ great

36:15 ↗ so our sewer utility has nine projects

36:17 ↗ within the six year plan compared to

36:19 ↗ five in the adopted plan uh many of

36:22 ↗ these projects are part of the draft

36:23 ↗ Sewer Master Plan so you might see that

36:26 ↗ they score Red in the criteria because

36:29 ↗ they are not yet a part of an adopted

36:32 ↗ City plan but we anticipate bringing

36:34 ↗ that Sewer Master Plan before you later

36:36 ↗ this year and so we wanted to make sure

36:38 ↗ that those projects were accounted for

36:40 ↗ so again it's this evaluation of of our

36:44 ↗ own criteria right is this there is this

36:46 ↗ the right system but we wanted to take

36:47 ↗ advantage of the CIP update process and

36:50 ↗ make sure that we were planning for

36:51 ↗ those proposed sewer projects

36:55 ↗ uh of course the sewer utility project

36:58 ↗ scored well in replacement and

37:00 ↗ maintenance Criterion

37:01 ↗ as you might anticipate

37:04 ↗ but had poorer scores and Community

37:06 ↗ priority again as the sewer master plan

37:09 ↗ is still in draft

37:13 ↗ moving on to transportation

37:16 ↗ uh and again we want to we're going to

37:17 ↗ spend a little bit more of our time here

37:19 ↗ tonight so uh Transportation category

37:22 ↗ followed all the other asset casual

37:24 ↗ categories and that there's more

37:25 ↗ maintenance more emphasis on maintenance

37:27 ↗ and infrastructure replacement programs

37:31 ↗ um but one thing to note that I wanted

37:32 ↗ to make sure you're aware of is that we

37:35 ↗ are proposing a decrease in pavement

37:38 ↗ Management program funding this year

37:40 ↗ versus uh previous years as you know the

37:44 ↗ PMP has had a lot of investment in the

37:49 ↗ past couple of years and there was a

37:52 ↗ pavement condition index report that was

37:54 ↗ attached to your materials this evening

37:55 ↗ that report shows that some of those

37:58 ↗ efforts have been beneficial we've been

38:00 ↗ seeing an increase in our scores we do

38:04 ↗ have uh Bennett ashbaugh here tonight if

38:06 ↗ you have questions specifically about

38:07 ↗ that information but we decreased PMP

38:12 ↗ funding because we are anticipating a

38:15 ↗ loss of Reit funds real estate excise

38:18 ↗ tax that is a major funding source for a

38:21 ↗ lot of our infrastructure and given the

38:24 ↗ state of the economy today and the

38:26 ↗ amount of real estate sales that are

38:27 ↗ occurring we are seeing a decline in

38:29 ↗ those funds and so we had to account for

38:33 ↗ that somewhere and because the pavement

38:35 ↗ condition reports are showing that the

38:38 ↗ work that we've done in the past couple

38:39 ↗ of years and that there's overall an

38:42 ↗ improvement

38:43 ↗ uh in the condition of our roads that's

38:45 ↗ why we have suggested a decrease in

38:48 ↗ funding

38:51 ↗ um then just second hello everybody

38:54 ↗ Michelle uh just can you can you

38:57 ↗ um articulate what the percentage of

38:59 ↗ decrease is going to be

39:01 ↗ the decrease was something like a little

39:03 ↗ over seven hundred thousand dollars do

39:05 ↗ you know the percentage

39:07 ↗ is approximately that it's I mean it's

39:10 ↗ early in the year so we're doing this

39:12 ↗ based on the guess but our receipts have

39:14 ↗ been down this year compared to last

39:16 ↗ year consecutively now for four months

39:19 ↗ consecutively now we saw a little tiny

39:21 ↗ bit of Rebound in in April but certainly

39:24 ↗ the activity between 2022 and 2023 has

39:27 ↗ decreased so we're estimating about 700

39:30 ↗ 000 lower at this point we're watching

39:32 ↗ it all summer when we come to you with

39:33 ↗ the mid biennial review later this year

39:35 ↗ we'll have updated numbers because we'll

39:37 ↗ have a few more months in the summer

39:39 ↗ season to see how it's going essentially

39:42 ↗ real estate is slower commercial we're

39:44 ↗ not seeing the level of transactions we

39:46 ↗ saw last year okay thank you I

39:49 ↗ I'll point out that the CIP is a

39:52 ↗ planning document it's not a budget and

39:54 ↗ so we're trying to be responsive to some

39:56 ↗ of the trends that we see and plan for

39:58 ↗ some of those Trends but it could all

40:00 ↗ change especially in a community like

40:03 ↗ ours if there's one large commercial

40:05 ↗ sale of a property that can really

40:08 ↗ change the picture right so so we're

40:11 ↗ just trying to plan ahead for this and

40:13 ↗ make sure that we're planning for it but

40:14 ↗ we'll really be able to

40:17 ↗ um you know take a better look as as

40:20 ↗ Robert was saying with the mid biennial

40:22 ↗ adjustment and then with the adoption of

40:24 ↗ the new budget

40:29 ↗ okay

40:30 ↗ uh moving on there are 31

40:33 ↗ Transportation projects or programs in

40:35 ↗ the draft six-year plan this is compared

40:37 ↗ to 18. so transportation is number one

40:41 ↗ we heard that recommendation and we are

40:43 ↗ incorporating those recommendations

40:46 ↗ um we have a lot of new items in the

40:50 ↗ plan this year that are mostly related

40:52 ↗ to traffic signal and its related

40:54 ↗ equipment its again is intelligent

40:57 ↗ Transportation Systems it's those smart

41:00 ↗ traffic signals and other related

41:01 ↗ Technologies including the rectangular

41:05 ↗ rapid flashing beacons I usually forget

41:08 ↗ what the first R means and Emily had to

41:10 ↗ correct me last time

41:11 ↗ um so we have the rrfb replacement

41:13 ↗ program that's a new item that you'll

41:15 ↗ see so again that replacement of

41:17 ↗ equipment maintenance of equipment and

41:20 ↗ its we've Incorporated those things into

41:22 ↗ this tip Transportation Improvement plan

41:26 ↗ uh it also again anticipates a

41:29 ↗ transportation benefit district sales

41:31 ↗ tax of 0.1 percent for transportation

41:34 ↗ projects starting in January 2024.

41:36 ↗ that's when we would hope to collect

41:40 ↗ that Revenue starting in January which

41:42 ↗ would require an August approval or an

41:45 ↗ August vote from city council or I'm

41:47 ↗ sorry at least this fall not necessarily

41:49 ↗ August

41:51 ↗ um I meant Autumn so uh so again we're

41:54 ↗ not asking for that approval of the

41:56 ↗ sales tax with the adoption of the CIP

41:58 ↗ what we're asking is should we continue

42:00 ↗ to pursue this option

42:04 ↗ um question on that so if we adopt the

42:07 ↗ CIP and don't adopt the additional sales

42:11 ↗ tax how do we square that Circle

42:14 ↗ yeah that means that we're not going to

42:15 ↗ do all of those projects right we need

42:19 ↗ to figure out what projects then we are

42:22 ↗ able to fund the CIP is a planning

42:25 ↗ document it's not a budget it's not set

42:27 ↗ in stone and so we would have to assess

42:30 ↗ are there other Revenue options the

42:33 ↗ council would prefer that we pursue or

42:35 ↗ are there other projects or programs

42:37 ↗ that we would have to not Fund in order

42:39 ↗ to fund Transportation projects so we'd

42:41 ↗ have to have a lot more discussion and

42:43 ↗ again that'd be approximately 2.2

42:45 ↗ million dollars a year yeah

42:49 ↗ yeah well just think about this

42:51 ↗ um as we move forward if we want to do

42:54 ↗ these things in concert I mean we don't

42:55 ↗ have to I understand the we can separate

42:57 ↗ them in time but they are fairly linked

43:00 ↗ I mean I wouldn't want to approve a plan

43:02 ↗ and then say ah Shucks we have to go

43:03 ↗ back and back some stuff out of it

43:06 ↗ um so I I I would be more comfortable I

43:09 ↗ would interest in what you think about

43:11 ↗ doing these things together as opposed

43:14 ↗ to asynchronously

43:16 ↗ um

43:17 ↗ yeah just because I don't want to a feel

43:19 ↗ like we're in a box that we have to

43:21 ↗ approve the

43:22 ↗ the tax because we approved the CIP and

43:24 ↗ I don't want to be in a other box which

43:27 ↗ is

43:28 ↗ um we didn't approve the tax and now we

43:30 ↗ have to back out projects from the CIP

43:33 ↗ any any thoughts from you guys you all

43:37 ↗ what and I think we get to this later on

43:40 ↗ in the presentation too but I mean in

43:42 ↗ the end it would just be like two

43:43 ↗ projects right so

43:45 ↗ we would just and those are already

43:47 ↗ planned for future years anyways right

43:49 ↗ so if we were for some reason or another

43:52 ↗ later in the year to decide no we don't

43:53 ↗ want to move forward with this path we

43:55 ↗ would those two projects would just

43:57 ↗ they're funding they're identified funny

43:58 ↗ Source would be struck from the CIP

44:01 ↗ is that right

44:04 ↗ yes and we are I think this conversation

44:06 ↗ might flesh out a little bit later as we

44:08 ↗ talk about other taxation options and

44:10 ↗ what our options are within this

44:12 ↗ proposal okay let's go on oh

44:16 ↗ I just I want to emphasize what Andrea

44:19 ↗ said earlier in that is

44:21 ↗ um there's still a community process to

44:23 ↗ go through and

44:25 ↗ to

44:27 ↗ emphasize what was said at the podium

44:29 ↗ under Community comment

44:32 ↗ um we don't want to go out with a done

44:34 ↗ deal and then tell the public what we

44:37 ↗ want them to say back to us so so that

44:41 ↗ public process needs to be open and

44:44 ↗ transparent so it's going to take some

44:47 ↗ time and

44:49 ↗ um I think we just need to let that

44:52 ↗ conversation with the community take its

44:54 ↗ course

44:59 ↗ thank you I just want to be sure that

45:01 ↗ I'm capturing uh

45:04 ↗ your thoughts

45:05 ↗ great so

45:09 ↗ um

45:11 ↗ how the transportation project scored

45:13 ↗ with the criteria many of the

45:15 ↗ transportation items scored very high in

45:17 ↗ equity because we looked at gaps within

45:21 ↗ our infrastructure and where areas

45:23 ↗ were you know

45:26 ↗ uh disproportionate maybe had gaps in

45:29 ↗ investment versus other areas that's one

45:31 ↗ of the things we looked at so in general

45:33 ↗ the transportation item scored pretty

45:36 ↗ high in equity

45:38 ↗ um I think we have a question uh can we

45:40 ↗ go just I I was really intrigued because

45:42 ↗ I went down the equity column and looked

45:45 ↗ at the ones that scored high on that was

45:48 ↗ it um and maybe there was no common

45:51 ↗ theme but was there a common theme

45:52 ↗ around particular neighborhoods around

45:55 ↗ different racial groups or uh you know

45:58 ↗ social economic levels or what was the

46:01 ↗ what seemed to be the driving theme in

46:04 ↗ those conversations yeah I think I'd

46:06 ↗ like to look to director Moon uh to see

46:10 ↗ if do you have a response that you can

46:12 ↗ provide or perhaps John Mortensen

46:21 ↗ thank you

46:25 ↗ good evening Emily Moon Public Works

46:27 ↗ director can you repeat the question for

46:29 ↗ me

46:30 ↗ um you know I just was intrigued because

46:31 ↗ some of the projects you know showed

46:33 ↗ highlighted a strong green under equity

46:37 ↗ and I just wondered if there was a theme

46:39 ↗ that emerged like certain neighborhoods

46:41 ↗ in Issaquah that felt that they or or

46:44 ↗ that the equity board felt were

46:47 ↗ had not received equal treatment or was

46:50 ↗ it more aligned with racial groups or

46:52 ↗ was it more aligned with social economic

46:55 ↗ uh status was there a theme that emerged

46:58 ↗ in the conversations when we were

47:00 ↗ putting the green equity on some of

47:02 ↗ those projects sure I can speak to our

47:04 ↗ internal process in the department

47:06 ↗ perhaps a deputy City administrator can

47:08 ↗ speak to any commentary from the equity

47:11 ↗ board

47:12 ↗ internally

47:13 ↗ we look at a variety of factors when we

47:16 ↗ are trying to measure Equity we looked

47:19 ↗ at Geographic coverage representation in

47:24 ↗ various neighborhoods

47:26 ↗ that to some degree can be a proxy for

47:30 ↗ some of the other

47:32 ↗ socioeconomic differences in our

47:35 ↗ community so we look at that as a factor

47:37 ↗ we also look at

47:41 ↗ um

47:42 ↗ how how frequently improvements have

47:46 ↗ been made or infrequently improvements

47:48 ↗ have been made in those different

47:49 ↗ geographies so we look at kind of time

47:52 ↗ implications and as a fairness kind of

47:55 ↗ proxy as well we looked at the way in

47:59 ↗ which particular projects can affect

48:03 ↗ different numbers of people as a way to

48:08 ↗ think about Equity as well what's the

48:09 ↗ reach of a particular project and then

48:13 ↗ we examine the need of the projects

48:15 ↗ certain projects

48:17 ↗ are are highly designed to attend to

48:22 ↗ safety concerns for example

48:24 ↗ and may be very focused on things like

48:28 ↗ Ada improvements so there are also I

48:32 ↗ would say

48:34 ↗ um populations that we focus on ensuring

48:38 ↗ that we are making the improvements that

48:40 ↗ are necessary to better serve those

48:42 ↗ populations so it's it's a very

48:45 ↗ comprehensive

48:46 ↗ look and I I'm looking at John John has

48:51 ↗ one more he wants to add since he was

48:53 ↗ the primary on reading the projects

48:59 ↗ couple others that I did want to add are

49:02 ↗ access to Transit and non-motorized

49:05 ↗ transportation also were heavily

49:08 ↗ considered for the equity component

49:11 ↗ that's that's really informative Andrew

49:14 ↗ you may want to add something more too

49:16 ↗ but that really is helpful to hear that

49:19 ↗ and there were things in there that I

49:20 ↗ hadn't thought of but obviously very

49:24 ↗ well considered by staff so thank you

49:26 ↗ very much for that explanation

49:30 ↗ thank you

49:32 ↗ um most projects within this category

49:34 ↗ were considered neutral that yellow

49:36 ↗ color to climate resiliency and

49:38 ↗ environmental benefit and I say I see

49:41 ↗ neutral here but it's really yellow and

49:43 ↗ I want to make this distinction because

49:45 ↗ again we have such a high bar on climate

49:48 ↗ resiliency and environmental benefit and

49:50 ↗ how we Define that so to even get a

49:52 ↗ yellow is

49:54 ↗ um is scoring pretty high towards the

49:55 ↗ environment

49:56 ↗ so in fact red is considered no impacts

50:01 ↗ to the environment no direct perceivable

50:04 ↗ impacts to the environment so again as

50:07 ↗ John was saying we looked at these

50:08 ↗ Transportation projects in terms of do

50:10 ↗ we think that this is going to

50:11 ↗ contribute

50:12 ↗ to issaquah's proportion of climate

50:16 ↗ change are we thinking about do these

50:19 ↗ projects help reduce sov trips and

50:22 ↗ things like that and so those are some

50:23 ↗ of the things that we looked at when we

50:24 ↗ evaluated Transportation projects

50:27 ↗ against climate resiliency and

50:28 ↗ environmental benefits so scoring

50:30 ↗ scoring yellow is is actually pretty

50:33 ↗ strong with how we've defined this

50:35 ↗ criteria

50:37 ↗ and then projects that scored poorly in

50:40 ↗ climate resiliency and environmental

50:42 ↗ benefit

50:42 ↗ often scored high in life safety so

50:45 ↗ again those red marks that you might see

50:47 ↗ on that chart in your packet doesn't

50:50 ↗ necessarily mean that these projects are

50:52 ↗ terrible for the environment

50:54 ↗ um but they are determined necessary

50:59 ↗ when it comes to life safety so we'll

51:01 ↗ talk about reducing traffic incidents

51:03 ↗ increasing safety of our intersections

51:06 ↗ crosswalks Etc

51:12 ↗ so moving on to the transportation

51:15 ↗ benefit district sales tax this is

51:18 ↗ actually a new Revenue tool for

51:21 ↗ transportation benefit districts as of

51:23 ↗ 2022 was enabled by the state

51:25 ↗ legislature for it to be councilmanic

51:28 ↗ meaning that it does not require a

51:31 ↗ ballot measure or a vote of the people

51:33 ↗ it can be enacted by Council this is a

51:36 ↗ new tool since the task force met

51:39 ↗ when the task force met and recommended

51:42 ↗ a TBD sales tax it was of 0.2 percent

51:45 ↗ and it would be something that would

51:46 ↗ have to be approved by voters and this

51:49 ↗ this tool just wasn't available to us

51:51 ↗ the State Legislative Slater passed it

51:53 ↗ after the task force

51:56 ↗ stopped meeting and so and so that's why

51:59 ↗ we are proposing this tool we think that

52:01 ↗ it's still in alignment with many of the

52:04 ↗ recommendations and the intent of the

52:05 ↗ recommendations made by the task force

52:09 ↗ the um

52:11 ↗ the TBD sales tax was recommended by the

52:14 ↗ task force because while sales tax is

52:17 ↗ problematic when it comes to equity it's

52:20 ↗ considered sales tax is often considered

52:22 ↗ regressive because it means that people

52:25 ↗ of low incomes pay a higher percentage

52:28 ↗ of their income

52:29 ↗ so in many ways it's considered

52:31 ↗ regressive the city is also really

52:33 ↗ limited into the number of tools Revenue

52:35 ↗ tools that we have at our disposal to

52:38 ↗ raise

52:39 ↗ revenues to be able to make these

52:41 ↗ projects happen and one of the things

52:43 ↗ that the task force had said why they

52:47 ↗ recommended a sales tax was because it

52:49 ↗ would really distribute the cost of the

52:51 ↗ infrastructure to many more of the users

52:53 ↗ of that infrastructure so people coming

52:56 ↗ to Issaquah weather by bike or walking

53:00 ↗ or bus and they come and buy something

53:03 ↗ or access the service that we have in

53:05 ↗ Issaquah or if they drive of course and

53:08 ↗ they access the service they're all

53:09 ↗ users of the transportation

53:10 ↗ infrastructure to get here and access

53:12 ↗ these goods and services and so it

53:14 ↗ distributes the costs among the

53:16 ↗ transportation amongst the users of the

53:18 ↗ transportation Network versus just

53:20 ↗ putting all of those costs on residents

53:23 ↗ like a property tax does

53:25 ↗ and so with the two main tools of

53:29 ↗ paying for infrastructure that the city

53:32 ↗ has property tax or sales tax

53:35 ↗ the task force had said the sales tax

53:38 ↗ seems to be a good way of trying to

53:40 ↗ distribute the costs of the network onto

53:42 ↗ the users Beyond just the property

53:45 ↗ owners in Issaquah

53:49 ↗ question for you do we have any data on

53:53 ↗ on our sales tax revenue what percentage

53:55 ↗ comes from inside the city and which how

53:58 ↗ much comes from externally

54:04 ↗ I'll wait

54:09 ↗ okay

54:10 ↗ um

54:11 ↗ and then uh we do as Robert said earlier

54:15 ↗ we do anticipate this tax would raise

54:17 ↗ about 2.2 million dollars annually

54:20 ↗ and we have uh proposed that we would

54:27 ↗ use these funds to help fund the

54:31 ↗ Northwest Sammamish non-motorize

54:32 ↗ improvements which as Council may recall

54:34 ↗ has long been unfunded in our CIP so

54:37 ↗ this would help us identify funds to

54:39 ↗ actually make that project happen

54:41 ↗ and as well as the intelligent

54:43 ↗ transportation system implementation

54:46 ↗ which is a series of projects that its

54:48 ↗ plan still has yet to come to this

54:50 ↗ committee so we're still in the process

54:52 ↗ of forming and finalizing that plan but

54:55 ↗ again we wanted to take advantage of

54:57 ↗ this CIP update to make sure that we're

55:00 ↗ incorporating some of the things that

55:02 ↗ we're working on to make sure that we

55:04 ↗ don't lose this opportunity to plan for

55:06 ↗ those projects

55:08 ↗ see there's a question Michelle

55:11 ↗ just a quick question so TBD sales tax

55:15 ↗ is it under law

55:18 ↗ must be spent on Transportation projects

55:21 ↗ and then secondly it would be us

55:25 ↗ designating the projects that it would

55:27 ↗ go to

55:29 ↗ or are there criteria by law that it has

55:33 ↗ to go to certain types of projects it

55:35 ↗ has to go towards Transportation

55:37 ↗ projects within the benefit District

55:40 ↗ which is defined as the boundaries of

55:42 ↗ the city

55:43 ↗ and

55:45 ↗ um and I think what I uh when should

55:49 ↗ Council adopt this tax you don't

55:51 ↗ necessarily need to Define how exactly

55:53 ↗ how those revenues will be spent on

55:55 ↗ which projects

55:56 ↗ um it's just for transportation projects

55:59 ↗ that would occur uh within the TBD but

56:03 ↗ what we're trying to do with the CIP is

56:05 ↗ plan for these projects figure out where

56:07 ↗ we would assign these revenues and make

56:08 ↗ sure that some of these projects that

56:11 ↗ are currently unfunded or partially

56:12 ↗ funded then have assigned funding

56:16 ↗ follow-up then can we

56:19 ↗ use that money to leverage for other

56:23 ↗ funds from the federal government or the

56:25 ↗ state then okay yes yes and and that's

56:29 ↗ certainly the hope some of these

56:31 ↗ projects are just Concepts at this point

56:36 ↗ and so we're just getting to the point

56:38 ↗ or we will be especially let's talk

56:40 ↗ about the Northwest sammamished on

56:42 ↗ motorized improvements we do anticipate

56:44 ↗ going out for Grants but it's still a

56:47 ↗ little too early to understand how

56:49 ↗ competitive we might be or how much of

56:51 ↗ this project might be funded by grants

56:52 ↗ but that's still we will continue to

56:55 ↗ pursue grant funding for our projects

57:00 ↗ foreign

57:05 ↗ so we wanted to talk a little bit about

57:07 ↗ impact to Residents and understand what

57:10 ↗ a 0.1 percent sales tax would would

57:13 ↗ cause in terms of impact so average

57:15 ↗ annual impact per household and maybe

57:17 ↗ Robert you want to come up and present

57:18 ↗ on this slide I'll let him do it

57:23 ↗ so there's a very astute comment

57:26 ↗ um I believe by council member D

57:27 ↗ Michelle yesterday and correct me if it

57:29 ↗ was a different council member regarding

57:30 ↗ property tax and what the impact is if

57:32 ↗ you increase property tax to Residents

57:34 ↗ that even renters would get impacted

57:37 ↗ because they're paying sorry council

57:38 ↗ member I apologize

57:40 ↗ it's close next to each other

57:43 ↗ um

57:44 ↗ sales tax is a little bit more

57:46 ↗ complicated than that because there are

57:48 ↗ certain items that everyday items when

57:50 ↗ you think about going to the grocery

57:52 ↗ store even filling up the gas tank those

57:54 ↗ items are not applicable to the sales

57:56 ↗ tax they have groceries do not have tax

58:00 ↗ gas has a fixed excise tax from the

58:03 ↗ state so sales tax is not applied to

58:05 ↗ some of those everyday items that impact

58:07 ↗ people at the same time

58:09 ↗ you know it's again that the question I

58:12 ↗ know just happened about how what a

58:14 ↗ percentage of residents are shopping

58:16 ↗ here we're assuming most residents are

58:18 ↗ doing most of their shopping here I

58:20 ↗ don't think the city's done a very

58:21 ↗ intensive Market study the past few

58:24 ↗ years I don't think we have all that

58:25 ↗ data but it would be inconvenient just

58:28 ↗ for hypothetical sake if you're at home

58:31 ↗ in the City of Issaquah you don't you

58:33 ↗ don't say you don't work in another city

58:35 ↗ and you're going to Bellevue or going to

58:37 ↗ Seattle to shop we're not really seeing

58:39 ↗ those patterns that much we have almost

58:41 ↗ all the retail stores

58:43 ↗ minus Walmart you have all the retail

58:46 ↗ stores that those other cities have

58:48 ↗ within a 30 mile or 30 minute radius of

58:51 ↗ us so we're not seeing a lot of leakage

58:52 ↗ per se from our residents so what we are

58:55 ↗ seeing is we're the hub for so many

58:57 ↗ different areas around us if you look at

58:59 ↗ Sammamish you look at North Bend

59:00 ↗ Snoqualmie Snoqualmie Valley

59:03 ↗ uh Fall City area almost all those

59:06 ↗ residents come to Issaquah to shop and

59:10 ↗ just personal situation when I lived in

59:12 ↗ Snoqualmie during the pandemic we

59:15 ↗ couldn't even get instacart to deliver

59:16 ↗ to our house so we had to go to Issaquah

59:18 ↗ even when everything else was shut down

59:19 ↗ to do our shopping and even now a lot of

59:22 ↗ those rural areas don't have the same

59:23 ↗ delivery services that you could get

59:25 ↗ here so Issaquah is always going to be

59:27 ↗ that hub for those surrounding

59:29 ↗ communities so we're assuming 40 percent

59:32 ↗ but also you look at it's not just

59:34 ↗ people driving in but it's also the

59:35 ↗ daytime population because we're a

59:37 ↗ corporate headquarters City you have

59:38 ↗ Costco you have REI you have a Microsoft

59:40 ↗ presence here because of that you have

59:43 ↗ you're always going to have at least I'd

59:46 ↗ say you know it's not scientific because

59:48 ↗ if we don't have the actual data but

59:49 ↗ probably between somewhere around 40

59:51 ↗ percent of the sales tax coming from

59:54 ↗ outside

59:55 ↗ so but not everybody in the community

59:58 ↗ and this is where it gets tricky spins

1:00:00 ↗ the same on products some people are

1:00:02 ↗ more frugal than others some people

1:00:03 ↗ might buy a car one year some people

1:00:05 ↗ might wait 20 years to buy a car so not

1:00:08 ↗ everybody has the same consumer habits

1:00:10 ↗ that's why it's hard to get an average

1:00:12 ↗ but if just looking at the per capita if

1:00:14 ↗ we're looking at not even looking at the

1:00:17 ↗ outside coming in but just looking at

1:00:19 ↗ looking at the number of households

1:00:20 ↗ looking at the population we're

1:00:23 ↗ estimating it's about a hundred dollar

1:00:24 ↗ impact

1:00:26 ↗ I'm assuming people are doing normal

1:00:28 ↗ spending habits and and other you know

1:00:30 ↗ buying furniture a couple times a year

1:00:32 ↗ buying other large Goods a couple times

1:00:33 ↗ a year to have them delivered directly

1:00:35 ↗ to the home where Issaquah gets that tax

1:00:37 ↗ collected so we're assuming it would be

1:00:40 ↗ about a hundred dollars per household

1:00:42 ↗ not per person

1:00:44 ↗ and again what that resonates to if you

1:00:46 ↗ bought a forty thousand dollar car at

1:00:48 ↗ Evergreen the price of increased about

1:00:50 ↗ forty dollars

1:00:52 ↗ so that's the point one percent sales

1:00:54 ↗ tax

1:00:56 ↗ and so in a 500 television for example

1:01:00 ↗ would increase by 50 Cents

1:01:04 ↗ so that's kind of uh what's Happening

1:01:07 ↗ Here Again gas and most groceries are

1:01:10 ↗ not subject to sales tax and so that's

1:01:12 ↗ the annual impact it would be the same

1:01:15 ↗ impact that the city experienced with

1:01:18 ↗ when Council approved the affordable

1:01:19 ↗ housing sales tax

1:01:23 ↗ so local tax rates I know this did come

1:01:25 ↗ up yesterday

1:01:26 ↗ yes Bellevue is the same rate as us they

1:01:29 ↗ are 10.1 percent Newcastle is also 10.1

1:01:32 ↗ percent we are Kirkland is 10.2 percent

1:01:36 ↗ Auburn is 10.2 percent Seattle is 10.25

1:01:40 ↗ I rounded up to three once but 10.25 for

1:01:43 ↗ Seattle Shoreline is the highest in King

1:01:46 ↗ County at 10.3 percent you can see

1:01:48 ↗ Snoqualmie North Bend and Covington or

1:01:50 ↗ lower because they're outside the Sound

1:01:52 ↗ Transit project area

1:01:57 ↗ and so going up 0.1 percent would put us

1:02:00 ↗ on par with Kirkland

1:02:04 ↗ so the sales tax breakdown I know that

1:02:06 ↗ question was asked

1:02:08 ↗ State share is 6.5 so that goes straight

1:02:11 ↗ to the state state criminal justice is

1:02:13 ↗ 0.1 percent we get a very small portion

1:02:15 ↗ back of that that tax Sound Transit

1:02:18 ↗ those 1.4 so Sound Transit is actually

1:02:21 ↗ higher than what the city collects

1:02:23 ↗ King County Metro is 0.9 percent County

1:02:26 ↗ General share is 0.15 County Mental

1:02:29 ↗ Health is 0.1 percent and then you can

1:02:32 ↗ see our general sales tax is 0.85

1:02:34 ↗ affordable housing is 0.1 percent so of

1:02:38 ↗ that 10.1 percent if it's every one

1:02:40 ↗ dollar you pay in sales tax the city

1:02:42 ↗ receives approximately 10 cents

1:02:46 ↗ so again we're talking about a small

1:02:48 ↗ portion of the overall sales tax and

1:02:50 ↗ back to Andrea's Point earlier our

1:02:52 ↗ revenues are very limited in what we can

1:02:54 ↗ raise at the city so again councilmatic

1:02:56 ↗ we can only raise a 0.1 voter approved

1:02:58 ↗ we could raise a 0.2 I'm going to show

1:03:00 ↗ it in a

1:03:01 ↗ an adjacent slide but we're very limited

1:03:04 ↗ on what we can get and so that's part of

1:03:07 ↗ why we're recommending this option

1:03:11 ↗ foreign

1:03:17 ↗ so other Revenue options point two

1:03:19 ↗ percent voter approved TBD sales tax

1:03:21 ↗ that would have to go to voters that

1:03:23 ↗ would generate approximately 4.4 million

1:03:25 ↗ dollars of annual revenue

1:03:28 ↗ the other option you could do a voter

1:03:30 ↗ approved TBD carfat car tab increase it

1:03:34 ↗ would you can go up to 100 for the voter

1:03:37 ↗ approval per household generate about

1:03:39 ↗ two million dollars annually

1:03:42 ↗ voter approved Levy lidlift for

1:03:44 ↗ transportation every two million dollars

1:03:46 ↗ in annual revenue would have an average

1:03:47 ↗ property tax impact of about 150

1:03:49 ↗ annually

1:03:53 ↗ councilmember Hall uh thank you and all

1:03:57 ↗ um

1:03:58 ↗ are all these independent of each other

1:04:00 ↗ are these mutually exclusive like you

1:04:02 ↗ have to pick one or the other or do we

1:04:04 ↗ have a point two percent cap for the

1:04:06 ↗ transportation benefit District you can

1:04:08 ↗ either go sales tax or you can go car

1:04:10 ↗ tab how does that go so there's actually

1:04:13 ↗ no cap you can do a combination the cap

1:04:16 ↗ for sales tax alone would be point three

1:04:18 ↗ percent so you could do the point one

1:04:20 ↗ percent councilmatic you also have the

1:04:22 ↗ availability to do 0.2 percent voter

1:04:24 ↗ approved at a 50.1 50 plus one percent

1:04:27 ↗ voter approval rate

1:04:30 ↗ and the car tab you can go up with

1:04:32 ↗ whatever you can councilmatic after 48

1:04:35 ↗ months you can go to 50 councilmatic you

1:04:37 ↗ can go up to a hundred dollars of the

1:04:39 ↗ voter approval

1:04:41 ↗ and the only TVD that I know that's done

1:04:43 ↗ that vehicle license fee is Maple Valley

1:04:45 ↗ is that the only one

1:04:47 ↗ you know several cities have it the city

1:04:49 ↗ of Snoqualmie implemented it about two

1:04:52 ↗ years ago

1:04:53 ↗ oh really okay okay thanks

1:05:01 ↗ and

1:05:03 ↗ I'm gonna hand it over to Andrea

1:05:08 ↗ thank you Robert

1:05:10 ↗ um

1:05:11 ↗ so

1:05:13 ↗ a couple of options for which projects

1:05:16 ↗ would be funded by this proposed tax

1:05:19 ↗ the first option which is what we're

1:05:22 ↗ recommending within the proposed CIP is

1:05:24 ↗ that we would fund those its projects

1:05:26 ↗ the Northwest Sammamish non-motorized

1:05:28 ↗ improvements

1:05:30 ↗ another option for council's

1:05:32 ↗ consideration is to fund black nugget

1:05:34 ↗ wall a

1:05:36 ↗ rehabilitation and the its projects and

1:05:40 ↗ third option would be to help fund the

1:05:42 ↗ squawk Mountain multimodal improvements

1:05:43 ↗ as well as its projects so you see its

1:05:46 ↗ projects mentioned in each of these

1:05:48 ↗ options it's not because we're trying to

1:05:50 ↗ push it on you it's not because it's our

1:05:52 ↗ favorite project

1:05:53 ↗ within the tip of course we don't have

1:05:56 ↗ any personal favorites but

1:05:59 ↗ um but it's just really looking at a

1:06:01 ↗ function of how much revenue can we

1:06:02 ↗ raise and how much do these projects

1:06:04 ↗ cost and so that's why its projects just

1:06:08 ↗ fits in nicely as a complement so if

1:06:10 ↗ Council wanted to say why can't we do

1:06:13 ↗ black nugget wall and squawk Mountain

1:06:15 ↗ multimodal improvements and push its

1:06:17 ↗ projects to the side the answer is

1:06:19 ↗ because with this 0.1 percent TBD sales

1:06:21 ↗ tax we wouldn't be raising enough

1:06:23 ↗ Revenue to do that at least we don't

1:06:26 ↗ anticipate that at this point so that's

1:06:29 ↗ why the options all include its projects

1:06:34 ↗ any questions on what some of these

1:06:36 ↗ options are for your consideration

1:06:42 ↗ councilmember Hall thank you um

1:06:45 ↗ you know not on these options I'm just

1:06:47 ↗ wondering if the administration kind of

1:06:49 ↗ what the administration considered

1:06:51 ↗ narrowing down to this so like two

1:06:53 ↗ others using the criteria that was in

1:06:54 ↗ the memo two others kind of stood out to

1:06:56 ↗ me

1:06:57 ↗ um and that was the Strategic small

1:06:59 ↗ capital projects because they're they

1:07:01 ↗ don't cost very much and

1:07:03 ↗ um having a consistent Revenue coming in

1:07:07 ↗ to be able to address immediate needs as

1:07:09 ↗ they come up in neighborhoods or

1:07:10 ↗ whatever we're applying that to

1:07:13 ↗ um seemed like a good fit a potential

1:07:15 ↗ good fit at least and then also as we

1:07:17 ↗ know in the community survey pavement

1:07:19 ↗ management or um

1:07:21 ↗ the condition of roads and sidewalks was

1:07:23 ↗ identified as a Meats emphasis area so

1:07:26 ↗ as we're seeing Reit go down did we

1:07:29 ↗ potentially consider pavement management

1:07:30 ↗ with this too great great question and

1:07:34 ↗ yes we did consider it

1:07:37 ↗ um we were really trying to look at so

1:07:40 ↗ the memo does talk about okay of of all

1:07:43 ↗ of our options for things we can fund

1:07:45 ↗ with this potential new Revenue Source

1:07:47 ↗ we tried to narrow it down further by

1:07:49 ↗ looking at what do we what do we know

1:07:51 ↗ that we've heard our recent Community

1:07:53 ↗ priorities we've heard Council feedback

1:07:55 ↗ that we should be focusing on these

1:07:57 ↗ projects and trying to identify which of

1:08:00 ↗ the projects within the six-year plan

1:08:01 ↗ not out not in future years but even

1:08:04 ↗ within the six-year plan that are

1:08:06 ↗ unfunded or partially funded still and

1:08:09 ↗ so we tried to focus on those projects

1:08:11 ↗ that are unfunded or partially funded

1:08:13 ↗ and I think the the biggest

1:08:16 ↗ projects or the most glaring holes in

1:08:19 ↗ funding were its projects Northwest

1:08:21 ↗ Sammamish non-motorized black nugget

1:08:23 ↗ wall some of the other projects PMP or

1:08:26 ↗ programs have some funding that are

1:08:29 ↗ assigned and if we have an increase in

1:08:31 ↗ rate then we can apply that real estate

1:08:33 ↗ excise tax if we have that funding that

1:08:38 ↗ becomes available then we can always

1:08:39 ↗ apply it to those things but we're

1:08:41 ↗ really looking for these big gaps where

1:08:44 ↗ there are projects yet unfunded or have

1:08:46 ↗ major phases that are unfunded so that's

1:08:48 ↗ that's some of the things I think there

1:08:50 ↗ are a few other criteria that we looked

1:08:51 ↗ at that are mentioned in the memo but

1:08:53 ↗ that's that's why we narrowed it down

1:08:55 ↗ certainly if Council would prefer us to

1:08:59 ↗ look at other things other options we're

1:09:02 ↗ more than happy to do that we just

1:09:03 ↗ wanted to try to make it somewhat

1:09:05 ↗ manageable for your consideration and

1:09:07 ↗ narrow it down to three combinations

1:09:08 ↗ that we know we could afford with this

1:09:11 ↗ anticipated Revenue

1:09:16 ↗ okay

1:09:19 ↗ um so wanted to go over some of the tab

1:09:21 ↗ feedback in particular the

1:09:22 ↗ transportation Advisory Board

1:09:24 ↗ they they did not provide comment on the

1:09:27 ↗ sales tax itself or the projects that we

1:09:30 ↗ recommend funding that that conversation

1:09:32 ↗ really stayed focused on the criteria

1:09:35 ↗ and how we applied that criteria they

1:09:38 ↗ did ask many questions about the tax so

1:09:40 ↗ did our other boards but they didn't

1:09:43 ↗ have specific comment on it so

1:09:45 ↗ there was strong General support for the

1:09:48 ↗ CIP public process and that update

1:09:51 ↗ process they

1:09:53 ↗ um they wanted me to say strong support

1:09:55 ↗ so that's in there they also had said

1:10:00 ↗ that some of the members weren't able to

1:10:01 ↗ attend the board Summit they really

1:10:03 ↗ wanted to be a part of it so they wanted

1:10:04 ↗ us to live stream that

1:10:06 ↗ again that long-standing commitment

1:10:08 ↗ criteria which we talked about briefly

1:10:11 ↗ earlier they thought was very important

1:10:13 ↗ but should be reevaluated in a

1:10:15 ↗ transparent Way by Council according to

1:10:17 ↗ current goals and values again with that

1:10:19 ↗ ion Equity especially

1:10:22 ↗ there was a agreement among tab that

1:10:26 ↗ safety and maintenance is really

1:10:27 ↗ important and should Trump some of the

1:10:29 ↗ other needs and Trump some of the other

1:10:31 ↗ criteria

1:10:32 ↗ and so they thought that we had applied

1:10:35 ↗ that correctly despite maybe some of the

1:10:37 ↗ you know environmental benefits criteria

1:10:41 ↗ you know that some project scored read

1:10:43 ↗ with that but maybe we're we're trumped

1:10:45 ↗ by safety and maintenance so they agreed

1:10:46 ↗ with that approach

1:10:48 ↗ um and then there was a suggestion for

1:10:49 ↗ future CIP processes and how to involve

1:10:52 ↗ the boards that the boards thought it

1:10:54 ↗ would be great the tab

1:10:55 ↗ um specifically thought it would be

1:10:57 ↗ great to have an activity where they

1:10:59 ↗ could apply the criteria to a sample of

1:11:01 ↗ projects themselves and really

1:11:03 ↗ um

1:11:05 ↗ figure out how to apply it themselves

1:11:06 ↗ they would become more familiar with it

1:11:08 ↗ and then they could provide better

1:11:09 ↗ feedback on

1:11:11 ↗ um on the criteria itself

1:11:17 ↗ okay so reminder of where we are in this

1:11:19 ↗ process we're in that dark black bolded

1:11:24 ↗ font there Council committees review

1:11:26 ↗ sections of the CIP provide your

1:11:28 ↗ feedback and then we come together at

1:11:31 ↗ the committee of the whole in June to

1:11:33 ↗ discuss the entire CIP including this

1:11:35 ↗ question of the TBD sales tax and then

1:11:38 ↗ again we're hopeful for Council adoption

1:11:40 ↗ by July 1st

1:11:43 ↗ any questions all right questions

1:11:48 ↗ anyone

1:11:50 ↗ Zach

1:11:52 ↗ um thank you so you've already done or

1:11:54 ↗ you've already answered some of my

1:11:55 ↗ questions let me just I highlighted them

1:11:57 ↗ in yellow

1:11:58 ↗ um oh back on boarding commission

1:12:01 ↗ feedback I forgot to ask this earlier so

1:12:03 ↗ the park board also talked about

1:12:05 ↗ um

1:12:06 ↗ sequencing and like whether or not we

1:12:09 ↗ should consider kind of the sequencing

1:12:11 ↗ of projects as in prioritization and I'm

1:12:13 ↗ just curious how the administration

1:12:16 ↗ thought about that piece of feedback

1:12:20 ↗ I'm I'm trying to remind myself of

1:12:23 ↗ exactly what that comment was at the

1:12:24 ↗ park board it feels like an eternity ago

1:12:28 ↗ so

1:12:31 ↗ I think it was sequencing and priorities

1:12:34 ↗ within that six-year time frame of how

1:12:37 ↗ noting that

1:12:39 ↗ some projects May score higher in a

1:12:42 ↗ certain phase and how that

1:12:44 ↗ is planned throughout the six years is

1:12:47 ↗ that way

1:12:48 ↗ I need to go back and reference them

1:12:49 ↗ yeah here it is I found it okay in the

1:12:51 ↗ future criteria should include ability

1:12:53 ↗ to recognize the sequencing of projects

1:12:55 ↗ where one project should score better if

1:12:57 ↗ it is necessary to support a bigger

1:12:59 ↗ Community priority so right um I thought

1:13:02 ↗ that was a insightful piece of feedback

1:13:04 ↗ so I'm just curious what you thought

1:13:06 ↗ about it yeah that is very insightful

1:13:09 ↗ and something we've talked a lot about

1:13:10 ↗ especially when it comes to it upgrades

1:13:12 ↗ and so

1:13:14 ↗ um I.T being a necessary first step in

1:13:18 ↗ some cases to achieve these other

1:13:19 ↗ projects its is a really good example of

1:13:22 ↗ this so in order for us to have a great

1:13:25 ↗ smart traffic signal system for example

1:13:27 ↗ we need to lay a lot of fiber conduit to

1:13:29 ↗ make that happen and you'll see a lot of

1:13:32 ↗ fiber conduit projects fiber optic

1:13:35 ↗ projects in the technology section of

1:13:38 ↗ the CIP and those are there as a first

1:13:41 ↗ step towards its projects which you

1:13:44 ↗ might see in the transportation section

1:13:45 ↗ of the CIP and so we we do we do think

1:13:49 ↗ about that and think about how these

1:13:51 ↗ projects are linked maybe one thing

1:13:53 ↗ laying laying fiber optics doesn't sound

1:13:56 ↗ like a high Community priority it

1:13:57 ↗ doesn't sound like it does a lot on its

1:13:59 ↗ own for Life Safety but we know that

1:14:01 ↗ it's related and necessary to uh to

1:14:05 ↗ these other projects so we consider that

1:14:07 ↗ as a whole

1:14:09 ↗ and I'm sure that's just one example of

1:14:11 ↗ how we think about that and there are

1:14:12 ↗ lots of ways and I wonder if maybe the

1:14:15 ↗ parks director could kind of circle back

1:14:16 ↗ with the park board and say that was a

1:14:18 ↗ great piece of feedback in here are kind

1:14:19 ↗ of some of the ways that that we do

1:14:21 ↗ consider that just so they felt heard

1:14:24 ↗ um

1:14:24 ↗ thank you yeah of course

1:14:27 ↗ um

1:14:28 ↗ with regard to nope answered that

1:14:31 ↗ already

1:14:34 ↗ um oh so with the

1:14:36 ↗ CIP itself I finally did have an

1:14:39 ↗ opportunity to dig into all of it but um

1:14:41 ↗ the

1:14:43 ↗ planning document kind of alignment

1:14:46 ↗ Matrix at the front is great because

1:14:48 ↗ that's what you know the counts Council

1:14:50 ↗ we wanted to see more alignment with our

1:14:52 ↗ strategic planning documents I'd love to

1:14:54 ↗ see that last year or actually let's

1:14:57 ↗ just start at this

1:14:58 ↗ um

1:14:59 ↗ how did you consider

1:15:02 ↗ um

1:15:05 ↗ like were there any was there any

1:15:07 ↗ consideration of well we want this many

1:15:09 ↗ projects

1:15:11 ↗ to be aligned with this strategic plan

1:15:13 ↗ in the CIP so we want to have at least

1:15:16 ↗ five that are aligned with the climate

1:15:19 ↗ action plan we want to have at least

1:15:20 ↗ five that are aligned with the mobility

1:15:22 ↗ master plan I know that would be kind of

1:15:24 ↗ like criteria on top of criteria on top

1:15:26 ↗ of criteria I'm just curious how we

1:15:28 ↗ thought about

1:15:30 ↗ um

1:15:31 ↗ was it more after the fact okay these

1:15:33 ↗ are how the projects lined up with the

1:15:36 ↗ different strategic planning documents

1:15:37 ↗ or was that thought beforehand

1:15:42 ↗ each of those planning documents

1:15:44 ↗ suggested so between their policies or

1:15:47 ↗ some name particular projects so we

1:15:49 ↗ drive projects from the master Mobility

1:15:51 ↗ plan for example and look at okay what's

1:15:54 ↗ suggested within the MMP

1:15:56 ↗ um where are we at you know does do we

1:15:58 ↗ have the ability then we look at the

1:15:59 ↗ other criteria to to select projects for

1:16:02 ↗ the CIP right so we look at from

1:16:05 ↗ projects suggested in the MMP do we have

1:16:07 ↗ the ability to deliver on this project

1:16:09 ↗ does it meet our climate resiliency

1:16:12 ↗ goals the project the criteria that we

1:16:15 ↗ discussed earlier so we start at that

1:16:18 ↗ Master Plan level of course the master

1:16:20 ↗ plan is informed by the Strategic plan

1:16:23 ↗ by the comprehensive plan right and so

1:16:25 ↗ we don't necessarily think about

1:16:28 ↗ um well we need to have five from each

1:16:31 ↗ plan it's more having the plans Drive

1:16:35 ↗ which projects we select then we score

1:16:38 ↗ them against the criteria and that's how

1:16:41 ↗ they end up in the CIP of course we take

1:16:43 ↗ that while incorporating other feedback

1:16:46 ↗ we've heard from the task force from

1:16:48 ↗ city council from the community as well

1:16:53 ↗ right okay so all these projects that

1:16:55 ↗ are coming that might be identified in

1:16:57 ↗ the plans they're up here and then

1:16:59 ↗ they're going through the funnel that's

1:17:00 ↗ exactly right yeah there's a great

1:17:03 ↗ funnel graphic I used in all of my board

1:17:05 ↗ presentations that I should I should use

1:17:07 ↗ for my future Council committee

1:17:11 ↗ yes I

1:17:12 ↗ have a learning committee too so you're

1:17:14 ↗ you're a guinea pig so we can see what

1:17:16 ↗ other information we need to include for

1:17:18 ↗ our future Council committee

1:17:19 ↗ presentation so I'm going to include

1:17:21 ↗ that thank you okay thank you

1:17:23 ↗ um

1:17:25 ↗ I also found it let's

1:17:31 ↗ kind of hearing the equity criteria

1:17:34 ↗ breakdown and what went into that was

1:17:36 ↗ really helpful to me one thing I didn't

1:17:39 ↗ um one thing I noticed was that

1:17:43 ↗ we had a description of the criteria in

1:17:46 ↗ in the criteria attachment and we talked

1:17:48 ↗ about that at a retreat and all that too

1:17:51 ↗ but how it was applied

1:17:54 ↗ um

1:17:55 ↗ is challenging to see if you're just

1:17:57 ↗ looking at that document and even just

1:17:59 ↗ like I said getting that understanding

1:18:02 ↗ of how Equity was applied in that one

1:18:03 ↗ case or across all those projects made

1:18:06 ↗ me understand

1:18:08 ↗ much much more deeply

1:18:10 ↗ um but that's not present for the other

1:18:13 ↗ one so I'm just wondering if are we

1:18:15 ↗ keeping track of kind of how staff are

1:18:17 ↗ applying criteria

1:18:19 ↗ internally do we see that that's

1:18:22 ↗ necessary or a need

1:18:26 ↗ um

1:18:28 ↗ I think the the short answer is

1:18:31 ↗ so when the projects were evaluated by

1:18:33 ↗ the project managers and then vetted

1:18:36 ↗ further internally they applied those

1:18:39 ↗ those criteria and so there there is a

1:18:41 ↗ rationale that we have for how we have

1:18:44 ↗ scored those projects we didn't want to

1:18:48 ↗ include long narratives against you know

1:18:51 ↗ what is it eight or nine criteria for

1:18:54 ↗ every single project there's

1:18:56 ↗ quite a few projects I think 300 plus

1:18:59 ↗ within the CIP so it's a matter of just

1:19:03 ↗ trying to make it digestible but

1:19:06 ↗ certainly if you have any questions

1:19:07 ↗ about how those criteria replied that is

1:19:10 ↗ something we focused a little bit more

1:19:11 ↗ on in the at the board level but if

1:19:13 ↗ there's any questions I can answer for

1:19:15 ↗ you today I'm happy to do that well I

1:19:17 ↗ think even just knowing that we have

1:19:21 ↗ um

1:19:22 ↗ a good justification for how we're

1:19:25 ↗ applying criteria is important I mean

1:19:26 ↗ even the environmental board was saying

1:19:28 ↗ well maybe environmental sustainability

1:19:30 ↗ and climate resiliency should live as

1:19:33 ↗ different criteria but we also don't

1:19:35 ↗ want to create a million criteria so we

1:19:37 ↗ put them together but understanding how

1:19:40 ↗ those two things are very different

1:19:41 ↗ still but they but they live together

1:19:43 ↗ and so if one score is great and one

1:19:46 ↗ scores the other or when score is read

1:19:50 ↗ understanding how they're being applied

1:19:53 ↗ through different lenses either

1:19:54 ↗ environment or climate might be

1:19:55 ↗ different

1:19:57 ↗ um

1:19:58 ↗ I'm not sure if that sentence made sense

1:19:59 ↗ but it did in my head yes um so and I

1:20:02 ↗ hope you understand what I'm saying it's

1:20:03 ↗ just like it it'll be good to know that

1:20:05 ↗ we have that kind of documentation in

1:20:07 ↗ case we want to get into it yeah and I

1:20:09 ↗ think hopefully what's helpful in the

1:20:11 ↗ the climate resiliency uh and

1:20:14 ↗ environmental benefit criteria is a

1:20:16 ↗ complicated one because it looks at

1:20:18 ↗ climate resiliency and habitat and

1:20:19 ↗ ecosystem impacts and those things can

1:20:22 ↗ be married together and they can also be

1:20:23 ↗ very different

1:20:25 ↗ um so

1:20:27 ↗ um I think what also helps provide a

1:20:29 ↗ level of transparency is that we have

1:20:31 ↗ that document available publicly talking

1:20:34 ↗ about what constitutes a red yellow and

1:20:37 ↗ green threshold so it's not just how is

1:20:39 ↗ each criteria defined and then you see a

1:20:41 ↗ color assigned to it but it really lays

1:20:44 ↗ out here's here's more specifically what

1:20:46 ↗ we mean when we say it's green or what

1:20:48 ↗ we mean when we say it's yellow and I

1:20:49 ↗ think that just provides a little bit

1:20:52 ↗ more understanding for how those

1:20:54 ↗ projects fit in without having a a

1:20:57 ↗ paragraph narrative assigned to each

1:20:59 ↗ project and each criteria

1:21:06 ↗ anything else

1:21:09 ↗ a question kind of about public Outreach

1:21:13 ↗ I mean we've done a lot of reaching out

1:21:14 ↗ to the boards and and that's super

1:21:16 ↗ important and super positive but what's

1:21:18 ↗ the what's the ongoing public Outreach

1:21:21 ↗ and engagement

1:21:22 ↗ um thinking yeah so uh good question on

1:21:26 ↗ the CIP specifically let's talk about

1:21:28 ↗ that first because I think there's

1:21:30 ↗ probably another question about the TBD

1:21:32 ↗ and sales tax in there as well so with

1:21:35 ↗ the CIP if I had that great funnel

1:21:37 ↗ graphic I could use it as a backdrop to

1:21:39 ↗ talk about when public engagement really

1:21:41 ↗ begins and it really begins at that

1:21:43 ↗ Master Plan top level concept what's

1:21:47 ↗ within what's within the master plan

1:21:48 ↗ what's our visioning for mobility in

1:21:51 ↗ Issaquah and we go through a lot of Pub

1:21:53 ↗ we engage the public in that Master

1:21:55 ↗ planning process and that Master Plan

1:21:58 ↗ also suggests a number of capital

1:22:00 ↗ projects so that's when we first start

1:22:03 ↗ engaging the public in that Master

1:22:05 ↗ planning process and then we're here in

1:22:07 ↗ the CIP phase that's kind of where we go

1:22:09 ↗ from the master planning process in the

1:22:12 ↗ CIP phase just creating this document

1:22:15 ↗ we have had a number of public meetings

1:22:18 ↗ with our boards and commissions that

1:22:21 ↗ helped create those plans so we're

1:22:24 ↗ looking at them and we're saying what's

1:22:25 ↗ within the CIP did that reflect what's

1:22:28 ↗ what you intended within the master

1:22:29 ↗ Mobility plan

1:22:31 ↗ for example so we want to check that

1:22:33 ↗ back with them because they know those

1:22:34 ↗ plans better than anybody

1:22:37 ↗ um and then uh as we're designing

1:22:39 ↗ projects so from concept which we saw uh

1:22:45 ↗ recently with the Northwest Sammamish

1:22:46 ↗ non-motorized improvements we're having

1:22:48 ↗ open houses with members of the public

1:22:50 ↗ we're

1:22:51 ↗ um having surveys with members of the

1:22:53 ↗ public to gain their feedback on exactly

1:22:55 ↗ what this project should look like what

1:22:57 ↗ it should include right and so that

1:22:59 ↗ happens within the design and conceptual

1:23:01 ↗ phase and then there's other types of

1:23:03 ↗ public engagement we do as we as we

1:23:06 ↗ implement the project as well so there's

1:23:08 ↗ different phases of public engagement at

1:23:11 ↗ different phases of project from concept

1:23:13 ↗ to implementation

1:23:16 ↗ when we talk about the the sales tax

1:23:20 ↗ um it is true we haven't had a lot of

1:23:23 ↗ public engagement at this point we

1:23:25 ↗ started with the Community Capital

1:23:28 ↗ Finance Community task force who who

1:23:30 ↗ recommended so that was a task force

1:23:32 ↗ that looked deeply at what are the types

1:23:35 ↗ of revenues that are available to us how

1:23:37 ↗ are we spending some of our revenues

1:23:39 ↗ let's look at some of these unfunded

1:23:40 ↗ projects and so that's how we started

1:23:42 ↗ because Finance is a is a complicated

1:23:45 ↗ concept and so we started on the task

1:23:48 ↗ force level with if Council says we

1:23:52 ↗ should continue to pursue a revenue

1:23:53 ↗ option whether that's a TBD sales tax or

1:23:56 ↗ a different type of new Revenue tool

1:23:57 ↗ then at that point we will want to

1:24:00 ↗ create a public engagement plan and and

1:24:03 ↗ really engage the public on that level

1:24:05 ↗ so that we understand from them is this

1:24:08 ↗ something that they agree that we need

1:24:11 ↗ if it's something that is to be approved

1:24:13 ↗ by voters of course we would be doing

1:24:15 ↗ additional surveys and testing interests

1:24:20 ↗ and tolerances of our community

1:24:25 ↗ great thank you

1:24:28 ↗ anything else

1:24:30 ↗ all right we've got another opportunity

1:24:32 ↗ for public comment is there anybody in

1:24:35 ↗ the room who would like to make public

1:24:37 ↗ comment

1:24:38 ↗ is there

1:24:40 ↗ city clerk is there anybody online who

1:24:42 ↗ might have their hand raised

1:24:45 ↗ uh there's one virtual attendee there is

1:24:47 ↗ not a hand raised at this time

1:24:49 ↗ okay

1:24:50 ↗ so we will move on

1:24:53 ↗ all right so

1:24:55 ↗ let's go to our this there you go

1:24:57 ↗ directions slide

1:25:01 ↗ anybody uh want to get us started with

1:25:03 ↗ your thoughts

1:25:05 ↗ councilmer do you Michelle okay I'll go

1:25:08 ↗ first

1:25:10 ↗ um so just a general comment I I did see

1:25:13 ↗ that the criteria in equity had been

1:25:16 ↗ um much changed and I was really pleased

1:25:19 ↗ with the way it had changed and so thank

1:25:21 ↗ you thank you to the staff for for that

1:25:23 ↗ uh really thoughtful process I'm sure it

1:25:26 ↗ was well well discussed and the wording

1:25:29 ↗ I thought was really really appropriate

1:25:31 ↗ so many thanks many thanks for that I do

1:25:34 ↗ think that the proposed CIP is

1:25:37 ↗ responding to the council's goals and

1:25:38 ↗ out comes so I don't have any uh

1:25:41 ↗ suggested improvements at this at this

1:25:43 ↗ point

1:25:44 ↗ uh is the committee's support of a

1:25:46 ↗ councilmanic one percent TBE sales tax

1:25:49 ↗ am I comfortable with that yes and

1:25:53 ↗ um

1:25:55 ↗ I I think that uh director Hamilton's

1:25:59 ↗ presentation was very

1:26:01 ↗ full of good information for that could

1:26:03 ↗ be used to take out to uh voters or

1:26:08 ↗ they're not voters if it's councilmanic

1:26:10 ↗ but to the public to explain

1:26:13 ↗ what this is going to do

1:26:16 ↗ I do see a little bit of difference

1:26:17 ↗ between this one percent and the one

1:26:19 ↗ percent we did for affordable housing in

1:26:21 ↗ that we were able to apply those funds

1:26:23 ↗ right away and we could show the public

1:26:24 ↗ here's what we did already with your

1:26:27 ↗ money and here's the projects that have

1:26:29 ↗ been funded and here's how many people

1:26:30 ↗ have been put gotten permanent housing

1:26:34 ↗ and all of those nice things and this is

1:26:37 ↗ going to take a while for us to see the

1:26:39 ↗ results and so I think a very carefully

1:26:42 ↗ explaining uh the projects that we're

1:26:45 ↗ supporting and that I wonder if we want

1:26:47 ↗ to do some thinking about

1:26:49 ↗ uh what's coming after its and the

1:26:52 ↗ Northwest Somalian motorized uh I know

1:26:55 ↗ those are big projects and it's going to

1:26:57 ↗ be multiple years before we see the

1:26:58 ↗ outcomes and I think that is the part

1:27:00 ↗ that's going to be difficult for the

1:27:02 ↗ public to understand and so I think how

1:27:04 ↗ we message that is going to be really

1:27:06 ↗ important and uh how we're going to use

1:27:09 ↗ those funds

1:27:10 ↗ hopefully as I said to leverage for

1:27:12 ↗ additional funds from outside of our

1:27:15 ↗ Revenue Source will be really important

1:27:18 ↗ but I think that you made the case

1:27:20 ↗ tonight

1:27:21 ↗ real frankly uh you sold me on the one

1:27:25 ↗ percent uh TVD sales tax and the

1:27:30 ↗ importance of doing that and I think

1:27:32 ↗ that the capital finance committee

1:27:34 ↗ identified needs we heard just in our

1:27:37 ↗ recent survey again Transportation top

1:27:41 ↗ priority of our community and so at some

1:27:44 ↗ point we have to say we're not going to

1:27:46 ↗ be able to pay for those projects that

1:27:48 ↗ you want so badly if we don't do

1:27:50 ↗ something to bring in additional Revenue

1:27:53 ↗ so I think the case is there I'm not

1:27:56 ↗ crazy about sales tax but

1:27:59 ↗ um

1:28:00 ↗ because it is a regressive tax but in

1:28:04 ↗ this case uh again I think that the

1:28:07 ↗ information that was presented shows

1:28:09 ↗ that it's a very small impact on

1:28:12 ↗ people's uh most average people's sales

1:28:15 ↗ so I would be very comfortable with that

1:28:18 ↗ and as I understand it what we're seeing

1:28:20 ↗ is we're comfortable with exploring it

1:28:21 ↗ further right okay so those are my

1:28:24 ↗ comments and uh thank you to the staff I

1:28:27 ↗ think it was an excellent presentation

1:28:29 ↗ and very informative so thank you for

1:28:31 ↗ the presentation

1:28:36 ↗ um Deputy council president Hall uh sure

1:28:38 ↗ thank you

1:28:40 ↗ um first and foremost thank you for

1:28:42 ↗ clearly

1:28:43 ↗ months and months and months of hard

1:28:45 ↗ work that went into this this is just

1:28:47 ↗ the latest step in the long step process

1:28:50 ↗ so thank you for all the work that that

1:28:52 ↗ you've done on this and everyone else at

1:28:54 ↗ the city who's touched this of course

1:28:56 ↗ who can't be here with us tonight

1:28:58 ↗ um so the first course the first

1:28:59 ↗ question about alignment with our goals

1:29:03 ↗ and outcomes chart pretty much but not

1:29:05 ↗ quite right so we have the the criteria

1:29:08 ↗ on long-standing commitment that's

1:29:11 ↗ underdefined but that's by Design we're

1:29:12 ↗ going to be defining that more soon or

1:29:15 ↗ at least I hope so so my thought would

1:29:17 ↗ be and I didn't necessarily support the

1:29:19 ↗ idea when this came up at The Retreat so

1:29:22 ↗ if we cannot find a good way to make

1:29:25 ↗ this clear and transparent I completely

1:29:27 ↗ agree with our boards and commissions

1:29:28 ↗ and we should we shouldn't use it as a

1:29:30 ↗ criteria that's just my current thinking

1:29:32 ↗ about it

1:29:33 ↗ um

1:29:34 ↗ but I think we can find a way to be

1:29:37 ↗ clear about it and write things under it

1:29:39 ↗ so that's just going to take some work

1:29:40 ↗ on our part and it would be good well

1:29:44 ↗ it'll be good to have the

1:29:45 ↗ administration's thoughts too on how we

1:29:47 ↗ can Define that before going into that

1:29:49 ↗ one meeting

1:29:51 ↗ beyond that you know I was really

1:29:53 ↗ thinking with regard to goals one and

1:29:55 ↗ two which really focus on Clarity that

1:29:58 ↗ are

1:30:00 ↗ criteria Matrix and the way we're

1:30:02 ↗ applying criteria

1:30:04 ↗ it's not quite clear the rationale why

1:30:07 ↗ one might be given one or the other even

1:30:09 ↗ though we've defined what red yellow and

1:30:11 ↗ red is but I think you make a fair point

1:30:15 ↗ that we can't go through all the

1:30:17 ↗ projects and describe exactly why this

1:30:20 ↗ one was a was a green and exactly why

1:30:22 ↗ this one is yellow and published that as

1:30:24 ↗ a 300 page appendix

1:30:26 ↗ um so there's probably a just the policy

1:30:29 ↗ question of just a balancing act here in

1:30:31 ↗ terms of being as clear as possible but

1:30:34 ↗ also making sure that this is a readable

1:30:36 ↗ document that's the other part of

1:30:37 ↗ clarity too and we had talked about that

1:30:39 ↗ at the retreat is making sure this can

1:30:41 ↗ be a document that the community can

1:30:43 ↗ actually look at

1:30:44 ↗ so I

1:30:48 ↗ don't think that's not a criticism of

1:30:50 ↗ mine anymore I was just kind of going

1:30:52 ↗ full circle there but at the

1:30:54 ↗ long-standing commitment one is still

1:30:55 ↗ missing Clarity and so as soon as that's

1:30:57 ↗ done I do think that it will be aligned

1:30:59 ↗ um with the goals and outcomes chart

1:31:03 ↗ um

1:31:04 ↗ the councilmanic 0.1 TBD sales tax so

1:31:10 ↗ um as this already pointed out the

1:31:11 ↗ closest thing as of right now that we

1:31:13 ↗ have to you know Community Support on a

1:31:15 ↗ new

1:31:16 ↗ Revenue source is that the Capital

1:31:19 ↗ Finance Community task force and they

1:31:22 ↗ also as was pointed out they considered

1:31:24 ↗ the sales tax as a ballot initiative

1:31:27 ↗ I completely agree with councilmember d

1:31:29 ↗ Michelle that Transportation was

1:31:31 ↗ identified and has always been

1:31:33 ↗ identified as a top priority here in

1:31:35 ↗ Issaquah so has you know cost of living

1:31:38 ↗ and that has rised or risen up as a

1:31:41 ↗ needs emphasis in the community survey

1:31:44 ↗ that we just looked at recently so I

1:31:46 ↗ mean if I had to make a decision today I

1:31:48 ↗ would not be comfortable moving forward

1:31:49 ↗ with a 0.1 sales tax and I would rather

1:31:52 ↗ go forward with something that has been

1:31:54 ↗ tested with the community at least a

1:31:55 ↗ little bit which is the 0.2 percent

1:31:57 ↗ sales tax on the ballot

1:32:00 ↗ um that said you started tonight's

1:32:02 ↗ meeting from the get-go saying this is

1:32:05 ↗ just to explore there would be a lot

1:32:08 ↗ more robust community uni engagement

1:32:10 ↗ along the process so if that's true and

1:32:12 ↗ if that kind of plan can be detailed to

1:32:16 ↗ the council I'll feel much more

1:32:17 ↗ comfortable but again if if I had to

1:32:19 ↗ make a decision today it would be no

1:32:22 ↗ um

1:32:23 ↗ so since you've said that we're going to

1:32:25 ↗ have that discussion I'm comfortable

1:32:27 ↗ continuing the conversation

1:32:29 ↗ um

1:32:31 ↗ so that's my thoughts on the 0.1 percent

1:32:33 ↗ TBD sales tax proposal of the projects

1:32:36 ↗ identified in the funding

1:32:38 ↗ um absolutely I support including

1:32:41 ↗ Northwest Sammamish Road Project in that

1:32:44 ↗ we know that that has been a long time

1:32:46 ↗ Community priority ever since that area

1:32:48 ↗ was annexed into the City of Issaquah

1:32:50 ↗ and we have struggled even though it has

1:32:52 ↗ been become such a priority of this

1:32:54 ↗ Council and this Administration we even

1:32:56 ↗ won on a bus tour there recently to see

1:32:58 ↗ the pinch point and see the site of the

1:33:00 ↗ future project we have not found the

1:33:04 ↗ construction dollars for that yet so it

1:33:07 ↗ is great that we potentially have an

1:33:09 ↗ opportunity to find those dollars with

1:33:12 ↗ this new Revenue source so you know if

1:33:14 ↗ we were to move forward that I would

1:33:16 ↗ like to see that as part of it as for

1:33:18 ↗ the other things I don't think I feel

1:33:20 ↗ strongly one way or the other though I

1:33:22 ↗ would like to see an exploration of

1:33:26 ↗ maybe a few smaller projects that do

1:33:30 ↗ have some ongoing Revenue sources not

1:33:32 ↗ necessarily ones that are just unfunded

1:33:33 ↗ so the Strategic small capital projects

1:33:36 ↗ I think could potentially be a good fit

1:33:38 ↗ and I'm just curious what the

1:33:39 ↗ administration thinks about that

1:33:41 ↗ um and whether or not that could

1:33:42 ↗ potentially backfill pavement management

1:33:45 ↗ as that's been the community has so

1:33:48 ↗ loved the increase in investment of

1:33:50 ↗ pavement management across the community

1:33:54 ↗ in the last few years and

1:33:57 ↗ um

1:33:58 ↗ it was identified again as a needs

1:34:00 ↗ emphasis area in the community survey so

1:34:02 ↗ again just something for the

1:34:03 ↗ administration to chew on could this

1:34:05 ↗ also be thrown into the mix of options

1:34:07 ↗ that we could consider as Council

1:34:10 ↗ um

1:34:13 ↗ I think that might be it

1:34:17 ↗ yeah I think those are my comments so

1:34:20 ↗ thank you again

1:34:22 ↗ all right let me uh bring us home

1:34:25 ↗ um I think the CIP does a nice job of

1:34:27 ↗ responding to the goals and outcomes so

1:34:29 ↗ far I disagree with Deputy council

1:34:32 ↗ president Hall on the wanting to see

1:34:34 ↗ more detail on the criteria I think

1:34:36 ↗ that's part of transparency is to say

1:34:38 ↗ here's the criteria here's how we

1:34:40 ↗ applied them here's how we rank them I

1:34:43 ↗ think that though it's a lot of

1:34:45 ↗ narrative I think it's important I think

1:34:46 ↗ it's part of transparency so that would

1:34:48 ↗ be my only comment on that on the 0.1

1:34:52 ↗ TBD sales tax

1:34:54 ↗ um

1:34:57 ↗ supportive to a point

1:35:00 ↗ then the point is as long as there is

1:35:02 ↗ robust community outreach and that we

1:35:06 ↗ recognize that though our Capital

1:35:08 ↗ funding task force was a bunch of really

1:35:10 ↗ great people working really hard that's

1:35:12 ↗ not the community and so we need to

1:35:14 ↗ embrace the community as a whole if

1:35:16 ↗ we're going to do that I would really

1:35:19 ↗ love to hear what they have to say and

1:35:20 ↗ we might find from that community

1:35:22 ↗ outreach that they're even excited about

1:35:24 ↗ at point two percent uh sales tax

1:35:27 ↗ increase then we go to the ballot but I

1:35:30 ↗ think this is an important step without

1:35:32 ↗ going through that step I would not

1:35:33 ↗ support this in the long run but I think

1:35:34 ↗ it's important that we go there

1:35:37 ↗ um and then I'm really torn because you

1:35:40 ↗ know these are my two favorite projects

1:35:42 ↗ in the whole CIP that you put on here

1:35:44 ↗ and then tie them to the to the TBD and

1:35:47 ↗ I hate you for doing that

1:35:49 ↗ um but um I really believe and its

1:35:51 ↗ really is a whole raft of things really

1:35:53 ↗ it's not just a single project so so I

1:35:56 ↗ think that that's really important and I

1:35:58 ↗ wouldn't want to not do it if we don't

1:36:00 ↗ do the TBD and I

1:36:03 ↗ um and then my only problem with the

1:36:05 ↗ Northwest Sammamish non-motorized is you

1:36:08 ↗ know when you look at the CIP it's 2027

1:36:11 ↗ kind of time frame so to council member

1:36:14 ↗ D Michelle's point where we're raising

1:36:16 ↗ the revenue and yet we're not going to

1:36:18 ↗ pull the trigger in a meaningful way for

1:36:20 ↗ several years and so

1:36:22 ↗ um if we move ahead in that direction we

1:36:24 ↗ have to be in a position to say

1:36:27 ↗ um

1:36:28 ↗ here's what we're going to do with the

1:36:29 ↗ money and and it's and it's and it's out

1:36:32 ↗ there and so you get that disconnect in

1:36:33 ↗ time between we're going to raise your

1:36:35 ↗ taxes oh and then you know four years

1:36:38 ↗ later

1:36:39 ↗ we're going to start building out this

1:36:40 ↗ project that's so important so

1:36:43 ↗ I don't know that it's a show stopper

1:36:45 ↗ but I know that it is a it's a it's a

1:36:47 ↗ it'll be a challenging Communications

1:36:49 ↗ challenge

1:36:50 ↗ challenging Communications problem

1:36:55 ↗ all right that's all I've got

1:36:59 ↗ um councilmember D Michelle yeah well I

1:37:01 ↗ just want to speak in defensive its

1:37:04 ↗ because it sounds like it was like well

1:37:06 ↗ we're not really sure about that but the

1:37:08 ↗ number one item we heard on the on the

1:37:11 ↗ recent Community survey was a traffic

1:37:14 ↗ flow the ease of traffic flow and

1:37:18 ↗ there's nothing that we have that that

1:37:20 ↗ helps it my favorite is Transit but

1:37:23 ↗ again that's not coming for a long time

1:37:25 ↗ we can uh improve and um and replace

1:37:30 ↗ some of the old and wearing out systems

1:37:33 ↗ for the its system

1:37:35 ↗ soon and so if we're going to help our

1:37:38 ↗ community do something pretty soon about

1:37:40 ↗ the flow of traffic in the in the area

1:37:45 ↗ its is what we want to focus on so I

1:37:48 ↗ really support the fact that that it's

1:37:50 ↗ being suggested as one of the projects

1:37:53 ↗ we would support this way and also I

1:37:55 ↗ think the point that was made earlier

1:37:57 ↗ it's a smaller project that kind of fits

1:38:00 ↗ very well with other projects and so I

1:38:03 ↗ would hate for us to start tinkering

1:38:04 ↗ around to see if there's other little

1:38:07 ↗ projects that might go in there I think

1:38:09 ↗ it's uh it it just meets that Community

1:38:13 ↗ needs so well and pairs so well with

1:38:17 ↗ other large projects that I would hate

1:38:20 ↗ to see us start to move that out and

1:38:22 ↗ looking at other things I think the its

1:38:24 ↗ would definitely be a top project that I

1:38:26 ↗ would want to support

1:38:29 ↗ just defending oh no and understanding I

1:38:33 ↗ just want to comment on that because as

1:38:35 ↗ I said at the beginning I I have been

1:38:36 ↗ the biggest its fan for at least almost

1:38:39 ↗ six years and thinking that this is the

1:38:41 ↗ only tool we've really got in our tool

1:38:42 ↗ kit so I think it's great I I just want

1:38:45 ↗ to do it regardless of whether or not we

1:38:47 ↗ do the that's my point is is actually

1:38:49 ↗ the opposite which is we need to do this

1:38:51 ↗ regardless of whether we do a TBD and I

1:38:54 ↗ wouldn't want to have it if we opt not

1:38:56 ↗ to do gbd saying its is out so that's

1:38:59 ↗ that's um I think I think it's our um as

1:39:03 ↗ you just said so eloquently

1:39:05 ↗ um probably our our best lever we have

1:39:07 ↗ in terms of Mobility

1:39:10 ↗ you have to do something quickly uh

1:39:12 ↗ councilmember Hall well I'm just in case

1:39:15 ↗ I wasn't clear I also like its I just

1:39:17 ↗ want to make sure that we're considering

1:39:19 ↗ other things too I mean this could be

1:39:21 ↗ game changing on ongoing Revenue if we

1:39:24 ↗ move forward with it neither of these

1:39:26 ↗ two things that we have associated with

1:39:27 ↗ it are ongoing needs either so another

1:39:30 ↗ criteria that we could as a council

1:39:32 ↗ consider is potentially pairing it with

1:39:34 ↗ ongoing

1:39:36 ↗ expenditures in transportation or

1:39:38 ↗ something like that so I just want to

1:39:39 ↗ make sure that Council has all the

1:39:41 ↗ information it needs to make a good

1:39:42 ↗ decision if that decision ends up being

1:39:44 ↗ Northwest Spanish Road and its great but

1:39:46 ↗ um maybe we could have a few more

1:39:48 ↗ options thrown in the mix just so we

1:39:49 ↗ have a you know good decision

1:39:53 ↗ all right everybody good all right

1:39:57 ↗ Andrea did you get what you needed from

1:39:59 ↗ us I did thank you very much and also

1:40:01 ↗ just like to take this opportunity to

1:40:03 ↗ thank the staff who have joined us here

1:40:04 ↗ this evening to help answer questions so

1:40:07 ↗ thank you Bennett and John and Emily and

1:40:09 ↗ of course Robert who helped me present

1:40:11 ↗ so

1:40:12 ↗ um thank you and got a lot of great

1:40:14 ↗ feedback from you all this evening so

1:40:16 ↗ really appreciate the questions and the

1:40:18 ↗ depth of the conversation

1:40:20 ↗ we also have our newest staff member

1:40:22 ↗ here tonight Nathan hatsia he's our new

1:40:25 ↗ budget analyst and he's also been

1:40:27 ↗ helping with the documents yeah hey

1:40:28 ↗ welcome glad you were here

1:40:33 ↗ all right

1:40:34 ↗ um

1:40:36 ↗ hi I'm just drawing a blank if we have

1:40:39 ↗ good of the order on the agenda could

1:40:40 ↗ you I'm sorry I'm so sorry could you

1:40:42 ↗ walk through next steps again so this

1:40:44 ↗ doesn't come back till is it June at a

1:40:46 ↗ committee the whole is that right

1:40:48 ↗ uh that's that's correct so we're going

1:40:51 ↗ to continue our meetings we

1:40:58 ↗ asked next week but we're not really

1:40:59 ↗ focusing on Transportation in that

1:41:01 ↗ meeting we'll see if Council has

1:41:03 ↗ feedback that they want to offer but

1:41:05 ↗ that's not really the focus so the next

1:41:08 ↗ time that we're going to convene as a

1:41:09 ↗ whole is that the committee of the whole

1:41:10 ↗ meeting in June at that point each of

1:41:13 ↗ the council committees will have had the

1:41:14 ↗ opportunity to discuss their portion of

1:41:16 ↗ the CIP and then we'll bring all of

1:41:18 ↗ those conversations back together in

1:41:20 ↗ June at the committee of the whole

1:41:22 ↗ and um when this comes back to that then

1:41:25 ↗ can we make sure that if there's any

1:41:26 ↗ substantial feedback from the

1:41:28 ↗ environmental board that that be

1:41:29 ↗ highlighted and you know this came after

1:41:32 ↗ the mobility and infrastructure

1:41:34 ↗ committee so that way we can as a

1:41:36 ↗ council consider it together yes

1:41:38 ↗ absolutely and

1:41:40 ↗ assuming that it wasn't included tonight

1:41:42 ↗ we didn't want to wait until next

1:41:44 ↗ month's mobility and infrastructure

1:41:45 ↗ committee before we started talking to

1:41:47 ↗ you about this so certainly their

1:41:49 ↗ feedback will be incorporated in

1:41:51 ↗ subsequent Council materials

1:41:54 ↗ thank you any announcements

1:41:57 ↗ no all right then we're adjourned at 8

1:42:00 ↗ 12. thank you all good night

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (3)

Chris Reh

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Motions and votes (1)

Approve the minutes of the March 14, 2023, meeting as presented. . AGENDA ITEMS

Moved by DEPUTY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HALL · seconded by COUNCILMEMBER DE MICHELE

Carried 3-0

In favor: Chris Reh, Barbara de Michele, Zach Hall