City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, June 17, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 14, 2025

packet pp.5–6

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-14-25 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee Minutes Page (1)

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Utility Rate Study - Rate Design and General Facilities Charges COM 0119

60 min · Matt Ellis, Utility Engineering Manager Emily Moon, Director, Public Works · packet pp.7–50

▶ Watch from 0:37 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration recommends: • Set sewer and stormwater at the updated cost-based levels • Phase-in adjustments to water charges gradually over time • Continue City’s existing practice of adjusting for inflation

Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing Study Update COM 0138

45 min · Greg Lucas, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.51–125

Topics: Land UseTransportation

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Jul 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting · Aug 5, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Sep 25, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Apr 23, 2025

▶ Watch from 58:17 Open packet at p.51 ↗

Staff report:

E. Central Issaquah Multimodal I-90 Crossing Study Scoring

2436 segments .txt ↗

0:07 ↗ Welcome and good evening. I am Council

0:09 ↗ Member Chris Ray and I'm calling to

0:10 ↗ order the June 17, 2025 City Council

0:14 ↗ Mobility and Infrastructure Committee.

0:16 ↗ With me this evening is Deputy Council

0:18 ↗ President Barbara D. Michelle and

0:20 ↗ Council Member Joe has an excused

0:22 ↗ absence. Before we start, there are

0:24 ↗ multiple public comment opportunities at

0:27 ↗ tonight's meeting. There's a general

0:29 ↗ public comment opportunity at the

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

0:32 ↗ public comment after the presentation

0:35 ↗ and council question answer period on

0:37 ↗ tonight's agenda items.

0:39 ↗ Um members of the public may address the

0:43 ↗ council at this time in person or

0:45 ↗ virtually. Those who signed up in

0:47 ↗ advance will make comments. To make

0:49 ↗ comments will be called on first. Um has

0:52 ↗ anyone signed up city clerk to make

0:55 ↗ comments? And is there anybody online?

0:56 ↗ No one has signed up chair and uh we

0:59 ↗ have no virtual attendees and I will

1:01 ↗ come back to this then when we get to

1:03 ↗ each of the agenda items and we will

1:05 ↗ move on then to

1:08 ↗ um our agenda. Um we have two agenda

1:11 ↗ items but before doing that any

1:13 ↗ objections to approving the minutes as

1:16 ↗ presented in today's packet? I have no

1:18 ↗ objection. All right, the minutes are

1:20 ↗ approved. We have as I said two agenda

1:22 ↗ items. We're going to pick up on

1:24 ↗ COMM0119,

1:26 ↗ the utility rate study, uh, rate design

1:30 ↗ and general facility charges, and then

1:32 ↗ we will go into central Isaquata

1:34 ↗ multimmoal I90 crossing study. So, with

1:38 ↗ that, let us move on to the rate study,

1:40 ↗ and we will turn it over to um, I must

1:44 ↗ want to see which one is going to stand

1:45 ↗ at the podium. Um, uh, public works

1:48 ↗ director Emily Moon. Emily, good

1:51 ↗ evening. Thank you. We're happy to be

1:52 ↗ back talking about the next step in our

1:55 ↗ utility rates study and I'm joined by

1:57 ↗ our consultant Sergey Terasv and Sergey

2:00 ↗ is going to be leading the bulk of this

2:02 ↗ presentation. We'll just bookend it as

2:05 ↗ staff.

2:06 ↗ So tonight we're going to be talking

2:08 ↗ about general facilities charge

2:10 ↗ analysis. That is the next phase of our

2:13 ↗ study. Sergey, can you advance for me?

2:18 ↗ So the purpose of the overall study

2:20 ↗ again is just to set rates for the next

2:22 ↗ five years

2:24 ↗ and we're doing this by studying uh

2:27 ↗ different aspects of rate setting and of

2:30 ↗ our operating and capital costes costs

2:33 ↗ both in the short term and the long

2:35 ↗ term. We have several objectives for

2:39 ↗ this study. Tonight we're going to be

2:40 ↗ focusing on that last one, affording the

2:43 ↗ investment in capital infrastructure to

2:45 ↗ ensure current and future customers pay

2:47 ↗ their share of system costs.

2:51 ↗ And just a quick note about where we are

2:53 ↗ in the process. We have one more I'll

2:57 ↗ say substantive policy kind of

3:00 ↗ conversation around rate design in July

3:03 ↗ and then we'll be coming back with the

3:05 ↗ full package reminding you of all the

3:08 ↗ good work that we have done over the

3:10 ↗ past several months and the uh

3:12 ↗ recommendations that you will be

3:13 ↗ forwarding on to city council provided

3:16 ↗ you choose to do that in September when

3:19 ↗ we come back for the last committee

3:21 ↗ meeting and then we hope to bring it

3:23 ↗ forward to the full council for adoption

3:26 ↗ of the study and setting of the rates in

3:29 ↗ October.

3:33 ↗ Before we talk about general facility

3:36 ↗ charges, we wanted to uh just remind you

3:39 ↗ of how we left the last conversation

3:41 ↗ which was about cost of service

3:42 ↗ analysis.

3:44 ↗ So in that discussion,

3:46 ↗ the committee members recommended that

3:49 ↗ we proceed with gradually moving toward

3:51 ↗ a cost of service adjustment that is

3:53 ↗ based on each customer class paying its

3:56 ↗ fair share. One of the customer classes

3:59 ↗ that we had a bit more discussion about

4:01 ↗ and I told you we needed to do just a

4:03 ↗ little more analysis and really think

4:05 ↗ about how to implement cost of service

4:07 ↗ for that class of customers was our

4:09 ↗ irrigation class. We have a parks rate

4:12 ↗ and we have a private irrigation rate.

4:15 ↗ Some of the feedback that we received

4:17 ↗ from you was uh to perhaps combine or

4:20 ↗ retitle um as we had proposed the the

4:24 ↗ parks irrigation rate to make it more

4:26 ↗ obvious that we're also talking about

4:28 ↗ public rightway. So we will be retitling

4:31 ↗ that customer class. And we have uh

4:35 ↗ further evaluated it and tried to think

4:37 ↗ about how do we implement a new rate

4:40 ↗ where the public irrigation rate is

4:43 ↗ going up such that it is recovering

4:46 ↗ uh it's or paying its cost of service um

4:51 ↗ fair share over time but not at a rate

4:54 ↗ that really exceeds what uh those rate

4:57 ↗ customers have been paying

4:58 ↗ year-over-year as rate increases. So

5:01 ↗ this will take a little bit more time

5:02 ↗ for us to get to a place where parks and

5:05 ↗ right-of-way public irrigation is uh

5:08 ↗ fully covering uh their fair share of

5:10 ↗ costs. Um we will be doing that same

5:12 ↗ sort of uh delay in getting to full cost

5:17 ↗ recovery um for private irrigation as

5:20 ↗ well. So you remember we had about a 4%

5:25 ↗ overall uh rate increase that was

5:28 ↗ necessary to make sure that we were

5:30 ↗ covering cost of service across customer

5:31 ↗ classes. So private irrigation will have

5:34 ↗ less of a rate increase because they

5:36 ↗ were already covering um good amount of

5:39 ↗ their cost of service where parks and

5:41 ↗ irrigation needs to make up a little bit

5:42 ↗ of that deficit. We'll talk a little bit

5:45 ↗ more about that on a slide that Sergey

5:47 ↗ will present. But I wanted to tell you

5:49 ↗ we've wrapped up that work and that's

5:51 ↗ going to be our recommendation.

5:55 ↗ Great. All right. And here's Surrey. All

5:59 ↗ right. Well, thank you Emily and uh good

6:00 ↗ evening uh council committee members.

6:03 ↗ Hopefully everybody can hear me. Okay.

6:05 ↗ And I believe you can see the

6:06 ↗ presentation uh pretty well. So thanks

6:10 ↗ again for uh giving me the time to join

6:13 ↗ you tonight to continue our discussion

6:15 ↗ on the overall rate study but as well as

6:17 ↗ bringing up the new topic for our uh

6:20 ↗ discussion in this update regarding

6:22 ↗ general facility charges. Now before we

6:25 ↗ dive in, just a quick outline. We're

6:27 ↗ going to do a very high level refresher,

6:29 ↗ just run through the findings uh pretty

6:31 ↗ much providing you with the visual

6:33 ↗ information of what Emily has uh

6:36 ↗ summarized and then we'll dive into

6:38 ↗ general general facility charges. We're

6:40 ↗ going to go over the methodology to make

6:41 ↗ sure everybody has a good understanding

6:43 ↗ of what goes behind developing these

6:46 ↗ fees. What's the difference between

6:47 ↗ these fees and the ongoing by monthly

6:50 ↗ charges as well as the updated costbased

6:54 ↗ fees that uh came out of the of the

6:57 ↗ update. As always, at any time if you

7:00 ↗ have any questions, feel please feel

7:01 ↗ free to let me know.

7:04 ↗ So just as a quick refresher, a

7:05 ↗ comprehensive study that we're working

7:07 ↗ with the city on consists of three

7:08 ↗ steps. We have gone through two of those

7:11 ↗ three steps with the first one

7:13 ↗ emphasizing overall needs. So this is

7:15 ↗ where we take a look at the overall

7:16 ↗ reput requirements making sure that each

7:18 ↗ utility can be self-sufficient and can

7:20 ↗ meet its obligations on a long-term

7:23 ↗ basis. Uh after that we look at

7:25 ↗ interclass cost allocation. Some folks

7:27 ↗ like to refer to it as equity, but

7:29 ↗ really we're trying to answer the

7:30 ↗ question of cost differences exist to

7:32 ↗ provide service to different types of

7:33 ↗ customers. And then lastly, which we'll

7:35 ↗ be bringing back in July, it will be

7:37 ↗ rate design actual development of fixed

7:40 ↗ and variable charges. This is kind of

7:42 ↗ the all-encompassing highle overview of

7:44 ↗ the ongoing fees that are assessed to

7:47 ↗ our customers on a monthly basis.

7:51 ↗ Now, as a brief reminder, the last study

7:53 ↗ completed was in 2020. It did uh develop

7:56 ↗ a four-year implementation strategy

7:58 ↗ highlighted in the light green in the

8:00 ↗ table up above. This was implemented and

8:03 ↗ adopted. Uh the plan also projected a

8:06 ↗ need for future rate adjustments, but

8:07 ↗ the city wanted to perform a rate update

8:10 ↗ before any additional rate

8:12 ↗ implementation is uh incorporated and

8:14 ↗ that's why we're here uh this year

8:16 ↗ talking to you about this study. Since

8:19 ↗ we uh started the study in 24, we have

8:21 ↗ been working with your staff to perform

8:23 ↗ the analysis and communicated some of

8:25 ↗ the preliminary findings on March 10th

8:27 ↗ to the committee of the whole. We

8:29 ↗ received great discussion and feedback

8:31 ↗ from that discussion regarding the

8:33 ↗ options we reviewed and pointed us

8:35 ↗ towards some modifications which we

8:37 ↗ incorporated and brought back to you on

8:39 ↗ May 14th to the mobility infrastructure

8:41 ↗ committee members just like we're doing

8:43 ↗ today.

8:45 ↗ And we also introduced the cost of

8:47 ↗ service findings during that meeting. Uh

8:49 ↗ at that point we also received some

8:51 ↗ guidance from you about some tweaks and

8:54 ↗ modifications you wanted to see. So on

8:56 ↗ this slide just wanted to provide you a

8:58 ↗ highle summary of the first step of the

9:00 ↗ revenue requirement showing you the

9:02 ↗ average impact for a typical customer

9:04 ↗ for both water, sewer and storm water

9:07 ↗ bills uh or the the annual percentage

9:09 ↗ increases that are being proposed for

9:12 ↗ their revenue requirement. and showing

9:14 ↗ you kind of the average impact for the

9:16 ↗ city share costs that the city has

9:18 ↗ control over. The main guidance that we

9:21 ↗ received during our March discussion is

9:22 ↗ that the overall increases should not be

9:25 ↗ above 6%. So we were targeting kind of

9:28 ↗ as a as a combined bill impact for a

9:30 ↗ typical overall increase under 6% and

9:34 ↗ the the overall picture here was well

9:36 ↗ within that uh policy guidance. We also

9:39 ↗ maintained no debt issuances projected

9:41 ↗ in the short term. We are projecting

9:43 ↗ some debt issuances outside of the

9:45 ↗ five-year period which will the city

9:46 ↗ will revisit before any kind of debt is

9:49 ↗ assumed in the future.

9:52 ↗ Then we moved down to cost of service.

9:54 ↗ Again the big discussion point was what

9:56 ↗ do we do with the findings? We did

9:57 ↗ identify that a couple of classes were

9:59 ↗ not quite paying their allocated share

10:00 ↗ of costs. So we talked about

10:02 ↗ alternatives that uh alternative ways

10:04 ↗ that we can resolve it. And as uh the

10:08 ↗ green highlight indicates the direction

10:10 ↗ that we received from the committee was

10:12 ↗ to move as gradually as as we as as we

10:15 ↗ can but still make progress towards cost

10:17 ↗ of service cost allocation and recovery.

10:21 ↗ So on this slide and I do apologize

10:23 ↗ there are a lot of numbers here we are

10:25 ↗ bringing back the phas in that attempts

10:27 ↗ to gradually move our classes towards

10:30 ↗ cost of service and the key items to

10:32 ↗ note here are uh how each class of

10:35 ↗ service percentage compares to the

10:38 ↗ utility specific average highlighted in

10:40 ↗ the total row. So as an example the

10:42 ↗ water utility is showing 4 and 3/4% rate

10:45 ↗ increases per year. If the class

10:48 ↗ specific increase is slightly higher

10:50 ↗ than the average, that indicates that

10:52 ↗ the class was not quite at cost of

10:54 ↗ service and it needs to go up slightly

10:56 ↗ more than average. And if a percentage

10:58 ↗ is below the average increase, it

11:01 ↗ indicated that the class was paying more

11:04 ↗ than average and needs to go down a

11:06 ↗ little bit or pay less than average to

11:08 ↗ catch up over time. So you can see as

11:11 ↗ Emily indicated in the highle summary in

11:13 ↗ the front end the main classes affected

11:16 ↗ were the irrigation classes which we are

11:18 ↗ trying to move towards cost of service

11:21 ↗ uh predominantly through these phase

11:22 ↗ ends. Now what does that mean for a

11:25 ↗ typical customer kind of bringing back

11:26 ↗ that average bill concept? Again not a

11:29 ↗ significant difference for the combined

11:31 ↗ bill for a typical residential home

11:33 ↗ approximately 5.1%

11:35 ↗ versus the overall revenue requirement

11:37 ↗ was closer to 4.9. now incorporating

11:40 ↗ past specific increases. It moves the

11:42 ↗ dial slightly but still well within that

11:45 ↗ 6% uh guideline that we received during

11:48 ↗ that March meeting.

11:51 ↗ So that's the highle summary of the

11:52 ↗ rates aspect. Now we're going to

11:54 ↗ completely switch gears and move on to

11:56 ↗ general facility charges. Now unlike

11:58 ↗ your monthly or bimonthly fees that we

12:00 ↗ just talked about, general facility

12:02 ↗ charges are unique. They are onetime

12:04 ↗ fees. Now the big question that we're

12:07 ↗ going to be thinking about and looking

12:08 ↗ for guidance from from you uh for this

12:11 ↗ portion of the discussion is regarding

12:13 ↗ the level of the general facility

12:15 ↗ charges. Do we charge our rates based on

12:19 ↗ fully costbased recovery level? Do we

12:22 ↗ defer making any adjustments to the

12:24 ↗ current connection charges

12:26 ↗ or similar to what we talked about on

12:30 ↗ the cost of service aspect? Do we phase

12:32 ↗ in any kind of adjustments gradually

12:35 ↗ over a period of time? Those are kind of

12:38 ↗ the three key milestone questions that

12:40 ↗ we're going to be discussing. As a

12:41 ↗ reminder, these fees are tied to cost of

12:44 ↗ infrastructure in the ground today. And

12:46 ↗ you are allowed to inflate these charges

12:48 ↗ once updated with an inflated

12:51 ↗ inflationary index. A good example would

12:54 ↗ be an engineering news record cost uh of

12:57 ↗ construction type of index.

13:01 ↗ So now let's get into some highle

13:03 ↗ overview. Again, what are these charges?

13:05 ↗ Now in the state of Washington, there's

13:08 ↗ not a specific name for them. The they

13:11 ↗ could be referenced if you look at your

13:13 ↗ neighboring utilities as system

13:14 ↗ development charges, capital facility

13:16 ↗ charges, plan investment fees, but

13:18 ↗ really they're just one of the same type

13:21 ↗ of fee related to capac connecting to

13:24 ↗ the system and associated with the cost

13:26 ↗ of capacity of connection to the system.

13:28 ↗ Now the legal authority granting cities

13:30 ↗ and towns the right to impose these fees

13:32 ↗ can be found in the revised code of

13:34 ↗ Washington or RCW 3592025.

13:38 ↗ And this RCW does provide guidance in

13:41 ↗ terms of what these fees should be based

13:43 ↗ on and what can be incorporated. So that

13:45 ↗ there there is legal legal guidance that

13:47 ↗ cities and towns receive in terms of

13:49 ↗ developing these fees.

13:52 ↗ The main guidance that we received from

13:53 ↗ here is that these charges have to be

13:55 ↗ based on the cost of the system which

13:57 ↗ implies that they have to be tied to the

13:59 ↗ asset infrastructure and that means that

14:01 ↗ any revenues we collect from these fees

14:03 ↗ can only be used for asset type of

14:06 ↗ purchases or payments of debt service.

14:08 ↗ So any anything related to

14:09 ↗ infrastructure or the repayment of that

14:12 ↗ infrastructure, it cannot be used to pay

14:14 ↗ for operating related costs. And lastly,

14:16 ↗ these charges need to be developed on a

14:18 ↗ proportional basis uh in tied to some

14:21 ↗ specific unit of capacity, meaning that

14:24 ↗ uh our customers need to be able to pay

14:26 ↗ for one unit of capacity or multiple

14:28 ↗ unit capacity, but it needs to be a

14:30 ↗ proportional share.

14:33 ↗ Now, when developing these fees, we

14:34 ↗ usually like to separate the charges

14:36 ↗ into two cost components. The first one

14:38 ↗ we referenced as the existing cost basis

14:41 ↗ which intends to recognize the fact that

14:43 ↗ there is investment in the ground

14:45 ↗ already today. And I like to think of

14:47 ↗ this portion of the charge as a

14:49 ↗ reimbursement mechanism. Your current

14:51 ↗ customers put in a system that has more

14:53 ↗ capacity than they need themselves. So

14:56 ↗ whenever somebody new comes on, they

14:57 ↗ need to reimburse them for that asset

15:00 ↗ infrastructure that's already in the

15:01 ↗ ground. The second cost portion or cost

15:04 ↗ basis is the future cost basis. And this

15:06 ↗ is really associated with any

15:08 ↗ deficiencies in the system that need to

15:10 ↗ be resolved to allow the growth to

15:11 ↗ occur. So anything in the future that

15:13 ↗ needs to be added to allow the growth to

15:15 ↗ happen is recaptured or captured through

15:17 ↗ the future cost basis.

15:21 ↗ Now visually to perform the calculation

15:23 ↗ once we have established our numerator

15:25 ↗ or the bases uh looking at the existing

15:28 ↗ cost basis since these costs provide

15:30 ↗ benefit to both current customers

15:32 ↗ connected and future customers we divide

15:34 ↗ it by current and future capacity on the

15:37 ↗ future side since we're isolating only

15:39 ↗ the projects or that are related to the

15:42 ↗ ability for us to add growth we divide

15:44 ↗ it only by the future capacity we add

15:47 ↗ these two components together to get the

15:49 ↗ GFC uh calculation.

15:52 ↗ Now, there are a few adjustments that we

15:54 ↗ have to make to our figures when we're

15:56 ↗ developing the cost basis. On the

15:58 ↗ existing side, we start with your

16:00 ↗ current assets. A key item to note here

16:02 ↗ is that it has to be in today's dollars.

16:03 ↗ There is the legal case precedent that

16:06 ↗ requires us to use today's dollars

16:08 ↗ instead of a reproduction method. We

16:11 ↗ typically deduct contributions in native

16:13 ↗ construction such as grants or developer

16:16 ↗ donations. We also make a deduction in

16:19 ↗ the case of the water utility for

16:21 ↗ anything that's been paid for through

16:22 ↗ other sources such as meters and

16:24 ↗ services. There are typically other fees

16:27 ↗ associated with these type of charges.

16:30 ↗ And then lastly, this is a very unique

16:34 ↗ case for the state of Washington. The

16:36 ↗ RCW does allow utilities to add up to 10

16:38 ↗ years of interest. You can think of it

16:40 ↗ as a an opportunity cost concept where

16:42 ↗ if you didn't have to build the asset,

16:44 ↗ you could have invested that money into

16:47 ↗ a different uh type of an investment and

16:49 ↗ earned a return.

16:51 ↗ On the future side, we usually start

16:53 ↗ with your capital improvement program

16:55 ↗ and what we're really trying to do is

16:56 ↗ isolate just the cost components that

16:59 ↗ are needed to allow the growth to occur.

17:01 ↗ That means we have to deduct anything

17:03 ↗ contributed. We anything ineligible,

17:05 ↗ small vehicles, any kind of studies that

17:08 ↗ are operating related. And then lastly,

17:11 ↗ anything rene related to renewal and

17:13 ↗ replacement. Again, if something goes ab

17:16 ↗ obsolete or gets to its useful life, it

17:19 ↗ needs to be replaced and that portion of

17:21 ↗ the cost does not get included. It's

17:22 ↗ only the capacity enhancing share of the

17:25 ↗ project. Hey Sergey, can I um just ask

17:27 ↗ you a quick question here on the

17:29 ↗ existing cost basis because I want to

17:31 ↗ make sure I understand. So the existing

17:33 ↗ assets at original cost. So that's

17:35 ↗ that's sort of a carrying cost to what

17:37 ↗ we we are have on the books right now

17:41 ↗ for all of the existing

17:43 ↗ plant, all the existing infrastructure

17:45 ↗ that's in the ground and above the

17:47 ↗ ground. Is that is that correct or not

17:50 ↗ correct? It's the actual value that you

17:53 ↗ paid for it for all the assets in the

17:55 ↗ ground today. Okay. So it's not

17:57 ↗ replacement cost. It's was original.

18:00 ↗ It's what it was originally paid for.

18:02 ↗ Okay. Yeah.

18:05 ↗ Okay. Well, that's that's crazy, but

18:06 ↗ Okay.

18:08 ↗ Yeah. There's I believe there's a case

18:11 ↗ law

18:13 ↗ versus Seattle just blown by memory

18:15 ↗ where uh the the the

18:19 ↗ development fee at that time was imposed

18:21 ↗ using a reproduction replacement cost

18:23 ↗ basis. And it was many years ago and

18:27 ↗ there was a lawsuit that validated that

18:29 ↗ we have to use our original cost that

18:31 ↗ was actually paid by the utility to

18:33 ↗ develop the build the asset. Okay. And

18:36 ↗ then okay I guess that makes sense.

18:39 ↗ Thank you for the clarification.

18:41 ↗ Okay.

18:43 ↗ So now let's get into specifics. So

18:45 ↗ we'll start with the sewer utility. So

18:47 ↗ again, all we're going to do is take a

18:49 ↗ look at each of the cost components, the

18:51 ↗ bases and the denominator to get to the

18:53 ↗ fees. Here we start with existing cost

18:55 ↗ bases. The net basis is about $35

18:57 ↗ million. We started with about 29

19:00 ↗ million of assets, deducted 6 million of

19:02 ↗ contributions, and added about $1

19:05 ↗ million of interest to get to that

19:07 ↗ number.

19:10 ↗ On the future cost basis side, our

19:12 ↗ capital plan for the next 20-year

19:14 ↗ period, kind of tying to your general

19:16 ↗ sewer plan capital information, uh

19:19 ↗ identified approximately $41 million of

19:21 ↗ projects. Uh we deducted about 200,000

19:24 ↗ of ineligible projects, mainly small

19:26 ↗ vehicles in a study, just going by

19:28 ↗ memory there. And then renewals and

19:30 ↗ replacements made up about 33 million.

19:32 ↗ So our net eligible portion of costs

19:34 ↗ that could be included in this cost

19:36 ↗ component is about $8.6 million. Okay, I

19:39 ↗ have another question. I'm I'm going to

19:40 ↗ beat this dead horse for just a little

19:42 ↗ while. Um, so on the original cost of

19:45 ↗ current assets, the $29.3 million,

19:48 ↗ um, is that something that grows over

19:51 ↗ time? I'm thinking about when the city

19:53 ↗ annexed areas like um kind of the South

19:57 ↗ Lakes area. So, does that come in at

20:01 ↗ some existing uh base price or is it you

20:05 ↗ know what was originally um cost to

20:08 ↗ build that or how do how do we cost

20:10 ↗ those annexation things?

20:13 ↗ Uh the list of asset inventory that we

20:16 ↗ received included each individual asset

20:18 ↗ in it. So I would have to dig a little

20:21 ↗ deeper in terms of finding out if if the

20:24 ↗ asset was what the utility was paid paid

20:27 ↗ for it or if it was tied to the actual

20:30 ↗ cost of acquis uh during when it was

20:32 ↗ constructed. Again, those are the small

20:34 ↗ uh instances where we can check into it.

20:38 ↗ But uh it's whichever way that they were

20:40 ↗ booked on this city's asset books. Okay.

20:43 ↗ I I think that's I don't know that I

20:45 ↗ need to have you dig into it, but I it

20:47 ↗ it could be either what it was

20:48 ↗ originally cost for um whoever was the

20:52 ↗ service provider originally or what we

20:55 ↗ what we paid to acquire those assets,

20:58 ↗ right? Yeah. I just don't know the top

21:00 ↗ of my head which are the two I I would

21:01 ↗ estimate it was original cost, but

21:03 ↗ again, that's just a conjecture. Yeah.

21:05 ↗ No, and I I don't I I'm just going to

21:07 ↗ take your word for it. I just was kind

21:08 ↗ of curious about what the what the basis

21:11 ↗ for the number is and that and they sit

21:12 ↗ on our books at these these rates too,

21:14 ↗ right? And this is in in our accounting

21:16 ↗ system at $29.3 million is as is the

21:19 ↗ value of the asset I'm assuming. That's

21:22 ↗ where we're requested. Perfect. Thank

21:24 ↗ you.

21:26 ↗ Okay.

21:29 ↗ Uh so we talked about a future cost

21:30 ↗ basis there and then lastly the

21:32 ↗ denominator. So here we first have to

21:34 ↗ identify the capacity that we're able to

21:36 ↗ serve. And for us in order for us to

21:39 ↗ equate the capacity and equivalent units

21:41 ↗ so we can charge everybody

21:42 ↗ proportionally we are using a consistent

21:45 ↗ definition of uh equivalency we're

21:48 ↗ referring to it as uh residential uh

21:51 ↗ customer equivalence rce which is tied

21:54 ↗ to how we are assessed similar type

21:56 ↗ charges by King County. Since we receive

21:59 ↗ treatment from King County, King County

22:01 ↗ assesses these type of charges to our

22:04 ↗ customers as well. So for us to be

22:06 ↗ consistent how they charge, we are using

22:08 ↗ the same methodology for uh equating our

22:12 ↗ uh customers and then the methodology

22:15 ↗ assumes about 7 12 ccf monthly or 15 ccf

22:20 ↗ monthly average usage. Every residential

22:23 ↗ home is typically one rce and then for

22:26 ↗ multif family nonresidential type of

22:28 ↗ usage uh you look at the flow volume

22:31 ↗ divided by either 7 and 12 monthly or 15

22:34 ↗ bimonthly to equate their uh customer

22:37 ↗ residential customer equivalents. Again

22:40 ↗ staying consistent there. So based on

22:42 ↗ this equivalency unit we know that with

22:45 ↗ the infrastructure in place today we can

22:48 ↗ serve approximately 17,000 253 rccees.

22:51 ↗ Of that number about 3570 is the

22:54 ↗ addition or new growth that is being

22:57 ↗ projected to be able to serve with this

22:58 ↗ infrastructure. So for our existing cost

23:01 ↗ basis we take our 35 million divided by

23:03 ↗ the 17,000 to get about $2,000 for the

23:06 ↗ existing cost portion. For the future,

23:08 ↗ we take 8.6 divided by 3600 to get 2400.

23:12 ↗ Add it together for a charge of $4,410

23:16 ↗ of a costbased updated charge. Now,

23:18 ↗ comparing it to the current rate of 2388

23:21 ↗ for the local portion only, that's

23:23 ↗ approximately a $2,000

23:25 ↗ 20 $2,22 increase over current rates if

23:29 ↗ you set it to the maximum uh to the to

23:32 ↗ the calculated level costbased level

23:34 ↗ that that we updated. Now, a caveat to

23:37 ↗ note is that we typically like to say

23:40 ↗ that you could set it up to this level,

23:42 ↗ not above. You can set it below by

23:44 ↗ policy, but realizing that if you set it

23:47 ↗ below, a little bit more pressure will

23:49 ↗ be put on your rates to make up the

23:51 ↗ difference for the project costs instead

23:53 ↗ of the onetime fees imposed to the to

23:56 ↗ the new development.

23:58 ↗ Now, folks do often ask, how do we

24:00 ↗ compare these type of charges to our

24:02 ↗ neighboring utilities? I always caution

24:04 ↗ as I do with rates that every system is

24:07 ↗ different. Our topography, demographics

24:10 ↗ are different, how our design is

24:12 ↗ different, where we get our treatment,

24:14 ↗ wholesale or ourselves is different. But

24:16 ↗ the question does get asked. So in this

24:18 ↗ chart, we wanted to provide you some of

24:20 ↗ our uh neighboring utilities. The bolder

24:23 ↗ colors highlights are associated with

24:24 ↗ the current charges. We are showing you

24:27 ↗ both the city's current local share in

24:30 ↗ the green as well as the uh the regional

24:33 ↗ share from King County assuming a

24:36 ↗ one-time payment coming from King County

24:38 ↗ included into the charge. You will note

24:41 ↗ that quite a few of the neighboring

24:43 ↗ utilities also receive uh King County

24:45 ↗ treatment and include that charge in

24:47 ↗ that comparison for for their shares as

24:50 ↗ well.

24:55 ↗ So, if I'm reading this correctly, are

24:57 ↗ Snowqualami and Northbend doing their

24:58 ↗ own uh treatment then? Is that why

25:00 ↗ there's no regional? Um, that's correct.

25:03 ↗ They own their own treatment plants,

25:05 ↗ right?

25:09 ↗ All right. So, that's the sewer uh

25:12 ↗ update. Now, we're going to switch gears

25:15 ↗ and talk about storm water and but it's

25:17 ↗ going to be very similar. So, I'll

25:18 ↗ probably move a little bit quicker. Our

25:20 ↗ existing cost basis is a bit larger here

25:23 ↗ at $106 million.

25:26 ↗ Our future cost basis is 8.1. We're

25:29 ↗ making very similar adjustments

25:32 ↗ there including contributions and in the

25:35 ↗ eligible projects as well as renewal

25:37 ↗ replacements.

25:40 ↗ And then lastly, we perform the

25:41 ↗ calculation here. The the capacity

25:43 ↗ equivalents that we're using are

25:45 ↗ measuring for proportional charges

25:47 ↗ equivalent service units. One equivalent

25:50 ↗ service unit equals 2,000 square ft of

25:53 ↗ impervious service area or one

25:55 ↗ residential parcel. So one home the if

25:58 ↗ it's a little larger or smaller will be

26:00 ↗ one unit. Anybody who's non-residential

26:03 ↗ their pur surface area gets divided by

26:05 ↗ 2,000 and that defines how many ESUs are

26:09 ↗ they're worth. So it's a slightly

26:11 ↗ different unit of uh measure but it

26:14 ↗ represents the same concept. Here when

26:16 ↗ we look at equivalent service units for

26:19 ↗ the stormwater system once we build our

26:21 ↗ infrastructure we're projected that we

26:23 ↗ can support approximately 33,446

26:26 ↗ ESUs and of that portion about 5,300 is

26:31 ↗ associated with future capacity or or

26:34 ↗ growth. Performing the calculation, the

26:36 ↗ existing cost basis results in about

26:39 ↗ $3,200 and the future cost basis is

26:41 ↗ 1,500 for an updated costbased charge of

26:45 ↗ $4,697.

26:48 ↗ Uh the current rate is about $1879. So

26:50 ↗ that would be an increase of about

26:52 ↗ $2,818

26:55 ↗ per ESU for the storm water fee.

27:00 ↗ Now looking at a similar comparison for

27:03 ↗ the storm water rates, you are currently

27:04 ↗ on the lower end of the or the lower to

27:08 ↗ medium end of the comparison. You will

27:10 ↗ note uh that there are three components

27:13 ↗ to the Redmond comparison because they

27:15 ↗ do have basin specific charges. Their uh

27:19 ↗ incity charge is $1,300, but they also

27:21 ↗ have uh several basins within the

27:23 ↗ downtown core and the Overlake area

27:26 ↗ which add to that basic charge and

27:29 ↗ increase their cost components if you're

27:31 ↗ building within those zones uh of

27:33 ↗ benefit.

27:36 ↗ Do do you know when some of these other

27:37 ↗ cities have have done their most recent

27:40 ↗ uh rate study? I mean, because we were

27:43 ↗ kind of in line with them and but we're

27:45 ↗ going to be kind of on the high end of

27:47 ↗ things.

27:48 ↗ It all depends. I know for a fact a few

27:50 ↗ of them have not updated them in a

27:53 ↗ couple years, but are going through an

27:55 ↗ update currently. They're not quite

27:56 ↗ done. Uh they'll probably be done in the

27:59 ↗ next couple of months, I would estimate.

28:01 ↗ Uh so there's a few that are four year,

28:05 ↗ four, five years old. Some of them apply

28:07 ↗ inflation, some don't. So it's a mixed

28:09 ↗ bag. That's why it's always a caution

28:11 ↗ when we do an a comparison apple and

28:13 ↗ apples because again there's a lot of

28:16 ↗ policy that comes into play as well as

28:18 ↗ the the cost and the and the

28:19 ↗ infrastructure that's actually in the

28:21 ↗ ground. Can you talk a minute about why

28:24 ↗ Redmond has the three different rates

28:25 ↗ and and uh how that's determined and you

28:30 ↗ know what's differentiators?

28:32 ↗ uh I was not involved in their in in

28:34 ↗ their uh development but conceptually

28:37 ↗ speaking I would say I would just again

28:39 ↗ uh estimate that their development costs

28:43 ↗ within a specific area are substantially

28:45 ↗ more expensive than citywide. Typically,

28:47 ↗ you would want to have a uh you know, we

28:49 ↗ want to avoid having an a street

28:51 ↗ specific rate or a customer specific

28:53 ↗ rate from a conceptual perspective just

28:55 ↗ because we know that some areas of town

28:58 ↗ might get maintenance replacement

28:59 ↗ periodically this year, but next year

29:01 ↗ that other areas will catch up as well.

29:03 ↗ So there's always going to be slight

29:04 ↗ differences, but again from a

29:06 ↗ practicality perspective, that's just

29:08 ↗ not practical to have that much data

29:10 ↗ unless you know that specifically

29:12 ↗ certain areas due to regulatory

29:14 ↗ requirements, whatever the the the area

29:17 ↗ specific costs are, they're

29:19 ↗ substantially greater. So I would guess

29:22 ↗ that the development the cost within

29:24 ↗ those areas are proportionately higher

29:27 ↗ than the other uh areas of the city.

29:29 ↗ That's just my assumption.

29:32 ↗ Great. Thank you.

29:36 ↗ Okay. And then lastly, we'll move on to

29:38 ↗ the water utility. Now, there's going to

29:40 ↗ be a slight difference what you're going

29:41 ↗ to be seeing here for the water utility.

29:44 ↗ We when we're going to be talking about

29:45 ↗ the charges and the components of the

29:47 ↗ charges, you're going to see the total,

29:49 ↗ but in addition to the total, it'll be

29:51 ↗ separated into the portable share and

29:53 ↗ the fire protection share. Now, as a

29:56 ↗ refresher, the reason why we do that is

29:59 ↗ because not all of your customer types

30:01 ↗ benefit from all portions of the system.

30:04 ↗ Specifically,

30:05 ↗ the irrigation related type of

30:07 ↗ customers. Typically, irrigation

30:09 ↗ customers do not require fire

30:11 ↗ protection. And when we develop cost of

30:14 ↗ service type rates and cost connection

30:16 ↗ charges, we may look at uh having a

30:20 ↗ separate charge by class of service

30:21 ↗ differentiating by by not including fire

30:24 ↗ within irrigation connections. In

30:26 ↗ addition, the sizing of your

30:28 ↗ infrastructure for fire purposes is a

30:30 ↗ bit greater for your non single family

30:33 ↗ residential type connections. the

30:35 ↗ fireflow requirements the duration are

30:37 ↗ much greater for multif family and

30:40 ↗ commercial non-residential connections.

30:42 ↗ So uh the the development of the fee

30:45 ↗ tries to account for that fact in the

30:47 ↗ connection chart as well. So here we're

30:50 ↗ se separating your 120 million existing

30:53 ↗ cost basis between about 77 million

30:56 ↗ related to the portable component and 43

30:59 ↗ million related to the fire component.

31:04 ↗ Similarly, we perform the same

31:06 ↗ separation for the future cost basis.

31:08 ↗ Our eligible share is about $32 million

31:10 ↗ in total. Of that, $25 million is

31:13 ↗ associated with the portable share and

31:15 ↗ 6.8 million is associated with the fire

31:18 ↗ protection share.

31:22 ↗ Once we have established our cost or the

31:26 ↗ numerator for the cost basis, we have to

31:29 ↗ develop the unit costs. Here again, we

31:31 ↗ want to make sure everybody's

31:32 ↗ equivalent. And the way we equate

31:34 ↗ everybody in the water utility typically

31:36 ↗ is we look at how how many meter

31:39 ↗ customer or capacity equivalents that we

31:42 ↗ have. And what that does is it equates

31:45 ↗ larger meter sizes into the smallest

31:47 ↗ meter size. So as an example for the

31:50 ↗ city, the 5/8 by 3 in quarter meter is

31:55 ↗ the smallest size uh connection. It's

31:57 ↗ the most common connection for a typical

31:59 ↗ residential home. And the way we equate

32:03 ↗ bigger meters is we look at the safe op

32:05 ↗ flow operating flow capacity of each

32:08 ↗ meter size expressed in gallons per

32:09 ↗ minute. And we develop a ratio comparing

32:12 ↗ bigger meters to the 5/8 in and by 3/4

32:15 ↗ in meter. That tells us that as an

32:19 ↗ example, a 2in meter might be 8 meter

32:22 ↗ capacity equivalents. Again, just simply

32:24 ↗ providing an example there. Now when we

32:26 ↗ look at the portable component of the

32:30 ↗ charge, we use the meter capacity

32:32 ↗ equivalents because the capacity scales

32:34 ↗ with meter size. The fireflow

32:36 ↗ requirement is more associated with the

32:38 ↗ type of customer that we have. Is it a

32:41 ↗ single family residential customer and

32:43 ↗ what are its fireflow requirements? What

32:46 ↗ is the the duration and the the gallons

32:48 ↗ per minute pressure that requirement

32:50 ↗ that that we need to meet to provide

32:52 ↗ fire protection service for that type of

32:54 ↗ customer. Therefore, we use weighted

32:56 ↗ accounts as our measure of capacity

32:59 ↗ here. The waiting is again strictly

33:01 ↗ related to the fireflow requirements,

33:03 ↗ gallons per minute multiplied by

33:05 ↗ duration. So for the portable share, we

33:08 ↗ look at a total of about 22,000 meter

33:11 ↗ capacity equivalents that we can serve

33:13 ↗ after the installation of the

33:14 ↗ infrastructure. Again, of that amount,

33:17 ↗ approximately 6,000 is associated to

33:20 ↗ future capacity. So performing the

33:22 ↗ calculation results in a portable share

33:25 ↗ of cost of about $7,600.

33:28 ↗ For the fire component share, we have uh

33:31 ↗ weighted accounts. Once we perform the

33:33 ↗ calculation, we have about 3,600 almost

33:37 ↗ 3,700 per weighted account. We use this

33:40 ↗ information in the next two slides to

33:41 ↗ actually develop the class specific

33:43 ↗ rates that scale with the class

33:46 ↗ requirements by by service. But if you

33:49 ↗ look at the aggregated charge for a

33:51 ↗ baseline kind of an average meter, we

33:54 ↗ have about uh the updated charge cost

33:57 ↗ base charge would be about $11,299.

34:01 ↗ The current charge for a residential

34:03 ↗ connection is about $780.

34:07 ↗ So a $3,400

34:08 ↗ increase to the average if you look at

34:11 ↗ it from an average perspective. Now once

34:13 ↗ we get into class specifics again

34:15 ↗ accounting for the fireflow requirements

34:18 ↗ primarily where the difference is coming

34:19 ↗ from looking at the signal family duplex

34:22 ↗ connection

34:24 ↗ our existing charges are $79911 our

34:27 ↗ calculated charges are $11299

34:30 ↗ an increase of about $3388

34:33 ↗ and it does scale with meter size the

34:36 ↗ portable share scales the fixed charge

34:38 ↗ associated to the fire portion does not

34:41 ↗ scale so it's a a two a two-prong

34:43 ↗ component of the charge for the multif

34:46 ↗ family class of service. The current

34:48 ↗ rate is about and and non-residential.

34:51 ↗ It's a combined charge. The current fees

34:53 ↗ are 15,286

34:55 ↗ for the baseline meter and they would go

34:58 ↗ up to about $28,000

35:00 ↗ or $12,000

35:02 ↗ uh increase. Now if we look at the

35:04 ↗ multif family current connections uh

35:07 ↗ there are some 5/8 in connections but a

35:09 ↗ lot of the connections are in the 58 1

35:12 ↗ and 1/2 2 in or 3 in size category.

35:14 ↗ Resident the non-residential customers

35:17 ↗ do have a bit more 5/8 3/4 in

35:19 ↗ connections but they also have a spread

35:21 ↗ of the larger meter sizes

35:23 ↗ proportionally. The increase is a little

35:25 ↗ bit higher to the lowest meter size

35:27 ↗ versus the upper meter cost components.

35:30 ↗ And that's again due to the fact that

35:32 ↗ the fixed portion of the fee, the fire

35:34 ↗ related portion does not scale with

35:36 ↗ meter size.

35:38 ↗ Lastly, the irrigation charge which does

35:41 ↗ not include a fire component whatsoever

35:44 ↗ would increase by about $940 for the

35:47 ↗ lowest meter size going up from 66.83 to

35:50 ↗ 7623

35:52 ↗ if we go with a fully calculated

35:54 ↗ costbased charge. All right. I have I

35:57 ↗ have a a question around the calculation

35:59 ↗ and so why is the multif family and

36:03 ↗ non-residential say 3/4 in um meter

36:07 ↗ nearly oh more than twice the cost of

36:10 ↗ the single family duplex is there what's

36:13 ↗ the rationale for that difference the

36:15 ↗ predominant difference is coming from

36:17 ↗ that fire uh flow component so if I go

36:19 ↗ back to the prior slide you can see that

36:21 ↗ the fire charge component is uh about

36:25 ↗ $3,600

36:27 ↗ The difference waiting uh between

36:29 ↗ residential to non-residential or multif

36:33 ↗ family type of connections is close to 6

36:35 ↗ to1. So the fire once you take account

36:38 ↗ into account the gallon per minute

36:40 ↗ requirement and the duration time period

36:42 ↗ that we need to have. So you look at the

36:44 ↗ total volume of water that we need to

36:46 ↗ have for each fire event. There's almost

36:48 ↗ a 6:1 ratio that is there present for

36:52 ↗ the fireflow requirement. So the

36:54 ↗ fireflow piece to keep it simple uh

36:57 ↗ almost gets increased by six times fold

37:00 ↗ when we look at the separation of the

37:02 ↗ fees. Now the 3600 is the average. So

37:04 ↗ the single family is slightly lower and

37:07 ↗ the the multif family and

37:08 ↗ non-residential is up to close to six

37:10 ↗ times higher than that fee. So the fire

37:14 ↗ component is really what's causing the

37:16 ↗ differential between the single family

37:19 ↗ and the non-s single family type of

37:21 ↗ connections. Now as a reminder again

37:23 ↗ these are only to new connections. This

37:25 ↗ is not impacting uh existing customers

37:27 ↗ on the system today. That's great.

37:30 ↗ Thanks.

37:33 ↗ And the last slide before we kind of

37:34 ↗ wrap up my portion of the presentation

37:37 ↗ is the survey for the water utility. So

37:39 ↗ here again there's a comparison for your

37:42 ↗ neighboring utilities. Some utilities

37:44 ↗ will have a solid green bar which

37:46 ↗ indicates that they provide both

37:49 ↗ treatment, water source supply, and

37:51 ↗ local distribution, potentially

37:53 ↗ transmission. Other utilities will have

37:54 ↗ a regional share like Cascade Water

37:56 ↗ Alliance or CWA. And for the city

38:00 ↗ specifically, there's also an extra

38:01 ↗ search charge of $1,000 associated with

38:04 ↗ your current contract with CWA. I

38:06 ↗ believe you receive discounted water

38:08 ↗ from CWBA which comes with an extra

38:11 ↗ search charge on the capital side. Now

38:13 ↗ looking at the water charges, they are

38:15 ↗ currently from a combined total basis uh

38:18 ↗ on the higher end of the comparison. But

38:19 ↗ again, this is always an apples to

38:23 ↗ oranges type of comparison since every

38:25 ↗ system is so unique.

38:29 ↗ So with that, uh that gets us to the end

38:32 ↗ of my presentation. So I'm going to hand

38:33 ↗ it over back to Emily to kind of get

38:36 ↗ into the discussion of the next steps

38:38 ↗ and the direction.

38:42 ↗ Great. So our first question is the

38:44 ↗ basic one and that's should we set our

38:47 ↗ general facility charges moving forward

38:50 ↗ based on updated cost levels uh that you

38:54 ↗ have seen tonight for sewer and storm

38:57 ↗ water.

38:59 ↗ And then the second is shall the

39:01 ↗ adjustments for the water general

39:03 ↗ facilities charges given that those were

39:06 ↗ more substantial and especially put a

39:08 ↗ little bit more pressure on those single

39:10 ↗ family

39:12 ↗ uh charges be phased in

39:16 ↗ kind of leading you toward what our

39:18 ↗ recommendation is. And then the last is

39:21 ↗ shall the city continue to adjust

39:23 ↗ charges for inflation. Sergey mentioned

39:25 ↗ we have a choice in that. he gave you

39:28 ↗ the rationale for it. Um it's been our

39:31 ↗ past practice and Sergey if you'll

39:34 ↗ advance the slides.

39:37 ↗ So our recommendation is starting with

39:40 ↗ that last one to indeed um continue that

39:43 ↗ existing practice of adjusting for

39:44 ↗ inflation and then for the rates for

39:47 ↗ sewer and storm water to go ahead and

39:50 ↗ apply the updated costbased levels for

39:53 ↗ the general facility charges that have

39:55 ↗ been recommended tonight. and to phase

39:58 ↗ in those adjustments on the water side

40:02 ↗ um over a 10-year period so that we um

40:06 ↗ don't burden our uh new growth, new

40:10 ↗ construction um and particularly

40:13 ↗ uh housing development. Um we'll we'll

40:17 ↗ get there over time making sure that

40:19 ↗ growth is paying its way but um we have

40:22 ↗ some choice in how we face things in

40:27 ↗ So with that, I'll just review next step

40:30 ↗ and then we'll turn it back over to you

40:32 ↗ for any discussion or additional

40:34 ↗ questions you may have. We will be back

40:37 ↗ in July. We'll be talking about rate

40:39 ↗ design. That will be the last

40:40 ↗ substantive conversation and then we'll

40:42 ↗ package everything up and uh bring it

40:44 ↗ back to you so that you can see it one

40:46 ↗ more time before hopefully we take it to

40:48 ↗ the full council.

40:50 ↗ Great. Thank you. Any questions, Deputy

40:54 ↗ Council President?

40:57 ↗ Oh, so many questions. Yeah. So, so many

40:59 ↗ questions. Wow. The this is very very

41:02 ↗ interesting. Um, so what is a typical

41:06 ↗ new home being sold for? I know that

41:09 ↗ we're up in the 1.2 1.3 million

41:13 ↗ for an average home in Isiqua. Is that

41:16 ↗ what a new home is generally selling for

41:19 ↗ at this point? You know, I I haven't

41:21 ↗ looked at that number in in some time.

41:24 ↗ Uh the the last time that I remember

41:27 ↗ seeing a statistic, it was um still in

41:31 ↗ about the $900,000

41:34 ↗ range. Okay. But that could be a little

41:36 ↗ bit dated. So um and so each of these

41:41 ↗ are basically hookup charges or

41:43 ↗ connection charges. One time they're

41:46 ↗ onetime charges. Paid for by the

41:48 ↗ developer

41:49 ↗ or the construction, whoever build

41:52 ↗ builds it. Yes. Correct. And so in a

41:55 ↗ let's just say a $900,000 new home, we'd

41:59 ↗ be adding what would be the accumulated

42:02 ↗ first time or only time charge

42:06 ↗ would be guys going to the water related

42:10 ↗ assuming that's a 5/8 3/4 meter. Um

42:14 ↗ we're talking about an additional

42:16 ↗ additional charge a difference uh would

42:19 ↗ be that $3,388.

42:22 ↗ So they would have a a total general

42:25 ↗ facilities charge of that 11,000 and

42:27 ↗ change

42:30 ↗ and then about 2,800 for the sewer. So

42:33 ↗ that puts it up to about 6,000 and then

42:37 ↗ another 2,000. So close to 8,000 just

42:39 ↗ doing mental math between the three

42:42 ↗ utilities for a typical home for a

42:45 ↗ typical new home, new construction.

42:47 ↗ Okay. All right. Thank you. That gives

42:49 ↗ me the context that I that I needed.

42:51 ↗ Thank you. And Mr. Chair, member uh

42:54 ↗ Council Member D Michelle, um the latest

42:56 ↗ information which is about nine months

42:58 ↗ old, uh the average new home uh cost in

43:02 ↗ Isqua was $1,185,000.

43:08 ↗ Thank you. So, what is the impact of the

43:11 ↗ GFC's on our middle housing initiatives

43:14 ↗ with um ADUs and uh cottages and such?

43:19 ↗ Yeah, that that's an excellent question.

43:21 ↗ Obviously, there would be an impact.

43:22 ↗ They would be paying them. So, it's

43:24 ↗ really this question of how much does

43:27 ↗ that increase in costs um dissuade

43:32 ↗ uh that development. So, if I'm doing an

43:33 ↗ ADU, particularly a detached ADU, a DADU

43:36 ↗ as I love to call them, um

43:40 ↗ I'm going to play the full GFC's.

43:43 ↗ Correct. Yeah. And um if I'm attached,

43:47 ↗ can I go on the same meter as the the

43:50 ↗ primary dwelling unit? Yeah,

43:56 ↗ I get to talk tonight. Um so yes, so if

43:59 ↗ you do upsize, then you'd have to pay

44:01 ↗ the difference. So if you went from a

44:02 ↗ 5/8 inch to a 1in meter, you would have

44:05 ↗ to pay the difference. Sera, can you go

44:07 ↗ to the water um one?

44:12 ↗ Yes, that one. So the 1 in goes from 17

44:16 ↗ to 22,000 whereas the 5/8 is 7,000 to 11

44:21 ↗ 20 299. So basically if you've paid $79

44:25 ↗ $7,911

44:27 ↗ and you go up to the 1 in and it's based

44:30 ↗ off of the amount of connections in your

44:32 ↗ home. So the amount of faucets, sinks,

44:35 ↗ toilets, you might have to pay the

44:37 ↗ difference between 22,000 and 7,000. So,

44:40 ↗ I get a credit for the GFC that's

44:42 ↗ already been paid and then I pay for the

44:44 ↗ new connection size. That's correct. And

44:46 ↗ if you paid So, if I'm putting on an

44:48 ↗ attached, I I may be adding enough uh

44:51 ↗ sources of water or uses of water that I

44:53 ↗ would need a a larger pipe. That's

44:56 ↗ correct. And it could be attached or

44:59 ↗ detached. And it really depends on how

45:01 ↗ your system works together. Okay.

45:06 ↗ Okay. That's that's I think helpful.

45:08 ↗ Thanks Matt.

45:10 ↗ Um I I think that's the only other

45:13 ↗ question I had was was was kind of

45:14 ↗ around the impact on you know our push

45:18 ↗ towards um you know that middle house

45:21 ↗ missing middle um housing later.

45:25 ↗ All right. So um do you have any more

45:28 ↗ questions or I will go back back to

45:30 ↗ public comment. City clerk. Do we have

45:32 ↗ any uh members of the public online?

45:36 ↗ Chair Ray we do not. Okay, then we're

45:38 ↗ going to skip over public comment and

45:40 ↗ then we're going to go and talk about

45:41 ↗ what we think our recommendation for,

45:44 ↗ uh, going forward is. So, uh,

45:49 ↗ you have more questions.

45:52 ↗ Sergey, can you put the recommendation

45:54 ↗ slide up, please?

45:56 ↗ Thank you.

46:05 ↗ Yeah. Yeah. When you think about the

46:08 ↗ cost of a new home and that's the

46:10 ↗ average cost that is not, you know, that

46:12 ↗ is so at any rate uh yes, we should be

46:18 ↗ uh applying a updated costbased level on

46:22 ↗ that. um

46:24 ↗ in the interest of trying to keep things

46:27 ↗ as affordable as possible in a very high

46:32 ↗ area. Uh yes, let's let's uh phase in

46:36 ↗ the adjustments gradually over time, but

46:39 ↗ we want to be sure that we're paying for

46:41 ↗ the system and that this growth, as you

46:44 ↗ said, is paying for it for itself. Um

46:48 ↗ and so um yeah, I'd like to see it come

46:52 ↗ back to the full council eventually with

46:55 ↗ those calculations in there. So um yes,

46:59 ↗ and let's continue to use the existing p

47:03 ↗ practice of adjusting for inflation. Um,

47:06 ↗ yeah, those are astounding numbers, but

47:09 ↗ put into the context of what new

47:12 ↗ construction is costing right now, the

47:14 ↗ actual percentage of increase is

47:17 ↗ relatively

47:19 ↗ small, I would think. So, um,

47:23 ↗ and again, we have to pay for the

47:25 ↗ system. So, yes, I I agree with the

47:29 ↗ administration's recommendations.

47:33 ↗ I I hate doing this, but I have another

47:35 ↗ question. Um, and it deals with if we do

47:38 ↗ phase it in over time, do we know what

47:39 ↗ the cost then that would be um

47:43 ↗ transferred over to current rate payers

47:45 ↗ so that we could ma stay current with

47:47 ↗ with all the things we need to build and

47:49 ↗ maintain. Sure. Sergey, have you run

47:53 ↗ that figure?

47:55 ↗ It will depend on the rate of of paying.

47:58 ↗ Yeah, let's say 10 years.

48:02 ↗ Right. Yeah. You just I would have to

48:05 ↗ model that what the new charge would be

48:07 ↗ at. Uh right now we're projecting

48:11 ↗ the current portion to be at $300,000.

48:16 ↗ So over again I would have to do the

48:19 ↗ numbers but probably a couple

48:20 ↗ hundred,000

48:22 ↗ um over the the time of the phase in to

48:25 ↗ make I can I can perform the calculation

48:27 ↗ and get back to that. Yeah, that'd be

48:28 ↗ great. And just when we come back with

48:30 ↗ the whole package, that would be, you

48:31 ↗ know, something interesting to have to

48:33 ↗ be able to show kind of um because it's

48:35 ↗ not like the the the need for the funds

48:37 ↗ goes away. It just gets uh reortioned.

48:40 ↗ That's correct. Yeah, that is correct.

48:41 ↗ And we can bring that back when we come

48:43 ↗ back in July. Yeah. So, um yeah. So, let

48:48 ↗ me just take the questions because I

48:49 ↗ think they're really easy. Um, yes, we

48:51 ↗ we have to update the cost basis and I

48:54 ↗ think the numbers make a lot of sense

48:56 ↗ and I'm impressed with the math quite

48:58 ↗ honestly. Um, the adjustment um to the

49:01 ↗ and it's only really water we're talking

49:03 ↗ about phasing in, not not sewer and

49:04 ↗ storm. Correct. Yeah, I I think that

49:07 ↗ I think that makes sense. Um, kind of

49:11 ↗ that's my my first reaction, but I do

49:13 ↗ want to see these additional numbers.

49:14 ↗ And I'm not worried about the percentage

49:17 ↗ for say a single family home. I'm really

49:19 ↗ worried about at a time that we're

49:21 ↗ pushing for, you know, more of this

49:24 ↗ missing middle ADU kind of housing where

49:27 ↗ we're not talking a large amount that it

49:29 ↗ is a significant uh percentage. So, so

49:32 ↗ that's that's kind of the I mean I think

49:34 ↗ if I was um not thinking that way I

49:36 ↗ might not be so open to it, but I think

49:39 ↗ that because that's a you know kind of a

49:40 ↗ policy thing and that we're really

49:42 ↗ pushing for um something that kind of

49:45 ↗ acts as a as a headwind to that um kind

49:47 ↗ of I'm I'm interested in not doing and

49:51 ↗ then yeah we got and then last question

49:52 ↗ yeah absolutely need to adjust for

49:54 ↗ inflation. So, I think uh coming back, I

49:56 ↗ think there's a couple of of things we'd

49:58 ↗ like to see around the the phase in and

50:00 ↗ what the the cost is.

50:03 ↗ Okay. Agreed. Okay. I think we're we are

50:06 ↗ in raging agreement and uh um uh great

50:10 ↗ uh great presentation as always, Sergey.

50:12 ↗ Great. Thank you very much. Thank you.

50:16 ↗ Okay,

50:18 ↗ that was awesome.

50:20 ↗ Now, I'm I'm super excited.

50:23 ↗ We are going to um move into our next

50:27 ↗ agenda item which is central Esqua

50:30 ↗ multimmoal I90 crossing study uh update

50:33 ↗ and Greg uh Lucas who's our senior

50:35 ↗ transportation engineer is going to be

50:38 ↗ uh giving us the lowdown.

50:42 ↗ Greg welcome.

51:10 ↗ There it goes.

51:21 ↗ All right, I think we're in business

51:23 ↗ now.

51:26 ↗ All right. Good evening, council

51:27 ↗ members. My name is Greg Lucas and I'm

51:29 ↗ an engineer in the public works

51:31 ↗ department. I'm here today to provide an

51:33 ↗ update on the central Isqua multimmoal

51:36 ↗ I90 crossing study. Accompanying me this

51:39 ↗ evening is John McKenzie. He's the

51:41 ↗ project manager representing the

51:43 ↗ consultant team working on the project.

51:45 ↗ He's with Jacobs, a firm specializing

51:48 ↗ infrastructure planning and design where

51:51 ↗ he leads a multidisciplinary team of

51:54 ↗ planners, engineers, and architects

51:55 ↗ working on this project.

52:01 ↗ The purpose of this evening's

52:03 ↗ presentation um is to provide the

52:06 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee

52:07 ↗ with an update on the study and to

52:09 ↗ present the administration's recommended

52:12 ↗ alternative for discussion.

52:16 ↗ And the direction um that the

52:19 ↗ administration is seeking tonight uh

52:21 ↗ from the committee is to provide

52:23 ↗ feedback on the recommended location.

52:25 ↗ Additionally, the administration is

52:27 ↗ seeking your support for the uh proposed

52:29 ↗ location and overall crossing approach

52:32 ↗ before proceeding uh with advancement to

52:35 ↗ the full city council. And the project

52:38 ↗ is currently on the the city council

52:41 ↗ agenda next month.

52:45 ↗ And we'll begin with an overview of the

52:47 ↗ project's background. Uh some of this

52:49 ↗ information will be familiar from

52:51 ↗ previous presentations serving as a uh

52:53 ↗ refresher. Uh the project

52:57 ↗ uh is included in the central Isqua

52:59 ↗ plan. Um the project's designed to

53:02 ↗ mitigate increased traffic congestion as

53:06 ↗ a part of the central Isiqua

53:07 ↗ development. Uh it aims to maintain

53:10 ↗ acceptable levels of of service for

53:13 ↗ existing infrastructure while

53:15 ↗ establishing a new connection across

53:16 ↗ I90. Uh this project has been referred

53:19 ↗ to in previous planning documents as the

53:21 ↗ 11th to 12th A crossing. Um and the

53:25 ↗ study's intent is to review crossing

53:27 ↗ location options with the goal of

53:30 ↗ selecting a preferred crossing location.

53:33 ↗ Uh this project has some history with

53:35 ↗ the city council. In 2022, the council

53:38 ↗ provided direction to the administration

53:41 ↗ uh to include the study in a budget

53:42 ↗ amendment that that funding enabled a

53:46 ↗ competitive consultant selection process

53:48 ↗ for the study ultimately leading to the

53:50 ↗ selection of the Jacobs team in 2023 in

53:54 ↗ which we got the council approval of the

53:56 ↗ contract later that year.

53:58 ↗ And the study is fully funded by the

54:00 ↗ American Rescue Plan Act, also known as

54:02 ↗ ARPA. And finally, last August, uh, the

54:06 ↗ administration presented an update on

54:07 ↗ the study outlining the project goals,

54:10 ↗ evaluation criteria, and five crossing

54:12 ↗ alternatives under consideration at that

54:14 ↗ time. This was presented to the full

54:16 ↗ council as anformational update. No

54:20 ↗ direction was sought after at that time.

54:24 ↗ Uh, the crossing is designed uh to

54:26 ↗ accommodate one lane in each direction,

54:28 ↗ north and south, with turn lanes were

54:30 ↗ applicable. Additionally, the current

54:33 ↗ placeholder cross-section aligns with

54:35 ↗ the core street designation uh outlined

54:38 ↗ in the street standards which has

54:41 ↗ protected bike lanes and 8 foot wide

54:43 ↗ sidewalks to enhance pedestrian and

54:45 ↗ cyclist accessibility.

54:48 ↗ Uh the crossing is situated in the

54:50 ↗ central Isiqua Regional Grow Center

54:53 ↗ designated area adopted by Puistown

54:55 ↗ Regional Council to support development

54:59 ↗ and the planned light rail is expected

55:00 ↗ to be located within the boundaries of

55:02 ↗ this growth center as well. The project

55:05 ↗ offers several benefits primarily

55:07 ↗ improving mobility within central Isqua

55:09 ↗ by establishing a new north south

55:11 ↗ connection across I90 which is which

55:14 ↗ currently divides the area. Uh the

55:16 ↗ existing crossing options are limited.

55:19 ↗ The crossing along SR900 which lies

55:21 ↗ within the growth center is state

55:23 ↗ operated and has reached capacity making

55:26 ↗ north south travel within the growth

55:28 ↗ center increasingly difficult. Um and

55:31 ↗ this project supports the vision of

55:33 ↗ central Esco of being a uh thriving and

55:36 ↗ sustainable commercial hub. Uh with the

55:39 ↗ continued growth comes the necessity for

55:41 ↗ safe and functional infrastructure and

55:44 ↗ this crossing aims to provide that. Um

55:47 ↗ additionally it is designed to

55:49 ↗ complement the future light rail

55:50 ↗ station. While the exact location of the

55:53 ↗ station and the park and ride remains

55:55 ↗ undetermined, the study evaluated

55:58 ↗ comparable footprints of similar

56:00 ↗ stations and park and rides across the

56:02 ↗ region to help inform our selection

56:04 ↗ process.

56:07 ↗ All right, this slide outlines the

56:11 ↗ methodology employed by the

56:12 ↗ administration in conducting the study.

56:15 ↗ Initially a working group was

56:16 ↗ established comprised of staff members

56:18 ↗ from various departments to ensure a

56:20 ↗ comprehensive perspective and one of the

56:23 ↗ first key milestones was to develop the

56:24 ↗ project goals corresponding evaluation

56:27 ↗ criteria used on each alternative and

56:30 ↗ concurrently the consultant team began

56:33 ↗ work on reviewing existing conditions

56:35 ↗ and future projections for central

56:37 ↗ isqua.

56:39 ↗ Uh that portion of the study was based

56:41 ↗ off reports um available traffic data

56:45 ↗ available GIS data and other resources

56:49 ↗ um all of which helped inform the

56:51 ↗ identification of potential crossing

56:53 ↗ locations.

56:54 ↗ Um at this point multiple crossing

56:57 ↗ alternatives were developed and the

57:00 ↗ public outreach process commen uh

57:02 ↗ commenced details of which will be

57:04 ↗ covered in subsequent slides.

57:08 ↗ Um aformational update was provided last

57:11 ↗ August where we shared the goals, the

57:13 ↗ evaluation criteria and the five

57:15 ↗ alternatives at that time. Uh the team

57:17 ↗ then refined three out of the five con

57:19 ↗ alternatives

57:21 ↗ uh assessing the advantages and dis

57:23 ↗ disadvantage of each option. uh two

57:25 ↗ alternatives were eliminated from

57:28 ↗ consideration as they did not meet the

57:29 ↗ goals and they were too costly and too

57:32 ↗ impactful and we'll go over those two

57:35 ↗ also in subsequent slides.

57:38 ↗ And then the project team hosted a

57:42 ↗ um an in-house um o openhouse that was

57:47 ↗ disrupted by the the bomb cyclone and we

57:49 ↗ had to re we had to reschedu it.

57:53 ↗ However, we still had about 25 community

57:55 ↗ members show up and were very engaged

57:57 ↗ during that time period. Uh their their

58:00 ↗ feedback uh from these participants

58:01 ↗ along with input from property owners

58:03 ↗ that we've met along the way has helped

58:05 ↗ inform both our evaluation and kind of

58:08 ↗ understanding of how everybody uses

58:11 ↗ central quad today and how they plan to

58:12 ↗ in the future.

58:15 ↗ Um and then finally the uh the preferred

58:18 ↗ alternative has was then selected uh

58:20 ↗ which we'll get into and this was

58:22 ↗ presented to both the transportation

58:25 ↗ advisory board as well as the economic

58:28 ↗ vitality commission. We are here this

58:30 ↗ evening to present these findings and

58:32 ↗ recommendations.

58:37 ↗ So initially the study employed kind of

58:40 ↗ a open exploratory approach to ensure

58:42 ↗ that no crossing locations were

58:44 ↗ prematurely excluded. At this time no

58:47 ↗ idea was a bad idea. Connections between

58:50 ↗ both future and existing nodes were

58:52 ↗ drawn and overcrossing and

58:54 ↗ undercrossings were in consideration.

58:57 ↗ Immediately after that we developed a

58:58 ↗ matrix and

59:01 ↗ applied some filters through it. Um this

59:04 ↗ was to eliminate crossing alternatives

59:06 ↗ that were not viable. Um this evaluation

59:10 ↗ considered several constraints including

59:12 ↗ the high water table relative to the

59:15 ↗ central Isqua Valley uh drainage

59:18 ↗ challenges particularly on the north

59:19 ↗ side of I90

59:21 ↗ the fist passage covers.

59:24 ↗ Um because I90, Gilman Boulevard and

59:27 ↗ Pickering Place share similar

59:29 ↗ elevations,

59:30 ↗ uh this requires longer approaches to

59:32 ↗ meet clearance requirements of I90,

59:34 ↗ further eliminating some options as well

59:37 ↗ as most undercrossings. Um additionally,

59:40 ↗ the limited connection points particular

59:42 ↗ on the north side, uh constraints some

59:44 ↗ of our options.

59:47 ↗ And then finally we ensured that uh the

59:49 ↗ the alternatives uh support the

59:51 ↗ long-term vision of a you know thriving

59:53 ↗ central Isqua. And after applying all

59:56 ↗ these filters we were left with five

59:58 ↗ remaining crossing alternatives which

1:00:00 ↗ were shared at ourformational update.

1:00:04 ↗ We'll go through each of those five and

1:00:06 ↗ I'll give you a little background and

1:00:07 ↗ updates on each one as we go through.

1:00:10 ↗ Uh we'll start with the western most and

1:00:12 ↗ then work eastward. Uh the first

1:00:14 ↗ alternative for discussion involves a

1:00:17 ↗ crossing location from 12th a northwest

1:00:19 ↗ on the south side to 11th a northwest on

1:00:22 ↗ the north side. Um each crossing

1:00:25 ↗ location goes over I90 except the maple

1:00:28 ↗ at the lake crossing. Um the study

1:00:31 ↗ determined that this location is

1:00:32 ↗ feasible and meets many of the project

1:00:35 ↗ objectives. However, uh this approach uh

1:00:39 ↗ per proved to be more challenging than

1:00:41 ↗ originally um anticipated. In order to

1:00:44 ↗ make this crossing work, the

1:00:46 ↗ intersection of 12th and Gilman would

1:00:49 ↗ need to be raised up a few feet and the

1:00:51 ↗ alignment has to skew west um to uh

1:00:55 ↗ increase the runway length in order to

1:00:57 ↗ achieve uh the necessary elevation gain

1:01:01 ↗ for crossing I90. And then as the

1:01:03 ↗ alignment continues northward, uh it

1:01:06 ↗ integrates with the existing

1:01:07 ↗ intersection at Lake Drive and 11th

1:01:11 ↗ a little bit of a securous route. Um

1:01:13 ↗ ultimately this alternative was not

1:01:15 ↗ selected as our preferred option as

1:01:17 ↗ nearby options offered greater

1:01:19 ↗ advantages.

1:01:22 ↗ All right, so the next crossing location

1:01:25 ↗ is the 11th A Northwest to 11th A

1:01:27 ↗ Northwest option. Uh, this option

1:01:30 ↗ connects a future intersection along

1:01:32 ↗ Gilman Boulevard as identified in

1:01:35 ↗ planning documents at 11th A Northwest

1:01:37 ↗ with the 11th avenue northwest at the

1:01:40 ↗ north side.

1:01:42 ↗ Um, the slide presented to council

1:01:45 ↗ previously illustrated a proposal that

1:01:47 ↗ not only raised Gilman but reintegrated

1:01:50 ↗ to the property of the south by uh

1:01:52 ↗ constructing what is the future 11th a

1:01:55 ↗ Northwest.

1:01:57 ↗ Um, this concept has since been updated

1:01:59 ↗ since it was presented to council, and

1:02:00 ↗ I'll share that now.

1:02:03 ↗ Uh, given the impact to that property,

1:02:05 ↗ it was deemed more appropriate to remove

1:02:07 ↗ the street grid connection within that

1:02:10 ↗ parcel by preserving the southernmost

1:02:12 ↗ eastbound lane at the existing grade

1:02:15 ↗ along with the surrounding landscaping

1:02:17 ↗ and non-motorized improvements.

1:02:20 ↗ And essentially, the future 11th AB

1:02:23 ↗ Northwest would be constructed by the

1:02:24 ↗ developer, their needs.

1:02:27 ↗ Um, the other eastbound lane, the center

1:02:30 ↗ lane, the westbound lanes, and their

1:02:33 ↗ associated improvements would be

1:02:34 ↗ elevated uh prior to establishing an

1:02:37 ↗ intersection on Gilman before crossing

1:02:40 ↗ I90

1:02:42 ↗ and then landing in an extension of 11th

1:02:44 ↗ A Northwest.

1:02:46 ↗ Um, and here I'm showing a a comparable

1:02:49 ↗ front edge road design employed on the

1:02:51 ↗ north side of T-Mobile.

1:02:53 ↗ you kind of see them elsewhere along the

1:02:55 ↗ region, but I wanted to show one that

1:02:57 ↗ maybe we've seen as Mariner fans attend

1:03:00 ↗ the games. They can see Royal Bome and

1:03:03 ↗ and the improvements there. Um,

1:03:08 ↗ as we were looking at this alternative,

1:03:09 ↗ other refinements were made besides the

1:03:11 ↗ frontage road at grade. Uh, we kind of

1:03:14 ↗ straightened out the alignment a bit. um

1:03:17 ↗ as well as wanted to minimize

1:03:20 ↗ uh remaining parcels that maybe become

1:03:24 ↗ uneconomical or uh are not kind of

1:03:28 ↗ positioned for highest and best used. Uh

1:03:30 ↗ so this lands on more more uh it allows

1:03:35 ↗ for more development with the way we we

1:03:37 ↗ realigned it. Um and this alternative is

1:03:40 ↗ the administration's recommended

1:03:41 ↗ alternative as it meets the project

1:03:43 ↗ goals and evaluation criteria

1:03:46 ↗ uh by a decent uh margin as well. This

1:03:49 ↗ alternative maximizes the available

1:03:51 ↗ options along the I9 I90 corridor uh for

1:03:54 ↗ the light rail station and parking ride

1:03:56 ↗ uh due to the smaller footprint and the

1:03:59 ↗ uh strategic location of it.

1:04:06 ↗ This next alternative that was presented

1:04:07 ↗ last year was the Newport Way Northwest

1:04:09 ↗ to 11th a Northwest option.

1:04:13 ↗ Uh this ultimately was not selected as

1:04:15 ↗ one of the three that uh was

1:04:17 ↗ additionally, you know, refined. Uh

1:04:20 ↗ while the concept was interesting to

1:04:23 ↗ consider, it proved to be overly

1:04:24 ↗ impactful and expensive as well as

1:04:27 ↗ fallen short of a lot of our goals. Um,

1:04:30 ↗ this alternative originated from

1:04:32 ↗ exploring how to connect 11 A Northwest

1:04:35 ↗ in this vicinity and cross over Gilman

1:04:38 ↗ without raising it and the natural nexus

1:04:41 ↗ point was Maple and Newport.

1:04:45 ↗ However, this option was removed from

1:04:47 ↗ consideration.

1:04:50 ↗ The next alternative examined was the

1:04:54 ↗ Northwest Maple Street to Lake

1:04:56 ↗ Connection. This option leverages two

1:04:58 ↗ existing interceptions but would require

1:05:01 ↗ substantially raising I90 making making

1:05:05 ↗ it the sole undercrossing considered uh

1:05:08 ↗ in our study. This concept was reviewed

1:05:10 ↗ as part of our three potential options

1:05:12 ↗ and offers uh a compact alignment as

1:05:15 ↗ well. However, this option carries some

1:05:17 ↗ notable disadvantages. Um it's both

1:05:21 ↗ expensive and poses a higher degree of

1:05:23 ↗ risk compared to other crossings. Um, in

1:05:27 ↗ addition, it may inadvertently direct

1:05:30 ↗ traffic in unwanted areas, potentially

1:05:32 ↗ increasing uh pedestrian exposure along

1:05:35 ↗ the north side

1:05:37 ↗ uh of Lake Drive or also exagger

1:05:40 ↗ exaggerbating an existing challenge at

1:05:43 ↗ that roundabout on Maple.

1:05:46 ↗ Um,

1:05:48 ↗ a study found that this product is

1:05:50 ↗ feasible. would require the most

1:05:52 ↗ extensive set of approvals from external

1:05:55 ↗ agencies including washd and FHWA.

1:06:00 ↗ Um this concept may actually require an

1:06:02 ↗ ongoing pump which would serve as a

1:06:06 ↗ challenge for approvals.

1:06:08 ↗ Um and throughout the the study we have

1:06:11 ↗ met uh the the team has met a few times

1:06:14 ↗ uh with state washd officials and FHWA

1:06:18 ↗ as well as Sound Transit.

1:06:20 ↗ Uh the state officials noted that they

1:06:23 ↗ had not encountered a local agency

1:06:26 ↗ undertaking a project that would alter a

1:06:28 ↗ federal route like this to this uh

1:06:30 ↗ degree.

1:06:31 ↗ And while they wouldn't themselves say

1:06:34 ↗ we can't do it, they did express relief

1:06:36 ↗ once we uh mentioned that this was not

1:06:38 ↗ our selected alternative or preferred

1:06:40 ↗ alternative.

1:06:44 ↗ And the final crossing that was

1:06:46 ↗ presented last year was uh the Northwest

1:06:48 ↗ Maple Street to 11th A Northwest option.

1:06:52 ↗ This concept was also deemed too

1:06:54 ↗ disruptive and cost prohibitive and it

1:06:57 ↗ did not align with our goals and so

1:07:00 ↗ consequently this location was not

1:07:01 ↗ selected for further refinement.

1:07:09 ↗ So we've engaged with the public at

1:07:11 ↗ various stages of the study. Um,

1:07:14 ↗ initially we gathered high level input

1:07:16 ↗ via an online questionnaire asking

1:07:18 ↗ respondents about their current

1:07:20 ↗ commuting practices and transportation

1:07:23 ↗ needs for the future. We had about 700

1:07:26 ↗ replies for that. And then as the study

1:07:29 ↗ progressed, we hosted that in-person

1:07:32 ↗ public open house and we presented about

1:07:35 ↗ 20 boards there including the three uh

1:07:38 ↗ options that were selected for further

1:07:40 ↗ refinement.

1:07:42 ↗ I believe deputy council president uh

1:07:44 ↗ Barbara was there doing Michelle as

1:07:46 ↗ well. So thanks for attending that.

1:07:50 ↗ Um

1:07:52 ↗ and the feedback we received through the

1:07:54 ↗ community has been helpful um both at

1:07:58 ↗ the open house the and and meeting

1:08:00 ↗ privately or individually with with the

1:08:02 ↗ private property owners. Um, in several

1:08:05 ↗ instances, uh, participants recommended,

1:08:09 ↗ uh, an additional non-motorized crossing

1:08:11 ↗ to be considered. It is worth making a

1:08:14 ↗ note that the transportation improvement

1:08:16 ↗ plan has an unfunded non-motorized

1:08:18 ↗ crossing west of SR900 and Sound Transit

1:08:22 ↗ ST3 package did include a non-motorized

1:08:25 ↗ crossing as part of their voting

1:08:27 ↗ package. Um,

1:08:30 ↗ another recurring theme was that we

1:08:31 ↗ needed to enhance connectivity between

1:08:33 ↗ the northern and southern sections of

1:08:36 ↗ the commercial areas. We very strongly

1:08:39 ↗ concur with. Uh, we did have a few

1:08:42 ↗ comment that 11th to 11th

1:08:45 ↗ does this the best. Um,

1:08:48 ↗ and some participants stressed the

1:08:51 ↗ importance of the of making sure we have

1:08:54 ↗ a reasonable distance between crossings.

1:08:57 ↗ This would apply mostly to the uh 12th A

1:09:00 ↗ Northwest to 11th crossing, the first

1:09:03 ↗ one that I presented.

1:09:05 ↗ Um, however, that their distance between

1:09:08 ↗ 17th and 12th is substantial enough

1:09:10 ↗ where we feel that would be enough.

1:09:12 ↗ However, it wasn't our preferred

1:09:14 ↗ alternative. Um, and finally, we did

1:09:16 ↗ hear that the uh maple to lake crossing

1:09:19 ↗ alternative could worsen pedestrian

1:09:21 ↗ crossings as as mentioned previously. Um

1:09:28 ↗ so the uh administr we presented uh the

1:09:31 ↗ recommended crossing location to the tab

1:09:34 ↗ actually been there multiple times but

1:09:36 ↗ we've been there more recently. Uh by

1:09:39 ↗ the conclusion of our presentations,

1:09:40 ↗ members of the board reached a consensus

1:09:43 ↗ in support of the recommended 11th a to

1:09:45 ↗ north 11th a to 11th a north northwest

1:09:48 ↗ crossing and provided valuable insight

1:09:51 ↗ for improvement including integrating

1:09:55 ↗ non-motorized connections to 11th a

1:09:57 ↗ northwest on the south side.

1:09:59 ↗ Additionally,

1:10:01 ↗ um both board feedback and public

1:10:03 ↗ comments that night confirmed or uh

1:10:06 ↗ mentioned that they would like to see

1:10:08 ↗ this crossing um somehow as a part of

1:10:11 ↗ the light rail project.

1:10:14 ↗ Um and I I don't have a slide for it,

1:10:17 ↗ but we also did present to the Economic

1:10:19 ↗ Vitality Commission as they requested a

1:10:22 ↗ project update and they also support the

1:10:24 ↗ crossing location.

1:10:32 ↗ this side and uh one of the attachments

1:10:34 ↗ uh provides an overview of the

1:10:36 ↗ evaluation for each crossing location.

1:10:39 ↗ Uh this figure does have a lot to it,

1:10:41 ↗ but it illustrates why 11th A to 11th A

1:10:44 ↗ Northwest was the alternative selected.

1:10:47 ↗ Um I'll mention it does offer the most

1:10:50 ↗ options for sound transit along uh the

1:10:53 ↗ I90 corridor. It provides safe and

1:10:56 ↗ efficient accommodations for

1:10:58 ↗ non-motorized users.

1:11:01 ↗ Initial traffic models show that each

1:11:02 ↗ alternative move traffic pretty

1:11:04 ↗ similarly.

1:11:06 ↗ Maple Lake may move a little more, but

1:11:08 ↗ again, they're all pretty relatively

1:11:10 ↗ close to one another.

1:11:12 ↗ Um, and Maple Lake may be moving

1:11:16 ↗ vehicles to areas not desirable.

1:11:20 ↗ Um but e each crossing location scored

1:11:24 ↗ relatively well in the congestion relief

1:11:26 ↗ category.

1:11:28 ↗ Um the length of the 12th to 11th a adds

1:11:32 ↗ to the cost and restricts options for

1:11:35 ↗ light rail relative to 11th to 11th and

1:11:38 ↗ the longer and cumbersome crossings tend

1:11:40 ↗ to deter pedestrian and cyclist use

1:11:42 ↗ which inadvertently u encourages greater

1:11:45 ↗ reliance on automobiles. Uh this is

1:11:48 ↗ counter to the goals outlined in the

1:11:50 ↗ climate action plan which was also a

1:11:52 ↗ category we used when reviewing

1:11:54 ↗ alternatives. Um the goals in the

1:11:56 ↗ climate action plan

1:11:59 ↗ uh seeks to reduce vehicle miles

1:12:01 ↗ traveled and decrease overall vehicle

1:12:03 ↗ use from a percentage perspective.

1:12:06 ↗ While each alternative uh contributes to

1:12:09 ↗ these objectives, the 11th A to 11th A

1:12:11 ↗ option does it the most effectively. And

1:12:14 ↗ finally, and arguably most importantly,

1:12:18 ↗ 11th AB Northwest to 11th AB Northwest

1:12:21 ↗ is the most constructible and fundable.

1:12:25 ↗ It's less expensive and less disruptive

1:12:27 ↗ than some of the other options, which

1:12:30 ↗ reinforces the preference for this

1:12:32 ↗ choice.

1:12:35 ↗ Um, so the project team, the consultant

1:12:38 ↗ team has developed some re renderings to

1:12:40 ↗ help visualize this crossing. Uh this

1:12:43 ↗ first rendering was taken from the south

1:12:45 ↗ side of the growth center along Gilman

1:12:48 ↗ Bullish Boulevard. Here you can kind of

1:12:50 ↗ see the uh bypass lane at grade and then

1:12:54 ↗ the elevation increase of Gilman

1:12:57 ↗ um crossing into Pickering Place. The

1:13:01 ↗ clearance requirements over I90 is 16

1:13:03 ↗ 1/2 ft and so the elevation gain is

1:13:06 ↗ considerable. However, Gilman would be

1:13:09 ↗ raised in a thoughtful and strategic

1:13:10 ↗ manner manner to help, you know, make

1:13:13 ↗ sure it's traversible and and useful

1:13:14 ↗ still. Uh that the concept shows a 5%

1:13:18 ↗ grade on either side of it. Hey, Greg,

1:13:20 ↗ really quick question for you. Um I see

1:13:23 ↗ the frontage road on the south side of

1:13:24 ↗ the of the ramp up. Is there a

1:13:27 ↗ corresponding one on the other side that

1:13:29 ↗ I just can't see in the rendering? The

1:13:31 ↗ westbound lanes all go up. Okay. So I

1:13:34 ↗ can make a a left turn into Hobby Lobby.

1:13:38 ↗ You right now you could not know or with

1:13:42 ↗ this. Yeah. Okay. No, you have to go

1:13:43 ↗ down 12th and then turn. Okay. I which

1:13:45 ↗ is I guess what I now I could turn in

1:13:48 ↗ there. Okay.

1:13:51 ↗ Thanks. I don't remember if this

1:13:54 ↗ location I think that one does have a

1:13:55 ↗ left turn but a lot of you know

1:13:57 ↗ connections to Gilman are are right in

1:13:59 ↗ right out and yeah so essentially Hobby

1:14:01 ↗ Lobby would become right in right out

1:14:03 ↗ there as well.

1:14:04 ↗ But that parcel is so big, basically

1:14:07 ↗ takes up the entire screen on the south

1:14:10 ↗ that um if that developed, they'd have

1:14:13 ↗ connection points. They'd have

1:14:14 ↗ intersections to to use. And a lot of

1:14:17 ↗ these big private developments like to

1:14:19 ↗ have their driveways um and off the main

1:14:21 ↗ road.

1:14:26 ↗ And it also, sorry, it also looks like

1:14:28 ↗ that approach doesn't really disrupt

1:14:30 ↗ existing buildings either on the South

1:14:34 ↗ side of 90, right? That's all kind of

1:14:36 ↗ Yep. open space. Okay. Yeah. I don't

1:14:38 ↗ know if we'd have to buy any property

1:14:40 ↗ rights for this except maybe some

1:14:41 ↗ temporary construction easements on the

1:14:43 ↗ south side.

1:14:46 ↗ Great. Thanks. Yep.

1:14:49 ↗ And the the reason why the all the

1:14:50 ↗ westbound lane the westbound lanes were

1:14:53 ↗ all elevated is it saves some space

1:14:55 ↗ raising one and leaving the other grade.

1:14:57 ↗ You got to account for the barrier and

1:14:58 ↗ some shy distance off of that. And so

1:15:00 ↗ this keeps us kind of within our

1:15:01 ↗ existing rightaway limits.

1:15:05 ↗ However, we could explore later the

1:15:07 ↗ missetape buying properties.

1:15:11 ↗ Um though this rendering was taken

1:15:13 ↗ slightly farther west uh showcases the

1:15:16 ↗ crossing in relation to the

1:15:18 ↗ intersection. Uh this view highlights

1:15:21 ↗ the space underneath Gilman which could

1:15:23 ↗ serve as a designated open area for

1:15:26 ↗ future amenities. uh this exact use

1:15:29 ↗ could be determined in the future

1:15:31 ↗ although alternatively it could all just

1:15:32 ↗ be fill and help reduce costs.

1:15:41 ↗ This is the third rendering uh in the

1:15:44 ↗ presentation tonight third and final. Uh

1:15:47 ↗ this offers a north side perspective uh

1:15:49 ↗ depicting the crossing into Pickering

1:15:52 ↗ Place area north of I90.

1:15:54 ↗ And this alignment connects to the

1:15:56 ↗ existing 11th AB Northwest uh providing

1:16:00 ↗ access on both sides of the crossing.

1:16:08 ↗ And some additional considerations for

1:16:10 ↗ the recommended crossing are illustrated

1:16:11 ↗ in some of these photos. I'll start with

1:16:14 ↗ the top left and proceed c clockwise. Uh

1:16:18 ↗ so the top left image highlights two

1:16:22 ↗ non-motorized connection types that we

1:16:24 ↗ could consider for 111 A

1:16:28 ↗ on the south side of I90.

1:16:31 ↗ Non-motorized connections are not

1:16:33 ↗ subject to the clearance requirements

1:16:35 ↗ that vehicles require. So there's

1:16:38 ↗ flexibility in in how to design and

1:16:40 ↗ implement these. Uh this image shows one

1:16:43 ↗ ramping down and then kind of further

1:16:45 ↗ away from that bridge. You can see the

1:16:48 ↗ spiral option. I don't believe that

1:16:50 ↗ would be necessary here

1:16:54 ↗ but it's an option I suppose.

1:16:56 ↗ Um additionally this image shows a

1:17:00 ↗ bridge deck could be constructed with a

1:17:02 ↗ reduced depth which would shorten the uh

1:17:06 ↗ length of

1:17:09 ↗ the ramps on Gilman.

1:17:11 ↗ Uh it does so by instead of having the

1:17:14 ↗ structure underneath the road, it it

1:17:16 ↗ does so with these arches and and

1:17:20 ↗ basically a tension bridge. Um

1:17:22 ↗ determining the bridge type, size, and

1:17:24 ↗ location. It's typically done in the

1:17:26 ↗ engineering phase early on alongside

1:17:29 ↗ with a more detailed and uh alignment

1:17:33 ↗ study as well determine the exact

1:17:36 ↗ positioning.

1:17:38 ↗ The larger image, the photo on the

1:17:40 ↗ right, uh reinforces kind of feasibility

1:17:44 ↗ of preserving existing uses um while

1:17:47 ↗ integrating crossing. Uh in particular,

1:17:50 ↗ if development doesn't occur prior to

1:17:52 ↗ the crossing on the Pickering site on

1:17:54 ↗ the north side of I90, the existing

1:17:56 ↗ parking and access could be maintained

1:17:58 ↗ in a similar manner shown in this image.

1:18:03 ↗ Kind of center bottom colorful image. Uh

1:18:06 ↗ this is intended to demonstrate

1:18:08 ↗ effective use of lighting as a

1:18:09 ↗ cost-effective urban design tool. We

1:18:12 ↗ could do something a little different

1:18:13 ↗ than this. Um I wanted to show what some

1:18:17 ↗ other uh bridges are doing. And the

1:18:20 ↗ other uh item to highlight here is as we

1:18:24 ↗ know more about the station location. uh

1:18:26 ↗ instead of having the standard core

1:18:29 ↗ street cross-section, we could look at

1:18:31 ↗ getting all the non-motorized on one

1:18:33 ↗ side of the street instead of having it

1:18:36 ↗ split directionally.

1:18:38 ↗ Um and then finally, the bottom left

1:18:41 ↗ image communicates that the area beneath

1:18:44 ↗ the intersection of the raised Gilman

1:18:48 ↗ and 11th uh could be repurposed as a

1:18:50 ↗ public amenity.

1:18:52 ↗ Um, potential uses include bike parking,

1:18:55 ↗ uh, stair accessing the crossing or

1:18:58 ↗ other public amenity uses such as this

1:19:01 ↗ foundation and public plaza area.

1:19:12 ↗ Here we're showing the uh potential

1:19:14 ↗ schedule for implementation of this

1:19:16 ↗ project. Uh the draft CIP shows funds

1:19:20 ↗ for the project in 2027.

1:19:23 ↗ These are indeed given to the project

1:19:25 ↗ that would be used for the initial

1:19:26 ↗ engineering phase to solidify the

1:19:29 ↗ details of the alignment, determine the

1:19:31 ↗ type, size, and location of the crossing

1:19:33 ↗ uh while positioning the project to tap

1:19:36 ↗ into funding opportunities externally.

1:19:39 ↗ Uh the schedule shows completing

1:19:41 ↗ competing for a design grant in 2028

1:19:45 ↗ which allocates funds a few years out

1:19:47 ↗ typically. So then design would pick

1:19:50 ↗ back up in 2031 if the grant was

1:19:52 ↗ successful.

1:19:54 ↗ Uh given the complexity of the project,

1:19:57 ↗ expected an extended design phase that

1:19:59 ↗ will include substantial environmental

1:20:01 ↗ permitting

1:20:04 ↗ in particular some of the six PPDQ of

1:20:07 ↗ the tire um

1:20:10 ↗ debris that's impacting all the all the

1:20:12 ↗ fish

1:20:14 ↗ that that the state fingers crossed does

1:20:17 ↗ have a plan in place to help reduce

1:20:19 ↗ these uh review times

1:20:22 ↗ um which we're hoping to get on a

1:20:24 ↗ separate project. However, that's not

1:20:26 ↗ quite yet available.

1:20:28 ↗ Um,

1:20:31 ↗ once the design uh reaches a mature

1:20:33 ↗ phase, the project will then pursue the

1:20:35 ↗ necessary property rights and

1:20:38 ↗ acquisitions which is reflected in this

1:20:41 ↗ tenative schedule in the mid to late

1:20:44 ↗ 30s. And then following this uh final

1:20:47 ↗ design would be complete and begin

1:20:50 ↗ preparing the project for construction

1:20:52 ↗ with work anticipated to start in the

1:20:54 ↗ 2040 time frame.

1:20:57 ↗ Since the light rail is scheduled to

1:20:58 ↗ commence operation in 2044, there

1:21:01 ↗ remains significant uh work that would

1:21:05 ↗ need to be complete beforehand. The

1:21:08 ↗ schedule gives us about two years of

1:21:09 ↗ float.

1:21:11 ↗ Um and here's a couple images

1:21:13 ↗ illustrating other agencies

1:21:16 ↗ completing work um after the

1:21:18 ↗ implementation of the light rail and the

1:21:20 ↗ operation of the light rail. Top image

1:21:22 ↗ shows the shoreline

1:21:24 ↗ uh enhancements and the bottom one is

1:21:27 ↗ Belleview's 130th corridor operating in

1:21:30 ↗ a one oneway direction uh after the

1:21:33 ↗ light rails opened. Um the goal of this

1:21:38 ↗ schedule is to show a completed project

1:21:40 ↗ prior to operations.

1:21:44 ↗ Um and although delays in the the

1:21:48 ↗ two-line are pretty well documented,

1:21:51 ↗ Sound Transit was actually significantly

1:21:53 ↗ ahead of schedule. Uh their SO work,

1:21:56 ↗ both station uh construction as well as

1:22:00 ↗ uh the main alignments uh were completed

1:22:02 ↗ about a year in advance.

1:22:04 ↗ Um, and they anticipated opening those

1:22:08 ↗ early prior to the issues that later

1:22:10 ↗ emerged on the the I90 bridge deck.

1:22:15 ↗ And I just made a note here that the

1:22:18 ↗ current planning level cost estimate uh

1:22:20 ↗ for this concept is about 110 million in

1:22:23 ↗ 2025.

1:22:27 ↗ that includes design, permitting,

1:22:30 ↗ property acquisition, construction,

1:22:32 ↗ structure man.

1:22:35 ↗ Uh but that is $205 as well.

1:22:41 ↗ All right. So this slide outlines some

1:22:43 ↗ of the various funding opportunities

1:22:45 ↗ available for this project uh

1:22:47 ↗ categorized into grants, local funding,

1:22:50 ↗ and other sources for grants. Both

1:22:53 ↗ Shoreline and King County have

1:22:55 ↗ successfully secured, they're calling

1:22:57 ↗ build grants now, better utilizing

1:22:59 ↗ investments to leverage developments.

1:23:02 ↗ These have been previously called the

1:23:04 ↗ Tiger Grant or RAZ grant.

1:23:07 ↗ These these grants are extremely

1:23:09 ↗ competitive. However, this project is

1:23:12 ↗ well positioned to be competitive for

1:23:13 ↗ one of these.

1:23:15 ↗ Um the administration has more

1:23:17 ↗ experience with other funding avenues

1:23:19 ↗ through the state's transportation

1:23:21 ↗ improvement board as well as Pettown

1:23:23 ↗ Regional Council's uh grants which offer

1:23:26 ↗ grants in the 5 to6 million range. Uh

1:23:30 ↗ the PSRC in particular can issue

1:23:33 ↗ multiple grants across different phases

1:23:35 ↗ of the project. We could potentially see

1:23:38 ↗ a design

1:23:42 ↗ grant, a ride ofway acquisition grant,

1:23:44 ↗ and a construction grant through PSRC.

1:23:48 ↗ And while the TIB grants typically

1:23:50 ↗ assist projects that are ready for

1:23:52 ↗ implementation, but require supplemental

1:23:54 ↗ funds,

1:23:57 ↗ many of these grants require a local

1:23:58 ↗ match, which could be provided through

1:24:00 ↗ the traffic impact fees. And then other

1:24:03 ↗ potential funding sources include

1:24:05 ↗ private contributions

1:24:07 ↗ and legislative appropriations which can

1:24:10 ↗ be given to larger projects. So this

1:24:12 ↗ would necessitate advocacy with the

1:24:14 ↗ state legislators.

1:24:16 ↗ Um opportunities may arise through

1:24:20 ↗ rightway dedications from potential

1:24:22 ↗ developments.

1:24:24 ↗ There could be opportunities to

1:24:25 ↗ collaborate with Sound Transit to

1:24:26 ↗ achieve mutually bene beneficial

1:24:29 ↗ outcomes.

1:24:31 ↗ uh completing this study and achieving a

1:24:33 ↗ kind of the 10% milestone

1:24:35 ↗ shown in the 2027 CIP essential for ex

1:24:39 ↗ securing these rightaway dedications and

1:24:42 ↗ will position the city uh then staff to

1:24:47 ↗ uh apply

1:24:49 ↗ more effectively for the federal and

1:24:50 ↗ state grant opportunities.

1:24:55 ↗ All right. So, the recommend back to the

1:24:57 ↗ recommendation I guess first time you

1:24:59 ↗ probably seen the recommendation for

1:25:00 ↗ tonight is to seek full endorsement uh

1:25:03 ↗ from

1:25:05 ↗ seek full endorsement from the city

1:25:06 ↗ council for the 11th a northwest to 11th

1:25:09 ↗ Avenue Northwest at the July 21st

1:25:14 ↗ regular city council meeting.

1:25:16 ↗ Establishing a preferred crossing

1:25:17 ↗ location will provide a solid foundation

1:25:20 ↗ for the project and clear direction

1:25:21 ↗ ahead.

1:25:23 ↗ uh going into the engineering phase once

1:25:25 ↗ funded.

1:25:28 ↗ The next steps for the study is to meet

1:25:32 ↗ next month at the full city council and

1:25:34 ↗ to finalize and conclude study later

1:25:37 ↗ this fall.

1:25:39 ↗ In fact, here's the last slide. The

1:25:40 ↗ direction that administration is seeking

1:25:43 ↗ from the committee this evening is to

1:25:44 ↗ provide feedback on the recommended

1:25:46 ↗ location. Additionally, we seek your

1:25:49 ↗ support for the location and overall

1:25:51 ↗ crossing approach before proceeding with

1:25:53 ↗ advancement to the full city council.

1:25:57 ↗ Thanks. Great. Any questions? Questions?

1:26:00 ↗ No questions? No questions. Okay. Um,

1:26:03 ↗ anybody uh online?

1:26:07 ↗ There is not. Sorry. I thought they'd

1:26:08 ↗ tune in for this one, but I guess not.

1:26:11 ↗ Um, okay. Then we will, um,

1:26:15 ↗ we'll talk about this for a bit then

1:26:16 ↗ because I think this is pretty exciting.

1:26:18 ↗ Barb, you want to start us?

1:26:21 ↗ So, uh, so thank you, Greg, for that

1:26:23 ↗ presentation and, um, and I did, uh,

1:26:27 ↗ attend the open house and I think I put

1:26:30 ↗ my thought on the on the preferred

1:26:33 ↗ alternative. So, so however, uh I don't

1:26:38 ↗ feel and I don't feel that the council

1:26:41 ↗ is ready yet ready to make a decision.

1:26:44 ↗ Um this is a substantial decision, uh

1:26:48 ↗ involving a lot of money and a lot of

1:26:50 ↗ commitment. And so, uh and we received a

1:26:54 ↗ letter, I think you were CCed on it

1:26:55 ↗ today, saying asking us to slow down and

1:27:00 ↗ maybe, um, you know, coordinate better.

1:27:03 ↗ So, I'd love to hear some feedback on on

1:27:06 ↗ that letter. Uh and but even without

1:27:10 ↗ that consideration,

1:27:12 ↗ uh I am wondering if we can

1:27:15 ↗ um set up an opportunity for the whole

1:27:19 ↗ council to do like a work study session

1:27:22 ↗ or a we used to call them sharetses or

1:27:26 ↗ you know somewhere where the whole

1:27:28 ↗ council could dig into this project

1:27:30 ↗ because I I don't feel like we should be

1:27:33 ↗ making a $110 million

1:27:36 ↗ decision.

1:27:37 ↗ on just a couple of presentations or or

1:27:40 ↗ you know there's so much to consider

1:27:42 ↗ here. A couple of thoughts on the the

1:27:46 ↗ presentation

1:27:47 ↗ if as if we decide to go forward with

1:27:50 ↗ doing a little bit deeper with the

1:27:51 ↗ council. Um I think some of the the um

1:27:55 ↗ renderings are so graphic. Uh so Council

1:27:59 ↗ Member Ray was asking, you know, could

1:28:01 ↗ you make a left at Hobby Lobby? I would

1:28:03 ↗ love to see like a little graphic that

1:28:05 ↗ had, you know, a little Hobby Lobby and

1:28:07 ↗ a little, you know, where exactly is

1:28:10 ↗ this? What exactly is it going to take

1:28:12 ↗ out? What exactly would it look like in

1:28:14 ↗ Isiqua? Uh, if I'm even thinking, gosh,

1:28:17 ↗ could we go over there and walk the

1:28:19 ↗ ground and kind of look at, you know,

1:28:20 ↗ where would this come in and and do that

1:28:23 ↗ kind of in-depth look at it? Um, and I

1:28:28 ↗ mean the logic that you provided is

1:28:30 ↗ absolutely, like I said, I put my dot on

1:28:32 ↗ on the preferred alternative. The logic

1:28:34 ↗ of it and is really clear. I just feel

1:28:37 ↗ like the council has not had the

1:28:38 ↗ opportunity to dig in, ask all the

1:28:41 ↗ questions that they want to ask, really

1:28:43 ↗ get a sense of, you know, what this is

1:28:45 ↗ going to look like and how is this going

1:28:47 ↗ to change the character of of Isiqua

1:28:50 ↗ because it it will change the character

1:28:52 ↗ of that of that corridor. Uh and then I

1:28:56 ↗ would love to hear, you know, some kind

1:28:58 ↗ of response to the letter that we

1:28:59 ↗ received. Uh why do we need to make this

1:29:03 ↗ this decision uh on July the 21st? Uh

1:29:07 ↗ what's the urgency here? Can we put it

1:29:09 ↗ off a little bit and you know again dig

1:29:11 ↗ deeper a little bit? Um or is there an

1:29:14 ↗ important reason why the decision should

1:29:16 ↗ be made now so that we can coordinate

1:29:18 ↗ with Sound Transit better or present our

1:29:21 ↗ case better? I mean, what's the case for

1:29:23 ↗ making the decision now? Um, so, um,

1:29:27 ↗ that's my feedback is great job up until

1:29:30 ↗ now, but I'm just and I haven't, of

1:29:33 ↗ course, talked to any of my other

1:29:34 ↗ council members, so I don't know, maybe

1:29:36 ↗ they're feeling ready. So, uh, maybe we

1:29:38 ↗ need to go back to council leadership

1:29:40 ↗ and do sort of a a you know, just a

1:29:43 ↗ temperature testing uh to see how the

1:29:46 ↗ other council members feel. But from my

1:29:48 ↗ own point of view, I'm looking at the

1:29:50 ↗ the price tag on this project and

1:29:52 ↗ thinking, gee, I just don't want to make

1:29:54 ↗ this based on just a couple of meetings

1:29:56 ↗ and a couple of conversations. So,

1:29:58 ↗ that's my feedback on that. Thanks. All

1:30:01 ↗ right, I'll I'll kind of jump around a

1:30:03 ↗ bit here and maybe answer your question,

1:30:05 ↗ maybe not. Um, so in terms of the

1:30:08 ↗ letter, I I agree with a lot of the

1:30:10 ↗ points in there. Um, and essentially, we

1:30:13 ↗ got two options.

1:30:16 ↗ A lot of that letter was meant uh to

1:30:19 ↗ basically wait for the Sound Transit to

1:30:21 ↗ identify their location.

1:30:24 ↗ While I I understand that and there's a

1:30:26 ↗ lot of logic to it, um the downside of

1:30:29 ↗ that is waiting multiple years also

1:30:33 ↗ increase project costs. Um, as well as

1:30:36 ↗ working ahead of Sound Transit, while

1:30:39 ↗ difficult,

1:30:40 ↗ could be arguably preferable than

1:30:43 ↗ working behind them, which I've had

1:30:45 ↗ experience with. Once they get going,

1:30:48 ↗ you're, for lack of a better term, left

1:30:50 ↗ with their scraps. They don't have the

1:30:52 ↗ capacity to deal with each individual

1:30:55 ↗ issue or goal or everything we want from

1:30:59 ↗ Central Isqua. going to go go fast and

1:31:02 ↗ we may not get exactly what we want out

1:31:04 ↗ of them. Um,

1:31:08 ↗ and in terms of another example is um

1:31:11 ↗ acquiring property after Sound Transit

1:31:14 ↗ is extremely difficult.

1:31:16 ↗ They're extremely quick and take these

1:31:19 ↗ folks to court quickly because they

1:31:21 ↗ can't negotiate with each individual

1:31:23 ↗ parcel and they have what's called a

1:31:26 ↗ special benefits argument. So, if your

1:31:29 ↗ property is worth $50 a square foot

1:31:31 ↗ before the light rail uh station and

1:31:34 ↗ $100 after a light rail station's

1:31:36 ↗ nearby, well, that the project they

1:31:39 ↗ argue in court successfully is that

1:31:41 ↗ they're adding so much property value

1:31:43 ↗ that they don't have to pay much for

1:31:44 ↗ those property values. And then when

1:31:46 ↗ when the city comes in afterwards,

1:31:49 ↗ uh we're kind of negotiating with

1:31:50 ↗ property owners that a little upset with

1:31:53 ↗ the compensation they got, the way they

1:31:55 ↗ were treated. At least that's been some

1:31:56 ↗ experience that I've had with with

1:31:57 ↗ dealing after Sound Transit. And the

1:32:00 ↗ reason why a lot of those agencies are

1:32:01 ↗ behind the opening of light rail is

1:32:04 ↗ Sound Transit will procure large uh

1:32:07 ↗ temporary construction easements making

1:32:09 ↗ the improvements in feasible until after

1:32:12 ↗ they're done. So that's one way an

1:32:15 ↗ argument to stay ahead of them. Um I

1:32:18 ↗ think for the context of this particular

1:32:21 ↗ study, uh the vehicles will kind of go

1:32:25 ↗ where the crossing is and if Sound

1:32:28 ↗ Transit decides they don't want the KN

1:32:30 ↗ or the the light rail station anywhere

1:32:32 ↗ near this one.

1:32:34 ↗ I don't know if they would go further

1:32:35 ↗ downstream because that's going to cost

1:32:37 ↗ them more money and more time and so

1:32:39 ↗ they'd be going elsewhere within the

1:32:40 ↗ growth center and they'd also be on the

1:32:42 ↗ hook to potentially provide another

1:32:44 ↗ non-motorized crossing.

1:32:47 ↗ So while I agree with everything in that

1:32:48 ↗ letter, uh there's just I think more to

1:32:51 ↗ consider for us than than just that.

1:32:55 ↗ Um additionally I kind of wrote down

1:32:57 ↗ some costs in 2025.

1:33:01 ↗ Um 110 million is

1:33:05 ↗ uh I guess 110 million in 20 uh let's

1:33:10 ↗ see here 2030 it jumps to 127 so you get

1:33:14 ↗ a $17 million bump. If you wait another

1:33:17 ↗ five years it's another 20 million and

1:33:19 ↗ then if you wait another five years it's

1:33:21 ↗ another 23 million. So the costs not

1:33:24 ↗ only go up they increase in the rate

1:33:26 ↗ that they go up.

1:33:28 ↗ I appreciate your response and uh

1:33:32 ↗ especially your response of having

1:33:33 ↗ worked with Sound Transit. Yes, I think

1:33:36 ↗ that that experience is going to do us

1:33:39 ↗ uh a lot of good. So anyway, thank you

1:33:41 ↗ for for your response. Thanks. Yep. As

1:33:45 ↗ far as the shred, I'd be happy to

1:33:47 ↗ provide any additional information we

1:33:49 ↗ can. We don't want you to be forced into

1:33:52 ↗ a decision you're not ready to make.

1:33:53 ↗ even if you ultimately come to agreement

1:33:56 ↗ with us or if you come to a different

1:33:57 ↗ that's all good but if if it's too early

1:33:59 ↗ then we're happy to

1:34:02 ↗ so I've got a completely different take

1:34:04 ↗ well on part of it I'm I'm absolutely

1:34:06 ↗ agree with you that's the optimal over

1:34:09 ↗ or approach to getting across I90 is the

1:34:11 ↗ 11 to11 overpassing um I just don't see

1:34:15 ↗ how this is ever going to pencil out I

1:34:16 ↗ mean I just don't mean to be Debbie

1:34:18 ↗ Downer but the political climate is not

1:34:21 ↗ such that we're going to see a great uh

1:34:23 ↗ grundle of money coming from the state

1:34:25 ↗ to fund this. Sound Transit, I would be

1:34:28 ↗ shocked if they are going to fund it.

1:34:29 ↗ So, if we're looking at build grants,

1:34:31 ↗ TIP grants and PSRC grants, maybe we get

1:34:35 ↗ a third of the cost of this project um

1:34:38 ↗ to build it. And I just don't and so we

1:34:41 ↗ at least are going to have to ping up a

1:34:42 ↗ third. So, just make the math easier,

1:34:44 ↗ that's $40 million. And I just went

1:34:47 ↗ through a discussion last night about

1:34:49 ↗ the uh capital improvement plan. We

1:34:52 ↗ talked about things we can and we can't

1:34:53 ↗ afford. I just don't see how there's any

1:34:55 ↗ way we can afford to do this. Quite

1:34:58 ↗ honestly, unless there's a phenomenal

1:35:01 ↗ change in the political climate to say

1:35:03 ↗ we are all about um road projects, which

1:35:06 ↗ I have not seen on the horizon ever, um

1:35:10 ↗ I don't think there's any way this is

1:35:11 ↗ fundable for the city of Isiqua. Now, if

1:35:13 ↗ we think it's worth a hundred or $ 1.5

1:35:16 ↗ million in 27, which is what's in the

1:35:19 ↗ CIP to do the 10% study, and we think

1:35:21 ↗ that's the best use of the mitigation

1:35:24 ↗ fund, I guess I could say let's do that.

1:35:27 ↗ But I also think that it's money that is

1:35:29 ↗ probably never going to um those are

1:35:32 ↗ seeds we're going to plant that are

1:35:33 ↗ never going to grow. And so I don't I'm

1:35:35 ↗ excited. I want to be all over this

1:35:37 ↗ because I love having the idea of

1:35:38 ↗ another crossing over n I90 living here,

1:35:41 ↗ but I don't think there's any way in the

1:35:44 ↗ current political climate that's ever

1:35:46 ↗ going to get built. So the question is,

1:35:48 ↗ I think for the council, do you want to

1:35:50 ↗ do the 10% study because you want to? Um

1:35:56 ↗ recognizing that the probability is

1:35:57 ↗ pretty pretty low. So that's my take.

1:36:01 ↗ Uh, Council Member Duchelle, I don't

1:36:02 ↗ know kind of where your head and heart

1:36:04 ↗ is on that. Um, it's not for not wanting

1:36:08 ↗ I want it. I want it. I want it, but I

1:36:10 ↗ just don't see it's ever going to

1:36:11 ↗ happen.

1:36:13 ↗ Mr. Chair, Deputy Council President D.

1:36:16 ↗ Michelle, thank you so much for the uh

1:36:18 ↗ feedback tonight. Um,

1:36:21 ↗ this is an important project for the

1:36:23 ↗ community. Um, the financial issues that

1:36:27 ↗ the chair raises are real. Um, but this

1:36:30 ↗ is also a very long-term investment. I

1:36:33 ↗ think one of the themes you've heard

1:36:35 ↗ from us throughout these discussions,

1:36:37 ↗ not only with this, but also with light

1:36:39 ↗ rail itself, is this is a very long

1:36:41 ↗ game. Um, and that by by staging this,

1:36:45 ↗ by um, you know, spending appropriate

1:36:47 ↗ time to uh, work with stakeholders uh,

1:36:50 ↗ in the community in the region is

1:36:52 ↗ important. So at this point, the

1:36:54 ↗ administration would like to continue to

1:36:56 ↗ move forward with these discussions. Um

1:36:59 ↗ it probably makes sense to hold this in

1:37:03 ↗ committee right now rather than go back

1:37:05 ↗ to the full council in July. um and have

1:37:08 ↗ a discussion with the committee, have

1:37:10 ↗ the third member of the committee also

1:37:11 ↗ present uh and talk about what you'd

1:37:14 ↗ like to talk about with the council

1:37:15 ↗ because I think uh the issues you've

1:37:17 ↗ raised tonight about u you know what's

1:37:20 ↗ the council's expectations moving

1:37:22 ↗ forward, what additional community

1:37:23 ↗ touches might be needed, what's the gut

1:37:25 ↗ check quite frankly on the money, um

1:37:28 ↗ what is the timing and all this? um we

1:37:31 ↗ think it would be worthwhile for the

1:37:32 ↗ committee either at your meeting next

1:37:34 ↗ month or the next after that um to have

1:37:37 ↗ that discussion and then tee that up for

1:37:39 ↗ a discussion with the council um and

1:37:41 ↗ then see where that all goes. But again,

1:37:44 ↗ we feel this is an important long-term

1:37:46 ↗ project. Um yes, the political climate

1:37:49 ↗ does not lend itself to this uh but

1:37:51 ↗ political climates do change and Isakqua

1:37:54 ↗ is not going anywhere. And so uh we

1:37:57 ↗ would not want to lose this. I think

1:37:58 ↗ it's just a matter of what is the time

1:38:01 ↗ frame, what is the definition of

1:38:03 ↗ momentum. Um, and the definition of

1:38:05 ↗ momentum may be just a little bit

1:38:06 ↗ slower. Um, so that the circumstances do

1:38:10 ↗ change in the national government. Um,

1:38:12 ↗ and there is a funding possibility that

1:38:14 ↗ we will have had the community dialogue,

1:38:15 ↗ we will have had the initial work done

1:38:18 ↗ and we be ready to go. So

1:38:20 ↗ administration's recommendation this

1:38:21 ↗ evening would be rather than look at

1:38:23 ↗ what is has been proposed as an

1:38:25 ↗ alternate recommendation would be to

1:38:26 ↗ hold this in committee to have an

1:38:29 ↗ additional discussion of what you'd like

1:38:31 ↗ to talk about with the council and

1:38:32 ↗ either do that uh at your meeting in

1:38:34 ↗ July or uh in September.

1:38:38 ↗ Council member D Michelle, your

1:38:39 ↗ thoughts? Yeah,

1:38:43 ↗ I I like what the city administrator

1:38:45 ↗ said. Um, and I, you know, I certainly,

1:38:49 ↗ uh, I certainly think that this is a, a

1:38:52 ↗ project that we've got to pursue. So, I

1:38:54 ↗ just want to make that clear. Um, so I

1:38:58 ↗ was only raising the issue of how deeply

1:39:02 ↗ does the council understand this

1:39:04 ↗ project? And I, you know, I was the only

1:39:07 ↗ council member that was at that open

1:39:09 ↗ house and and so I've been staying up

1:39:12 ↗ with what's going on, but I'm just not

1:39:13 ↗ sure that the rest of the council's

1:39:14 ↗ there. So, I want to make sure everybody

1:39:16 ↗ has has a grounding in what's going on

1:39:20 ↗ here before we're presented with the um

1:39:24 ↗ possibility of making decision because I

1:39:25 ↗ want the decision to be a right one. So,

1:39:28 ↗ so but uh I I agree with the fact that

1:39:34 ↗ politics change. Uh I mean just a year

1:39:37 ↗ ago we were in a whole different

1:39:39 ↗ situation with an administration that

1:39:41 ↗ absolutely supports light rail

1:39:43 ↗ implementation. So, I mean it things can

1:39:46 ↗ change that quickly. So, I I want us to

1:39:48 ↗ be also poised to be able to take care

1:39:51 ↗ take advantage of opportunities as they

1:39:53 ↗ show up. So, um anyway, I hope I didn't

1:39:56 ↗ throw a wrench into everything, but I

1:39:58 ↗ really just don't feel like we're right

1:40:01 ↗ there that we're right there as a whole

1:40:03 ↗ council yet. So, my input. Thanks. No, I

1:40:07 ↗ think it's a great idea. We'll leave it

1:40:09 ↗ in committee. I think having some

1:40:10 ↗ additional um uh thoughts and

1:40:14 ↗ presentation and I also would like to

1:40:16 ↗ look at some stage gating that we might

1:40:18 ↗ implement. So recognizing that

1:40:22 ↗ there's a um who was it was the mayor of

1:40:25 ↗ San Francisco who uh had a tech

1:40:28 ↗ technique for getting big things done is

1:40:30 ↗ he would get uh sufficient amount of

1:40:33 ↗ investment that it was no longer

1:40:34 ↗ feasible to not move forward. And I

1:40:36 ↗ don't want to get there. I mean, I want

1:40:38 ↗ to be smart with the city's money and I

1:40:40 ↗ don't want to feel like we get jammed up

1:40:42 ↗ at some future date where it's like,

1:40:44 ↗ well, we're already $300 million in, so

1:40:46 ↗ what's another hundred million dollars?

1:40:48 ↗ So, um, I'm really concerned about the

1:40:52 ↗ dollars. I the idea is so excellent and

1:40:55 ↗ the location is wellconceived. It's just

1:40:58 ↗ it's a huge undertaking and I understand

1:41:01 ↗ the long-term prospects of it that we're

1:41:03 ↗ talking 20 years here. It's still a huge

1:41:05 ↗ amount of money for the city of Isqua.

1:41:07 ↗ So, let's bring it back.

1:41:10 ↗ All right.

1:41:12 ↗ Okay. I think that that's the plan for

1:41:15 ↗ that one. We won't move forward with the

1:41:16 ↗ city council. We'll bring it back to the

1:41:18 ↗ next uh mobility infrastructure

1:41:20 ↗ committee and we'll have three of us at

1:41:22 ↗ that one, I hope. Um and I think that's

1:41:26 ↗ great. Thanks, Greg. Really appreciate

1:41:28 ↗ the the presentation and the work. and

1:41:31 ↗ council member D. Michelle, any uh good

1:41:33 ↗ go to the order announcements?

1:41:36 ↗ Not right now. No, thank you. Yeah, then

1:41:39 ↗ we are. Mr. Chair, before you adjourn, I

1:41:41 ↗ just want to recognize Chris Gowski, the

1:41:44 ↗ deputy city clerk. He's right there. Um

1:41:46 ↗ I think this may be the last public

1:41:48 ↗ meeting he's been assigned to work

1:41:50 ↗ before he retires at the end of the

1:41:51 ↗ month. So, uh, on behalf of Mayor Paulie

1:41:54 ↗ and and all of our his fellow staff

1:41:56 ↗ members, um, we'll have opportunities to

1:41:58 ↗ fet him over the next couple weeks, but

1:42:01 ↗ this is the last, uh, public meeting

1:42:03 ↗ he's working. I just want to say thank

1:42:05 ↗ you, Chris, for your outstanding service

1:42:07 ↗ to this committee, uh, and to the city

1:42:09 ↗ of Esqua. Can can I, uh, uh, put an

1:42:12 ↗ endorsement on that? And, and thank you,

1:42:14 ↗ Chris, for all the great work that you

1:42:16 ↗ have done for both the whole council and

1:42:18 ↗ our committees um, over the years. It's

1:42:21 ↗ been uh an incredible pleasure working

1:42:23 ↗ with you and always always uh

1:42:26 ↗ knowledgeable and helpful and u makes

1:42:29 ↗ the process work so much better. So,

1:42:30 ↗ it's duly duly appreciated and noted.

1:42:33 ↗ Yeah, absolutely. Plus one just been an

1:42:36 ↗ absolute joy to work with you, Chris.

1:42:37 ↗ And we're going to miss you a lot. We're

1:42:39 ↗ going to miss you a lot, but you'll be

1:42:40 ↗ off having a great time. And so, uh, and

1:42:44 ↗ so we we wish you well, but, uh, it's

1:42:47 ↗ just been so, uh, pleasurable to have

1:42:50 ↗ you as our city clerk. And so, thank you

1:42:52 ↗ so much. Yeah.

1:42:55 ↗ All right. With that, for his last

1:42:57 ↗ meeting, we're going to turn at 8:13.

1:43:01 ↗ Oh, the screen turns green. And is that

1:43:04 ↗ a new ending to our TV shows?

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (2)

Barbara de Michele

Chris Reh

Staff (2)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Chris Grabowski, Deputy City Clerk

Excused

Russell Joe

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of May 14, 2025, were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
Committee members recommended that staff bring the item back to the July 15 Mobility & Infrastructure for further discussion.