City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Wednesday, May 14, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 11, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Presented by: John Mortenson, Traffic Engineering Manager

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Utility Rate Study - Cost of Service Analysis COM 0118

60 min · Matt Ellis, Utility Engineering Manager · packet pp.7–44

▶ Watch from 1:13 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration is seeking Committee feedback at this meeting and will make a

Capital Improvement Plan COM 0125

60 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.45–249

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 55:00 Open packet at p.45 ↗

2626 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ Uh, good evening everyone and welcome.

0:09 ↗ I'm council member Chris Ray and I'm

0:10 ↗ going to call to order the May 15, 2025

0:14 ↗ city council mobility and infrastructure

0:16 ↗ committee. Uh, with me this evening is

0:18 ↗ deputy council president uh, Barbara D.

0:20 ↗ Michelle and council member Joe has an

0:22 ↗ excused absence. This evening there will

0:25 ↗ be multiple public comment

0:26 ↗ opportunities. Uh there is a general

0:28 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

0:31 ↗ beginning of the meeting or you can make

0:33 ↗ comments after the presentation and

0:35 ↗ council question and

0:37 ↗ answer.

0:39 ↗ Um so I guess we're at the beginning of

0:42 ↗ it now.

0:47 ↗ Oh

0:50 ↗ I just realized now you do. Now you do.

0:53 ↗ Okay. So, um, public comment

0:56 ↗ opportunity. Um, see clerk, do we have

0:59 ↗ any members of the public who have

1:01 ↗ indicated a desire either in person or

1:04 ↗ virtually to make comment this evening?

1:06 ↗ No.

1:08 ↗ Okay. Then I'm going to skip that

1:11 ↗ portion, but I will come back to it

1:13 ↗ after each of the agenda items question

1:15 ↗ answer in case there is anybody who

1:17 ↗ joins later who would like to make

1:19 ↗ comment. So with that we have um two

1:24 ↗ agenda items today um that we will be

1:26 ↗ doing.

1:27 ↗ Com18 the utility rate study cost and

1:30 ↗ service analysis and com

1:32 ↗ 0125 capital improvement plan. But

1:35 ↗ before that um we will go into approval

1:38 ↗ of the minutes. Any objections to

1:39 ↗ approving the minutes from March 11th's

1:42 ↗ meeting? I do not object to it. All

1:43 ↗ right. The minutes are approved. With

1:46 ↗ that, um, let us, uh, move into our

1:49 ↗ first agenda item, which is COMM0118,

1:51 ↗ the utility rate study cost of service

1:54 ↗ analysis. And we have, uh, public works

1:57 ↗ director Emily Moon this uh, this

1:59 ↗ evening. Emily, welcome. Great. Thank

2:02 ↗ you. Happy to be here. Talk utility rate

2:04 ↗ study again. Going to get our

2:06 ↗ presentation up here.

2:13 ↗ There we go.

2:19 ↗ Oops.

2:21 ↗ Fantastic. Well, we're back. Talk

2:24 ↗ utility rate study. This is the second

2:26 ↗ time that we have been before council at

2:29 ↗ some level to talk about the utility

2:32 ↗ rate study. Last time we talked more

2:35 ↗ about uh the overall big picture and we

2:39 ↗ were focused more at the fund level.

2:42 ↗ Tonight we're going to be focused more

2:44 ↗ at the customer class level. So we're

2:46 ↗ dropping a level. We're getting a little

2:48 ↗ bit more detailed, a little bit more

2:50 ↗ specific, which is exactly why we are

2:52 ↗ before the

2:54 ↗ committee so that you can do a deep

3:02 ↗ dive. So I wanted to just quickly remind

3:06 ↗ you of the utility rate study goal. Um,

3:09 ↗ in a nutshell, we're trying to establish

3:12 ↗ new rates for the next five-year period.

3:14 ↗ Uh, but we are also trying to ensure

3:17 ↗ that those new rates will cover the

3:19 ↗ operating and capital costs for each of

3:22 ↗ the

3:23 ↗ funds without reading every objective on

3:27 ↗ this slide. Again, just a reminder that

3:29 ↗ we have objectives for this process. We

3:32 ↗ are going to be focusing focusing

3:34 ↗ tonight on that second objective uh most

3:38 ↗ specifically and that is to establish a

3:40 ↗ defensible basis for assigning cost

3:42 ↗ shares and providing equity for rate

3:48 ↗ payers. Reminder about where we are in

3:51 ↗ the process. Meeting number two, the

3:54 ↗ first one with the committee. We will be

3:56 ↗ back next month to provide some

3:59 ↗ follow-up information on tonight's

4:01 ↗ content and also to talk about overall

4:04 ↗ rate design and the general facility

4:08 ↗ charges or the GFC's. So that's what's

4:11 ↗ on our agenda next

4:16 ↗ time. Cost of service analysis. We're

4:19 ↗ going to define this term a little bit

4:22 ↗ um more in the future and certainly our

4:24 ↗ consultants will help to do that. But

4:26 ↗ the cost of service analysis evaluates

4:29 ↗ how existing revenues compared to the

4:33 ↗ forecasted cost recovery by customer

4:36 ↗ class of service.

4:38 ↗ So we have not done in the last couple

4:42 ↗ of rate studies a cost of service

4:44 ↗ analysis but this is a typical and best

4:47 ↗ practice uh for a rate

4:50 ↗ study. This analysis will help us as

4:53 ↗ that objective stated provide a

4:56 ↗ defensible basis for assigning the cost

4:58 ↗ shares and defining cost equity amongst

5:02 ↗ the customer classes.

5:04 ↗ I also wanted to share that our comp

5:07 ↗ plan talks about having a water rate

5:10 ↗ structure that allocates costs equitably

5:13 ↗ among customers. So, I thought I would

5:15 ↗ just mention that throughout all of our

5:17 ↗ guidance documents, this is a um

5:20 ↗ particular focal

5:22 ↗ point. I'm now going to do an abrupt

5:26 ↗ shift and talk about a specific capital

5:29 ↗ project. And I'm doing that uh it's not

5:33 ↗ on the screen right now. It's not in

5:35 ↗ your packet. Uh because I know that in

5:39 ↗ subsequent city council meetings, you're

5:41 ↗ going to have discussions about this

5:42 ↗ capital project and you're going to

5:44 ↗ think back to tonight and you're going

5:45 ↗ to wonder what does this do to our

5:48 ↗ rates. So, I'm providing a little

5:50 ↗ advanced information. will be back on uh

5:53 ↗ June 9th before the city council to ask

5:57 ↗ to approve the contract for the Newport

6:00 ↗ sewer relocation. This is a project that

6:03 ↗ is required by washd as part of their

6:07 ↗ fish passage project. We have a water

6:10 ↗ line on Newport that is in wash DOT's

6:13 ↗ right of way and per state law and per

6:16 ↗ their agreement that we also entered

6:18 ↗ into with wash dot we need to move that

6:21 ↗ that sewer line. Unfortunately, we just

6:24 ↗ opened bids and the bids are

6:27 ↗ substantially higher than we expected.

6:31 ↗ In part that's because the the project

6:33 ↗ is very complicated given where that

6:35 ↗ sewer line is and uh given um the method

6:40 ↗ of construction that we must use for

6:42 ↗ that project. Hey just since you brought

6:45 ↗ it up I know um are we getting um help

6:48 ↗ from washdot for those cost or this

6:51 ↗ simply a city funded uh effort? It's

6:54 ↗ simply a cityf funed effort. State law

6:56 ↗ requires based on where utilities are

6:59 ↗ located and who owns them and who has

7:01 ↗ rightaway or easements or franchises

7:04 ↗ um that determines who pays for what and

7:06 ↗ in this case the city is wholly

7:08 ↗ responsible. Okay. Thanks. Yes. So this

7:12 ↗ is a heads up on on bad news. Um we will

7:16 ↗ be coming back asking you to award that

7:18 ↗ contract because we need to move forward

7:20 ↗ with the project. it must be done um

7:23 ↗ according to a certain timetable to

7:26 ↗ ensure that washd can get in and do its

7:28 ↗ work. Um also we have to award the

7:31 ↗ contract within a certain number of days

7:33 ↗ after we receive the bids. And uh bottom

7:37 ↗ line is

7:38 ↗ the total construction contingency sales

7:42 ↗ tax increase as a result of that bid.

7:46 ↗ Um, it's going up $2.9 million and

7:50 ↗ that's on top of uh the 3.7 million that

7:54 ↗ is in the existing capital improvement

7:58 ↗ plan. It and that's all all then we

8:01 ↗ rolled into the rate study and you're

8:04 ↗ just giving us a preemptive here's

8:06 ↗ here's the connection to tonight where I

8:08 ↗ shift back to being on topic. We have

8:12 ↗ taken a quick look and we believe there

8:16 ↗ won't be a a substantial impact to the

8:20 ↗ projected rate increase that we have

8:22 ↗ been talking about last meeting and we

8:24 ↗ will be talking about here in a moment.

8:28 ↗ We believe that we have enough cash fund

8:32 ↗ balance to uh ensure that we can pursue

8:36 ↗ the project. If we need to borrow

8:39 ↗ money, the impact of that will not

8:42 ↗ necessarily be in this next fiveyear

8:45 ↗ rate period and we would have the

8:47 ↗ ability to think about how to structure

8:49 ↗ that to try to smooth it and minimize um

8:53 ↗ future rate increases. We also can uh

8:57 ↗ adjust future capital projects to create

9:00 ↗ a little bit of that capacity. And uh

9:04 ↗ with all of that said and done, we don't

9:06 ↗ expect that to have substantial impact

9:07 ↗ on future rates

9:10 ↗ either. So when you hear the bad news on

9:13 ↗ June 9th, know that we expect limited

9:16 ↗ impact to uh this projected rate

9:19 ↗ increase. Okay, now back to the program.

9:24 ↗ Uh at this point I would like to turn it

9:27 ↗ over to our consultant uh Sergey Trasv

9:31 ↗ and he is going to lead the rest of the

9:34 ↗ presentation. We're going to do a little

9:36 ↗ switcheroo here and I'm going to stop

9:38 ↗ sharing so he can share.

9:43 ↗ All right, I'm sharing my screen again.

9:46 ↗ Can everybody hear me and see my screen?

9:48 ↗ You sound great and we can see you fine.

9:51 ↗ That sounds fantastic. Well, thank you

9:54 ↗ council members for uh giving us

9:56 ↗ opportunity to meet with you again this

9:58 ↗ evening to continue our discussion

10:00 ↗ regarding the utility rate study with

10:02 ↗ today's emphasis and focus on that

10:04 ↗ second step of the overall rate study

10:06 ↗ process cost of service. As Emily

10:08 ↗ mentioned, my name is Sugas and I also

10:10 ↗ have Paul Quinn joining you virtually

10:12 ↗ just in case we have any specific

10:15 ↗ questions. He'll be available to answer

10:17 ↗ anything uh that's detail oriented from

10:20 ↗ a numerical perspective.

10:22 ↗ Now before we dive into the updated

10:24 ↗ presentation, just wanted to provide you

10:26 ↗ with a brief overview. We're going to do

10:28 ↗ a quick refresher of the rate study

10:29 ↗ process just to remind ourselves what

10:32 ↗ goes in into these type of studies.

10:34 ↗ We're going to go over the background,

10:35 ↗ talk about what the city has done in the

10:38 ↗ past from prior uh race study and

10:40 ↗ updates and then discuss a quick

10:43 ↗ followup from our prior meeting which

10:45 ↗ was in March. uh we will uh do a quick

10:48 ↗ refresher what we talked about the

10:50 ↗ scenarios we discussed and the direction

10:51 ↗ we received from the council committee

10:53 ↗ at that time as well as bringing you

10:55 ↗ back the requested additional scenario.

10:58 ↗ After that we'll dive into cost of

11:00 ↗ service. We'll talk about the

11:01 ↗ methodology what it actually means and

11:03 ↗ the findings for the water and sewer

11:05 ↗ utilities just due to the nature and the

11:07 ↗ service provided. The cost of service

11:10 ↗ analysis is typically performed for

11:11 ↗ water and sewer. Uh and it's typically

11:13 ↗ not done very commonly for storm water

11:15 ↗ utilities just because it's a very

11:17 ↗ straightforward type of a

11:19 ↗ service. As always, if you have any

11:22 ↗ questions, just let me

11:24 ↗ know. So, a study such as this one, a

11:26 ↗ comprehensive study typically consists

11:28 ↗ of three key analytical steps. The first

11:31 ↗ step we usually refer to as revenue

11:32 ↗ requirement, which looks at the overall

11:34 ↗ needs of each utility on a standalone

11:36 ↗ basis. This is the topic that we covered

11:38 ↗ during our prior meeting. But in general

11:40 ↗ here, all we're focusing on can we meet

11:42 ↗ our obligations and uh if not, what do

11:45 ↗ we need to do about it? We don't really

11:46 ↗ focus on who's paying for what at this

11:48 ↗ point from a cost of service

11:49 ↗ perspective. We're just focusing on

11:52 ↗ who's uh what is the total need for each

11:55 ↗ utility on a standalone independent

11:57 ↗ basis. Step number two, which we'll be

11:59 ↗ focusing on today, is cost of service.

12:01 ↗ And really this focuses on interclass

12:04 ↗ cost allocation. to try to answer the

12:05 ↗ question if there are differences to

12:07 ↗ provide service to different customer

12:09 ↗ classes. So if you think of step one as

12:10 ↗ identifying the size size of the pile of

12:12 ↗ costs, step two really breaks it down

12:14 ↗ into slices and sees how big each slice

12:17 ↗ needs to be for each class. Lastly, once

12:20 ↗ we have established the first two steps,

12:21 ↗ we move on to step number three, rate

12:24 ↗ design. This is where we actually

12:25 ↗ develop the fixed and variable charges

12:27 ↗ assessed to your customers. But we have

12:28 ↗ to get to step one and two before we get

12:31 ↗ to step three.

12:33 ↗ Now, quick reminder, the last study that

12:35 ↗ the city completed was in 2020. At that

12:37 ↗ point, it was a 4-year implementation

12:39 ↗ plan that was developed that went out to

12:41 ↗ 25. So, this current year is the last

12:43 ↗ year of that last race studies

12:45 ↗ implementation. The study also projected

12:48 ↗ some additional uh revenue needs and

12:51 ↗ adjustments beyond that time period for

12:53 ↗ the 26 through 30 period. But because it

12:55 ↗ was such a long

12:56 ↗ horizon, the city wanted to refresh the

12:58 ↗ date uh the the study right in the

13:01 ↗ middle of the of the projection. So

13:03 ↗ that's why we started the rate study

13:05 ↗ update in 2024. Since then, we've been

13:08 ↗ working with your staff to perform the

13:10 ↗ analysis and we presented the initial

13:12 ↗ findings to the committee of the whole

13:14 ↗ on March 10th of this year of 2025,

13:16 ↗ focusing on that revenue

13:19 ↗ requirement. Now, what we discussed

13:21 ↗ during that meeting is that when we

13:23 ↗ projected our needs this time around for

13:24 ↗ each of the three utilities, our

13:26 ↗ revenues at current levels were not

13:28 ↗ sufficient to meet our obligations. And

13:29 ↗ the key driver behind the deficiency was

13:32 ↗ the capital improvement program. kind of

13:34 ↗ all those capital needs that we have for

13:36 ↗ each of the utilities. So our discussion

13:38 ↗ at that time centered around three

13:41 ↗ alternatives, three scenarios that we

13:43 ↗ can use to help meet our needs uh on a

13:46 ↗ long-term basis. And really the scenario

13:47 ↗ is focused around cash financing, debt

13:50 ↗ financing and a combination kind of of

13:52 ↗ the two options. Now as a quick reminder

13:55 ↗ on this slide, we wanted to bring bring

13:57 ↗ back just a highle summary of the three

13:59 ↗ options per utility that we provided

14:02 ↗ during that meeting. If we focus on the

14:04 ↗ chart, the upper portion summarizes the

14:06 ↗ water scenarios for the next 5-year

14:08 ↗ period. They include cash funding, debt

14:11 ↗ funding, and hybrid funding. And the

14:13 ↗ range of impacts looked at anywhere from

14:14 ↗ 4 and 3/4% to 6 and 3/4% as well as

14:18 ↗ somewhere in the middle. Those are kind

14:20 ↗ of the book

14:21 ↗ ends based on the analysis at that time.

14:24 ↗ For a sew utility, we're looking at our

14:26 ↗ capital needs in the short term versus

14:28 ↗ long term. We do have quite a bit of

14:30 ↗ projects identified for this utility,

14:32 ↗ not just in the short-term 5-year

14:34 ↗ period, but also in the longer 15 to 20

14:37 ↗ year time horizon, and we wanted to take

14:38 ↗ a look and see what that what funding

14:41 ↗ and planning to fund our projects will

14:43 ↗ do from a short-term perspective to a

14:45 ↗ long-term perspective. We also looked at

14:47 ↗ utilizing that service to fund the

14:50 ↗ capital as well. The increases uh range

14:53 ↗ from 3 and a/4% per year to about 7% per

14:55 ↗ year. The storm water utilities had

14:58 ↗ similar scenarios here. We looked at 6

15:00 ↗ and a/4 to 16 and

15:02 ↗ 3/4%. Now based on the very uh a really

15:06 ↗ good discussion with the committee at

15:07 ↗ that time, we received several key

15:10 ↗ guiding points from the committee. The

15:12 ↗ first one being is that the preference

15:14 ↗ was to utilize cash financing but not

15:17 ↗ but not at the expense of rate

15:19 ↗ increases. So if we needed to use debt

15:21 ↗ to help us mitigate some rate action,

15:23 ↗ that would be preferred. The second

15:25 ↗ guidance we received at that time is

15:27 ↗ that the overall increase kind of as a

15:29 ↗ combined average for all the utilities

15:31 ↗ for a typical residential bill should

15:33 ↗ not exceed a 6% ideally something less

15:35 ↗ than 6% on average. So the direction was

15:38 ↗ for staff to come back remove or remove

15:42 ↗ adjust modify the timing of non-critical

15:44 ↗ capital around and see if we can uh

15:47 ↗ bring back a scenario that that had a 6%

15:50 ↗ or lower average

15:53 ↗ adjustment. Now before we dive into the

15:55 ↗ results, just a quick refresher on this

15:57 ↗ slide. We brought back a typical

15:59 ↗ comparison that a lot of utilities want

16:01 ↗ to see in terms of what is our typical

16:03 ↗ average bill versus our neighbors. As

16:05 ↗ always, I caution this is in apples and

16:07 ↗ oranges cuz every system is different.

16:09 ↗ Every utility has different

16:10 ↗ requirements. They they may treat their

16:13 ↗ own uh waste versus getting wholesale

16:16 ↗ waste treatment or water and so on. So

16:18 ↗ just keep that in mind that that

16:20 ↗ question does get asked. As it stands

16:22 ↗ right now, we are on the lower end of

16:24 ↗ the comparison for a typical average

16:26 ↗ bill compared to our neighbors. And we

16:28 ↗ know for a fact that quite a few of

16:30 ↗ these utilities are going through

16:31 ↗ similar studies as we speak as

16:34 ↗ well. So looking back at the requirement

16:38 ↗ followup kind of the additional scenario

16:40 ↗ that the committee asked to bring back.

16:43 ↗ Uh since that uh meeting we've been

16:45 ↗ working with staff to look at what can

16:47 ↗ we change. Uh we we have incorporated

16:50 ↗ the latest financial information as more

16:52 ↗ year-end information came into light. We

16:54 ↗ updated all our balances, revenues,

16:57 ↗ expenses as much as we could just to

16:58 ↗ make sure we're as recent and up to date

17:00 ↗ as much as possible. Staff adjusted the

17:03 ↗ timing of non-critical projects as well.

17:05 ↗ What that allowed us to do is avoid debt

17:08 ↗ service in the in the near term. So all

17:10 ↗ the scenarios that you're looking at on

17:11 ↗ the screen right now, do not assume any

17:14 ↗ new debt in the next 5year period. Now

17:16 ↗ looking beyond 5 years which you

17:18 ↗ definitely will be revisiting based on

17:20 ↗ current practice again you will revisit

17:22 ↗ rates before the next incremental 5-year

17:25 ↗ step most likely uh will potentially

17:28 ↗ need some additional debt but in the

17:29 ↗ short term the first 5 years we're able

17:32 ↗ to push out any debt obligations with

17:34 ↗ the changes. So again that's a positive

17:37 ↗ uh result there. The second fallout is

17:40 ↗ that we're able to keep the combined

17:42 ↗ bill below the 6% and actually if we're

17:45 ↗ looking at the uh the combined bill for

17:47 ↗ a typical residential home, it'll be

17:49 ↗ around 4.9 and that's made up of a 4.75%

17:53 ↗ increase for water, a 4% for the sewer,

17:56 ↗ and a 6 and 1/4% increase for the storm

17:58 ↗ water. Now, one item to note with these

18:01 ↗ comparisons is that we are only

18:03 ↗ providing you the impacts for the city

18:05 ↗ share expenses. If you may uh remember

18:08 ↗ the sewer utility receives King County

18:10 ↗ treatment charges so your customers are

18:13 ↗ passed through those charges. We're not

18:14 ↗ including the King County portion which

18:16 ↗ the city has no control over. This is

18:18 ↗ only showing you the bill of the portion

18:20 ↗ of the charge that you do have control

18:22 ↗ over. So the combined impact before

18:25 ↗ talking about cost of service is landing

18:27 ↗ at about

18:29 ↗ 4.9%. So I'll pause here for a second. I

18:32 ↗ know this is kind of a one of the

18:34 ↗ followup requests that was made at the

18:36 ↗ last meeting. So, I just want to make

18:37 ↗ sure that we've captured everything that

18:39 ↗ the committee was was asking

18:43 ↗ for. Okay. Um, just a couple of

18:45 ↗ questions. Um, and they're

18:48 ↗ really I think this is great. I mean,

18:50 ↗ 4.9 where I do math is less than six, so

18:52 ↗ yay. Um, but I'm I'm I'm curious about

18:57 ↗ how we got to doing this without debt.

19:01 ↗ And was it did we defer some things that

19:04 ↗ we thought we would be doing and paying

19:05 ↗ for? Um are we drawing down cash um or

19:09 ↗ ending fund balance? You know, kind of

19:11 ↗ how what's what was the underlying

19:13 ↗ funding mechanism that made this

19:15 ↗ possible?

19:17 ↗ So, a majority of the changes came from

19:20 ↗ movement or modifications of capital,

19:21 ↗ pushing them out several years, giving

19:23 ↗ us a little bit of a longer runway,

19:25 ↗ which allowed us to stretch out the

19:28 ↗ projects and and push them out uh over

19:30 ↗ time.

19:33 ↗ And um I mean, you were going to get up

19:36 ↗ and I think that's probably okay. And

19:37 ↗ you're and that that makes sense from a

19:39 ↗ public works and maintaining the system

19:41 ↗ perspective. We're not taking on any

19:43 ↗ additional uh risk associated with the

19:46 ↗ um deferred maintenance on or deferred

19:48 ↗ projects. That's correct. So, luckily

19:51 ↗ we've been working on the CIP at the

19:53 ↗ exact same moment. And so, it did enable

19:55 ↗ us to kind of look at how urgent are

19:58 ↗ some projects, what's our staff

20:00 ↗ workload, what can we actually get done,

20:02 ↗ what does that time frame look like? And

20:05 ↗ as we evaluated those variables, it

20:07 ↗ allowed us to smooth this a little bit

20:09 ↗ more, which is what we said we were

20:11 ↗ going to do in between the meetings. Uh

20:13 ↗ also I'll mention uh we had a great

20:16 ↗ discussion about storm water um at the

20:20 ↗ other council committee and we had

20:23 ↗ suggested to the committee of the whole

20:25 ↗ that we would be doing a lot of work

20:26 ↗ modifying storm water capital

20:28 ↗ assumptions if council's direction to us

20:31 ↗ was focus on the critical projects and

20:35 ↗ so this reflects uh that that change in

20:38 ↗ the CIP particularly on storm water.

20:40 ↗ Great. Thank you for that. All right.

20:42 ↗ All right. I think we're good. We're

20:43 ↗ good. Good. All right. Okay. All right.

20:46 ↗ Well, now we'll move on and talk about

20:48 ↗ that e the next topic, the new topic uh

20:51 ↗ for today, the cost of service analysis.

20:53 ↗ Again, focusing on the water and sewer

20:56 ↗ utilities, not the storm water. So, the

20:58 ↗ the the basic premise of cost of service

21:01 ↗ is really to answer the question there

21:02 ↗ are cost differences to provide service

21:04 ↗ to different customer classes. There are

21:06 ↗ industry accepted methods and

21:07 ↗ methodologies used to develop the cost

21:09 ↗ allocation between different classes.

21:11 ↗ While there are these industry

21:13 ↗ practices, we do use city specific

21:15 ↗ information for usage demand information

21:18 ↗ for sizing facilities and planning

21:20 ↗ criteria. So it's a uniquely developed

21:22 ↗ analysis for the city's water and sewer

21:25 ↗ systems. Now the outcomes of the

21:27 ↗ analysis would not only provide us with

21:29 ↗ the equity question regarding the cost

21:32 ↗ causation and allocation process but

21:34 ↗ also help us establish cost based unit

21:36 ↗ cost which can then be used to inform

21:38 ↗ the rate design at last step of the

21:40 ↗ overall analysis. Now since we're

21:42 ↗ discussing classes and service we wanted

21:44 ↗ to briefly provide you the summary of

21:46 ↗ the classes that we're evaluating on the

21:48 ↗ water system. We have a little bit more

21:49 ↗ detailed list as for right now. We're

21:52 ↗ looking at single family, duplex, and

21:54 ↗ multif family accounts kind of making up

21:57 ↗ that residential categorization. On the

21:59 ↗ water side independently, we have

22:01 ↗ apartments, commercial, public authority

22:04 ↗ classes kind of that non-residential uh

22:07 ↗ portable type of customer. We have parks

22:09 ↗ irrigation separated from private

22:12 ↗ irrigation as well as a large user

22:14 ↗ classification.

22:16 ↗ On the sewer side, we are looking

22:17 ↗ predominantly at the residential class,

22:19 ↗ multif family class, and the commercial

22:22 ↗ class. So these are the classifications

22:23 ↗ that were evaluated for this study for

22:26 ↗ each

22:28 ↗ utility. When we perform the analysis,

22:30 ↗ we go through a kind of a condensed down

22:33 ↗ three-step process. First, uh to perform

22:36 ↗ the technical analysis, we only have to

22:38 ↗ group the revenue partner that each each

22:39 ↗ line item expends into specific cost

22:42 ↗ categories. We like to refer to them as

22:44 ↗ functions or classifications of service.

22:46 ↗ And we'll get into a little bit more

22:47 ↗ details what each one of these are on

22:49 ↗ the next two slides, but uh you can kind

22:52 ↗ of see in the table we we're grouping

22:53 ↗ them into customer cost, meters and

22:55 ↗ services, base, peak, and fire related

22:57 ↗ cost for water and then customer flow

22:59 ↗ and strength for sewer. Again, I'll go

23:01 ↗ over each one of these individually on

23:03 ↗ the next two slides. Once we have

23:05 ↗ grouped these expenses into these

23:07 ↗ categories, we develop allocation

23:09 ↗ factors and all these are our

23:10 ↗ statistics, usage profiles based on

23:13 ↗ historical and projected data for each

23:15 ↗ class of service. Basically, how does

23:17 ↗ each class proportionally compare based

23:19 ↗ on number of accounts based on total

23:22 ↗ annual usage based on peak usage and

23:24 ↗ various other modifi modification type

23:27 ↗ of allocations. Once we develop these

23:30 ↗ factors, we apply the factors to the

23:32 ↗ groupings to get the results.

23:34 ↗ So to get a little bit more specific

23:36 ↗ regarding the the cost uh cost to

23:39 ↗ service functional allocation groupings

23:41 ↗ on this slide we'll be taking a look at

23:43 ↗ the water

23:44 ↗ utility. Here you'll see a the a pie

23:47 ↗ chart representing the results of the

23:49 ↗ classification process that shows us the

23:52 ↗ makeup of our expenses. Here we can see

23:54 ↗ that about 33% of our costs are

23:56 ↗ associated with base costs and base

23:59 ↗ costs or that means is costs that would

24:01 ↗ be needed to operate an average system.

24:03 ↗ If you think about a system, it would

24:05 ↗ look a lot different if we were planning

24:07 ↗ to design our system for average usage

24:09 ↗ versus peak usage. Our infrastructure

24:12 ↗ could be a lot smaller if we're

24:13 ↗ targeting average level of consumption

24:15 ↗ versus oversizing for peak or fire

24:17 ↗ protection. Peak costs are related to

24:20 ↗ that incremental cost associated with

24:22 ↗ providing service during peak events.

24:24 ↗ When we do have a hot summer, a lot of

24:26 ↗ our customers are using a lot more water

24:28 ↗ at the same time and we're having to

24:30 ↗ have bigger pipes to get that that

24:32 ↗ pressure, give the water to them, bigger

24:34 ↗ storage stakes, bigger pump stations.

24:36 ↗ Now, we're don't utilize all that all

24:38 ↗ that infrastructure to to its maximum

24:40 ↗ ability year round. We only utilize them

24:43 ↗ during those peak events. So, the that

24:45 ↗ infrastructure gets oversized and we pay

24:47 ↗ a lot more money to oversize it for it

24:49 ↗ to be used one month out of the year or

24:51 ↗ two months out of the year as an

24:52 ↗ example. So customers that require us to

24:54 ↗ push our infrastructure and make it

24:56 ↗ larger and bigger and invest more into

24:58 ↗ it should be paying for it

25:00 ↗ proportionately. That represents about

25:02 ↗ 36% of our total costs. Fire suppression

25:05 ↗ costs. An important item to remember is

25:07 ↗ that this is more than just fire

25:08 ↗ hydrants. It's again opsizing our

25:10 ↗ capacity, our systems, our tanks, our

25:13 ↗ pipes, our uh pump stations uh to

25:17 ↗ provide enough pressure to put out a

25:19 ↗ fire for a specific duration of time.

25:21 ↗ And each classification of service has

25:23 ↗ its own unique requirement depending how

25:25 ↗ densely populated their area is and the

25:28 ↗ type of pressure that is required based

25:30 ↗ on fire marshall requirements. So again

25:32 ↗ it's more than hydrants. It's oversizing

25:34 ↗ of a lot of other facilities that are

25:35 ↗ required to provide and fight fires.

25:38 ↗ Here it represents about 23% of our

25:40 ↗ total cost. Next we have fixed cost on

25:43 ↗ the system which are customer. Again

25:44 ↗ customer costs are simply costs that

25:46 ↗ don't scale with usage. It could be

25:48 ↗ postage. It could be customer service,

25:50 ↗ utility billing and so on. And then

25:52 ↗ meters and services. These are costs

25:53 ↗ related to maintaining, replacing uh uh

25:57 ↗ and reading our meters. These cost scale

26:00 ↗ with meter size. The larger the meter,

26:02 ↗ the more costly it is to replace and

26:06 ↗ maintain. On the sewer front, we have uh

26:09 ↗ functions that related to flow.

26:10 ↗ basically collecting up fluid through

26:12 ↗ our collection system and bringing it in

26:14 ↗ in the city's case to King County a

26:17 ↗ point of delivery. We have customer

26:20 ↗ related costs which are just similar to

26:23 ↗ uh the water utilities customer costs

26:24 ↗ are fixed in nature. These are

26:26 ↗ associated with customer billing,

26:27 ↗ utility billing, customer service,

26:29 ↗ postage and so on. We also have strength

26:32 ↗ related costs. Now you'll notice on the

26:33 ↗ pie chart the strength costs are not

26:35 ↗ present. This is because the way that

26:37 ↗ you receive service and you receive

26:39 ↗ treatment of your uh ethanol uh is

26:43 ↗ through King County. Now, King County,

26:45 ↗ they do they deal with with strength on

26:48 ↗ their end, but the way they assess the

26:50 ↗ charges to you, they only focus on flow.

26:51 ↗ They charge you for just volume of waste

26:54 ↗ that you provide to them. So, they don't

26:55 ↗ charge you based on strength. Therefore,

26:57 ↗ we're not allocating cost by strength.

27:00 ↗ But typically for utilities that do

27:02 ↗ maintain their own treatment plant, they

27:03 ↗ do incur cost to to treat for certain

27:06 ↗ type of constituents such as BOD or

27:08 ↗ biochemical oxygen demand and total

27:10 ↗ suspended solids. There typically will

27:12 ↗ be that differentiation because you're

27:13 ↗ getting wholesale treatment. It's not

27:15 ↗ included in that analysis. I I have a a

27:18 ↗ a question about this and it's more of

27:21 ↗ an of a curiosity, but are are is there

27:24 ↗ a King County infrastructure that feeds

27:27 ↗ the treatment plants that we tap into

27:30 ↗ someplace or, you know, where's where's

27:32 ↗ the transition point between the city

27:33 ↗ sewer and the King County sewer or the

27:37 ↗ King County treatment

27:40 ↗ facility? Matt. Yeah, that might be a

27:43 ↗ better question for the engineering

27:45 ↗ staff.

27:48 ↗ Hey, Colin. Hello. Yeah. So, we do have

27:50 ↗ a few connections to uh the King County

27:54 ↗ uh we call it the metro line. Uh it's

27:57 ↗ not a bus line. Uh but it is used to be

28:00 ↗ called the sew the King County Metro

28:02 ↗ sewer. Um now it's just King County uh

28:05 ↗ waste. Uh and so the the main pipeline

28:08 ↗ is actually in Lake Seamish uh right off

28:11 ↗ the docks of some of the the homes along

28:13 ↗ Lake Seamish. Um, so it connects on 56th

28:16 ↗ Street. There's a few connections there

28:18 ↗ and then a few more in South Cove uh as

28:20 ↗ it goes along its way. Great. Thanks,

28:23 ↗ man. I I mean, I don't know that it

28:24 ↗ really matters to the rate study, but I

28:25 ↗ was just kind of curious. Yeah, it's

28:27 ↗ actually you can see it on Google Maps.

28:28 ↗ You can kind of see the the pipe under

28:30 ↗ water. We'll be looking later tonight.

28:32 ↗ Thank you.

28:35 ↗ Thank you, Matt.

28:38 ↗ All right. Now once we have uh

28:40 ↗ categorized and and uh and uh allocated

28:42 ↗ our costs we get our reser results. So

28:45 ↗ in this slide you'll see the summary of

28:47 ↗ the water utilities cost of service. And

28:49 ↗ what we're looking at here and we're

28:51 ↗ trying to see if we can accomplish is to

28:53 ↗ see how each individual bar which

28:54 ↗ represents each individual class of

28:56 ↗ service compares to a 100% cost of

28:59 ↗ service target. Usually represented here

29:02 ↗ with a solid black line. Now, when we're

29:04 ↗ setting rates, because budgets change

29:06 ↗ year to year disproportionately, some

29:07 ↗ line items go up, some go down because

29:10 ↗ usage patterns change depending on the

29:12 ↗ economy, weather, and so on. You're

29:15 ↗ going to have variations and results

29:17 ↗ from year to year just simply because of

29:19 ↗ those external factors. And when we're

29:21 ↗ setting these type of rates, we want to

29:22 ↗ look at an average year. So, we do

29:25 ↗ expect fluctuations. So, what we usually

29:26 ↗ like to say is when you're setting

29:28 ↗ rates, you want to look at a 5 to 10%

29:30 ↗ range of reasonable kind of band. So in

29:32 ↗ this case it would be negative uh 10% to

29:35 ↗ positive 10% or 90 to 110% of cost of

29:38 ↗ service. If our classes are within that

29:40 ↗ band we're doing pretty well. We might

29:42 ↗ need to be monitoring depending where in

29:44 ↗ that band they are but we're doing

29:45 ↗ pretty well. If there are classes

29:47 ↗ outside of that band of reasonless we

29:50 ↗ will be seeing that maybe they're

29:52 ↗ underpaying or overpaying. Now looking

29:54 ↗ at the results we have quite a few

29:56 ↗ classes here. We're about nine classes

29:57 ↗ of service and we're seeing that that

30:00 ↗ outside of the irrigation class of

30:01 ↗ service pretty much every single class

30:03 ↗ is within that banner reasonable which

30:05 ↗ is pretty pretty challenging to do

30:07 ↗ sometimes to achieve. So your rates are

30:09 ↗ doing really well uh for majority of

30:11 ↗ classes of service. Now we do notice

30:13 ↗ single family is a little bit on the low

30:15 ↗ end and if a class of service is under

30:17 ↗ 100% cost of service that means they're

30:19 ↗ not quite they're not quite paying their

30:22 ↗ proportional share cost and maybe they

30:24 ↗ need to go up more than average to catch

30:25 ↗ up. If the class is above 100% it may

30:28 ↗ imply that the class is paying uh more

30:30 ↗ than their allocated short cost and may

30:32 ↗ need to come down or go up less than

30:34 ↗ average. So here we're seeing that

30:36 ↗ single family is within that 10% band

30:38 ↗ but they're right on the outskirts. So

30:40 ↗ we need to be monitoring that and maybe

30:42 ↗ doing a gradual adjustment trying to get

30:43 ↗ them a little tighter maybe within 5%

30:45 ↗ instead of 10%. Looking at other

30:48 ↗ classes, the other the two that jump out

30:50 ↗ at us are the parks irrigation, which

30:52 ↗ are under the cost of service, which

30:54 ↗ indicates they're not quite paying their

30:56 ↗ allocated share of costs, and the

30:57 ↗ private irrigation costs, which may

30:59 ↗ indicate that they're paying more than

31:00 ↗ their allocated share

31:05 ↗ costs. Sergey, just a real quick

31:07 ↗ question

31:08 ↗ from Yeah, just a point of interest.

31:12 ↗ What's the difference between

31:13 ↗ multifamily and apartments? are

31:14 ↗ multifamily like three plexes,

31:17 ↗ forplexes and ADUs

31:21 ↗ or why is there a differentiation

31:23 ↗ between multif family and apartments?

31:28 ↗ I'll have to double check. I think it is

31:29 ↗ that tied to the size of the units, but

31:31 ↗ I would have to double check the code to

31:32 ↗ give me a more precise answer. I'm not

31:34 ↗ sure, Emily or Matt. I think Matt has an

31:36 ↗ answer for us. Oh, okay.

31:42 ↗ That that is a good question that we I

31:44 ↗ think it is the number of units and it's

31:47 ↗ also mixed use. So um like commercial on

31:50 ↗ top and apartment on the on the or

31:53 ↗ commercial on the

31:54 ↗ bottom residential on top. Um so there's

31:57 ↗ different ways to calculate it. Um it it

32:00 ↗ is a little nuanced in code.

32:05 ↗ Anything else? Nope. All right. That's

32:08 ↗ great.

32:09 ↗ Moving on to the service rate. Here we

32:12 ↗ have the three classes of service. Here

32:13 ↗ the findings are that all three are

32:15 ↗ within that 10% range of reasonable but

32:18 ↗ uh multifamily and commercial are a

32:20 ↗ little bit right on the line right on

32:22 ↗ the outskirts. So again they're pretty

32:24 ↗ tight on that 10% band and we might want

32:27 ↗ to do some a little minor adjustments

32:29 ↗ but overall we're doing pretty well and

32:32 ↗ pretty much all classes are within that

32:34 ↗ range of reasons. So this is where we

32:36 ↗ get to the big policy question of of the

32:38 ↗ day to the committee and that that's

32:40 ↗ regarding cost of service rate setting.

32:42 ↗ Do we go with cost of service or do we

32:44 ↗ need to investigate things a little bit

32:46 ↗ more and pause it for a little bit so we

32:48 ↗ can fine-tune things? That's one one

32:50 ↗ question. Another option is we we can

32:53 ↗ transition to cost of service but we may

32:55 ↗ take either uh jump full speed ahead or

33:00 ↗ take a gradual approach. So there's kind

33:02 ↗ of two options to the yes alternative.

33:05 ↗ If the the committee wants to proceed

33:07 ↗ with moving forward with cost of

33:10 ↗ service, you can do it all at once or or

33:12 ↗ you can do it gradually and we prepared

33:14 ↗ some potential example impacts for in

33:16 ↗ the next slide. So do let me know if you

33:18 ↗ want to pause here and discuss or if you

33:20 ↗ want to see what that could look like

33:21 ↗ for each option in the next slide.

33:24 ↗ All right, let's let's look at how it

33:25 ↗ shakes out and then we'll we'll go from

33:27 ↗ there. Okay, so in this slide we wanted

33:30 ↗ to just provide you with uh what these

33:33 ↗ options actually mean for a percentage

33:34 ↗ impact perspective. Now when we talk

33:36 ↗ customer service, we usually focus on

33:38 ↗ test year period and then we extrapolate

33:40 ↗ it for future years as well. So here

33:42 ↗ we're focusing on the 2026 time period

33:45 ↗ for options one and uh two and then the

33:48 ↗ the multi-year option does the 5-year

33:50 ↗ approach. So under option one, this is

33:52 ↗ the pausing approach. We will do an

33:54 ↗ across the board adjustment for all

33:56 ↗ classes of service. Every class would

33:58 ↗ get the system average increase of four

33:59 ↗ and 3/4%. And you would revisit cost of

34:02 ↗ service at that at the ne the next

34:04 ↗ update or sometime in the future. Option

34:07 ↗ two would go 100% from cost of service

34:10 ↗ year 1. That means to get residential to

34:13 ↗ cost of service with a 4 and 3/4%

34:15 ↗ average increase, they would need a

34:17 ↗ 13.8% adjustment that same year. So

34:20 ↗ because they are a little bit on the

34:21 ↗ lower end of the band, they would need a

34:23 ↗ proportionally higher increase to get

34:25 ↗ them pretty much within cost of service.

34:27 ↗ And as you can see going down the list,

34:29 ↗ each class will be slightly different.

34:30 ↗ Some classes would be less than average,

34:32 ↗ other classes would have a decrease,

34:35 ↗ other classes would be much higher than

34:37 ↗ average. So it's it's combination if we

34:39 ↗ go there all at once. The third option,

34:41 ↗ and this is purely an example for

34:43 ↗ discussion purposes, we can take a

34:44 ↗ gradual approach to start moving our

34:46 ↗ classes towards cost of service. and how

34:48 ↗ gradual can be decided based on policy

34:51 ↗ discussions with the committee. This

34:52 ↗ approach gets us moving towards cost of

34:55 ↗ service over time and makes progression

34:57 ↗ by 2030 where pretty much almost all

35:00 ↗ classes except one get within that range

35:02 ↗ of reasonleness. Here you can see that

35:04 ↗ with an average 4 and a/4% increase for

35:07 ↗ the water utility in the upper table

35:09 ↗ most classes that need to go up like

35:11 ↗ single family and duplex they'll be a

35:13 ↗ half a% over that average. So instead of

35:15 ↗ being 4 and 3/4, they'll be about 5.4

35:19 ↗ 5.3 uh over time over that horizon. The

35:23 ↗ classes that need to be slightly less

35:24 ↗ than average like multif family

35:26 ↗ apartments, they will be 4 and a half

35:29 ↗ versus 4 and 3/4. So a quarter% less

35:32 ↗ than average, making progress gradually

35:34 ↗ over that time horizon. And then the

35:36 ↗ classes that need to be substantially

35:37 ↗ adjusted, they'll be slightly higher

35:39 ↗ than average, 3 percentage points in

35:41 ↗ this case, and they'll be adjusted and

35:43 ↗ they'll be catching up over time in that

35:46 ↗ manner gradually. And then the class

35:48 ↗ units go down, they'll be a percentage

35:51 ↗ and a half points below average as well.

35:53 ↗ So this way each class gets progre

35:55 ↗ progressed over time. It also allows

35:57 ↗ customers to make decisions to maybe

36:00 ↗ modify their behavior and maybe they'll

36:02 ↗ make progressions towards cost of

36:03 ↗ service faster. and then that the next

36:05 ↗ time you're visiting the analysis, you

36:07 ↗ may not need to do any additional

36:09 ↗ adjustments if they've incorporated some

36:11 ↗ measures on on their end. We do have a

36:14 ↗ couple slides showing what this actually

36:15 ↗ means for a typical residential bill as

36:17 ↗ well. I can show you that and then we

36:19 ↗ can have uh the discussion. That'd be

36:21 ↗ great.

36:23 ↗ So, under option one, this is exactly

36:25 ↗ like the slide you saw on the front end.

36:26 ↗ This is just across the board applying

36:28 ↗ the the

36:29 ↗ 4.75% for water, 4% for sewer, and the

36:32 ↗ average increase for storm. This is

36:34 ↗ where you saw the 4.9s every year.

36:37 ↗ Option two, go to cost of service 100%

36:40 ↗ for board. The first year would require

36:42 ↗ a little bit of a larger increase above

36:44 ↗ average or the requested maximum of 6%.

36:48 ↗ Which would result in an 8.4% increase

36:51 ↗ driven by water. Water would go up 13.8.

36:54 ↗ Sewer would go down 2.6. But on average,

36:57 ↗ water the local share of sewer is

36:59 ↗ smaller than water bill. Therefore the

37:02 ↗ increase would be higher than the than

37:06 ↗ the 6%. After that the first year it

37:08 ↗ would be adjusted under five. Lastly the

37:10 ↗ phasing approach it would be around 5.07

37:14 ↗ rounding to 5.1% still under the 6% and

37:17 ↗ right around that 5% time period

37:19 ↗ allowing us to start making progress

37:21 ↗ towards cost of service and phasing in

37:23 ↗ over time. Now one item to note for cost

37:26 ↗ of service is that if we do an

37:28 ↗ adjustment gradual adjustment for some

37:30 ↗ classes we have to follow the phasing

37:33 ↗ structure for all the remaining classes

37:35 ↗ because the overall goal is to get that

37:37 ↗ 4.75 for water 4% for sewer as a system.

37:41 ↗ So if we do something higher or lower

37:43 ↗ and we don't adjust other classes

37:45 ↗ appropriately our overall increase will

37:47 ↗ change as well. So that really gets us

37:49 ↗ to the end of the presentation and

37:51 ↗ really this is where we're looking for

37:52 ↗ guidance from the committee members uh

37:55 ↗ regarding the cost of service. That's

37:57 ↗ great. Barb, any questions?

38:00 ↗ So uh econ economics 101 from me. Sorry,

38:04 ↗ but uh if we phase it in, does that mean

38:07 ↗ we're running a deficit the entire time?

38:10 ↗ Uh are we losing at in the end? um we're

38:14 ↗ falling behind every year or um is this

38:18 ↗ done in a way where we end up whole at

38:21 ↗ the

38:22 ↗ end. So from a a pure revenue

38:25 ↗ requirement perspective, each option

38:27 ↗ that we presented would collect the

38:28 ↗ appropriate total dollars from that

38:30 ↗ perspective. Option one keeps the

38:33 ↗ differentials as they are. So not

38:35 ↗ addressing cost of service until it is

38:38 ↗ revisited again. Uh option two and three

38:41 ↗ will get us to cost of service for

38:43 ↗ pretty much every class except one under

38:45 ↗ option three which will be still

38:47 ↗ slightly outside of range of reasonable.

38:49 ↗ So you would need to continue the phase

38:51 ↗ in after the next update for that third

38:54 ↗ option.

38:56 ↗ Okay. Thank you. But all options will

38:58 ↗ collect appropriate dollar amounts.

39:00 ↗ Okay. Thanks. All right. So if I've got

39:03 ↗ this right, option one really is don't

39:06 ↗ worry about cost of service option.

39:08 ↗ That's that's the uh we're just going to

39:10 ↗ go with the summer over and summer

39:12 ↗ under. Option two is we're going to in

39:14 ↗ year one uh take our entire adjustment

39:17 ↗ and get everybody into into line and

39:20 ↗ option three is we're going to smooth it

39:22 ↗ out and we will get everybody into line

39:24 ↗ um some number of years down the road.

39:26 ↗ Do we think that we get in line by 2030

39:28 ↗ or do we think it goes beyond that

39:31 ↗ too? And so the option three gets us

39:34 ↗ within 10% for all classes except uh one

39:39 ↗ of the classes that was quite a bit off.

39:41 ↗ So everybody else out of nine classes,

39:43 ↗ one eight will be within 10%. So pretty

39:46 ↗ much on where we want them to be, one

39:48 ↗ class will need another several years to

39:51 ↗ get there. I'm going to guess that's

39:52 ↗ parks irrigation. Yeah. So priv private.

39:56 ↗ Yeah. Oh, it's private irrigation.

39:59 ↗ Yeah. Okay.

40:00 ↗ Is it parks or

40:02 ↗ private or is it private? They would

40:05 ↗ need more time. They're currently based

40:07 ↗ on the analysis findings now they have

40:09 ↗ if we go back to slides they have a

40:13 ↗ pretty

40:14 ↗ uh big overpay adjustment that they

40:18 ↗ would need. So just require a bit a bit

40:21 ↗ more. Okay. So, so, so my my my uh I

40:25 ↗ guess last question is um parks

40:27 ↗ irrigation makes me uh um think about uh

40:31 ↗ well makes me think two things. One, it

40:33 ↗ makes me think, okay, are we subsidizing

40:34 ↗ parks because they're they're

40:36 ↗ underpaying for water, but what's the

40:37 ↗ impact on parks if we start to uh

40:40 ↗ actually fairly significantly increase

40:42 ↗ their water bill?

40:44 ↗ Any any insights on that? I would love

40:46 ↗ to speak to that. I I I think your

40:49 ↗ assessment is right on. Uh that would be

40:52 ↗ the concern. Uh we have already begun

40:56 ↗ having some conversations with parks

40:59 ↗ staff just to make them aware. So this

41:02 ↗ uh wasn't new news to them some weeks

41:05 ↗ from

41:06 ↗ now. We also want to continue to have

41:10 ↗ some discussions between this meeting

41:11 ↗ and next. It's why we're seeking some

41:14 ↗ feedback from you.

41:17 ↗ Are you interested in continuing to look

41:20 ↗ at applying cost of service methodology

41:24 ↗ or is it of no interest to you? If

41:26 ↗ you're interested in it, which of these

41:28 ↗ options kind of looks a little bit more

41:31 ↗ attractive, the all at once or or phased

41:33 ↗ in kind of approach? That's the basic

41:36 ↗ feedback that we're trying to get

41:38 ↗ tonight. However, we know we need to

41:42 ↗ continue to speak with the city

41:44 ↗ administration and with the parks

41:46 ↗ department to talk about ramifications.

41:49 ↗ We we also need to have a robust

41:51 ↗ conversation about the the logic of

41:54 ↗ having two separate irrigation classes.

41:56 ↗ When you think about the type of service

41:58 ↗ that is being delivered,

42:02 ↗ similar type of

42:03 ↗ service, uh there there was some

42:06 ↗ historic rationale for having a a two

42:11 ↗ different classes. We want to continue

42:13 ↗ to have some discussions about whether

42:15 ↗ or not that that rationale is still uh

42:19 ↗ appropriate and whether the differential

42:21 ↗ is still appropriate to have and to what

42:23 ↗ degree. And basically it comes down to

42:28 ↗ um two factors. Uh one is our ability to

42:32 ↗ control uh use of water on the parks

42:35 ↗ side and the second reason is uh based

42:39 ↗ on uh the city's investment in

42:43 ↗ non-pottable

42:45 ↗ irrigation. Um so a different type of

42:48 ↗ supply of water perhaps different cost

42:52 ↗ equation. So is there a different rate

42:54 ↗ structure then for the parks irrigation

42:57 ↗ versus

42:58 ↗ um private irrigation?

43:01 ↗ Yes, they are they are charged different

43:03 ↗ rates. I guess that's what I guess

43:05 ↗ that's what it shows here, isn't it?

43:07 ↗ Correct. Okay, great. All right. Um

43:10 ↗ Barb, any other any other questions from

43:11 ↗ from you? I think that's that's

43:13 ↗ questions I've got. So um city clerk, do

43:16 ↗ we have anybody um

43:18 ↗ online who might want to make public

43:21 ↗ comment at this time? No. Okay. Then we

43:24 ↗ will move into deliberations. And I

43:26 ↗ think these are some really interesting

43:29 ↗ uh questions that we have before us

43:31 ↗ today. So I think the first question I

43:35 ↗ um let's take on

43:37 ↗ um the uh do we want to do cost of

43:40 ↗ service? And Barb, I'd love to sorry

43:42 ↗ deputy council D. Michelle, I would I

43:44 ↗ would love to love you to start us off

43:46 ↗ and what your thoughts are on whether

43:47 ↗ that we want to go with essentially

43:49 ↗ option A, which says no class of

43:51 ↗ service, cost of service adjustments, or

43:53 ↗ do we want to have go beyond that? Yeah,

43:56 ↗ I I support doing cost of service. Let's

43:59 ↗ see. I'm not seeing questions here. Oh,

44:01 ↗ there we are. Um, yeah, I I would

44:05 ↗ support us going with cost of service.

44:08 ↗ And

44:11 ↗ uh we heard through our community survey

44:14 ↗ that people are really really concerned

44:16 ↗ about the affordability in Isiqua and we

44:20 ↗ had a major recycling

44:23 ↗ um adjustment just last year. Um and

44:27 ↗ people are probably also experiencing

44:29 ↗ shocks from what's going on in the

44:31 ↗ economy in other arenas. So I think my

44:36 ↗ question is or my question or my concern

44:39 ↗ I think is I would go with the phasedin

44:41 ↗ approach but I don't want to do

44:44 ↗ something that would damage the bottom

44:46 ↗ line in the city because we're already

44:48 ↗ facing some major challenges there.

44:53 ↗ So what we can do to smooth that out for

44:56 ↗ rate payers would be my preference

44:59 ↗ unless it has a very damaging uh effect

45:02 ↗ on the overall budget. So that's it.

45:07 ↗ That's it. Okay. All right. Well, I mean

45:09 ↗ that's is that it that as far as Yes.

45:12 ↗ Yeah. I I I agree with you and I and I

45:14 ↗ think you if I'm reading this this table

45:15 ↗ correctly, um we're we're just we won't

45:20 ↗ have uh private irrigation completely

45:23 ↗ aligned by 2030, but we will have the

45:25 ↗ same amount of money if we if if even if

45:28 ↗ we didn't do cost of service adjustments

45:31 ↗ in each of these years, right? Every

45:33 ↗ year gets a net 4.75

45:35 ↗ uh uh rate increase for water and a 4%

45:39 ↗ for for sewer. So I think from a you

45:42 ↗ know money perspective we generate the

45:44 ↗ same money. Um I don't know I and I I I

45:49 ↗ worry about parks and I think that's a

45:51 ↗ really great question to but I also

45:54 ↗ don't know that it's really fair to

45:58 ↗ essentially subsidize um parks with

46:01 ↗ another fund which is the water fund

46:03 ↗ which is kind of where I kind of like

46:05 ↗ that's not feeling right to me and and

46:08 ↗ so doing the adjustments. So I think you

46:10 ↗ know quite honestly I I think uh the

46:13 ↗ cost of service you know alignment

46:16 ↗ adjustment is the right approach for

46:17 ↗ both sewer and water and I agree with

46:21 ↗ the deputy council president that if we

46:23 ↗ were to drop a 13% 13 almost 14% water

46:27 ↗ bill increase on somebody uh right now

46:30 ↗ that would not be really uh super cool

46:32 ↗ thing to do. Matter of fact, I one of

46:35 ↗ the things I read in the the um

46:37 ↗ community survey was gee, water is

46:39 ↗ really expensive and um so there's

46:42 ↗ already a sensitivity to that. So so but

46:44 ↗ I don't know

46:46 ↗ that you know 5.4% is still uh but it

46:51 ↗ you know goes down a little bit on the

46:52 ↗ sewer. So you know maybe it's a 5% net

46:55 ↗ increase. Oh, you've given me the

46:57 ↗ numbers. I don't even have to to guess

46:58 ↗ at that anymore. Um for option three

47:02 ↗ here. Yeah. So it's a 5% increase is is

47:04 ↗ not completely outrageous. Um so you

47:07 ↗ know if I um you know my bias my my

47:12 ↗ preferred direction is like let's get

47:13 ↗ this aligned recognizing we won't be in

47:15 ↗ 100% of alignment in 2030 in this rate

47:18 ↗ study but we will be closer and let's uh

47:22 ↗ phase it in over those years to to

47:24 ↗ soften the the impact on all the

47:26 ↗ organizations including our lovely parks

47:28 ↗ department. So that's my that's my my

47:31 ↗ thinking. All right. So

47:35 ↗ um I think maybe there's only the two of

47:39 ↗ us, but that's I think we are in raging

47:41 ↗ agreement that this is this is the way

47:42 ↗ to go. So great. Director Moon, do you

47:44 ↗ have what you guys need to move forward?

47:47 ↗ We sure do. We sure do. Thank you for

47:49 ↗ the feedback. We're going to continue

47:50 ↗ to, as we did last time, keep working

47:53 ↗ with the numbers, apply your feedback,

47:56 ↗ have that conversation that we need to

47:59 ↗ have with city administration and parks,

48:01 ↗ and um continue to work through that

48:03 ↗ particular variable. Since I I did hear

48:05 ↗ there's there is some concern there. Um

48:09 ↗ I'm going to advance just for a second,

48:10 ↗ make sure that I hit um the very last

48:14 ↗ thing that I wanted to do is just remind

48:16 ↗ you what's coming next. So, we will be

48:18 ↗ back in June to talk about the rate

48:21 ↗ design and the general facility charges

48:24 ↗ and uh we'll also uh follow up on

48:28 ↗ tonight's discussion and and make a

48:30 ↗ recommendation for uh what we'd like to

48:33 ↗ carry forward to the full city council

48:35 ↗ ultimately. That's great. Well, well,

48:37 ↗ thank you for all of the work. This is

48:39 ↗ um oddly enough, this is just one of my

48:41 ↗ favorite topics we get to we get to deal

48:42 ↗ with. So, all right. Thank you all and

48:46 ↗ we will then move on to our our next

48:49 ↗ item on the agenda which is uh com 0125

48:52 ↗ the capital improvement plan and we have

48:55 ↗ Andrea Schneider the deputy city

48:57 ↗ administrator with us this evening to

48:58 ↗ present this agenda item. Welcome

49:01 ↗ Andrea.

49:03 ↗ Thank you Council Member Veret. I'm

49:06 ↗ Andrea Snider and with me I have uh

49:10 ↗ quite a few other folks to help present

49:12 ↗ on the capital improvement plan.

49:15 ↗ um including uh director Moon um but

49:19 ↗ also quite a few other staff who are

49:21 ↗ going to be up. Uh Jillian Stro,

49:23 ↗ management analyst will also be helping

49:25 ↗ present as well. Um and then we have a

49:28 ↗ bunch of staff in present um here in

49:30 ↗ person as well as online to help answer

49:32 ↗ any specific questions you may have

49:33 ↗ about projects. A first thing I want to

49:37 ↗ uh bring your attention to this evening

49:40 ↗ is that this is the 2027 to 2032 capital

49:44 ↗ improvement plan. So if you were looking

49:46 ↗ at our current capital improvement plan,

49:48 ↗ you'll notice that we skipped a year.

49:50 ↗ And the reason for that is that the city

49:52 ↗ is now on a bienium budget. So city

49:55 ↗ council has already passed 25 and 26. We

49:58 ↗ know what we're doing in 26. Um no need

50:01 ↗ to put it in a plan because it's already

50:02 ↗ in the budget. So, we're starting at

50:05 ↗ 2027 with this CIP uh in order to better

50:09 ↗ align it with our new bianial

50:12 ↗ budget. The purpose tonight is to review

50:16 ↗ this 2-year update to the CIP. We update

50:19 ↗ the CIP every two years and ask for

50:21 ↗ feedback on the capital priorities for

50:23 ↗ transportation, water, and sewer

50:25 ↗ projects. So, you just saw a

50:27 ↗ presentation on the utility rate study

50:29 ↗ that covers all of our utilities,

50:31 ↗ including storm water. Storm water

50:33 ↗ however is not um under the purview of

50:35 ↗ this committee for the CIP. It is in

50:38 ↗ fact a planning development and

50:40 ↗ environment who considered the storm

50:41 ↗ water item last week. So we will just

50:44 ↗ focus on transportation water and sewer

50:46 ↗ here

50:48 ↗ tonight. Specific direction needed from

50:50 ↗ council whether council has feedback on

50:52 ↗ the approach to transportation which

50:54 ↗ prioritizes in this CIP maintenance and

50:58 ↗ light rail light light rail related

51:01 ↗ projects.

51:03 ↗ Does council have feedback on

51:05 ↗ prioritizing largecale visionary

51:07 ↗ projects over smaller scale projects

51:09 ↗ with more immediate benefits? We

51:11 ↗ especially see this in transportation

51:13 ↗ and we're going to talk a bit more about

51:14 ↗ it tonight. The city has very

51:18 ↗ um large goals and some large projects.

51:21 ↗ When we think about the I90 crossing,

51:23 ↗ light rail, also some of our Newport

51:25 ↗ projects um that are very large projects

51:27 ↗ for us and with limited funding sources,

51:30 ↗ we're starting to see more of a friction

51:32 ↗ and conflict between being able to do

51:35 ↗ these larger visionary projects and some

51:37 ↗ of the smaller projects that may have

51:39 ↗ more immediate benefits to the city.

51:42 ↗ We'll talk about that more this evening.

51:44 ↗ And then does council have feedback on

51:45 ↗ proposed water and sewer projects? We

51:47 ↗ just went through the rate study. The um

51:49 ↗ CIP of course incorporates um what you

51:53 ↗ have seen in the rate

51:56 ↗ study. So first we always like to start

51:59 ↗ off this conversation with a discussion

52:02 ↗ and reminder about what is a CIP, what

52:05 ↗ um and what the CIP is not. So I think

52:08 ↗ you could all fill in the blank if I was

52:09 ↗ to ask you, but let's go over it just in

52:12 ↗ case. Uh the CIP is a six-year plan.

52:16 ↗ It is just a planning document and so

52:19 ↗ it's our best guesses of the future. Uh

52:22 ↗ it's updated every other year. As I

52:24 ↗ said, it is also an element of the

52:26 ↗ city's comprehensive plan. It includes

52:29 ↗ our annual transportation improvement

52:31 ↗ program. So tonight, um one component of

52:34 ↗ what you're looking at is our TIP. By

52:36 ↗ state law, we're required to update our

52:38 ↗ TIP on an annual

52:40 ↗ basis. The CIP also includes how

52:43 ↗ projects may be funded. what's our best

52:45 ↗ guess to fund all of these projects? And

52:48 ↗ because it's a plan, it is subject to

52:50 ↗ change. And there are some changes in

52:53 ↗ this CIP versus what we had um planned

52:56 ↗ for two years ago when we last did this

52:58 ↗ exercise. The CIP is not a budget

53:02 ↗ document. The budget document is where

53:04 ↗ it gets a lot more specific about what

53:06 ↗ we actually can fund in those given two

53:08 ↗ years. The plan is what do we think is

53:11 ↗ mostly realistic going to happen? and

53:13 ↗ what should we be planning for the

53:14 ↗ future? Um, and also, uh, we put things

53:18 ↗ in the CIP in order to increase our

53:20 ↗ ability to get grants to fund those

53:22 ↗ things. And as we get closer into the

53:24 ↗ budget process, we understand where

53:26 ↗ we've received those grants, we have a

53:29 ↗ better idea of those revenues, etc. So,

53:31 ↗ there's a few changes from what's in the

53:32 ↗ CIP versus what is budgeted in any given

53:37 ↗ year. So, tonight, uh, a little overview

53:40 ↗ on the entire CIP. We're just

53:43 ↗ considering a portion of the CIP

53:45 ↗ tonight. We will come back to council at

53:47 ↗ the committee of the whole in June to

53:49 ↗ talk about the entire CIP. But just some

53:52 ↗ themes as we look at the CIP as a whole.

53:55 ↗ Um first, we know that our needs

53:58 ↗ continue to be um more expensive than

54:02 ↗ the revenues that we have available. And

54:05 ↗ what we're seeing especially in this CIP

54:07 ↗ is increased competition for general

54:09 ↗ fund and real estate excise tax. that's

54:12 ↗ REIT while anticipating fewer grants.

54:15 ↗ So, we know that the federal government

54:18 ↗ at this point in time, we should

54:19 ↗ anticipate fewer grants from them to

54:21 ↗ fund our infrastructure. Um, and so

54:24 ↗ we're looking at that as we think about

54:26 ↗ what can we realistically plan for in

54:28 ↗ the future. The other thing to consider

54:30 ↗ is we do use the general fund for

54:34 ↗ helping fund some of our infrastructure

54:35 ↗ needs. And as council is aware, because

54:38 ↗ we just went through our budget process,

54:40 ↗ the general fund is stretched more than

54:42 ↗ ever and we've had to make cuts um just

54:45 ↗ to be able to have a balanced budget. So

54:48 ↗ there's just increasing competition for

54:51 ↗ those funds between operating and

54:53 ↗ capital

54:55 ↗ expenses. We um are facing a very

54:58 ↗ difficult to predict future. We don't

55:00 ↗ know exactly what's in store for the

55:02 ↗ economy as we consider tariffs and the

55:04 ↗ implementation of tariffs and how those

55:06 ↗ may increase the cost of goods. Um we

55:09 ↗ aren't exactly sure what is going to

55:11 ↗ happen with federal grants as well. We

55:13 ↗ think um we're going to see a lot of

55:15 ↗ those dry up, but who's to know within

55:17 ↗ the six-year planning horizon. So it

55:20 ↗ does make planning very difficult and

55:22 ↗ that's where um we have to remember that

55:25 ↗ this is our best guess at this point in

55:27 ↗ time. um and that a lot is going to

55:30 ↗ happen in the next couple of

55:32 ↗ years. So, we wanted to keep the updates

55:34 ↗ to this CIP fairly simple and the

55:37 ↗ process simple because there's just so

55:39 ↗ many unknowns more with this CIP than

55:41 ↗ we've even seen in the

55:43 ↗ past. U this CIP prioritizes

55:46 ↗ maintenance. We have a lot of criteria

55:47 ↗ that we've looked at in order to select

55:50 ↗ the projects for this plan. Um but we

55:52 ↗ have heard over the years that it's

55:54 ↗ important to council that we maintain

55:56 ↗ the things that we have over building

55:58 ↗ new and this CIP certainly does that. Um

56:01 ↗ particularly in this CIP, facilities

56:04 ↗ maintenance is a priority. It's one of

56:07 ↗ those areas that we've kind of kicked

56:08 ↗ that can down the road. We've been doing

56:10 ↗ a lot of work in the past couple of

56:12 ↗ years to properly staff our facilities

56:14 ↗ maintenance and really understand what

56:16 ↗ those needs are. And um that work is

56:18 ↗ being reflected in this CIP. you'll see

56:20 ↗ a lot more facilities maintenance

56:21 ↗ projects than we've had in the past. And

56:23 ↗ it's the administration's strong

56:25 ↗ recommendation that we um prioritize

56:29 ↗ those facilities maintenance projects

56:31 ↗ because we're just catching up on things

56:33 ↗ we haven't

56:35 ↗ done. Um and finally, as I said before,

56:39 ↗ the additions uh to the CIP capture the

56:41 ↗ latest in the utility rate study. So,

56:44 ↗ we've been able to while they follow a

56:45 ↗ parallel process, we've been able to

56:47 ↗ coordinate and keep those in alignment,

56:49 ↗ including the new water treatment plant,

56:51 ↗ which I know we've discussed and had

56:52 ↗ many discussions with council

56:54 ↗ previously, but that's one of the

56:55 ↗ biggest things in the um utility rate

56:59 ↗ study. And so, now I'd like to turn the

57:02 ↗ mic over to management analyst Jillian

57:09 ↗ Stra. All right. So like Andrea

57:11 ↗ mentioned um the CIP is a little bit

57:13 ↗ different than previous CIPs in that

57:16 ↗ projects particularly in the first two

57:18 ↗ years 2027 and 2028 are not balanced

57:21 ↗ always between revenues and

57:22 ↗ expenditures. And in particular there

57:24 ↗ are a few revenue sources that are

57:26 ↗ overtapped. Meaning that if we wanted to

57:28 ↗ fund everything that we had planned to

57:30 ↗ fund through this CIP through those

57:31 ↗ revenue sources, we'd have to rep

57:32 ↗ prioritize those projects in order to be

57:35 ↗ able to do that um when 2027 comes

57:37 ↗ around. Um, and we'll talk a little bit

57:39 ↗ more about what exactly those revenue

57:40 ↗ sources are um, in a few slides here.

57:43 ↗ However, we still wanted this to be a

57:45 ↗ somewhat useful and realistic plan. So,

57:47 ↗ we sought to get as close as we could to

57:49 ↗ balance in 2027 and 2028. And in order

57:52 ↗ to do this, departments phased a lot of

57:54 ↗ projects, reduce the scope of projects

57:56 ↗ or push them entirely to 29 through 32

58:00 ↗ when we'll have a little bit more time

58:01 ↗ to do more accurate forecasting and

58:03 ↗ understand the landscape that we're

58:04 ↗ facing. We also sought to move projects

58:06 ↗ to more stable funding sources as it was

58:09 ↗ possible. Um, and as we thought about

58:11 ↗ what pri projects should be prioritized

58:13 ↗ for funding, we once again uh prioritize

58:15 ↗ maintenance projects um when we were

58:17 ↗ looking at those

58:19 ↗ lists. So this table breaks down all of

58:22 ↗ the different revenue sources included

58:23 ↗ in this CIP and their subsequent uh

58:26 ↗ capital project asks. So this does

58:28 ↗ include some of the overtapped funding

58:29 ↗ sources. We'll talk more about general

58:32 ↗ fund and REIT in a moment as well as TBD

58:34 ↗ sales tax and school zone safety fund.

58:37 ↗ But while we're here, I want to call out

58:38 ↗ that the mitigation funds throughout the

58:40 ↗ course of the CIP mostly run down to

58:43 ↗ zero in fund balance. So, as future CIPs

58:46 ↗ are considered considered, those funds

58:47 ↗ might not be available uh for projects,

58:49 ↗ but those are also difficult to

58:51 ↗ forecast.

58:52 ↗ Um, as Andrea mentioned and as you've

58:54 ↗ heard tonight, the the water sewer and

58:56 ↗ storm water funds are following their

58:57 ↗ their separate process and those

58:59 ↗ processes sync up um with the with the

59:02 ↗ CIP process. I'd also like to call out

59:04 ↗ the city hall IPD funding source. Um,

59:07 ↗ you're seeing some pretty big numbers

59:08 ↗ there and that's essentially an

59:09 ↗ unidentified funding source as it's also

59:12 ↗ subject to to the parallel process with

59:14 ↗ the mayor's task force on civic

59:15 ↗ facilities. um and their recommendations

59:18 ↗ around the scope of that project will

59:20 ↗ certainly inform costs and will allow

59:22 ↗ for a more detailed discussion of of the

59:24 ↗ financing of those projects. So that's

59:26 ↗ also subject to to a little bit of an

59:28 ↗ external pro uh external process, but we

59:31 ↗ wanted to call out that we that we know

59:32 ↗ that we have these needs um and so

59:34 ↗ that's why they're included in the CIP

59:36 ↗ and that's how you'll see them denoted

59:37 ↗ um in terms of revenue.

59:40 ↗ So with that, I want to first talk about

59:42 ↗ the school zone safety fund. Um a bright

59:45 ↗ spot before turning to to re general

59:47 ↗ fund and some of the other the other

59:48 ↗ items. So

59:51 ↗ um in November of 2024, the city council

59:55 ↗ approved an additional location for

59:56 ↗ traffic cameras near our schools. Um and

59:58 ↗ that's had an impact on the projects

1:00:00 ↗ that we can fund through our CIP. Um, so

1:00:03 ↗ you'll see in the tables above, and I

1:00:05 ↗ apologize that there aren't years here,

1:00:06 ↗ but it starts in 2027 and runs through

1:00:09 ↗ 2032. You'll see that if we had had only

1:00:11 ↗ the the existing or the the previously

1:00:14 ↗ only um location for these traffic

1:00:16 ↗ cameras, the level of capital project

1:00:18 ↗ support was about a million dollars a

1:00:20 ↗ year. Um, and that that fund was

1:00:22 ↗ essentially underwater uh with the with

1:00:24 ↗ the beginning of the CIP. With the

1:00:26 ↗ additional camera location and the

1:00:28 ↗ anticipated revenues, um, this also

1:00:30 ↗ takes into account the the additional

1:00:31 ↗ costs of of enforcement, we're able to

1:00:34 ↗ to have a higher level of capital

1:00:36 ↗ project support. You're seeing um around

1:00:38 ↗ $2 million a year. You're also seeing a

1:00:41 ↗ much healthier fund balance for the

1:00:43 ↗ school zone safety fund as a result of

1:00:45 ↗ that additional location. Um, so while

1:00:47 ↗ there are projects uh like the annual

1:00:49 ↗ concrete maintenance program that was

1:00:51 ↗ already going to be funded by school

1:00:52 ↗ zone safety, you'll also see the the

1:00:54 ↗ list of four projects there on the

1:00:56 ↗ screen that have moved some portion of

1:00:57 ↗ their cost to school zone safety. Um,

1:01:00 ↗ this is important because some of these

1:01:01 ↗ projects were funded by otherwise

1:01:03 ↗ overtapped revenue sources. So, this

1:01:05 ↗ makes them more stable um as we plan for

1:01:08 ↗ for 27 and beyond.

1:01:12 ↗ Hey Jolene, can I ask you a question

1:01:13 ↗ about the the traffic camera on um the

1:01:17 ↗ new one by IBE?

1:01:20 ↗ Um I thought there were some delays

1:01:22 ↗ potentially in implementing that. Is

1:01:24 ↗ that reflected here in this revenue

1:01:25 ↗ stream? Yeah, it does reflect that that

1:01:27 ↗ the first uh time when we might have

1:01:29 ↗ might see citations uh would begin in

1:01:31 ↗ September.

1:01:34 ↗ Um council president.

1:01:38 ↗ Yes.

1:01:40 ↗ Um, and also we were looking at a third

1:01:43 ↗ camera and I know that, you know, we put

1:01:45 ↗ that off uh because uh um it needed

1:01:49 ↗ further assessment I believe, but uh so

1:01:52 ↗ I'm presuming that that could be added

1:01:55 ↗ but it you haven't reflected it here

1:01:57 ↗ because we're waiting to see. It's not

1:01:59 ↗ reflected uh in this in this analysis

1:02:02 ↗ here for a couple of reasons including

1:02:03 ↗ the fact that it hasn't been decided and

1:02:05 ↗ because there are restrictions on how we

1:02:06 ↗ can use that revenue that these camera

1:02:08 ↗ locations aren't subject to. Thank you.

1:02:10 ↗ That's a good reminder. I forgot that.

1:02:12 ↗ Yeah. So, thanks.

1:02:14 ↗ Yeah. All right. So, moving to real

1:02:16 ↗ estate excise tax in the general fund.

1:02:19 ↗ Um so, you'll see here that about around

1:02:22 ↗ uh $5.3 million and $4.8 $8 million has

1:02:25 ↗ been requested from REIT across the

1:02:26 ↗ entire CIP for 27 and 28. And that level

1:02:30 ↗ of capital project support cannot be

1:02:32 ↗ funded by REIT. Um you'll see it's

1:02:34 ↗ underwater throughout the course of of

1:02:36 ↗ the CIP. Um so as we move closer to to

1:02:39 ↗ those years, there's going to have to be

1:02:41 ↗ some prioritization of the projects that

1:02:43 ↗ use REIT funding. General fund is a

1:02:45 ↗ little bit different as Andrea

1:02:46 ↗ mentioned. There's the the push and pull

1:02:48 ↗ between operating and capital.

1:02:50 ↗ Historically, the general fund has

1:02:52 ↗ contributed around $900,000 in capital

1:02:55 ↗ project support. So, we compared the the

1:02:57 ↗ 20 the 27 through32 asks to that

1:03:00 ↗ historical level of support and still

1:03:02 ↗ found that we we had higher level of

1:03:04 ↗ asks than our historical level of

1:03:06 ↗ support. Um, so again, that'll have to

1:03:08 ↗ be addressed likely through the

1:03:10 ↗ operating budget process as we consider

1:03:12 ↗ the the push and pull between operating

1:03:13 ↗ and capital.

1:03:15 ↗ uh quickly if I'm reading this

1:03:17 ↗ correctly. So the

1:03:19 ↗ capital project support under both REIT

1:03:22 ↗ and general fund that number really

1:03:24 ↗ reflects

1:03:26 ↗ um what has been asked for in the

1:03:29 ↗ current CIP. Yes. Okay. And then we got

1:03:33 ↗ it. So we have definitely over

1:03:34 ↗ subscribing to some of these revenue

1:03:36 ↗ funds. Yeah. And there's already been

1:03:38 ↗ the work to to phase projects to to move

1:03:40 ↗ to more stable where possible. So

1:03:42 ↗ there's already been a lot of scrubbing

1:03:43 ↗ of the numbers that you see

1:03:48 ↗ here. Okay. Um as you look through some

1:03:51 ↗ of the summary tables or as you see in

1:03:52 ↗ this presentation, it looks like TBD

1:03:54 ↗ sales tax or the transportation benefit

1:03:56 ↗ district sales tax has a relatively

1:03:58 ↗ healthy and growing fund balance

1:04:00 ↗ throughout the course of the CIP. Um

1:04:02 ↗ however, there is an expense that's not

1:04:04 ↗ included um that we want to make you

1:04:06 ↗ aware of. So in 2028, we anticipate the

1:04:09 ↗ one of the more expensive phases of

1:04:11 ↗ TR028, the Northwest Seamish Road

1:04:13 ↗ Non-motorized improvement project taking

1:04:16 ↗ place with a cost of around 15.5

1:04:18 ↗ million. The fund balance and TBD sales

1:04:20 ↗ tax um can't support this. So it's

1:04:23 ↗ likely going to be debt financed.

1:04:25 ↗ However, given the the longer term

1:04:27 ↗ outlook there, um we weren't able to to

1:04:30 ↗ project what that debt service might be

1:04:32 ↗ and therefore the impact to the TBD

1:04:34 ↗ sales tax fund balance. So we know that

1:04:36 ↗ some of these other projects might be

1:04:38 ↗ con might be competing for relatively

1:04:40 ↗ scarce funds um once once a decision is

1:04:43 ↗ made about debt financing for that

1:04:44 ↗ project.

1:04:46 ↗ So I know there are restrictions on TVD

1:04:48 ↗ revenue where we can spend it, but debt

1:04:51 ↗ service on a transportation related

1:04:52 ↗ project falls within the realm of what

1:04:55 ↗ we can spend money on. I'm getting a

1:04:56 ↗ thumbs up from the deputy city

1:04:58 ↗ administrator. Great. Thank you.

1:05:02 ↗ Thanks. Okay. Um and this this slide

1:05:05 ↗ just gives you an overview of the CIP as

1:05:07 ↗ a whole. As you can see, a lot of

1:05:08 ↗ projects are in our municipal facilities

1:05:10 ↗ as there are many maintenance uh uh

1:05:13 ↗ needs there as well as a fair number of

1:05:15 ↗ projects in our transportation

1:05:17 ↗ uh portion. This chart also compares the

1:05:20 ↗ total cost of projects with that

1:05:21 ↗ identified with identified revenue

1:05:23 ↗ sources over the six-year CIP. Um you're

1:05:26 ↗ seeing a pretty large number in that

1:05:27 ↗ municipal facilities category. Um, and

1:05:31 ↗ that's largely due to the city hall IPD

1:05:33 ↗ funding source not being identified yet.

1:05:35 ↗ Um, and with that, I'll turn it back

1:05:38 ↗ over to Director Moon to to talk us

1:05:39 ↗ through some of the transportation

1:05:49 ↗ items. Okay. I am not prepared to talk

1:05:54 ↗ about individual projects, but I brought

1:05:56 ↗ friends who can. Um, if you want to uh

1:06:00 ↗ have some additional um description or

1:06:03 ↗ information about particular projects,

1:06:06 ↗ I'm just going to re-emphasize our focus

1:06:08 ↗ has been on maintenance projects, take

1:06:12 ↗ care of what we have. Um, we certainly

1:06:15 ↗ do have a variety of new projects in

1:06:19 ↗ that they're they're not necessarily uh

1:06:21 ↗ routine maintenance, but they might be

1:06:23 ↗ enhancement of a particular corridor,

1:06:26 ↗ adding a a a different element,

1:06:28 ↗ multimodal element, and those projects

1:06:30 ↗ are also prioritized if they've had

1:06:33 ↗ grant funding, if they're through a

1:06:36 ↗ certain phase gate, etc. Um so in

1:06:40 ↗ addition to maintenance uh another theme

1:06:42 ↗ is that we are looking forward to the

1:06:45 ↗ day when light rail will be here and we

1:06:47 ↗ do have some projects related to

1:06:49 ↗ preparing for

1:06:51 ↗ that. Also uh very big discussion as we

1:06:55 ↗ thought about this CIP and the need to

1:06:57 ↗ prioritize projects. There's there's a

1:07:00 ↗ question here inherent in the plan of

1:07:03 ↗ how to make sure that we're taking care

1:07:05 ↗ of our routine maintenance activities,

1:07:08 ↗ but we're also planning for the future.

1:07:10 ↗ How do we make sure that we are

1:07:13 ↗ utilizing our resources effectively?

1:07:16 ↗ Kind of keeping both of those things in

1:07:17 ↗ balance to a degree. So, we do have

1:07:19 ↗ longer term visionary projects. Those

1:07:23 ↗ not only are longer term, but they often

1:07:26 ↗ are bigger expenses. And we need to be

1:07:29 ↗ really thoughtful about whether or not

1:07:32 ↗ uh that's where we want to put some of

1:07:34 ↗ our precious transportation dollars and

1:07:36 ↗ efforts. and um and perhaps be able to

1:07:41 ↗ do fewer, less uh of the smaller

1:07:46 ↗ maintenance uh types of projects or

1:07:48 ↗ smaller scope, less expensive projects

1:07:51 ↗ that might have some more immediate

1:07:52 ↗ benefits on our transportation system.

1:07:55 ↗ So, those are some of the key issues

1:07:58 ↗ that uh CIP aims to have us wrestle with

1:08:01 ↗ a bit.

1:08:08 ↗ Hi, Andrea popping in again. Um, as

1:08:12 ↗ director Moon was saying, one of these

1:08:14 ↗ questions that we have for you tonight

1:08:16 ↗ is this largecale visionary projects

1:08:19 ↗ versus targeted um, projects and

1:08:21 ↗ maintenance. So, this slide shows some

1:08:24 ↗ examples of this where we have our I90

1:08:27 ↗ multimotal crossing huge visionary

1:08:31 ↗ long-term project, very big impact.

1:08:34 ↗ should it be successful. Also, um this

1:08:38 ↗ is probably the most uncertain project

1:08:40 ↗ we have in our CIP for how it's going to

1:08:45 ↗ be funding, whether we have all of our

1:08:47 ↗ partners like WASHDOT and um the Federal

1:08:51 ↗ Highway

1:08:52 ↗ Administration, whether we have them on

1:08:55 ↗ board with us. And we don't know. We're

1:08:57 ↗ doing a lot of work, a lot of visioning,

1:08:59 ↗ a lot of study to try to make this

1:09:01 ↗ project happen. But, um, there are no

1:09:05 ↗ guarantees for the city that it's going

1:09:06 ↗ to happen. And so, one of the conflicts

1:09:09 ↗ in the CIP is we're putting some funding

1:09:12 ↗ uh, street mitigation, which as Jillian

1:09:15 ↗ said earlier, it's one of those funding

1:09:17 ↗ sources, our mitigation funds. We're

1:09:18 ↗ kind of zeroing out as much as possible.

1:09:20 ↗ That means we're putting funding into

1:09:22 ↗ this project that isn't going into other

1:09:24 ↗ projects. And so um and so that's some

1:09:28 ↗ of the conflicts that we're really

1:09:29 ↗ starting to see as there becomes more

1:09:32 ↗ and more competition for funding

1:09:34 ↗ sources. So um light rail is another

1:09:37 ↗ long-term visionary high impact project

1:09:41 ↗ and uh it um but we know we have Sound

1:09:46 ↗ Transit as a partner. Sound Transit has

1:09:48 ↗ a funding source for this um with the

1:09:50 ↗ passing of ST3. So, um, we're still

1:09:53 ↗ prioritizing projects that support the

1:09:55 ↗ light rail. I think one of the questions

1:09:57 ↗ that we're going to have to be facing if

1:09:59 ↗ council has feedback on it tonight or

1:10:02 ↗ when we do the next bianium budget is,

1:10:05 ↗ is the I90 multimodal uh, crossing still

1:10:09 ↗ a priority over some of these other

1:10:11 ↗ smaller projects that may show more

1:10:13 ↗ immediate benefits. Other other examples

1:10:16 ↗ of this include the Newport projects.

1:10:19 ↗ The city has been working on these

1:10:21 ↗ projects for a long time. We know that

1:10:23 ↗ they're needed for storm water purposes,

1:10:25 ↗ for traffic, um for better pedestrian

1:10:30 ↗ and bicycle facilities. Uh but they are

1:10:33 ↗ very expensive and it has been something

1:10:35 ↗ we have had a really hard time finding

1:10:37 ↗ out how we're going to fund these

1:10:39 ↗ projects. You'll see the funding sources

1:10:41 ↗ that we anticipate are REIT, that real

1:10:43 ↗ estate excise tax, grants, street

1:10:46 ↗ medication. Again, um water and storm

1:10:48 ↗ would support these projects as well

1:10:50 ↗ because we need to update that

1:10:52 ↗ infrastructure. Um but all of these

1:10:54 ↗ sources of in uh of revenue are um not

1:10:59 ↗ are being highly competed for. So we see

1:11:02 ↗ REIT highlighted several times here in

1:11:03 ↗ red versus some of the maintenance

1:11:05 ↗ projects, some of the smaller projects

1:11:07 ↗ um that u are also priorities for the

1:11:11 ↗ city. So if council has feedback on this

1:11:14 ↗ tonight um then we certainly want to

1:11:17 ↗ hear it there. Uh otherwise it is

1:11:20 ↗ something that we're going to have to

1:11:21 ↗ grapple with in the next banial budget

1:11:23 ↗ process. Great. Um deputy council

1:11:26 ↗ president. So just a yeah just a

1:11:28 ↗ clarification when we're looking at this

1:11:29 ↗ table are these um projects that um

1:11:34 ↗ staff has selected and said these are

1:11:37 ↗ the ones you we want you to work with or

1:11:40 ↗ are these just examples

1:11:42 ↗ um that you know you're bringing forward

1:11:44 ↗ as examples of the conflicts that we

1:11:47 ↗ could have. Uh these are these are

1:11:51 ↗ examples of the conflict we have. Uhhuh.

1:11:53 ↗ Uh so yes, and the there's probably a

1:11:57 ↗ few that we could throw under visionary

1:11:59 ↗ and targeted projects that support light

1:12:02 ↗ rail. Um one of the themes that we're

1:12:04 ↗ posing for you tonight is our priority

1:12:07 ↗ on light rail and uh supporting light

1:12:09 ↗ rail. Is that the right focus? Do you

1:12:12 ↗ have feedback on that? Um, and then also

1:12:15 ↗ with this conflict between these

1:12:17 ↗ projects versus maintenance or some of

1:12:19 ↗ these other projects that rely on the

1:12:21 ↗ same funding sources, if you have

1:12:22 ↗ feedback on that. One of the things the

1:12:24 ↗ administration has done with this CIP is

1:12:26 ↗ we've actually pushed back uh the

1:12:29 ↗ Newport Way Maple to Sunset

1:12:31 ↗ improvements. So, we've delayed that a

1:12:34 ↗ bit um in the CIP in order just to try

1:12:37 ↗ to be able to identify funding sources

1:12:40 ↗ and spread out the financial impacts of

1:12:42 ↗ those projects.

1:12:44 ↗ [Music]

1:12:47 ↗ So, do you want feedback on this uh

1:12:50 ↗ right now or do you want to wait till

1:12:51 ↗ the whole uh presentation? Uh well, to

1:12:54 ↗ follow our typical format and just in

1:12:56 ↗ case anybody from the public wants to

1:12:58 ↗ comment before we receive feedback,

1:13:00 ↗ perhaps we should wait till the end.

1:13:01 ↗ Okay, I think we should. Okay, great.

1:13:04 ↗ Okay, great. So, wanted to highlight

1:13:06 ↗ this. Um, any other questions on this

1:13:08 ↗ slide? If not, I'm going to turn it back

1:13:10 ↗ over to Director Moon. I think we're

1:13:13 ↗ good. Great. Thank

1:13:18 ↗ you. Water and sewer. It's utility time.

1:13:23 ↗ So, as we spoke about in the previous

1:13:26 ↗ agenda item, we have been working

1:13:28 ↗ concurrently on the utility rate plan

1:13:33 ↗ and we are making sure that we're in

1:13:35 ↗ alignment as we forecast the projects

1:13:38 ↗ that are going to be feeding into the

1:13:41 ↗ rates. We are uh looking at the same

1:13:44 ↗ projects for the capital improvement

1:13:46 ↗ plan. We have made some adjustments uh

1:13:49 ↗ to the projects based on a few different

1:13:53 ↗ factors. Uh it could be grant

1:13:55 ↗ availability, you know, what have we

1:13:57 ↗ received, when are we getting it. It

1:13:59 ↗ could also be um assessment of our uh

1:14:03 ↗ ability to carry out projects based on

1:14:05 ↗ staff ability. And then we have also

1:14:08 ↗ looked at projects over time and been

1:14:12 ↗ able to go through maybe a different

1:14:14 ↗ evaluation phase, assessment phase and

1:14:18 ↗ have acquired some new information.

1:14:19 ↗ Sometimes that enabled us to say, "Oh,

1:14:23 ↗ this isn't as high a priority as we

1:14:25 ↗ thought it might be." And in other

1:14:27 ↗ cases, uh, we came to learn we should

1:14:31 ↗ start doing that project sooner than we

1:14:33 ↗ expected to have to do.

1:14:37 ↗ So as we had talked about with the

1:14:39 ↗ utility rate study, the projected rate

1:14:41 ↗ increase for water is about 5% a year,

1:14:44 ↗ sewer about four. Caveat slightly being

1:14:47 ↗ maybe the that Newport sewer relocation

1:14:49 ↗ project.

1:14:51 ↗ And uh we have um also made the

1:14:56 ↗ assumption that the the water rate

1:14:57 ↗ projection includes uh 8.1 million shown

1:15:02 ↗ in the six-year CIP for property

1:15:04 ↗ acquisition and design phases for the

1:15:06 ↗ water treatment plant and we've spread

1:15:09 ↗ the design expenses over several years

1:15:13 ↗ in encompassing this sixyear

1:15:16 ↗ CIP. Uh another theme that you will see

1:15:20 ↗ here, another highlighted project is the

1:15:24 ↗ sewer extension and this CIP includes

1:15:28 ↗ the next phase of the sewer extension

1:15:31 ↗ project. Uh this is a a recurring

1:15:34 ↗ project. Our sewer system plan lays out

1:15:37 ↗ some policy objectives. It also lays out

1:15:40 ↗ how we're going to prioritize

1:15:43 ↗ uh extending sewer in the community. And

1:15:46 ↗ so this CIP shows the second phase of um

1:15:49 ↗ our intentions to build that

1:15:52 ↗ out. We will be coming back to council,

1:15:55 ↗ I'm so excited to say this, on May 19th

1:15:59 ↗ for the adoption of the sewer plan.

1:16:04 ↗ So in this CIP the the second phase of

1:16:07 ↗ that sewer extension would be in the

1:16:09 ↗ vicinity of Tibbitz Creek and SR900. The

1:16:13 ↗ current by bianium the project we were

1:16:15 ↗ working on right now is for the upper

1:16:18 ↗ sycamore sewer extension.

1:16:24 ↗ Question about sewer extension. I know

1:16:27 ↗ we're doing the Sycamore area. Are we

1:16:29 ↗ doing Oakdale too? Oakdale. It is

1:16:32 ↗ Oakdale, right? Eventually. Yeah. So,

1:16:34 ↗ that's not um in the current plan,

1:16:38 ↗ correct?

1:16:44 ↗ Okay. Okay. Turning attention

1:16:47 ↗ specifically to water projects. Again,

1:16:49 ↗ highlighting the first phases of the

1:16:51 ↗ water treatment plant project is in this

1:16:54 ↗ proposed CIP. The other things that I

1:16:57 ↗ would highlight for you as themes on the

1:17:01 ↗ water CIP is that we are making room in

1:17:04 ↗ the plan and earlier in the plan for

1:17:07 ↗ reservoir rehab projects. Again, those

1:17:11 ↗ were things that we came to learn we

1:17:13 ↗ needed to get moving on more quickly uh

1:17:16 ↗ based on uh recent evaluations. Also

1:17:19 ↗ another theme is seismic resiliency and

1:17:25 ↗ studies. Reminder that we need to have

1:17:27 ↗ the water treatment plant online by

1:17:29 ↗ 2037. So that means we have to start

1:17:31 ↗ now. We need to begin the planning

1:17:33 ↗ efforts this year. Land acquisition

1:17:37 ↗ follows that for about a 2-year period.

1:17:39 ↗ Preliminary engineering and design for

1:17:42 ↗ another 3 4ish. permitting and design, a

1:17:46 ↗ year of that activity, and then about

1:17:49 ↗ three years potentially for

1:17:51 ↗ construction, another year for plant

1:17:53 ↗ conditioning and hiring, and then we

1:17:55 ↗ operate. So, a lot of phases that take a

1:17:58 ↗ lot of time, and that is why we um are

1:18:01 ↗ projecting we need to start.

1:18:03 ↗ Now, just a quick note on these other

1:18:06 ↗ projects. So I won't go into detail on

1:18:08 ↗ them, but you can see we have projects

1:18:09 ↗ that are related to restoration work,

1:18:13 ↗ seismic rebuilding of infrastructure,

1:18:16 ↗ equipment replacement, some redundancy

1:18:20 ↗ projects, and um a study of all of our

1:18:24 ↗ water facilities, and some repainting

1:18:27 ↗ and additional restoration work.

1:18:32 ↗ Deputy Council President. And just a

1:18:34 ↗ clarification, the water main

1:18:35 ↗ replacement program is replacing

1:18:38 ↗ uh really

1:18:40 ↗ old uh water main pipes, right? I mean,

1:18:45 ↗ we've got some that are well over 15,

1:18:47 ↗ 60, and 70 years old, right? Yeah.

1:18:49 ↗ That's one of our our annual replacement

1:18:52 ↗ programs, water water man replacement

1:18:54 ↗ program. So, we do uh fund phases of

1:18:57 ↗ that on an annual basis. So uh basically

1:19:00 ↗ to prevent a major collapse of those

1:19:04 ↗ systems, right? Correct. Correct. So uh

1:19:07 ↗ this slide really just shows you those

1:19:09 ↗ new projects. We have a a variety of

1:19:12 ↗ other projects that have existed on uh

1:19:15 ↗ the the most recent past prior CIP and

1:19:21 ↗ also our annual programs, annual

1:19:23 ↗ projects. So we will we will be

1:19:26 ↗ continuing with that. Thanks.

1:19:34 ↗ Okay, speaking of which, here are some

1:19:38 ↗ projects that we have made some

1:19:40 ↗ adjustments to in various ways, either

1:19:43 ↗ scopes or uh timing or um whether uh

1:19:47 ↗ they're near near-term or a longer term

1:19:49 ↗ priority. Uh water main replacement

1:19:52 ↗ program, we added phases. We have new

1:19:54 ↗ years in the CIP. We need to add new

1:19:56 ↗ phases of water main replacement. 12th

1:19:59 ↗ Avenue booster uh pump uh booster

1:20:02 ↗ station retrofit was moved out into

1:20:06 ↗ later years. The same is true for

1:20:08 ↗ Newport Way water main project. The same

1:20:12 ↗ is true for Holly 1 and two booster

1:20:15 ↗ station retrofit and Shangerlaw

1:20:18 ↗ reservoir retrofit. All of those

1:20:20 ↗ projects were just shifted out in

1:20:23 ↗ years. And the meter transmitter unit

1:20:27 ↗ project, we broke that into smaller

1:20:29 ↗ amounts each year. So we have more roll

1:20:32 ↗ out phases. Uh we think that's uh more

1:20:36 ↗ achievable for staff than the way that

1:20:40 ↗ we had shown it in the previous CIP. And

1:20:43 ↗ then the Montro chlorine analyzer. We

1:20:46 ↗ updated the cost estimate for the

1:20:47 ↗ installation on that project following

1:20:50 ↗ our most recent evaluation and

1:20:57 ↗ scoping. Great. Let's talk

1:20:59 ↗ sewer. So our new projects on the sewer

1:21:02 ↗ CIP as I mentioned one that I'll

1:21:06 ↗ highlight is the sewer extension again

1:21:09 ↗ for Tibbitz Creek SR900 area. just the

1:21:13 ↗ next phase of our implementation of

1:21:15 ↗ sewer policy. And then we have a revised

1:21:19 ↗ project that involves our public works

1:21:22 ↗ campus and the goal is to replace some

1:21:25 ↗ aging parts, uh, meters, telemetry, and

1:21:31 ↗ pumps on our system at public works.

1:21:39 ↗ And if there aren't any questions about

1:21:41 ↗ those

1:21:42 ↗ projects,

1:21:47 ↗ great timing and next steps. So we like

1:21:51 ↗ I said we had planning, development,

1:21:52 ↗ environment committee last week and uh

1:21:56 ↗ tonight is May 14th with you uh safety

1:22:00 ↗ services and parks next week on May

1:22:02 ↗ 20th.

1:22:04 ↗ And uh then we'll bring all of these

1:22:06 ↗ discussions together from each of the

1:22:07 ↗ council committees at the committee of

1:22:09 ↗ the whole on June

1:22:11 ↗ 16th and looking for potential adoption

1:22:14 ↗ June 23rd. So per state law, we um are

1:22:20 ↗ supposed to have our transportation

1:22:22 ↗ improvement plan adopted by July 1st and

1:22:26 ↗ this schedule keeps us in alignment with

1:22:28 ↗ that.

1:22:31 ↗ Once again, direction needed on whether

1:22:33 ↗ council has feedback on the approach to

1:22:35 ↗ transportation, which prioritizes

1:22:38 ↗ maintenance and light light rail related

1:22:40 ↗ projects. Boy, that's tough to

1:22:42 ↗ say. Uh whether council has feedback on

1:22:46 ↗ prioritizing largescale visionary

1:22:48 ↗ projects over smaller scale projects

1:22:50 ↗ with more immediate benefits and if

1:22:53 ↗ council has feedback on the proposed

1:22:55 ↗ water and sewer

1:22:57 ↗ projects. Awesome. Thank you.

1:23:01 ↗ Uh, Deputy Council D. Michelle, any

1:23:03 ↗ questions from you?

1:23:06 ↗ Uh, you know, I'm just looking here. I

1:23:08 ↗ and I I think I missed it, but we had a

1:23:11 ↗ couple of projects that this committee

1:23:13 ↗ has spent a lot of time on. And one of

1:23:15 ↗ them is the Squawk Mountain um sidewalk

1:23:18 ↗ and those revisions and the other one is

1:23:21 ↗ I hope I have the name right, East Lake

1:23:23 ↗ Samish

1:23:24 ↗ non-motorized project. And so, um,

1:23:28 ↗ what's the status of those projects?

1:23:30 ↗ And, um, are would you classify those as

1:23:36 ↗ long-term visionary or where would you

1:23:39 ↗ put those on on this?

1:23:42 ↗ That that is a great question. So, uh,

1:23:45 ↗ let's talk about the East Lake SAM uh,

1:23:49 ↗ non-motorized connection or sometimes

1:23:51 ↗ referred to as Pinch Point. Uh, that

1:23:53 ↗ project is in the CIP. We heard um very

1:23:56 ↗ loud and clear from council in previous

1:23:59 ↗ discussions that that was a priority of

1:24:00 ↗ this council and uh also one of the

1:24:04 ↗ reasons uh why the transportation

1:24:06 ↗ benefit district sales tax was passed

1:24:09 ↗ was to help fund that project. So that

1:24:12 ↗ project is featured in the near years of

1:24:15 ↗ the CIP and we do anticipate TBD sales

1:24:19 ↗ tax um funds to provide for that. I

1:24:24 ↗ think Jillian highlighted it earlier

1:24:26 ↗ when she said we anticipate some debt

1:24:28 ↗ service. So the TBD sales tax would help

1:24:29 ↗ pay down some of the debt service for

1:24:31 ↗ that. Um so because we have that um

1:24:35 ↗ funding source identified that that was

1:24:37 ↗ a previous council decision and

1:24:38 ↗ direction we received the CIP continues

1:24:41 ↗ to plan to put that forward and

1:24:43 ↗ implement on that unless we hear

1:24:45 ↗ differently from council. But that's um

1:24:47 ↗ so that's in our plan when it comes to

1:24:50 ↗ Squawk Mountain non-motorized. The last

1:24:52 ↗ conversation with this council was that

1:24:54 ↗ we would need to delay that project.

1:24:56 ↗ We've done a lot of the design work for

1:24:58 ↗ that project. Um but the concerns were

1:25:01 ↗ ability to fund that project in the

1:25:03 ↗ immediate future. John Mortonson, our

1:25:05 ↗ transportation manager, is here. If um I

1:25:09 ↗ am missing some information or if you

1:25:11 ↗ have any information to add.

1:25:20 ↗ Good evening, council members. Um, so

1:25:23 ↗ for the Squawk Mountain non

1:25:25 ↗ motorized improvement project, the

1:25:28 ↗ proposed CIP shows phase 1 being in

1:25:32 ↗ design in

1:25:34 ↗ 2028 with rightway in 2029 and

1:25:37 ↗ construction of phase 1 in 2030. This

1:25:40 ↗ assumed the preferred alternative, not

1:25:43 ↗ the lowerc cost preferred alternative.

1:25:45 ↗ And phase one would go from sunset to

1:25:51 ↗ the entrance to Upper Hillside

1:25:54 ↗ Cemetery. And then it does not currently

1:25:57 ↗ show any of the future phases to that

1:25:59 ↗ project. Those are in the future year.

1:26:05 ↗ Any other any other questions?

1:26:07 ↗ No, I I I don't have any questions. I I

1:26:10 ↗ have comments, but um city city clerk,

1:26:13 ↗ do we have anybody online who might want

1:26:14 ↗ to make public comment? Any anybody on

1:26:17 ↗ the city staff want to make public

1:26:18 ↗ comment? Okay. All right. We're going to

1:26:20 ↗ we're going to move on and uh let's

1:26:22 ↗ let's let's take these questions because

1:26:24 ↗ I think there's some really interesting

1:26:25 ↗ ones here and I think we're going to

1:26:26 ↗ have some good discussion. Um first one

1:26:29 ↗ is approach to transportation

1:26:30 ↗ prioritizing maintenance and light rail

1:26:33 ↗ related projects. You want to do them

1:26:34 ↗ one at a time or you want to do them

1:26:35 ↗ all? We do them one at a time. Let's do

1:26:37 ↗ one at a time. Um so yes so when I was

1:26:40 ↗ reading the pact it was like oh no these

1:26:44 ↗ are two things that both uh you know

1:26:46 ↗ I've advocated for and I strongly

1:26:49 ↗ believe in maintenance and I really love

1:26:51 ↗ the light rail related projects and

1:26:53 ↗ think that we should be putting uh you

1:26:56 ↗ know our uh

1:26:59 ↗ uh our resources there you know in order

1:27:02 ↗ to get prepared because that's a great

1:27:04 ↗ big project. it needs uh long-term um

1:27:08 ↗ attention. So uh yes, I I love the

1:27:12 ↗ prioritization of maintenance and the

1:27:14 ↗ light rail related projects. Now, I had

1:27:16 ↗ some questions about the specific that's

1:27:18 ↗ the reason I asked that question about

1:27:19 ↗ the slide. Um uh some of the maintenance

1:27:23 ↗ projects that were listed I'm very

1:27:24 ↗ familiar with, but I'm not familiar with

1:27:26 ↗ that 91st and 90th, which I think is up

1:27:29 ↗ by the Cougar Mountain Zoo. Um, and so

1:27:33 ↗ that was my question is is uh uh why was

1:27:37 ↗ that one chosen? Uh, is that in a

1:27:40 ↗ critical state of disrepair or it is

1:27:44 ↗ okay. I I had a feeling that there was a

1:27:47 ↗ reason why it got on the list. Uh, and I

1:27:49 ↗ read the description of the project. So,

1:27:52 ↗ um, it sounds like it really really

1:27:54 ↗ needs uh attention. So, so those I'm

1:27:57 ↗ presuming those four projects that are

1:27:59 ↗ there, ADA I would imagine is a mandated

1:28:02 ↗ we have to do it and the Scour Bridge,

1:28:05 ↗ the Scour Bridge project is a safety

1:28:08 ↗ project. All of those are there because

1:28:10 ↗ they really meet the all of the criteria

1:28:12 ↗ for um safety and uh making sure that

1:28:17 ↗ our roads are really safe to drive on.

1:28:20 ↗ Right. So if I may clarify on my earlier

1:28:24 ↗ comments, you when you asked about this

1:28:26 ↗ slide and are these all the projects, I

1:28:28 ↗ was really focusing on the visionary and

1:28:30 ↗ targeted projects here. The maintenance

1:28:32 ↗ projects that you see here are examples

1:28:35 ↗ of of maintenance work. Um and so ADA

1:28:39 ↗ improvements, pavement management, those

1:28:42 ↗ are things we commonly see. Um there's

1:28:45 ↗ there's other things that that we're

1:28:47 ↗ doing in transportation as well. We just

1:28:49 ↗ wanted to call some of these out as

1:28:50 ↗ really good examples of things that are

1:28:52 ↗ funded by REIT um and uh and where we

1:28:57 ↗ see those conflicts for dollars. Right.

1:29:01 ↗ So I guess my question there is

1:29:04 ↗ um the light rail or the overunder um

1:29:09 ↗ project um where do we see the timing on

1:29:13 ↗ that in relation to uh 2044 when uh

1:29:17 ↗ we're expecting that light rail station

1:29:19 ↗ to open? What's the urgency on the

1:29:23 ↗ overpass or underpass uh project and

1:29:27 ↗ when would we ideally like to see that

1:29:30 ↗ in place in order to get ready for the

1:29:32 ↗ light rail station?

1:29:34 ↗ Great question. What we are trying to do

1:29:37 ↗ and I think the vision has been to look

1:29:39 ↗ at the light rail station

1:29:43 ↗ um with that I90 crossing. Can they be

1:29:46 ↗ colllocated? Okay. um or is it that they

1:29:50 ↗ will be complimentary to each other and

1:29:53 ↗ I think those are questions that we

1:29:55 ↗ still have to answer and a big part of

1:29:57 ↗ that is how do we fund both of those

1:30:00 ↗ priorities at once and I think um we're

1:30:04 ↗ we're concerned about our ability to do

1:30:06 ↗ that but that certainly has been the

1:30:08 ↗ vision that if um we are to do another

1:30:11 ↗ crossing that it complements uh the

1:30:14 ↗ light rail station right and so Um we

1:30:18 ↗ have been doing visionary um visioning

1:30:20 ↗ work for both the light rail station

1:30:23 ↗ area as well as um looking at where that

1:30:26 ↗ crossing could be. We've talked about

1:30:28 ↗ both of those things at council. Really

1:30:30 ↗ thinking about these projects in

1:30:31 ↗ conjunction with each other such that

1:30:33 ↗ the I90 crossing would occur at the same

1:30:37 ↗ time as that light rail study that they

1:30:39 ↗ would both open up around the same time

1:30:41 ↗ or the light rail station rather that

1:30:43 ↗ they would both open up in the same

1:30:44 ↗ time. So that's what has been the

1:30:46 ↗ vision. Um it's just that the funding

1:30:49 ↗ sources for the I90 crossing um are much

1:30:54 ↗ harder to identify.

1:30:59 ↗ Mhm. I have a statement probably

1:31:02 ↗ shouldn't say, but there will be

1:31:04 ↗ hopefully an election in 2028 and we

1:31:07 ↗ will have possibly a different attitude

1:31:11 ↗ toward grant funding from the Federal

1:31:13 ↗ Highway Administration. So, I'm just

1:31:17 ↗ thinking about how do we phase this? I

1:31:20 ↗ mean, it might be more hopeful in a few

1:31:22 ↗ years.

1:31:25 ↗ And I will say the CIP that the

1:31:28 ↗ administration is proposing shows

1:31:30 ↗ investments in that overcrossing or um

1:31:33 ↗ the crossing of I90 um in the first two

1:31:37 ↗ years of the CIP to try to make sure

1:31:39 ↗ that we are

1:31:41 ↗ um uh making progress on that crossing

1:31:44 ↗ so that it can still be coordinated with

1:31:47 ↗ the light rail station. I think the

1:31:49 ↗ question is if you have feedback on that

1:31:51 ↗ right now, we'd love to take it.

1:31:53 ↗ Otherwise, it is a question that we can

1:31:55 ↗ kind of kick down the road until the

1:31:56 ↗ next budget process next year.

1:32:02 ↗ So, we we kind of addressed that when we

1:32:04 ↗ were talking about the budget last time

1:32:05 ↗ and I was very strong and we've got to

1:32:07 ↗ get studies going and making sure that

1:32:10 ↗ we are really positioning ourselves to

1:32:13 ↗ um so I don't want to give up that

1:32:18 ↗ getting the correct positioning and

1:32:19 ↗ being ready for whatever opportunities

1:32:22 ↗ might come along either at the state

1:32:24 ↗ level or the federal level. Um, but if

1:32:27 ↗ if there is a a way that we could phase

1:32:31 ↗ that in and still be doing some of these

1:32:35 ↗ absolutely needed safety

1:32:38 ↗ uh projects

1:32:40 ↗ um uh maintenance projects. I think

1:32:43 ↗ that's the approach that I would want to

1:32:45 ↗ take. It's sort of it's not a black and

1:32:47 ↗ white I'll take this over this. It's

1:32:50 ↗ more how do we phase things so that we

1:32:53 ↗ can uh accomplish our goals here and

1:32:58 ↗ still be doing the maintenance that we

1:33:00 ↗ absolutely have to do. So, does that

1:33:02 ↗ make sense? It's I wish I could give you

1:33:04 ↗ a do this or do that, but I I'm really

1:33:07 ↗ thinking we have to kind of see how we

1:33:10 ↗ can navigate and again everything is

1:33:13 ↗ so so unclear about where do we go and

1:33:17 ↗ where do we find the funding. It's It's

1:33:19 ↗ just uh a a map that isn't there yet.

1:33:24 ↗ So, I'm being ambiguous. Sorry. Well

1:33:28 ↗ Well, this these are exactly the things

1:33:30 ↗ we were grappling with when we were

1:33:31 ↗ drafting the CIP. So, it's good to know

1:33:34 ↗ we're all on the same page about how

1:33:36 ↗ difficult this is and um your feedback

1:33:38 ↗ is well understood. Thank you, Deputy

1:33:39 ↗ Council President. Okay, great. Anything

1:33:42 ↗ else?

1:33:43 ↗ Well, I want to talk about sewers, but

1:33:46 ↗ we'll do that next. Yeah, we we get to

1:33:47 ↗ do the prioritization one first. Um, so

1:33:50 ↗ I just a a question about um light rail

1:33:54 ↗ related projects. What exactly are

1:33:56 ↗ those?

1:34:00 ↗ That I'm going to need John Mortonson to

1:34:02 ↗ come back up and help

1:34:07 ↗ answer. The two main projects that we're

1:34:10 ↗ proposing to prepare for light rail are

1:34:13 ↗ improvements on Northwest Gilman

1:34:14 ↗ Boulevard and the I90 crossing. And

1:34:18 ↗ we've tried to build a schedule knowing

1:34:21 ↗ that 2044 in my mind is going to be here

1:34:24 ↗ soon and to make sure that we're ready

1:34:26 ↗ for 2044 so that way we're not building

1:34:30 ↗ the construction and the connections to

1:34:34 ↗ the station after the station's opened.

1:34:36 ↗ That's the goal. So what what are we in

1:34:39 ↗ the early planning stages of those uh I

1:34:43 ↗ mean are we fun is it what we're funding

1:34:44 ↗ in the CIP the planning part of those

1:34:46 ↗ initiatives. So what um I I'll answer

1:34:50 ↗ for each one for the I90 crossing what

1:34:53 ↗ we are proposing

1:34:54 ↗ is city funding from transportation

1:34:58 ↗ impact fees to pay for the 10% design on

1:35:02 ↗ the I90 crossing. That way we'll be in a

1:35:05 ↗ good position to go after grants and to

1:35:08 ↗ come up with a plan to fund the rest of

1:35:10 ↗ the project. And then we're showing

1:35:15 ↗ in I want to say 2029 I'd have to double

1:35:19 ↗ check to begin design on the project.

1:35:22 ↗ And

1:35:25 ↗ um so the then that would kick off the

1:35:29 ↗ the series of right away and then

1:35:32 ↗ construction with the the goal to be

1:35:35 ↗ open before 2044.

1:35:37 ↗ I um so thank you. That's perfect.

1:35:40 ↗ That's that's that was my question.

1:35:42 ↗ That's a good question.

1:35:43 ↗ Um I don't think that 2024 is like right

1:35:46 ↗ around the corner quite honestly. Last

1:35:48 ↗ time we were talking about it, it was

1:35:49 ↗ 2041 and then now it's 2044. So I don't

1:35:52 ↗ have any, you know, that that date is

1:35:55 ↗ still pretty squishy to me. Um, and we

1:35:58 ↗ have so many high priority needs. And so

1:36:00 ↗ if the question is, should I prioritize

1:36:02 ↗ light rail over what? And what would I

1:36:04 ↗ do if I wasn't doing the light rail

1:36:08 ↗ projects? I mean, I I mean, I got

1:36:10 ↗ maintenance, right? So, it's prioritize

1:36:13 ↗ maintenance and light rail

1:36:16 ↗ or what what else? What can I put in my

1:36:18 ↗ basket instead? Well, I I think what

1:36:22 ↗ we're going to see while this is a plan,

1:36:25 ↗ um this is the first CIP that we've

1:36:29 ↗ done, at least in our memory, where the

1:36:31 ↗ first two years are not balanced of

1:36:34 ↗ anticipated revenues and expenses. And

1:36:36 ↗ so, um, what that means is some of these

1:36:41 ↗ perhaps some of these maintenance

1:36:43 ↗ projects that rely on REIT, um, some of

1:36:45 ↗ these other projects that rely on street

1:36:47 ↗ mitigation, we're going to have to cut

1:36:49 ↗ back on in the budget process because we

1:36:52 ↗ know that those first two years are not

1:36:53 ↗ balanced in the plan. And we also know

1:36:57 ↗ things may change with those revenue

1:36:59 ↗ pictures, right? So, um, so I think, you

1:37:02 ↗ know, whether we take whether you have

1:37:04 ↗ that feedback now, whether it's a

1:37:06 ↗ discussion for council during the budget

1:37:08 ↗ process, we're going to have to figure

1:37:10 ↗ out how to how to put forth a balanced

1:37:12 ↗ budget. And it will likely um if we're

1:37:14 ↗ going to be funding the I90 crossing and

1:37:17 ↗ some of these other things, especially

1:37:18 ↗ that are um relying on REIT, uh then it

1:37:23 ↗ we may have to look at some of those

1:37:25 ↗ maintenance projects and reduce the

1:37:28 ↗ scope. Yeah. Um, so it's not something

1:37:31 ↗ I'm really happy to do, but I I think um

1:37:35 ↗ given limited resources and in the short

1:37:38 ↗ term and maybe that's two years, maybe

1:37:39 ↗ that's three years. Um, I think there's

1:37:42 ↗ still time to get ahead of and I think

1:37:44 ↗ John's points are spot on. You know, we

1:37:46 ↗ want to be prepared, but I still think

1:37:48 ↗ there's time to get ahead of that. and

1:37:50 ↗ we've got some if we are in a situation

1:37:51 ↗ where we have other pressing needs like

1:37:54 ↗ oh I don't know let's say intelligent uh

1:37:57 ↗ traffic signaling which I will always

1:37:59 ↗ want to see on the list um other

1:38:02 ↗ pressing needs and maintenance and we're

1:38:04 ↗ balancing whether or not I'm going to do

1:38:06 ↗ my my 10% design for sound transit in

1:38:09 ↗ these first two years or first three

1:38:11 ↗ years my feeling is uh we've got we've

1:38:14 ↗ got we've got time for that and we don't

1:38:16 ↗ have time for maintenance um you want to

1:38:20 ↗ Okay. So, so that's kind of my take on

1:38:23 ↗ that one is um yeah, super important.

1:38:26 ↗ But if if you know push comes to shove,

1:38:28 ↗ um that's what I would that's where I

1:38:30 ↗ would

1:38:31 ↗ um I would shove I would shove that out

1:38:34 ↗ because I think we got time to cover to

1:38:36 ↗ get there um with that one.

1:38:41 ↗ Or anything else for you?

1:38:43 ↗ Yeah, I I hear what you're saying and um

1:38:45 ↗ I I think that I guess my response to

1:38:49 ↗ that would be maybe we need to as a

1:38:52 ↗ council need to know a little bit more

1:38:54 ↗ about what is critical what what are

1:38:57 ↗ critical points that have to be met in

1:39:01 ↗ order for us to be ready. Um, and I

1:39:04 ↗ realize, I mean, let's just say in an

1:39:06 ↗ ideal

1:39:07 ↗ world, never mind the funding and all of

1:39:09 ↗ that, but we need to have that, um, we

1:39:14 ↗ need to have the Gilman uh, improvements

1:39:17 ↗ by such and such a date in order to be

1:39:19 ↗ able to go ahead. If we could just see a

1:39:21 ↗ a simple timeline that had like the

1:39:24 ↗ critical points that we need to hit on

1:39:27 ↗ our way toward the light rail station in

1:39:29 ↗ 2044 or whenever it is. I think that

1:39:32 ↗ would be helpful to our decision making.

1:39:37 ↗ If I can kind of riff on you, I think it

1:39:39 ↗ would be really helpful kind of just in

1:39:40 ↗ an overall global capital planning

1:39:42 ↗ perspective because it's it's a it's a

1:39:45 ↗ big investment with a long horizon. And

1:39:48 ↗ so trying to figure out how to allocate

1:39:50 ↗ that, you know, because it's boulders

1:39:51 ↗ and pebbles, right? We got a lot of

1:39:53 ↗ pebbles we need to do and then we got

1:39:54 ↗ this one big boulder that we we need to

1:39:56 ↗ roll up the hill. When do we need to

1:39:58 ↗ start rolling it up the hill? Um, so

1:40:00 ↗ yeah, I think that's a great idea. I

1:40:01 ↗ think that would be super helpful when

1:40:03 ↗ we come back to the the full council to

1:40:04 ↗ have something that shows us kind of

1:40:06 ↗ what that cash flow or that that

1:40:09 ↗ planning um budget would look like.

1:40:11 ↗ Budget planning. Yeah. Because

1:40:13 ↗ recognizing CIP because I heard this

1:40:15 ↗ from somebody recently, the CIP is a

1:40:17 ↗ planning document.

1:40:19 ↗ So, and so let's use it that way, you

1:40:21 ↗ know, let's use it as as the planning

1:40:23 ↗ document that it was intended to be to

1:40:24 ↗ help us really understand how we we plan

1:40:27 ↗ for um what what needs to be done today

1:40:30 ↗ and what we might be able to defer until

1:40:33 ↗ a few days down the road. I think that's

1:40:36 ↗ really good. Okay. Um anything else on

1:40:39 ↗ this one? Anything else you want us to

1:40:41 ↗ talk about on this one? Uh no, thank

1:40:43 ↗ you. That was great feedback. Great.

1:40:45 ↗ Appreciate it. All right. Let's talk

1:40:46 ↗ about um then uh um prioritizing large

1:40:49 ↗ scale visionary projects over smaller

1:40:51 ↗ scale projects with more immediate

1:40:53 ↗ benefits.

1:40:57 ↗ You want to go first or you want me to

1:40:58 ↗ go first?

1:41:00 ↗ You go first. So much better. So the

1:41:02 ↗ highlighted projects water treatment

1:41:04 ↗ plant and the sewer extension program

1:41:05 ↗ are just two that we obviously know are

1:41:08 ↗ absolutely essential. and coming from,

1:41:12 ↗ you know, my very first meeting of the

1:41:14 ↗ board of health was on septic systems

1:41:16 ↗ and sewer systems and uh realizing that

1:41:19 ↗ there is a crisis and I'm sure Emily

1:41:21 ↗ Moon is well aware that there is a uh

1:41:25 ↗ you know we're hurtling toward

1:41:26 ↗ environmental disaster if we don't do

1:41:29 ↗ something and uh Isiqua was highlighted

1:41:32 ↗ in that discussion as one of the leaders

1:41:36 ↗ um so that sewer extension program I

1:41:39 ↗ think is uh just absolutely something

1:41:43 ↗ we've just got to do and really really

1:41:45 ↗ important. Um and uh and also the water

1:41:50 ↗ treatment plant I and Emily just said we

1:41:52 ↗ have to have it online by such and such

1:41:54 ↗ a date. So I think we don't have a

1:41:56 ↗ choice there. So that would be my my

1:41:59 ↗ input.

1:42:01 ↗ Go ahead. Did Did you jump to the last

1:42:03 ↗ one? I did. Okay. So we skipped over the

1:42:06 ↗ middle one. So um let let us take the

1:42:09 ↗ last one first or before then we'll do

1:42:11 ↗ the middle one. The middle one is about

1:42:13 ↗ uh large scale project water. Oh I I

1:42:16 ↗ agree. Yeah. I think what we've got

1:42:19 ↗ planned for

1:42:22 ↗ I agree. I think what we have planned

1:42:24 ↗ for

1:42:26 ↗ um the water system we just talked about

1:42:28 ↗ earlier today makes is absolutely

1:42:30 ↗ essential. And you know we we we have

1:42:33 ↗ done a great job. Kudos to public works

1:42:35 ↗ for I don't want to use the word kicking

1:42:37 ↗ the can down the road but deferring the

1:42:39 ↗ implementation of the water treatment

1:42:40 ↗ plan as long as possible has been uh you

1:42:43 ↗ know really of great benefit to the

1:42:46 ↗ people of Esqua and the rateayers. So

1:42:48 ↗ yeah let's I think those are I I agree

1:42:50 ↗ with I think those are that's a fine set

1:42:52 ↗ of uh water and sewer initiatives. I

1:42:54 ↗ have no absolutely nothing to give you

1:42:56 ↗ there.

1:42:58 ↗ All right. Now, let's take the middle

1:42:59 ↗ one. Um, prioritizing large scale

1:43:02 ↗ visionary projects over smaller scale

1:43:05 ↗ projects with more immediate benefit.

1:43:07 ↗ So, this is where we were talking really

1:43:08 ↗ about um, you know, the the the

1:43:11 ↗ multimodal crossing and the

1:43:14 ↗ Newport. We were thinking the Newport

1:43:16 ↗ enhancements were visionary or they you

1:43:18 ↗ know kind of I think they feel visionary

1:43:21 ↗ to me. Yes. very transformative

1:43:24 ↗ long-term project we've been working on

1:43:26 ↗ for a long time. Uh long-term benefits

1:43:29 ↗ as well.

1:43:34 ↗ Um why don't you go ahead?

1:43:38 ↗ All right.

1:43:40 ↗ Um I sometimes No, I don't sometimes.

1:43:43 ↗ every year that we do the CIP, every

1:43:45 ↗ other year that I've been on the council

1:43:46 ↗ and we do the CIP and we look at these

1:43:48 ↗ two Newport projects and I look at the

1:43:50 ↗ $100,000

1:43:51 ↗ uh $100 million price tag and I go,

1:43:54 ↗ "Wow, that is a lot." And and they they

1:43:58 ↗ they persist, but I I just I have hard

1:44:02 ↗ time believing in the current climate

1:44:04 ↗ that we are going to be able to find the

1:44:06 ↗ funds to make those things happen. And

1:44:08 ↗ so, I mean, I know we've invested a lot

1:44:10 ↗ in buying right away and doing early

1:44:12 ↗ design and all that, but it seems to me

1:44:14 ↗ that um

1:44:17 ↗ those if if uh if somehow the money were

1:44:21 ↗ to fall out of the sky um and we could

1:44:23 ↗ make those happen, I think that is

1:44:24 ↗ great. But if we're talking about not

1:44:27 ↗ doing other um projects, either

1:44:29 ↗ maintenance or you know the the uh

1:44:32 ↗ transportation benefit sales tax funded

1:44:34 ↗ projects that we've

1:44:35 ↗ identified. Um those to me seem like a

1:44:39 ↗ lot

1:44:41 ↗ higher immediate value to the people

1:44:44 ↗ here than the than the kind of

1:44:46 ↗ aspirational ones, particularly Newport.

1:44:49 ↗ I'm going to take the um I90 crossing

1:44:52 ↗ out because it is just, you know, it's

1:44:54 ↗ it's tied to so many other things. And

1:44:59 ↗ um and I think that's one where we need

1:45:01 ↗ to see the timeline about what are we

1:45:03 ↗ spending $7.8 million on in this

1:45:06 ↗ six-year plan so we can make a better

1:45:10 ↗ sense of that. But I mean, doing a

1:45:14 ↗ um a basket of small projects to me that

1:45:18 ↗ deliver immediate benefit to the people

1:45:20 ↗ who live here um really makes a lot of

1:45:22 ↗ sense. And you can't take my intelligent

1:45:24 ↗ traffic system away because um quite

1:45:27 ↗ honestly I mean I say that because it's

1:45:29 ↗ it's the thing that I care most about um

1:45:32 ↗ but it's also the one thing that we can

1:45:34 ↗ really do to address flow of traffic in

1:45:35 ↗ the city um because we can't put down

1:45:38 ↗ more pavement and this is like our our

1:45:40 ↗ best

1:45:41 ↗ um best project for improve improving um

1:45:45 ↗ flow of traffic through the city. So if

1:45:47 ↗ if if

1:45:50 ↗ that's you know kind of a high level, I

1:45:53 ↗ would rather do things that were small

1:45:54 ↗ and incremental and delivered value now

1:45:57 ↗ than to spend money on things that are

1:46:00 ↗ aspirational and big and would deliver

1:46:02 ↗ value, you know, five or six years from

1:46:04 ↗ now.

1:46:07 ↗ Yeah, I'm I'm glad you went first

1:46:09 ↗ because uh I I agree with your comments.

1:46:13 ↗ Um, I've always wondered about that

1:46:15 ↗ Newport Way project and it was underway

1:46:18 ↗ before I came on the council and uh it

1:46:22 ↗ is a very very expensive uh project and

1:46:26 ↗ um I you just think about all that you

1:46:28 ↗ could get done with that money and make

1:46:30 ↗ a real difference in the community. Uh

1:46:32 ↗ intelligence systems is definitely one.

1:46:35 ↗ We heard from the community survey that

1:46:36 ↗ that flow of traffic is really

1:46:38 ↗ important. Um and uh some of our other

1:46:43 ↗ uh projects could be funded there. So So

1:46:47 ↗ uh I I agree. However, with the caveat

1:46:50 ↗ that uh I'd like to know what the folks

1:46:52 ↗ on Newport Way think about that and uh

1:46:55 ↗ I've talked to some folks out there that

1:46:58 ↗ and this was a while ago. They were

1:47:00 ↗ worried about the tree removal. They

1:47:02 ↗ were worried about all kinds of impacts

1:47:03 ↗ to their neighborhood field and those

1:47:05 ↗ kinds of things. So, um I I'd sure like

1:47:09 ↗ to know if we took it off the CIP if if

1:47:13 ↗ uh that would be a big disappointment to

1:47:15 ↗ that neighborhood. So, uh a little bit

1:47:17 ↗ more work needs to be done there. But I

1:47:19 ↗ tend to uh agree with uh Council Member

1:47:22 ↗ Ray that some of these larger larger

1:47:25 ↗ projects when you think of what we can

1:47:26 ↗ accomplish with smaller um projects that

1:47:30 ↗ help the flow of traffic or again

1:47:34 ↗ increase the safety of our roads and

1:47:36 ↗ those kinds of things. I think that's

1:47:37 ↗ where we should focus. Right.

1:47:40 ↗ And then and then the other thing, you

1:47:42 ↗ know, we we're talking about CIP

1:47:44 ↗ dollars, but director Moon actually

1:47:46 ↗ mentioned this earlier and I think it's

1:47:48 ↗ actually super important, which is what

1:47:50 ↗ is the capacity of staff to deliver on

1:47:52 ↗ these projects too. So that's the other

1:47:54 ↗ thing I guess I would factor into the

1:47:56 ↗ you know um kind of the refinement of

1:47:58 ↗ the CIP is what can we do um and what

1:48:02 ↗ can we do now and what can we do two

1:48:04 ↗ years from now. So, um, just another

1:48:05 ↗ kind of variable to consider because

1:48:07 ↗ really what we wanted to do is to have a

1:48:10 ↗ CIP, which is a great planning document

1:48:13 ↗ that we can, you know, use to kind of

1:48:15 ↗ guide where we want to go and set our

1:48:16 ↗ priorities and also, um, as Deputy

1:48:20 ↗ Council President D. Michelle has said,

1:48:21 ↗ um, provide that foundation for seeking

1:48:23 ↗ grants. So, that's all I got. You got

1:48:26 ↗ anything else? Okay. Do you have what

1:48:28 ↗ you need? We do. Thank you so much.

1:48:32 ↗ Well, thank you so much. This is um I

1:48:34 ↗ knew this was going to be a fun one

1:48:35 ↗ tonight with um with the topics and um

1:48:38 ↗ it was incredibly um insightful and

1:48:41 ↗ interesting. So, thank you all. And I

1:48:44 ↗ think um I think we do have a bit of the

1:48:47 ↗ orderish. Um any any announcements or

1:48:49 ↗ comments? No, I just would like to say

1:48:51 ↗ that the materials again, I just

1:48:53 ↗ appreciate the way that they're

1:48:55 ↗ presented to us and uh that uh we have

1:48:58 ↗ very clear exactly what kind of feedback

1:49:00 ↗ you want and so forth. So, really good

1:49:02 ↗ job and thank you for the presentation.

1:49:05 ↗ Um, and yeah, a little bit less formal

1:49:08 ↗ tonight than we usually are, but I think

1:49:10 ↗ we had a good discussion.

1:49:14 ↗ All right. Well, with that, we are

1:49:16 ↗ adjourned at 8:20. Um, and thank you

1:49:18 ↗ everyone. Yeah.

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF