City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, June 6, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 2, 2023

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:11 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 05-02-23 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. May 2, 2023 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Amendments to Title 18 re: Diversity of Housing ID 1402

30 min · Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.7–36

Topics: HousingLand UseEquity

Previously discussed: City Council Committee of the Whole · Apr 24, 2023

▶ Watch from 0:32 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Move the Strategy 8 proposed amendments forward to the June 26 Council meeting for action.

2235 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ hello welcome everyone to the city

0:08 ↗ council Planning Development and

0:09 ↗ environment Committee of the squad city

0:11 ↗ council I am here tonight my name is

0:13 ↗ councilmember hunt and I'm here tonight

0:15 ↗ with council president Walsh and Council

0:17 ↗ Deputy president Hall

0:21 ↗ um there will be multiple public comment

0:23 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting there

0:24 ↗ will be a general public comment

0:26 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:27 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:29 ↗ the presentation and committee question

0:30 ↗ and answer period on tonight's two

0:32 ↗ agenda items and as a reminder we

0:34 ↗ continue to have a remote aspect to our

0:36 ↗ meeting

0:38 ↗ I will note for the record that we have

0:40 ↗ no members of the public

0:42 ↗ in the audience at this time and I'll

0:45 ↗ check in with city clerk if we have any

0:47 ↗ members of the public online

0:50 ↗ chair hunt we have no virtual attendees

0:53 ↗ all right thank you very much then as a

0:55 ↗ reminder written comments can be

0:57 ↗ submitted at any time to city council at

0:58 ↗ issaquah.gov

1:01 ↗ and with that we will move on to our

1:04 ↗ first

1:06 ↗ item

1:11 ↗ which is approval of the minutes

1:13 ↗ and these are the minutes from the May

1:16 ↗ 2nd meeting do we have any um any

1:19 ↗ comments or concerns about those

1:21 ↗ all right then I moved to approve the

1:22 ↗ minutes of the May 2nd meeting all those

1:24 ↗ in favor please say aye

1:26 ↗ aye that passes unanimously and we will

1:29 ↗ move on to our first regular agenda item

1:32 ↗ which is id1402 amendments to Title 18

1:35 ↗ regarding diversity of housing and this

1:37 ↗ will be presented by Kristen Leeson

1:39 ↗ senior planner Kristen please take it

1:41 ↗ away

1:45 ↗ go good evening

1:48 ↗ I am Kristen Leeson senior planner

1:50 ↗ Community Development Community Planning

1:51 ↗ and Development Department

1:59 ↗ here we go

2:00 ↗ the purpose of tonight's meeting is to

2:03 ↗ you all to have you all reviews review

2:05 ↗ our proposed amendments to Title 18 and

2:08 ↗ then to make a recommendation to the

2:10 ↗ full Council

2:13 ↗ same direction as needed well to get

2:16 ↗ feedback from you all and to make a

2:17 ↗ recommendation to council

2:20 ↗ so you've probably by this point

2:22 ↗ recognize the housing Continuum and just

2:24 ↗ as a reminder tonight we are talking

2:26 ↗ about the housing action work plan and

2:29 ↗ particularly this section here in Gold

2:32 ↗ uh market rate rental and ownership

2:35 ↗ housing

2:37 ↗ just a little background in 2017 we

2:39 ↗ adopted the housing action work plan

2:41 ↗ which has nine strategies in it

2:43 ↗ we have slowly been implementing it but

2:46 ↗ in 2022 received a grant a housing

2:49 ↗ action plan implementation Grant from

2:51 ↗ the Department of Commerce for a hundred

2:54 ↗ thousand dollars

2:55 ↗ with that our intent was to implement

2:58 ↗ strategies six which is inclusionary

3:00 ↗ zoning seven which is

3:02 ↗ removing deterrence to condominium

3:04 ↗ development and eight which is diversity

3:06 ↗ of housing

3:08 ↗ we came to you all in April with our

3:11 ↗ findings on that and talked at a very

3:14 ↗ high level what we had found and our

3:16 ↗ overall

3:19 ↗ findings on this was that it's going to

3:21 ↗ require a bigger policy discussion there

3:23 ↗ are things we can fix in the development

3:25 ↗ code things that we cannot fix and

3:28 ↗ we need to finish the parking study

3:29 ↗ first before we can have a comprehensive

3:31 ↗ policy discussion about this and that's

3:33 ↗ 2024. so the direction from you all and

3:36 ↗ our recommendation in your direction was

3:38 ↗ to proceed with high-level amendments to

3:39 ↗ strategy eight

3:41 ↗ the strategy 8 diversity of housing says

3:44 ↗ to incorporate code Provisions to

3:46 ↗ increase the potential diversity of

3:48 ↗ housing types built in the city

3:52 ↗ the types that we looked at and as a

3:54 ↗ reminder we only looked at multiple

3:57 ↗ zones that include multi-family housing

3:59 ↗ mixed use and multi-family zones because

4:01 ↗ at the time we were anticipating

4:03 ↗ changes from the state regarding single

4:05 ↗ family and weren't ready to talk about

4:07 ↗ this yet because we didn't know what

4:08 ↗ they were going to require so in the

4:10 ↗ multi-family zones we looked at Cottage

4:12 ↗ housing Courtyard housing and micro

4:14 ↗ mutants

4:16 ↗ our immediate issues here were that we

4:18 ↗ had no definitions in the code and

4:20 ↗ they're not included or allowed as

4:22 ↗ permitted uses in the permitted uses

4:23 ↗ table

4:25 ↗ but really they could be built we just

4:27 ↗ we actually had a micro unit developer

4:30 ↗ come to us and say I would like to build

4:32 ↗ there but we can't and we didn't realize

4:33 ↗ it but you can we just it's not defined

4:35 ↗ and we don't know where you can do it so

4:37 ↗ that's what we're trying to do here

4:40 ↗ the first is the proposed definition for

4:43 ↗ cottage Housing Development which means

4:45 ↗ detached single-family housing in a

4:47 ↗ cluster of four to twelve dwelling units

4:49 ↗ around a central open space providing

4:51 ↗ residences for households that are no

4:53 ↗ larger than 1700 square feet

4:56 ↗ units may share use of common facilities

4:58 ↗ such as party room tool room Garden

5:00 ↗ Orchard Workshop or parking areas

5:05 ↗ next definition we're proposing is

5:07 ↗ Courtyard housing we used to call the

5:08 ↗ court where we were calling them

5:09 ↗ Courtyard Apartments and the planning

5:12 ↗ policy commission said well they could

5:13 ↗ be owned or minted so let's please call

5:14 ↗ it housing so that's what we've done it

5:16 ↗ means a development there's six or more

5:18 ↗ attached dwelling units located in one

5:20 ↗ or more buildings arranged in two or

5:22 ↗ three sides around a central Courtyard

5:24 ↗ or lawn area which all units have access

5:27 ↗ to developments are typically one to

5:29 ↗ three stories

5:32 ↗ last definition that we would include is

5:33 ↗ for micro units or and we double checked

5:36 ↗ a PPC the planning policy commission

5:38 ↗ asked if single room occupancies were

5:41 ↗ the same thing and we did some research

5:42 ↗ and talked to the City attorney and

5:43 ↗ indeed they are so we've included that

5:46 ↗ as well micro units or single room

5:48 ↗ occupancy means apartments that are no

5:50 ↗ more than 400 square feet these units

5:52 ↗ may include private bathroom and kitchen

5:54 ↗ spaces or have access to Shared kitchens

5:57 ↗ bathrooms and community space

6:01 ↗ our last Amendment would be to include

6:02 ↗ these in the table of permitted uses and

6:04 ↗ I apologize for the size of this it's

6:05 ↗ kind of small we propose that courtyard

6:08 ↗ housing be included in multi-family high

6:10 ↗ slash multi-family East Sunset

6:13 ↗ multi-family medium slash multi-family

6:15 ↗ Old Town

6:17 ↗ and mixed-use residential

6:20 ↗ that Cottage housing be allowed in

6:23 ↗ multi-family High multi-family High East

6:25 ↗ Sunset and multi-family medium

6:27 ↗ multi-family medium Old Town

6:30 ↗ and that micro units be allowed in the

6:32 ↗ mixed use residential mixed-use

6:34 ↗ centralized and urban core

6:39 ↗ our proposed next steps are that this

6:41 ↗ would go to the June 26 council meeting

6:43 ↗ for Council action

6:45 ↗ and I should note that in order to get

6:48 ↗ some of the funding that we got for the

6:49 ↗ grant that any amendments need to be

6:51 ↗ approved by June 30th

6:54 ↗ so again that's the end direction needed

6:56 ↗ is to provide feedback on the proposed

6:58 ↗ amendments and make a recommendation to

7:00 ↗ full City Council

7:01 ↗ thank you

7:05 ↗ okay great thank you we have any

7:07 ↗ questions

7:08 ↗ that's president Walsh thanks I know

7:12 ↗ during the PPC meeting they were talking

7:14 ↗ a little bit about whether where we

7:17 ↗ would

7:18 ↗ get the most use out of putting the

7:21 ↗ courtyard housing and how well it makes

7:26 ↗ sense in multi-family high

7:29 ↗ as far as it could be built there by

7:32 ↗ being built there it would actually

7:34 ↗ reduce the density so do we have any

7:39 ↗ feedback on that is is the sense that we

7:42 ↗ would still include it as a possibility

7:44 ↗ there but it just probably wouldn't get

7:46 ↗ built because if a developer had that

7:48 ↗ land they would want to build something

7:50 ↗ more dense correct I mean I that's

7:53 ↗ generally what they do is when I feel

7:54 ↗ when I you know get the biggest bang for

7:56 ↗ their Buck maybe it's a small lot there

7:58 ↗ are several single-family houses and

7:59 ↗ smaller developments in multi-family

8:01 ↗ high so you know this is uh multi-family

8:05 ↗ High sunset or East Sunset that's a

8:09 ↗ perfect location for this kind of thing

8:11 ↗ you know if they're generally the the

8:12 ↗ heights are lower on East Sunset so it

8:15 ↗ would that would be an ideal development

8:17 ↗ on there okay I was just trying to see

8:19 ↗ whether we felt like because we're

8:21 ↗ including in something that could be

8:23 ↗ more dense that we were kind of creating

8:25 ↗ a situation where we were going to get

8:28 ↗ less density by adding it in we also

8:30 ↗ allow single-family houses duplexes

8:33 ↗ triplexes and fourplexes so these are

8:35 ↗ actually a little bit more dense

8:37 ↗ thanks

8:43 ↗ do you have any other questions

8:47 ↗ okay

8:49 ↗ um so this was a question that came up

8:50 ↗ at PPC but

8:52 ↗ um has there been interest in these kind

8:54 ↗ of housing types and and also they were

8:56 ↗ allowed but

8:58 ↗ um you know have people come to the

9:00 ↗ Community Development department and

9:03 ↗ asked about this micro units I had

9:06 ↗ somebody asked me about that one time

9:07 ↗ and he said I'd like to do that there

9:09 ↗ but you all don't allow them and the

9:11 ↗ other one was Cottage housing and we've

9:12 ↗ had a couple of developers come in and

9:14 ↗ want to do that

9:18 ↗ thank you

9:22 ↗ all right I will check in there is still

9:24 ↗ no members of the community in the

9:27 ↗ audience are there any members of the

9:29 ↗ public online

9:31 ↗ chair hunt still no online attendees all

9:34 ↗ right then we will move into Council

9:37 ↗ discussion on this item

9:41 ↗ wash

9:43 ↗ I think adding definitions for something

9:46 ↗ that we are okay building and defining

9:48 ↗ where they can be built is a good thing

9:51 ↗ to do

9:52 ↗ whether this actually solves any of our

9:55 ↗ problems or really enables development I

9:59 ↗ don't know I feel slightly bad that this

10:03 ↗ is our response to the Happy Grant

10:06 ↗ but that being said

10:09 ↗ yes I agree that these are things to do

10:11 ↗ so

10:15 ↗ I can go next I feel

10:19 ↗ um similarly I was at the PPC meeting

10:22 ↗ for this topic

10:25 ↗ um went to thank them for their service

10:27 ↗ as volunteers to the city

10:28 ↗ um and then and then watch their

10:30 ↗ discussion on this topic and I think

10:31 ↗ they did a good job making sure that the

10:33 ↗ definitions were clear and

10:35 ↗ um and accessible

10:38 ↗ that said I think this is a very small

10:40 ↗ step and it would be good to take more

10:43 ↗ meaningful steps to address what is a

10:45 ↗ really big challenge for our community

10:47 ↗ which is the lack of

10:49 ↗ um housing diversity so uh my question I

10:53 ↗ guess would be therefore

10:55 ↗ what are the next steps you mentioned

10:58 ↗ the parking study but

11:00 ↗ in the in the intermediate time frame

11:03 ↗ are there things that we could look at

11:05 ↗ in this committee that

11:07 ↗ we could consider for increasing the

11:10 ↗ diversity of housing because this as as

11:12 ↗ has been stated this is adding

11:13 ↗ definitions but these were already

11:14 ↗ allowed in our code

11:16 ↗ so

11:18 ↗ we do have the

11:21 ↗ two single-family housing bills that

11:24 ↗ came up that were approved we have 11 10

11:26 ↗ and 1337 which both require that the

11:30 ↗ city allow

11:31 ↗ more units on anywhere where

11:34 ↗ single-family dwellings are allowed so

11:37 ↗ we need to be looking at that that one

11:38 ↗ doesn't have to go into effect until

11:40 ↗ January of 2025. but we're already

11:43 ↗ starting to look at it so discussions

11:45 ↗ will come before that probably part is

11:47 ↗ the comprehensive plan when we do the

11:49 ↗ housing element as well

11:50 ↗ we also yeah this we have to wait on the

11:53 ↗ parking study but you know that will

11:55 ↗ help us look at things you know there

11:58 ↗ High development costs Highland costs

12:00 ↗ high water tables things we can't do

12:01 ↗ anything about but we can look at our

12:05 ↗ allowable densities our allowable

12:06 ↗ Heights the amount of affordable housing

12:08 ↗ that we allowed in the meantime and

12:11 ↗ start

12:12 ↗ you know dialing each one of those up

12:13 ↗ and down to start tweaking and figure

12:15 ↗ out what

12:16 ↗ what we need to do to make the rest of

12:18 ↗ it happen in the multi-family zones as

12:19 ↗ well

12:26 ↗ um and my impression was we hadn't yet

12:31 ↗ gotten rid of you know the levers for

12:33 ↗ occlusion or zoning but that will also

12:36 ↗ be part of the discussion

12:38 ↗ correct correct

12:42 ↗ um yeah no I agree I'm gonna support

12:44 ↗ um

12:46 ↗ get a motion

12:47 ↗ um the ID

12:49 ↗ um I honestly this feels a fairly easy

12:52 ↗ and that's because the planning policy

12:55 ↗ but several several hours on this new

12:58 ↗ meeting

12:58 ↗ I want to thank you for being such a

13:00 ↗ good facilitator I watched both on

13:02 ↗ YouTube that have very fascinating

13:04 ↗ conversations and

13:06 ↗ um they're very quick to get to parking

13:07 ↗ on several times which I think it's

13:09 ↗ telling so once the parking study kind

13:11 ↗ of comes forward

13:13 ↗ that conversation but this seems like a

13:15 ↗ common sense solution

13:17 ↗ um so yes

13:22 ↗ all right

13:23 ↗ anything else from us okay do you have

13:25 ↗ what you need on this item I do thank

13:28 ↗ you all right thank you very much we all

13:30 ↗ move to our second and final item which

13:32 ↗ is id1320 which is the

13:34 ↗ 2024-2029 capital Improvement plan this

13:37 ↗ will be presented by Andrea Snyder the

13:40 ↗ deputy City administrator

13:47 ↗ foreign

13:52 ↗ thank you councilmember hunt just one

13:54 ↗ moment while I pull up the presentation

14:08 ↗ Deputy City administrator you uh joined

14:11 ↗ the meeting yes I'm not seeing you

14:14 ↗ listed

14:17 ↗ in progress thanks Chris

15:06 ↗ all right thank you very patience uh

15:08 ↗ good evening council members I'm Andrea

15:10 ↗ Snyder the deputy City administrator

15:12 ↗ with me here tonight is not our CFO

15:15 ↗ Robert hamoud but in fact our budget

15:17 ↗ manager Susie monsell who will be coming

15:19 ↗ up here in a little bit

15:21 ↗ um we are here to talk about the

15:24 ↗ proposed

15:25 ↗ 2024-2029 Capital Improvement plan

15:29 ↗ tonight we will be going over the

15:31 ↗ direction that we seek from you this

15:33 ↗ evening a little background on the CIP

15:35 ↗ process to date doing a quick overview

15:38 ↗ of the draft CIP itself and then we look

15:43 ↗ forward to any discussion and feedback

15:46 ↗ the direction that we're seeking tonight

15:48 ↗ from Council is whether the proposed CIP

15:51 ↗ seems to respond to the council's goals

15:53 ↗ and outcomes for this process so far and

15:56 ↗ if not what can be improved

15:58 ↗ we're also seeking any other feedback

16:01 ↗ Council has to offer on the projects

16:02 ↗ within the CIP specifically the

16:04 ↗ stormwater projects within the CIP or

16:07 ↗ how the criteria criteria were applied

16:09 ↗ to these projects

16:11 ↗ as I think you're all aware the council

16:13 ↗ committees have divided up the work of

16:16 ↗ reviewing the CIP and the storm water

16:18 ↗ section of the CIP is the one most

16:20 ↗ pertinent to this committee

16:25 ↗ um there's been a few changes since the

16:26 ↗ last Capital Improvement plan the city

16:28 ↗ goes through a big update of the capital

16:30 ↗ Improvement plan once every two years

16:32 ↗ and there's been a few changes which

16:34 ↗ have caused us to rethink how we look at

16:37 ↗ it and the process that we use to draft

16:38 ↗ it so I just wanted to go over some of

16:40 ↗ those changes really quick to understand

16:42 ↗ how different the CIP might be than once

16:45 ↗ we've had in the past first since the

16:49 ↗ last CIP we established a Capital

16:52 ↗ Finance Community task force and that

16:54 ↗ task force had a bunch of

16:56 ↗ recommendations for the city which we've

16:58 ↗ really tried to fold in to this CIP and

17:01 ↗ inform the creation of the CIP

17:03 ↗ so one of this is just a small summary

17:06 ↗ of the recommendations they had many

17:08 ↗ more recommendations that I linked to in

17:10 ↗ your memo this evening but they

17:13 ↗ recommended the city do more to invest

17:15 ↗ in infrastructure including pursuit of

17:17 ↗ new Revenue tools it was a finding of

17:20 ↗ the task force that the city did not

17:21 ↗ have enough existing revenues to cover

17:23 ↗ all of the needs of infrastructure that

17:26 ↗ we have

17:27 ↗ they also recommended that Mobility or

17:30 ↗ transportation is the first priority of

17:32 ↗ the city and then they recommended and

17:35 ↗ this is actually incorrect on the slide

17:37 ↗ but they recommended a TBD sales tax to

17:39 ↗ fund the infrastructure at the time what

17:41 ↗ was discussed was a 0.2 percent sales

17:43 ↗ tax I think some uh well-intentioned

17:46 ↗ little elf tried to fix that for me

17:49 ↗ that's not correct on the slide so they

17:52 ↗ recommended a 0.2 percent TBD sales tax

17:55 ↗ and that is because that was the tool

17:57 ↗ that was available at the time since the

17:59 ↗ task force has met new Revenue tools

18:01 ↗ have become available to us as a

18:03 ↗ municipality

18:05 ↗ um thanks to action from the state

18:07 ↗ legislature so we'll uh we'll talk about

18:10 ↗ that point one percent again in the

18:12 ↗ future

18:14 ↗ they also recommended parks and trails

18:16 ↗ and Facilities that they were also

18:18 ↗ really important so maybe they're not

18:20 ↗ the first priority but they're also

18:21 ↗ really important and we should figure

18:24 ↗ out ways to make more investments in

18:25 ↗ those things

18:29 ↗ um the other thing that's happened since

18:30 ↗ the last CIP was created is that we've

18:33 ↗ developed more criteria a couple of new

18:36 ↗ criteria and improved upon the criteria

18:39 ↗ that we had for evaluating the projects

18:41 ↗ within the CIP and we're going to talk

18:42 ↗ about that a lot tonight one of the

18:45 ↗ other things we've done the criteria is

18:47 ↗ we have added red yellow and green

18:49 ↗ grading so different thresholds for how

18:52 ↗ well a project might meet each of those

18:54 ↗ individual Criterion

18:57 ↗ um and before we just had a checkbox

18:59 ↗ method so is there an environmental

19:01 ↗ benefit to this project yes or no and so

19:04 ↗ we really tried to raise the bar on

19:06 ↗ ourselves and how we evaluate projects

19:08 ↗ and what our projects actually

19:10 ↗ accomplish towards our goals

19:14 ↗ speaking of those goals I'd like to

19:16 ↗ invite budget manager Susie monsell up

19:18 ↗ to talk about the goals that Council

19:20 ↗ established and what we've done to try

19:22 ↗ to address those goals for this process

19:28 ↗ hello

19:29 ↗ um so I'm going to go through the

19:30 ↗ umbrella goals fairly quickly and spend

19:32 ↗ a little bit more time in some of the

19:33 ↗ other goals in terms of how they've been

19:36 ↗ addressed through the CIP process sorry

19:38 ↗ I'm shorter than Andrea

19:40 ↗ um so the umbrella goals

19:42 ↗ um included oh I feel it's too loud

19:44 ↗ um at the top of the goals and outcomes

19:47 ↗ document

19:48 ↗ um included realigning the capital

19:50 ↗ Improvement plan or the CIP with

19:52 ↗ Community aspirations for the city as

19:54 ↗ well as in adopted plans

19:57 ↗ um I will actually briefly speak to that

19:58 ↗ one in that we included in the document

20:00 ↗ this time in the CIP a matrix at the

20:03 ↗ beginning that listed out uh which

20:07 ↗ City Planning documents had identified

20:09 ↗ projects if they were identified in

20:11 ↗ other City Planning documents

20:13 ↗ um the other the next umbrella goal was

20:15 ↗ provide a transparent CIP update process

20:17 ↗ that allows for groups and individuals

20:19 ↗ to engage in the process we've worked

20:22 ↗ hard throughout the process to bring

20:24 ↗ boards and commissions in well boards in

20:26 ↗ particular a bit more than we have in

20:28 ↗ Prior CIP Updates this time around we

20:32 ↗ met with the boards early in the process

20:34 ↗ to do a board Summit particularly on

20:37 ↗ feedback around the selection criteria

20:39 ↗ and then we met with them again once the

20:42 ↗ CIP was transmitted to council to get

20:45 ↗ their feedback on how that criteria was

20:48 ↗ applied

20:50 ↗ um the next umbrella goal was reforming

20:51 ↗ project planning and Delivery for

20:53 ↗ improved efficiency Equity consistency

20:56 ↗ and predictability I'll speak a little

20:57 ↗ bit more to this one in the next slide

20:59 ↗ and then of course addressing current

21:02 ↗ laws and best practices

21:05 ↗ so the goals that were throughout the

21:08 ↗ document not the umbrella goals but

21:10 ↗ within the document itself included

21:12 ↗ projects have a clear path to inclusion

21:14 ↗ in the CIP so this is really where we

21:17 ↗ try to work in the other City Planning

21:19 ↗ documents to bring in as many of those

21:21 ↗ as we could identify as well as

21:24 ↗ including the boards and commissions

21:25 ↗ throughout the process as well as

21:28 ↗ revamping the selection criteria as

21:31 ↗ Deputy City administrator Snyder

21:33 ↗ mentioned

21:34 ↗ the CIP process and priorities are

21:36 ↗ communicated clearly with city council

21:38 ↗ and Community

21:39 ↗ this is really where we've tried to work

21:41 ↗ in the boards and commissions but our

21:43 ↗ next step on this is we're looking at

21:45 ↗ post adoption as well although I should

21:47 ↗ mention we do have a public hearing next

21:49 ↗ week

21:51 ↗ um but we one of the

21:55 ↗ tasks that we identified within the

21:58 ↗ goals and outcomes was

22:00 ↗ post adoption building a transparent and

22:04 ↗ hopefully interactive

22:07 ↗ um probably dashboard of those adapted

22:10 ↗ projects to make sure that

22:13 ↗ there's a different way besides just a

22:15 ↗ 200 Page document that you have to flip

22:17 ↗ through one page at a time for folks to

22:20 ↗ see what the city's Capital Investments

22:23 ↗ are over the next six years

22:26 ↗ um projects have an accountable path

22:28 ↗ toward execution and or completion spoke

22:31 ↗ to this one a little bit on the last

22:33 ↗ slide Equity is inherent in the project

22:36 ↗ selection and delivery so for the first

22:38 ↗ time

22:40 ↗ um we did include an equity selection

22:42 ↗ criteria

22:44 ↗ um Criterion

22:45 ↗ um in the process and this was worked

22:49 ↗ developed closely while working with the

22:51 ↗ equity board as well as some discussion

22:54 ↗ with the council early on in the process

22:56 ↗ and finally that we have clearly defined

22:58 ↗ funding strategies and that is going to

23:01 ↗ be a large Topic at the committee of the

23:04 ↗ whole next week in particular a few of

23:06 ↗ the items we've discussed with the

23:07 ↗ pertinent

23:08 ↗ Council committees prior to this tonight

23:12 ↗ but the heart of that discussion with

23:14 ↗ the full Council will be on the 12th

23:16 ↗ next week

23:18 ↗ so with that I will turn it back

23:22 ↗ thank you Susie readjusting the mic

23:27 ↗ just kidding um so how did we get here

23:29 ↗ today I wanted to go over the CIP

23:31 ↗ process and the process that we followed

23:34 ↗ um first as you know we started on

23:36 ↗ refining those criteria back in January

23:39 ↗ so we met with city council to get your

23:41 ↗ feedback on the criteria we also asked

23:44 ↗ four of the city boards that would be

23:46 ↗ our environmental board our Equity board

23:49 ↗ the transportation Advisory Board and

23:51 ↗ our Park board on their feedback for how

23:54 ↗ uh the criteria should be revised if

23:57 ↗ we're missing anything important and

23:59 ↗ they provided some great feedback which

24:01 ↗ we're going to go over in a little bit

24:02 ↗ then

24:04 ↗ um we took the draft CIP back to those

24:08 ↗ same four boards and we asked them for

24:10 ↗ their feedback how do you think we

24:12 ↗ applied those criteria did we do a good

24:14 ↗ job did we miss something big

24:16 ↗ um and then uh we are here in that black

24:19 ↗ bold font with Council committees

24:22 ↗ reviewing sections of the CIP talked

24:25 ↗ about how storm water is pertinent to

24:27 ↗ this Committee of course mobility and

24:28 ↗ infrastructure has Transportation Etc

24:31 ↗ then next week on June 12th there's the

24:34 ↗ committee of the hold to discuss the

24:36 ↗ entire CIP altogether and the policy

24:38 ↗ questions for the entire document

24:40 ↗ and then we look forward to council

24:43 ↗ adoption we are asking for Council

24:45 ↗ adoption uh by July 1st as that is what

24:49 ↗ state law requires that the

24:52 ↗ transportation Improvement plan which is

24:55 ↗ a component of the capital Improvement

24:56 ↗ plan uh that that tip is updated by July

25:00 ↗ 1st so that's what we're aiming for here

25:05 ↗ and uh want to talk a little bit more

25:09 ↗ about those criteria that we discussed

25:11 ↗ many of these criteria are similar to

25:14 ↗ what we've had in the past like legal

25:16 ↗ mandate or addressing life and safety

25:19 ↗ but we've added those red yellow green

25:21 ↗ thresholds the more complete description

25:24 ↗ of these are in your packet so you can

25:26 ↗ take a look at those

25:28 ↗ we also got some we also have new

25:31 ↗ criteria there's the equity criteria

25:33 ↗ which is brand new to the city we have a

25:35 ↗ new Equity board since the last CIP was

25:38 ↗ adopted

25:40 ↗ and Council also asked us to add

25:43 ↗ long-standing commitment Criterion which

25:47 ↗ um in January at the January Retreat

25:49 ↗ Council said we'll Define it later we

25:52 ↗ kind of know it when we see it it's

25:53 ↗ difficult to Define and so we'll be

25:55 ↗ addressing that in the June 12th

25:57 ↗ Committee of the whole so that all

25:58 ↗ Council can have that discussion

26:00 ↗ together

26:04 ↗ so some of the feedback that we heard

26:05 ↗ from boards on the criteria and on the

26:08 ↗ process that we've followed to date

26:10 ↗ overall we've heard support for the

26:12 ↗ process and criteria from our boards but

26:15 ↗ we have heard some concerns over that

26:17 ↗ long-standing commitment Criterion

26:19 ↗ because it wasn't defined like the

26:22 ↗ others were they just had concerns that

26:25 ↗ it didn't feel very transparent that

26:27 ↗ there might be some Equity concerns with

26:30 ↗ that if city council feels like they've

26:32 ↗ made promises in the past that they want

26:33 ↗ to follow through but haven't considered

26:35 ↗ Equity within those promises that there

26:38 ↗ might be concerns over that that we're

26:40 ↗ committing to decisions that were made

26:42 ↗ without using a lens of equity

26:45 ↗ and

26:46 ↗ um they also wanted to add a criteria on

26:50 ↗ livability and quality of life they felt

26:52 ↗ like the criteria really referenced our

26:54 ↗ plans our strategic plans and other

26:56 ↗ adopted plans but they wanted something

26:59 ↗ for us to take a step back and look at

27:01 ↗ making sure that these infrastructure

27:04 ↗ projects really work to improve quality

27:07 ↗ of life in Issaquah

27:09 ↗ and finally

27:10 ↗ we revised the equity Criterion I

27:13 ↗ mentioned that we had added that new

27:15 ↗ this year based off of council feedback

27:17 ↗ based off of board feedback we heavily

27:19 ↗ revised that from the last time that

27:21 ↗ Council saw that definition back in

27:24 ↗ January and February

27:28 ↗ so in general uh for the CIP overall not

27:33 ↗ just the storm water portion there are

27:36 ↗ some themes I want to talk about of

27:37 ↗ course we're not going to go over every

27:39 ↗ single project but there's themes

27:41 ↗ throughout the CIP that I think are

27:43 ↗ important to note first is that we have

27:45 ↗ more funding for maintenance programs

27:47 ↗ than in the past

27:48 ↗ that was based off of feedback that we'd

27:51 ↗ heard from Council from the community

27:52 ↗ and of course from the criteria that we

27:55 ↗ have

27:56 ↗ established

27:58 ↗ we also

28:00 ↗ drafted the CIP to respond to feedback

28:03 ↗ to make them more investments in our

28:06 ↗ infrastructure while also taking extra

28:07 ↗ care to make sure the plan is achievable

28:09 ↗ we've heard from the community we've

28:10 ↗ heard from Council do more for

28:12 ↗ infrastructure but also don't over

28:14 ↗ promise and under deliver and so how we

28:18 ↗ have done that is this CIP anticipates

28:21 ↗ new revenues for transportation Public

28:24 ↗ Safety related facilities and parks and

28:26 ↗ trails over the next six years and that

28:29 ↗ is fairly ambitious that's three new

28:31 ↗ revenues that we're anticipating in this

28:33 ↗ CIP the only

28:35 ↗ uh category of infrastructure that has

28:38 ↗ Revenue assumptions in it actual dollars

28:40 ↗ assigned is transportation and that's

28:43 ↗ because of the proposed 0.1 percent

28:46 ↗ councilmatic

28:48 ↗ TBD sales tax or Transportation benefit

28:50 ↗ district sales tax

28:52 ↗ I will be discussing that a lot more at

28:54 ↗ the committee of the whole next week but

28:57 ↗ that's the only uh that's the only

28:59 ↗ Revenue assumptions that are actually

29:01 ↗ baked into the CIP draft the others

29:04 ↗ um like parks and trails for example you

29:08 ↗ will see in the CIP later on in 2027

29:11 ↗ 2028 more and more projects that are

29:14 ↗ related to parks and that's because we

29:16 ↗ anticipate a new Revenue Source at that

29:19 ↗ time or at least beginning that those

29:22 ↗ conversations

29:25 ↗ so now focusing on stormwater utility

29:29 ↗ projects that are in the draft CIP

29:33 ↗ we have 17 projects overall proposed in

29:36 ↗ the six-year plan and that's compared to

29:38 ↗ 13 in our currently adopted plan so a

29:41 ↗ few more storm water projects this time

29:44 ↗ and while Council has yet to adopt the

29:48 ↗ storm and surface water master plan we

29:50 ↗ really wanted to take this opportunity

29:51 ↗ to put some of those projects

29:53 ↗ anticipated in the master plan into the

29:55 ↗ CIP and so the storm and surface water

29:58 ↗ master plan is coming before Council I

30:00 ↗ think in the next month

30:02 ↗ for potential adoption but this CIP does

30:06 ↗ include some of those projects

30:09 ↗ the near-term priorities include

30:12 ↗ laughing Jacobs Creek Channel

30:14 ↗ enhancement support the squawk Valley

30:16 ↗ Park South Creek restoration and the

30:19 ↗ fish fish passage Culvert replacement

30:21 ↗ program

30:23 ↗ long names for stormwater projects

30:26 ↗ and so we we sometimes like to focus on

30:29 ↗ those near-term projects because we

30:31 ↗ really try to make sure that within that

30:32 ↗ six-year plan the first two or in this

30:34 ↗ case the first three years of that

30:37 ↗ six-year plan are pretty accurate as you

30:41 ↗ get further into the future things are

30:42 ↗ harder to predict right revenues are

30:45 ↗ harder to predict needs are even harder

30:47 ↗ to predict but those first three years

30:49 ↗ we really try to make as accurate as

30:51 ↗ possible to what we would expect and so

30:54 ↗ those are the projects within our

30:55 ↗ near-term priorities

30:57 ↗ uh overall in the storm water category

31:01 ↗ um projects generally scored well in

31:03 ↗ climate resiliency or environmental

31:05 ↗ benefit that Criterion but it did have

31:08 ↗ some projects had some poor scores in

31:11 ↗ legal mandate or addressing life and

31:13 ↗ safety concerns so these projects also

31:16 ↗ tended to score well in replacement or

31:18 ↗ Capital maintenance of existing

31:20 ↗ infrastructure so sometimes things don't

31:22 ↗ score well across every single category

31:24 ↗ and

31:26 ↗ um and so we have to kind of consider

31:28 ↗ these things in balance

31:33 ↗ so you've seen this before but I just

31:35 ↗ wanted to emphasize what the next steps

31:37 ↗ are next week we meet with the committee

31:40 ↗ of the whole to discuss the entire CIP

31:42 ↗ that's when we anticipate to hold in

31:46 ↗ those conversations that council's been

31:47 ↗ having about facilities uh really

31:50 ↗ discuss the TBD sales tax that's one of

31:52 ↗ our main policy questions for Council

31:54 ↗ whether or not Council supports

31:56 ↗ proceeding with that and

31:58 ↗ um and our general approach to revenues

32:01 ↗ within that six-year plan

32:03 ↗ we also are going to have a conversation

32:05 ↗ about that long-standing commitment

32:06 ↗ Criterion as well with the full Council

32:09 ↗ and then again we will ask for a council

32:12 ↗ adoption I believe it's June 26 is the

32:14 ↗ date of our next regular meeting where

32:17 ↗ we ask for adoption

32:21 ↗ and that concludes my presentation are

32:23 ↗ there any questions

32:29 ↗ council president

32:31 ↗ let me maybe ask uh a question of the

32:34 ↗ chair I have questions that are about

32:37 ↗ specific projects I also have questions

32:39 ↗ about how we're rethinking the CIP do

32:42 ↗ you have any preference on

32:44 ↗ where we start

32:47 ↗ um so I think because of the way the

32:49 ↗ presentation was laid out I was planning

32:51 ↗ on doing an expert the deliberations

32:53 ↗ more in the same in the same format so

32:57 ↗ it would be the general comments and

32:58 ↗ then Project Specific ones so I think if

33:00 ↗ you want to organize your questions that

33:02 ↗ way

33:03 ↗ um that'd be great then we can move into

33:05 ↗ discussion okay

33:07 ↗ so from a general theme then

33:11 ↗ I'm trying to look at this and

33:13 ↗ understand how this CIP in the

33:16 ↗ stormwater area changes from the

33:19 ↗ previous CIP

33:21 ↗ so the first question would be how am I

33:25 ↗ supposed to evaluate that other than

33:27 ↗ just looking back at the previous one

33:29 ↗ looking at the new one and assuming if

33:31 ↗ something was in a past year that it did

33:33 ↗ get completed

33:35 ↗ and anything that's new

33:38 ↗ is I don't know why it's new

33:43 ↗ great question and I know that we have a

33:47 ↗ public works director Emily Moon as well

33:49 ↗ as our utilities engineering manager

33:50 ↗ Matt Ellis on the line so maybe one of

33:53 ↗ them want to chime in on this answer but

33:55 ↗ I'm going to take first stab which is

33:57 ↗ um I I think the main change is that we

34:02 ↗ are incorporating more of these projects

34:04 ↗ from the storm and surface water master

34:05 ↗ plan so this CIP benefits from that

34:09 ↗ extensive Community engagement process

34:11 ↗ and from us being able to use data to

34:14 ↗ reassess what the city's needs are our

34:17 ↗ last storm in surface water master plan

34:19 ↗ is quite old and so this CIP is updated

34:24 ↗ with the most current information we

34:27 ↗ have and the most current public

34:28 ↗ engagement process that we've followed

34:30 ↗ so that's I think the main difference

34:31 ↗ that would be a bit more obvious to you

34:34 ↗ if we had had a recent presentation on

34:37 ↗ the surface and storm water master plan

34:39 ↗ or if that had been adopted that's

34:41 ↗ coming council's had some presentations

34:42 ↗ on that but I know it's been a while

34:45 ↗ yeah and I did see that Matt has his

34:48 ↗ hand up as well but I guess

34:51 ↗ even beyond that the question becomes

34:54 ↗ how would a Community member

34:56 ↗ be able to interpret that and understand

34:59 ↗ why something is included where it came

35:02 ↗ from

35:03 ↗ what's its justification for being on

35:06 ↗ there so

35:08 ↗ I don't know if Matt has anything on

35:10 ↗ that

35:12 ↗ that's a good question I don't think uh

35:16 ↗ we have a

35:17 ↗ sweet some of the projects were

35:19 ↗ prioritized because they were included

35:21 ↗ in the CIP the storm water master plan

35:24 ↗ as Andrea mentioned but there's also uh

35:28 ↗ projects that were

35:30 ↗ um

35:31 ↗ required because of other improvements

35:34 ↗ that were occurring

35:36 ↗ um be it a transportation project or

35:38 ↗ Outside Agency projects that just watch

35:41 ↗ that there's also projects that were a

35:44 ↗ little bit more

35:46 ↗ um we evaluated their applicability or

35:50 ↗ opportunity for Grants and so that was

35:52 ↗ also evaluated to kind of Shuffle

35:56 ↗ projects and evaluate their priority in

36:00 ↗ the ca

36:03 ↗ but in terms of transparency about how

36:06 ↗ it changed from the last CIP uh I don't

36:10 ↗ have a great answer for that at the

36:12 ↗ moment

36:14 ↗ so another kind of larger question is

36:19 ↗ the concept of how do I know

36:22 ↗ what's not here

36:24 ↗ um and so from that concept if the idea

36:28 ↗ was to be transparent about how

36:30 ↗ something made its way from

36:33 ↗ a plan into the CIP

36:37 ↗ how do I know

36:40 ↗ whether everything made it

36:42 ↗ um in here or if things were selected

36:47 ↗ for future years how do I know why it

36:50 ↗ was put on future years if the criteria

36:52 ↗ ranking isn't shown for those

36:55 ↗ how am I supposed to evaluate

36:58 ↗ that's not here

37:02 ↗ I think uh Susie might have an answer

37:04 ↗ for you

37:06 ↗ might have a partial answer to that

37:09 ↗ um so one of the challenges with the

37:11 ↗ utility projects in particular in the

37:13 ↗ CIP is we are due for a Ci or for a

37:17 ↗ utility right study update in the very

37:19 ↗ near term

37:21 ↗ um we're looking at doing one likely

37:22 ↗ either at the end of this year beginning

37:24 ↗ of next year to begin that process so

37:26 ↗ for the utility projects in the CIP we

37:29 ↗ tried to realistically look at what we

37:31 ↗ could afford based on the current rate

37:33 ↗ structure through the current rate study

37:36 ↗ um but we're going to have to take

37:37 ↗ another Deep dive into this as part of

37:40 ↗ that rate study discussion that once we

37:42 ↗ work in all of these projects for really

37:45 ↗ all three utilities and we see what

37:48 ↗ impact that might have on rates along

37:49 ↗ with the other pieces that feed into the

37:51 ↗ rate study

37:52 ↗ um that will be another Council

37:54 ↗ discussion point but we're confident at

37:55 ↗ least within 24 25 through the end of

37:58 ↗ the rate study the current rate study

38:00 ↗ that we can support these projects but

38:03 ↗ it will have to be a continued

38:04 ↗ discussion once we do that rate study

38:06 ↗ update

38:07 ↗ it's weird timing with the CIP and the

38:10 ↗ great study update coming

38:14 ↗ okay

38:15 ↗ I'll save my feedback on those I think

38:17 ↗ those are my larger scale questions the

38:19 ↗ rest are on specific projects so I don't

38:22 ↗ know

38:23 ↗ foreign

38:37 ↗ so I've already kind of had one touch

38:38 ↗ with the CIP at the mobility and

38:40 ↗ infrastructure committee meeting

38:42 ↗ um

38:43 ↗ one

38:45 ↗ one place that we kind of spent a lot of

38:47 ↗ time talking about was the criteria and

38:51 ↗ um how they were applied specifically

38:53 ↗ and whether or not we could document

38:55 ↗ rationales for why something was given a

38:58 ↗ green in its specific case why something

39:01 ↗ was given a red in a specific case and

39:03 ↗ we kind of talked about the trade-offs

39:05 ↗ between well that would be many hundred

39:08 ↗ page attachments

39:10 ↗ um

39:11 ↗ and that will require a lot of work put

39:14 ↗ into that I'm curious if but it did seem

39:18 ↗ like there was some interest

39:20 ↗ um

39:20 ↗ from the committee of kind of exploring

39:22 ↗ that further so I'm just curious if the

39:24 ↗ Administration has thought about that

39:25 ↗ and are kind of responding to that

39:27 ↗ question that committees

39:30 ↗ but we have we have discussed it more

39:32 ↗ since that meeting and I think the the

39:35 ↗ concern is exactly what you what we

39:37 ↗ talked about before which is that the

39:40 ↗ CIP is already a pretty lengthy document

39:42 ↗ we can

39:44 ↗ we can have a lot of narratives that

39:47 ↗ would increase transparency uh

39:50 ↗ I'm not sure how many people are going

39:52 ↗ to read those and so what we've tried to

39:55 ↗ do to make it a little bit more concise

39:56 ↗ and digestible is focus on the

39:59 ↗ definitions of the criteria how we

40:01 ↗ Define the red and green thresholds to

40:03 ↗ try to make it a little bit more clear

40:05 ↗ when you line up the project

40:07 ↗ descriptions the plans that are linked

40:10 ↗ to us in the document and the criteria

40:13 ↗ descriptions how those things all fit

40:14 ↗ together we do have some narratives from

40:17 ↗ the submissions process of when the

40:20 ↗ project managers submitted their

40:21 ↗ projects into

40:23 ↗ into Susie to create the document but

40:28 ↗ it's it's a lot of information and it's

40:32 ↗ so much information

40:34 ↗ I think it's going to be really hard for

40:36 ↗ the average person to sort through and

40:39 ↗ digest so that's that's what we've

40:42 ↗ talked about so far in the organization

40:43 ↗ I don't know if Wally has anything else

40:45 ↗ to add

40:46 ↗ uh Deputy council president members of

40:48 ↗ the committee good evening this has been

40:50 ↗ a very elaborate process uh Mor

40:53 ↗ elaborate probably than was needed

40:55 ↗ um we want to have to be transparent in

40:57 ↗ all of our projects we want a community

40:59 ↗ input we have spent hours and hours over

41:01 ↗ the last several months doing that uh

41:03 ↗ with that said not every Capital project

41:05 ↗ is equal not every Capital project has

41:08 ↗ the community scrutiny

41:10 ↗ um that perhaps others would as I think

41:12 ↗ has been mentioned our utility projects

41:14 ↗ especially are difficult to try to

41:18 ↗ prioritize to engage communities with

41:21 ↗ and quite honestly that's the beauty of

41:22 ↗ Master plans is that we can then spent

41:24 ↗ spend many weeks many months with

41:28 ↗ subject matter experts and citizen

41:29 ↗ committees going through Master plans so

41:31 ↗ once those Master plans are in place I

41:33 ↗ mean that is what we rely on uh largely

41:36 ↗ to guide us in addition to the facts

41:39 ↗ that monsell mentioned it's just plain

41:41 ↗ old cash so we try to weigh that I don't

41:45 ↗ think the process is more exotic than

41:47 ↗ that quite honestly I mean we could tell

41:49 ↗ you more about any particular project

41:51 ↗ you care to hear about uh but I think

41:54 ↗ word is trying to move forward with the

41:56 ↗ CIP recognizing all the citizen plans

41:59 ↗ that have been prepared looking at

42:01 ↗ Revenue sources

42:03 ↗ um doing what we can for Revenue sources

42:04 ↗ and quite honestly then raising a red

42:06 ↗ flag in the case of Transportation where

42:08 ↗ we say the needs the priorities of far

42:12 ↗ exceed the available Revenue sources so

42:13 ↗ here's recommendations for new Revenue

42:15 ↗ sources and then we look to the council

42:17 ↗ committees

42:18 ↗ hopefully to pull out I mean whenever I

42:21 ↗ see laughing Jacobs Creek I think of

42:23 ↗ Victoria hunt

42:24 ↗ um because every time it's mentioned

42:26 ↗ councilmember hunt raises issues for it

42:28 ↗ so for me as your city administrator I

42:31 ↗ could not find laughing at Jacobs Creek

42:33 ↗ if you blindfolded me and asked me to to

42:36 ↗ walk to find it but I know that it's a

42:38 ↗ priority for one of seven council

42:40 ↗ members and so as we prepare these

42:43 ↗ documents uh we we try to be mindful of

42:45 ↗ that and that's we depend on committees

42:48 ↗ for so at this point in the process as

42:50 ↗ the deputy City Minister said we're

42:52 ↗ happy to provide any additional

42:53 ↗ information you'd like but we also want

42:55 ↗ to do a reality check as to where we are

42:58 ↗ of the scope of or these projects are

43:01 ↗ um so I've said my piece in that regard

43:04 ↗ oh that was great both of you and I

43:06 ↗ wonder if um we might be able to well I

43:08 ↗ guess um other council members will will

43:11 ↗ be able to watch that interaction just

43:12 ↗ then but I wonder if we could also

43:14 ↗ include kind of a narrative explanation

43:15 ↗ of that in the packet that goes to the

43:17 ↗ committee the whole meeting too because

43:18 ↗ I know there was at least one Committee

43:20 ↗ Member of mobility and infrastructure

43:22 ↗ anything that really wanted to see that

43:24 ↗ that was great thanks

43:30 ↗ um you had you had mentioned earlier

43:32 ↗ that there is some planning on how to

43:34 ↗ make this more accessible this

43:36 ↗ information more accessible than a you

43:38 ↗ know 150 page document

43:41 ↗ um could you explain a little bit more

43:43 ↗ about where we're headed with that I

43:45 ↗ think that would go a long way towards

43:47 ↗ giving people more accessible usable

43:49 ↗ information but not necessarily like

43:52 ↗ expanding the document to you know so

43:55 ↗ many pages

43:57 ↗ uh yeah so I think most people are

44:00 ↗ concerned about what's happening around

44:02 ↗ me right they see something under

44:04 ↗ construction what's that and what's

44:06 ↗ going to be happening in my neighborhood

44:07 ↗ and so

44:08 ↗ um we are envisioning something that's

44:10 ↗ more GIS based more map based that could

44:14 ↗ be interactive to click on Etc so that

44:16 ↗ you can find out what's happening at any

44:19 ↗ given time uh what phase of the project

44:21 ↗ we're in how much does it cost you know

44:24 ↗ that that type of information that's

44:25 ↗ included in the CIP document itself but

44:28 ↗ make it more map based and so we're

44:30 ↗ still in development of that there's a

44:32 ↗ lot of information I think we want to

44:34 ↗ include in that so we're trying to

44:36 ↗ um trying to figure out a a easy to

44:40 ↗ understand but transparent and

44:42 ↗ informative way of displaying that

44:43 ↗ information

44:48 ↗ great thank you

44:50 ↗ Project Specific questions that's

44:52 ↗ president your thing okay

44:55 ↗ um st14 and st-45 so we've got the Bush

44:59 ↗ Street stormwater improvements and the

45:01 ↗ Old Town storm water improvements

45:04 ↗ um I note that St 45 scores very high

45:08 ↗ but most of the spend is delayed until

45:11 ↗ 2029 so I'm wondering

45:15 ↗ whether why the delay

45:19 ↗ um and how the projects differ

45:23 ↗ thank you and I see that Matt Ellis our

45:27 ↗ utilities engineering you to raise your

45:29 ↗ hand now we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll

45:30 ↗ we'll find you

45:34 ↗ okay sounds good sorry about that

45:37 ↗ um okay so the two projects

45:39 ↗ um the bush

45:40 ↗ Street project is a subsidiary of the

45:44 ↗ Old Town storm water Improvement project

45:47 ↗ it's basically a small project uh to

45:51 ↗ improve conveyance to the bio retention

45:54 ↗ soil that's in front of the community

45:57 ↗ center it was a project that had been

46:01 ↗ uh was impacted years ago uh and was

46:06 ↗ unable to be a completed between utility

46:07 ↗ impacts and so the project would be to

46:10 ↗ uh connect some of the storm water

46:12 ↗ conveyance pipes to that uh that storm

46:16 ↗ water detention so Earth uh conveyance

46:18 ↗ facility uh the overarching old town uh

46:23 ↗ stormwater Improvement project is a big

46:25 ↗ project that's probably our biggest

46:26 ↗ stormwater project it's and it starts

46:29 ↗ with a study so we've done the

46:30 ↗ stormwater master plan but that didn't

46:33 ↗ go into the nuances of each individual

46:35 ↗ base and to the point where we get

46:37 ↗ granular in terms of power we're going

46:39 ↗ to solve the problem an Old Town has

46:41 ↗ some problems with infiltration we've

46:43 ↗ got the Cara where we're trying to

46:45 ↗ improve uh increase water in our aquifer

46:48 ↗ we want to do so in a thoughtful way

46:50 ↗ where we provide treated water uh we

46:53 ↗ also want to to evaluate opportunities

46:55 ↗ for

46:57 ↗ um uh large-scale uh detention and

47:01 ↗ treatment facilities in Old Town so

47:03 ↗ that's why it's a long range project so

47:05 ↗ this isn't just we have an idea we

47:08 ↗ design it and then we construct it the

47:10 ↗ next year this is

47:11 ↗ the beginning part of that project is

47:13 ↗ the study and then once we have that

47:16 ↗ kind of defined because we don't have a

47:17 ↗ great answer for what the solution is

47:19 ↗ but we know what the problem is so the

47:22 ↗ the study comes first and then once

47:24 ↗ we've kind of identified that study and

47:26 ↗ then that refines to uh a few specific

47:30 ↗ design opportunities and then we we get

47:34 ↗ that refined into a specific design we

47:37 ↗ go through the permitting and that's why

47:39 ↗ the construction is so far delayed

47:40 ↗ because that that design through

47:42 ↗ permitting we're anticipating to take a

47:46 ↗ fair amount of time so 2029 is the

47:48 ↗ realistic approach for when we can

47:51 ↗ actually break ground and do this

47:55 ↗ and as the delay for permitting because

47:58 ↗ we have to go to another Agency for that

48:01 ↗ doesn't mean multiple impacts to

48:02 ↗ different agencies and again that's

48:04 ↗ that's just an assumption because we

48:07 ↗ don't know what we're going to do yet

48:08 ↗ um uh it's just a conservative estimate

48:10 ↗ so we don't uh under deliver we perform

48:13 ↗ uh with the expectations there's going

48:15 ↗ to be some delay for primitive so one

48:17 ↗ that there might be a gap I'm sorry my

48:20 ↗ computer is not showing me let me pull

48:23 ↗ up the quest to cut the uh actual

48:25 ↗ project

48:28 ↗ um

48:28 ↗ I think one of those years is just

48:30 ↗ assuming that uh we'd be going through

48:32 ↗ the permitting phase for that for that

48:34 ↗ Gap here

48:38 ↗ okay

48:39 ↗ um

48:40 ↗ further on this idea this these two

48:43 ↗ projects being kind of co-located and

48:46 ↗ being

48:47 ↗ connected to each other I think it would

48:49 ↗ be nice to be able to determine that

48:51 ↗ when I'm looking at the CIP and

48:53 ↗ understand their relationship to it it

48:55 ↗ also

48:57 ↗ gives me a good question about

48:59 ↗ um

49:01 ↗ like

49:03 ↗ projects that happen in the same area

49:06 ↗ um so

49:08 ↗ is there any information about like

49:10 ↗ whether we would consider doing

49:12 ↗ sidewalks at the same time if we're

49:14 ↗ going to be ripping up a lot of

49:17 ↗ um Street area considering that is

49:20 ↗ underserved how how would we understand

49:23 ↗ that and I I think Matt let me take this

49:27 ↗ one thanks

49:29 ↗ um I I think that comes back down to

49:31 ↗ what we were talking about earlier and

49:33 ↗ having something that's more map based

49:35 ↗ right so there's the there's the paper

49:38 ↗ document that we have and what we're

49:41 ↗ looking to do upon adoption is translate

49:43 ↗ that information to something that is a

49:45 ↗ bit more user friendly that can be

49:48 ↗ interactive and have a little bit more

49:49 ↗ information on demand knowing that

49:51 ↗ people will want to see what is

49:54 ↗ happening in a certain neighborhood

49:55 ↗ what's happening near them

49:58 ↗ but what about that second part of how

50:00 ↗ do we for something that crosses over

50:02 ↗ Beyond hey this is a storm water project

50:04 ↗ but this is a really great opportunity

50:07 ↗ to make sure that we have something in

50:10 ↗ say the transportation section of the

50:13 ↗ CIP

50:15 ↗ to say we're going to do sidewalks at

50:17 ↗ the same time

50:19 ↗ how do we understand that oh I can I I

50:22 ↗ think the question is about is about the

50:24 ↗ actual implementation not about the

50:26 ↗ communication which would be the map but

50:28 ↗ more like how are you planning out when

50:31 ↗ there is efficiency in doing two things

50:34 ↗ because you're already working on that

50:35 ↗ and how do we know in either reading

50:37 ↗ over this document or whatever future

50:40 ↗ document that you're

50:42 ↗ right making those suggestions right and

50:46 ↗ not all of those determinations have

50:48 ↗ been made in this plan right because

50:50 ↗ this is a six-year planning document

50:52 ↗ it's not necessarily a budget there's

50:55 ↗ also a lot of ongoing maintenance

50:57 ↗ programs that are in this plan so for

50:59 ↗ example pavement Management program is

51:02 ↗ just one page but multiple projects and

51:05 ↗ we plan those out as budget is allocated

51:08 ↗ and as the year comes before us right so

51:11 ↗ we create a yearly work plan and that's

51:12 ↗ when our teams meet together and say

51:15 ↗ okay you're going to be doing the storm

51:16 ↗ water project over here uh that's this

51:19 ↗ is a great time to coordinate for and

51:21 ↗ Street overlay or what have you

51:23 ↗ um curb gutter sidewalks so we do that

51:25 ↗ type of thing not necessarily when we

51:28 ↗ draft the plan because that's pretty

51:30 ↗ detailed coordination and planning

51:32 ↗ sometimes we do that work on an annual

51:34 ↗ work plan basis and at that time we

51:38 ↗ would be able to show that in a GIS

51:40 ↗ system of showing these projects that

51:42 ↗ are going to happen in the same area and

51:44 ↗ how they're related so sometimes what

51:46 ↗ I'm saying is that level of detail is

51:48 ↗ not developed yet when we do the six

51:51 ↗ year plan

51:59 ↗ hi this is Robert down the Chief

52:00 ↗ Financial Officer I just wanted to

52:03 ↗ just make a comment on what we're

52:04 ↗ working on in finance right now so we're

52:07 ↗ actually working on an interactive

52:09 ↗ proposal for you know making the CIP

52:12 ↗ lives so it's not just it's interactive

52:14 ↗ but we're also trying to make it where

52:16 ↗ you can look at layers it interfaces

52:18 ↗ with the GPS there's a dashboard you can

52:21 ↗ actually drill by icons and you can

52:23 ↗ actually see one site that has multiple

52:25 ↗ projects so and then we're trying to see

52:28 ↗ a schedule where we would update that

52:30 ↗ periodically throughout the year so

52:32 ↗ you're not waiting a few years for that

52:33 ↗ updated information so that's that's

52:35 ↗ something we're actually developing

52:36 ↗ right now in-house internally and we'll

52:38 ↗ have more information in the upcoming

52:40 ↗ months but that's it is something where

52:42 ↗ we will have that functionality we will

52:44 ↗ actually be able to see cross projects

52:48 ↗ and update information across projects

52:50 ↗ so that's that's going to be part of

52:52 ↗ what would be available on the website

52:54 ↗ so that is something we're developing

52:55 ↗ we're working with internally right now

52:58 ↗ may I ask a question to Matt

53:02 ↗ so Matt um I I think the the core of the

53:06 ↗ question is that communication uh that

53:09 ↗ the engineering staff has with the

53:11 ↗ operation staff when you're doing uh

53:14 ↗ capital projects where the right-of-way

53:16 ↗ is is dug up can you talk a little bit

53:18 ↗ about that annual process where you're

53:21 ↗ connecting with the operation staff so

53:24 ↗ that there are there are sidewalks that

53:26 ↗ need to be improved that there's that

53:28 ↗ coordination as I think Andrea mentioned

53:31 ↗ the funding for the the Improvement

53:33 ↗ often will come from another account

53:35 ↗ will come from a maintenance account but

53:37 ↗ that coordination is done more or less

53:40 ↗ on an annual basis than Matt at the

53:42 ↗ beginning of a construction season

53:44 ↗ that's a hundred percent so so

53:47 ↗ um

53:47 ↗ in a couple of way ways yeah we're one

53:50 ↗ Department we have our operations

53:52 ↗ transportation and our utilities but we

53:54 ↗ are one Department we work side by side

53:56 ↗ and Hand by hand in hand with each other

53:58 ↗ uh and we have different tools right now

54:01 ↗ we have a uh uh GIS Pro uh interface

54:06 ↗ where we are putting all our projects in

54:08 ↗ one location so that way we can uh see

54:11 ↗ where a project will be maybe overlaying

54:13 ↗ the streets so we can okay we need to we

54:16 ↗ need to replace the storm types in this

54:19 ↗ section uh before they get going uh and

54:22 ↗ overlay the road or we need to replace

54:24 ↗ the water line so we're looking at that

54:26 ↗ looking at that from a complete Street

54:28 ↗ perspective but from the old town

54:30 ↗ perspective in particular because this

54:32 ↗ is a study program or a study first

54:35 ↗ before we actually get to the design and

54:38 ↗ a lot of Old Town does not have a

54:40 ↗ complete sidewalk where it's got gravel

54:42 ↗ shoulders things like that that it's not

54:45 ↗ as built up as other parts of the city

54:47 ↗ this is that opportunity and and that is

54:49 ↗ something that we are absolutely taking

54:51 ↗ into account is how do we

54:55 ↗ evaluate the cross sections with an old

54:57 ↗ town does that input impact or improve

55:01 ↗ upon our storm water so it's not just a

55:03 ↗ storm water project but this is kind of

55:05 ↗ overarching into other categories as we

55:08 ↗ look at other items that we need to

55:10 ↗ replace within old town because there's

55:12 ↗ there's pipes that when water lines that

55:13 ↗ we need to replace in Old Town there's

55:15 ↗ other Street projects that we need to

55:17 ↗ complete so uh yes we will be

55:19 ↗ interacting and coordinating as we we

55:21 ↗ get this project in particular going

55:23 ↗ because it is a long run project and we

55:25 ↗ do need to coordinate with uh our fellow

55:28 ↗ groups in public works

55:32 ↗ foreign

55:33 ↗ so we still haven't hit on my issue here

55:36 ↗ which is really

55:39 ↗ I'm a user of the CIP and I'm trying to

55:43 ↗ determine from my standpoint is

55:46 ↗ is that work going to get done

55:50 ↗ um co-located and also do we have the

55:53 ↗ money to do so are we

55:55 ↗ I know this isn't a budget but when I'm

55:58 ↗ creating the budget or evaluating the

56:00 ↗ budget I'm looking at this and saying

56:03 ↗ are we going to have enough money to do

56:05 ↗ all the things and if there isn't

56:08 ↗ something that specifically says whoa

56:10 ↗ we're gonna tear up a whole chunk of

56:13 ↗ this area do we also are we also

56:16 ↗ planning to

56:19 ↗ and the answer is a standard operating

56:21 ↗ procedure is yes and so because it's a

56:24 ↗ standard operating procedure that's why

56:26 ↗ you don't see it as part of a plan you

56:28 ↗ would see it as part of an annual budget

56:31 ↗ but it's a standard operating procedure

56:33 ↗ and again I think Matt did an excellent

56:35 ↗ job of explaining something that perhaps

56:37 ↗ we haven't done as well over a long

56:39 ↗ period of time in Nisswa is that your

56:41 ↗ engineers and your operation and

56:43 ↗ maintenance folks now all work together

56:45 ↗ and so every Community I've worked in in

56:48 ↗ various capacities it was always a

56:50 ↗ standard operating procedure that that

56:52 ↗ evaluation takes place and I think as

56:54 ↗ Matt has said perhaps it hasn't always

56:57 ↗ been in Issaquah but now that it is and

56:59 ↗ the way that the city council and the

57:01 ↗ community knows that is not through a

57:03 ↗ six year CIP it is through an annual

57:05 ↗ budget

57:08 ↗ and as we present the projects in an

57:10 ↗ annual budget it is our responsibility

57:12 ↗ then to connect the maintenance projects

57:15 ↗ that will dovetail with that

57:17 ↗ and so I I think as we've said several

57:20 ↗ times in trying to answer this question

57:21 ↗ of having a little bit more flexible

57:24 ↗ data on a website not only for the plan

57:27 ↗ but we're also talking about doing the

57:28 ↗ same thing for the operating budget the

57:30 ↗ operating budget serves no one a good

57:32 ↗ purpose if it's a PDF document 250 pages

57:35 ↗ so

57:36 ↗ um taking a long time to answer what was

57:39 ↗ a relatively short question so you have

57:40 ↗ my apologies but that's fine we're doing

57:44 ↗ what you want us to do great I have a

57:46 ↗ few more that are just

57:48 ↗ tick points

57:50 ↗ um looking

57:52 ↗ at

57:54 ↗ st051 the Muirwood Park pipe

57:57 ↗ Rehabilitation it says that the pipe is

57:59 ↗ in poor condition and beginning to fail

58:01 ↗ um I'm wondering why this is listed as

58:04 ↗ 2027.

58:07 ↗ that is a good question we've evaluated

58:09 ↗ we've we've put in a a camera into the

58:13 ↗ pipes they're old CMP pipes but we

58:16 ↗ believe that they are going to last

58:18 ↗ until 2027 or longer but they do need to

58:22 ↗ be replaced in the future this was

58:23 ↗ originally slated as a storm Water Rehab

58:27 ↗ project part of our annual program but

58:29 ↗ uh

58:30 ↗ elements

58:32 ↗ create made this more challenging

58:34 ↗ because it feeds into a wetland uh and

58:37 ↗ uh it creates permitting issues and

58:40 ↗ there's also project types that go in

58:43 ↗ between people's side yards and through

58:45 ↗ their driveways that make some

58:47 ↗ challenges and so we need to get that

58:49 ↗ preparation going and then we we

58:52 ↗ evaluated this compared to other

58:54 ↗ projects and 2027 was the time that it

58:56 ↗ felt like it was a reasonable time great

59:01 ↗ um St 020

59:03 ↗ um the Issaquah Highlands West 45

59:05 ↗ stormwater lift station Rehabilitation

59:07 ↗ again long name

59:09 ↗ um it seems to score low but it's listed

59:12 ↗ for 2025 why was that

59:15 ↗ um added earlier

59:17 ↗ Ah that's a good question it's a smaller

59:20 ↗ project this is just it's mainly in

59:23 ↗ operations it benefits operations so

59:26 ↗ this project started or or the majority

59:28 ↗ of the work was occurred in 2022 as we

59:33 ↗ realigned that facility but we as we

59:36 ↗ completed that project we realized that

59:38 ↗ there was some more operations work that

59:40 ↗ needed to occur and uh

59:44 ↗ for the safety of a crew we wanted to

59:46 ↗ get that done

59:47 ↗ earlier which means that they didn't

59:49 ↗ score as high just because it was just

59:51 ↗ mainly in operations functionality it

59:53 ↗ didn't score from the equity lens or

59:55 ↗ from the habitat uh environmental lens

59:58 ↗ it was mainly just uh to to restore or

1:00:02 ↗ improve upon an existing facility but it

1:00:05 ↗ was also a small project where we

1:00:06 ↗ figured we could get that done pretty

1:00:08 ↗ easily and again just balancing other

1:00:10 ↗ projects okay and last one s t o

1:00:14 ↗ [Music]

1:00:16 ↗ development retrofit I noticed that this

1:00:19 ↗ one scored very well in equity because

1:00:22 ↗ it could help

1:00:23 ↗ [Music]

1:00:24 ↗ um

1:00:24 ↗ underserved neighborhoods but at the

1:00:26 ↗ same time it's something that's listed

1:00:29 ↗ as

1:00:30 ↗ needed throughout the city so I'm

1:00:32 ↗ wondering is there a way to

1:00:36 ↗ work to customize how the project gets

1:00:40 ↗ implemented so that we do satisfy that

1:00:42 ↗ Equity component rather than

1:00:45 ↗ just being applied anywhere this is a

1:00:49 ↗ great question so we talked a lot about

1:00:51 ↗ the equity Criterion and it was one of

1:00:54 ↗ the things that we talked with the

1:00:56 ↗ equity board about a lot how are we

1:00:58 ↗ applying this criteria in this draft do

1:01:01 ↗ you agree with how we've applied it what

1:01:03 ↗ are your suggestions for the future and

1:01:05 ↗ to me Equity is is

1:01:08 ↗ this is our first time going through

1:01:10 ↗ this right and there's different ways to

1:01:12 ↗ think about it and so how we defined

1:01:15 ↗ what could hit that green threshold or

1:01:18 ↗ highest score in equity is weather and

1:01:21 ↗ Improvement specifically targets uh

1:01:25 ↗ population that has been underserved or

1:01:28 ↗ hasn't benefited from equal access to

1:01:30 ↗ services and

1:01:33 ↗ um so for projects that are a bit

1:01:35 ↗ General

1:01:36 ↗ or or benefit everyone that's not

1:01:40 ↗ targeted so even though they may benefit

1:01:42 ↗ lots of people

1:01:45 ↗ um even though people may be you know

1:01:48 ↗ more impacted

1:01:49 ↗ um of certain populations we it's

1:01:52 ↗ difficult to apply to projects that

1:01:54 ↗ really do benefit everyone or ongoing

1:01:55 ↗ programs that benefit everyone and so

1:01:58 ↗ what we've done is tried to look at it

1:02:00 ↗ from a gaps analysis basis so are there

1:02:03 ↗ areas of town that have poorer quality

1:02:06 ↗ pipes and Mains that we know are

1:02:09 ↗ breaking more often that we know are

1:02:10 ↗ poorer quality let's address those first

1:02:12 ↗ so that's that's how we've tried to

1:02:15 ↗ address the equity criteria in those

1:02:18 ↗ types of infrastructure projects

1:02:21 ↗ and that includes water mains and other

1:02:23 ↗ things too we've really looked at what

1:02:25 ↗ are the areas that

1:02:26 ↗ um

1:02:27 ↗ have more breakdowns what are the areas

1:02:30 ↗ that have poorer equality or aging

1:02:32 ↗ infrastructure and how to focus on those

1:02:34 ↗ areas first that's how we've applied

1:02:36 ↗ that criteria

1:02:37 ↗ and I appreciate that and I agree with

1:02:40 ↗ that being listed as a high Equity I'm

1:02:43 ↗ wondering how do we then utilize that to

1:02:47 ↗ make sure that the implementation

1:02:48 ↗ follows through on that because the

1:02:52 ↗ project is also listed as something that

1:02:54 ↗ is needed Citywide

1:02:56 ↗ um so is there anything that we need to

1:02:58 ↗ either Matt has his hand up

1:03:00 ↗ um either include in the project

1:03:03 ↗ description or you know because there's

1:03:06 ↗ going to be a new council at some point

1:03:08 ↗ and how how are we going to keep that in

1:03:12 ↗ mind when we go toward

1:03:14 ↗ creating that project

1:03:18 ↗ so this project in particular what we

1:03:20 ↗ are doing is we're we've we're creating

1:03:23 ↗ a GIS

1:03:24 ↗ map of our untreated areas in the city

1:03:27 ↗ so that way we can

1:03:29 ↗ highlight and identify all the storm

1:03:32 ↗ water that comes that hits our roadways

1:03:34 ↗ and then go straight into catch basins

1:03:37 ↗ uh and then on its merry way so then we

1:03:40 ↗ can identify the priority locations

1:03:42 ↗ where we don't have water quality

1:03:44 ↗ treatment and then systematically apply

1:03:47 ↗ for Grants and replace or put in water

1:03:50 ↗ quality at those locations

1:03:52 ↗ um so as we look at that we can look at

1:03:55 ↗ it not only from a city-wide lens but

1:03:58 ↗ also from an equity LED so that tool is

1:04:01 ↗ particularly what's going to help us and

1:04:03 ↗ not just

1:04:04 ↗ uh

1:04:06 ↗ identify through our our old Maps uh

1:04:09 ↗ where we need water quality but we can

1:04:11 ↗ we can look at it systematically and

1:04:13 ↗ forward

1:04:15 ↗ and I would add that we've been talking

1:04:18 ↗ about Equity more and more and what

1:04:21 ↗ we've talked about is that the CIP is

1:04:24 ↗ not the only place we need to be

1:04:25 ↗ thinking about equity in our

1:04:26 ↗ infrastructure we need to be thinking

1:04:28 ↗ about it in our Master plans and

1:04:30 ↗ incorporating Equity principles in our

1:04:31 ↗ Master plans we need to think about in

1:04:33 ↗ the CIP and we need to uh do that in the

1:04:36 ↗ budget process and in the work plan

1:04:38 ↗ process and so what we're looking at

1:04:40 ↗ tonight is just one snapshot of one

1:04:43 ↗ moment in time and what we really need

1:04:46 ↗ to do and I think our goals as a study

1:04:48 ↗ are is to incorporate it into everything

1:04:50 ↗ that we do how we think our daily

1:04:52 ↗ practices and that's that's I think the

1:04:55 ↗ road that we're on that's where we're

1:04:56 ↗ pointed and so I look forward to our

1:04:59 ↗ future budget discussions and how we can

1:05:01 ↗ ensure that Equity is embedded in those

1:05:02 ↗ budget in the proposed budgets and

1:05:05 ↗ that's you know this CIP is just one

1:05:08 ↗ snapshot of a larger process where we

1:05:10 ↗ definitely need to act on our Equity

1:05:13 ↗ principles

1:05:15 ↗ foreign

1:05:21 ↗ I have one question uh there are 17

1:05:25 ↗ projects in the proposed six-year plan

1:05:27 ↗ and as you mentioned it's compared to 13

1:05:29 ↗ in the adopted plan I was trying to kind

1:05:32 ↗ of cross check this against the budget

1:05:36 ↗ um it's a little bit difficult in its

1:05:37 ↗ current state to do that are are there

1:05:40 ↗ 17 because of the scoring or is it

1:05:43 ↗ because of a combination of available

1:05:45 ↗ budget and that's why

1:05:48 ↗ um

1:05:49 ↗ It's a combination of things it's a

1:05:52 ↗ combination of

1:05:53 ↗ um you know 17 projects doesn't Define

1:05:55 ↗ the size of the project right or how

1:05:57 ↗ much it costs so it is a function of

1:05:59 ↗ budget it's a function of scoring what

1:06:02 ↗ we can actually accomplish given our

1:06:04 ↗ work plans it's also

1:06:08 ↗ um

1:06:09 ↗ it's also because of the master plan uh

1:06:12 ↗ being adopted so it's it's a number of

1:06:14 ↗ factors

1:06:17 ↗ thank you

1:06:19 ↗ have any other questions

1:06:22 ↗ not at this time okay great

1:06:24 ↗ um I will check in I will mention for

1:06:26 ↗ the record that there are still new

1:06:27 ↗ members of the community in the audience

1:06:30 ↗ for public comments or is there any

1:06:32 ↗ members of the public online or public

1:06:34 ↗ comment

1:06:38 ↗ uh chair hunt we we do have a virtual

1:06:41 ↗ attendee uh don't see a virtual hand

1:06:43 ↗ raised at this time okay well I'll give

1:06:47 ↗ it a moment in case that person would

1:06:49 ↗ like to make a comment so I'll just

1:06:50 ↗ pause and then

1:06:55 ↗ no indication that

1:06:57 ↗ um the community that Community member

1:06:59 ↗ wants to make a comment so we'll move on

1:07:00 ↗ to our deliberation then

1:07:03 ↗ um

1:07:05 ↗ I think there's a lot to be said so

1:07:07 ↗ maybe we can do General comments or

1:07:09 ↗ comments on the criteria first and then

1:07:12 ↗ comments on

1:07:13 ↗ um the specific projects and the content

1:07:16 ↗ of the CIP okay so let's start with

1:07:18 ↗ General comments

1:07:21 ↗ okay

1:07:22 ↗ um I can start us off then

1:07:25 ↗ so

1:07:26 ↗ um

1:07:27 ↗ I think that the interactive version the

1:07:31 ↗ layers and the ability to get

1:07:33 ↗ information based on where you are where

1:07:37 ↗ your neighborhood is look at what

1:07:39 ↗ projects will be occurring in the next

1:07:41 ↗ couple years

1:07:42 ↗ um in in your area I think that will

1:07:45 ↗ make this information a lot more

1:07:46 ↗ accessible so I'm very excited about

1:07:48 ↗ that and go make it more accessible for

1:07:50 ↗ us as decision makers but also for the

1:07:53 ↗ community which is very important to our

1:07:56 ↗ process and so

1:07:58 ↗ um that was that was really exciting to

1:07:59 ↗ hear and I look forward to seeing that

1:08:01 ↗ as a tool that will be very useful

1:08:06 ↗ um one

1:08:07 ↗ issue that I

1:08:09 ↗ continue to struggle a bit with with the

1:08:12 ↗ CIP is it is hard to track how

1:08:18 ↗ um how long projects have been

1:08:20 ↗ uh on in the CIP but kind of slipping in

1:08:24 ↗ the timeline for various reasons I'm

1:08:25 ↗ sure but

1:08:26 ↗ uh I think at least from my perspective

1:08:29 ↗ that was the intent of the the

1:08:32 ↗ long-standing council priorities

1:08:35 ↗ um

1:08:36 ↗ criteria

1:08:38 ↗ I completely agree with the comments

1:08:42 ↗ that were made by the equity board it

1:08:44 ↗ sounds like that there was concern about

1:08:46 ↗ that criteria because right now it

1:08:47 ↗ doesn't have any

1:08:49 ↗ um it is not transparent it just says

1:08:51 ↗ that Council will

1:08:53 ↗ work on this basically

1:08:55 ↗ um so I I completely understand why that

1:08:57 ↗ would be concerning it's not defined I

1:08:59 ↗ do think we need to Define it but the

1:09:01 ↗ for me that is important because

1:09:05 ↗ um the

1:09:06 ↗ criteria on

1:09:10 ↗ the criteria on the community priorities

1:09:12 ↗ talks about things being in a plan as a

1:09:15 ↗ near-term priority and it and the

1:09:18 ↗ long-standing priority is to address

1:09:21 ↗ the sort of opposite issue which is that

1:09:24 ↗ it's been on a list for a long time it

1:09:27 ↗ is a community priority but it's for

1:09:29 ↗ various reasons very difficult to

1:09:31 ↗ implement and so it has

1:09:34 ↗ um been not

1:09:37 ↗ um not implemented so I think the

1:09:39 ↗ example would be

1:09:40 ↗ the squawk Mountain sidewalks um

1:09:44 ↗ that's in a CIP that will in a part of

1:09:48 ↗ the CIP that will be reviewed by a

1:09:49 ↗ different committee so I won't get into

1:09:51 ↗ that project too much but I will just

1:09:53 ↗ mention that was in this Walk and Roll

1:09:55 ↗ plan that was I think 2014 and so it's

1:09:59 ↗ it's in a plan it's not a near-term

1:10:01 ↗ priority I think because it's it's just

1:10:03 ↗ been in a plan for a long time and it's

1:10:05 ↗ very difficult project and we are now

1:10:07 ↗ prioritizing it but that is a good

1:10:09 ↗ example of the kinds of thing that we

1:10:11 ↗ need some sort of criteria to address

1:10:13 ↗ and maybe we work it into the the one

1:10:17 ↗ the community priority

1:10:19 ↗ criteria but um I do think we need to

1:10:23 ↗ have something other than a near-term

1:10:25 ↗ priority and a plan because it is really

1:10:26 ↗ these longer term priorities

1:10:28 ↗ and they are in the current CIP it is

1:10:31 ↗ hard to just see those

1:10:36 ↗ so

1:10:37 ↗ um

1:10:38 ↗ let's see

1:10:40 ↗ uh in terms of the projects

1:10:44 ↗ um oh one other thing on the equity

1:10:46 ↗ criteria I appreciate that it's the

1:10:48 ↗ first time and I I appreciate how much

1:10:51 ↗ um thought has gone into this and all of

1:10:53 ↗ the work of our volunteer commissions

1:10:54 ↗ and I think this is a really important

1:10:57 ↗ addition to our process to have this

1:11:00 ↗ Equity criteria I did note that there

1:11:02 ↗ are no projects that are read

1:11:05 ↗ um so we only use two of the three

1:11:06 ↗ criteria for that it's the only criteria

1:11:09 ↗ that that is the case and so I think

1:11:11 ↗ that means next time again this is the

1:11:14 ↗ first time but next time it might be

1:11:15 ↗ worth now that we've done this CIP might

1:11:17 ↗ be worth assessing what those different

1:11:20 ↗ levels are so that we are using the

1:11:23 ↗ whole spectrum of criteria as we do for

1:11:26 ↗ every other crypto

1:11:29 ↗ um

1:11:31 ↗ onto the specific no I will save for

1:11:34 ↗ specific projects so do we have any

1:11:35 ↗ other General comments from my

1:11:38 ↗ colleagues on the

1:11:39 ↗ midi council president Walsh yeah

1:11:43 ↗ um

1:11:45 ↗ so kind of starting from the overarching

1:11:48 ↗ um or the the goals and outcomes for in

1:11:52 ↗ order to satisfy goal number one

1:11:56 ↗ um I'd really

1:11:59 ↗ I again I have a hard time understanding

1:12:02 ↗ if all of the projects from plans made

1:12:05 ↗ it in I think we did a really good job

1:12:07 ↗ of saying who are the projects that are

1:12:09 ↗ in the CIP where they came from but that

1:12:12 ↗ doesn't necessarily tell me that

1:12:15 ↗ we've considered everything and we've

1:12:18 ↗ checked the box and made sure that

1:12:20 ↗ everything possible is considered

1:12:24 ↗ um

1:12:25 ↗ which

1:12:27 ↗ I guess I would have

1:12:30 ↗ like to have seen those I guess in

1:12:32 ↗ future years and maybe it didn't get

1:12:34 ↗ included in future years because you

1:12:35 ↗ guys are gonna we're gonna do the rate

1:12:38 ↗ study

1:12:40 ↗ um maybe that's why because there

1:12:41 ↗ weren't any storm water utility projects

1:12:43 ↗ in the future years which seems a little

1:12:45 ↗ bit weird to me

1:12:47 ↗ um so yeah I'd like a sense of

1:12:51 ↗ did everything make it and a reason for

1:12:54 ↗ why something potentially went on the

1:12:57 ↗ future years or didn't make it in

1:12:59 ↗ because it failed criteria because if

1:13:02 ↗ nothing's failing the criteria

1:13:04 ↗ then we're probably not using it

1:13:07 ↗ correctly

1:13:09 ↗ um

1:13:09 ↗ uh I'd also like to have a notation on a

1:13:14 ↗ Project's page if the proposed timeline

1:13:18 ↗ was adjusted so that it could be

1:13:20 ↗ coordinated with another project or

1:13:23 ↗ agency that just gives transparency for

1:13:27 ↗ if something has a high score but is

1:13:29 ↗ pushed out because there's a need to

1:13:31 ↗ coordinate that would be really

1:13:33 ↗ important for me

1:13:35 ↗ um

1:13:36 ↗ I also would like to see something added

1:13:39 ↗ to each project page to indicate when it

1:13:42 ↗ was first included in the CIP I think

1:13:45 ↗ that gives a sense of what

1:13:48 ↗ you know how long have we considered

1:13:50 ↗ this and that also goes somewhat toward

1:13:54 ↗ goal number three project seven

1:13:57 ↗ accountable path toward execution or

1:13:59 ↗ completion because that at least tells

1:14:01 ↗ us we're not

1:14:04 ↗ if we if this was originally proposed

1:14:06 ↗ back in 2014 and was included there we

1:14:09 ↗ obviously haven't finished it in the

1:14:10 ↗ six-year period

1:14:12 ↗ um so we need to pay more attention to

1:14:14 ↗ that but further on that idea of

1:14:18 ↗ projects have an accountable path toward

1:14:20 ↗ execution or completion I'm not sure how

1:14:22 ↗ I would evaluate that or if there are

1:14:25 ↗ any differences in this CIP versus

1:14:27 ↗ previous cips so that's something I'll

1:14:30 ↗ want to discuss on the 12th does it do

1:14:33 ↗ we have a sense of order

1:14:36 ↗ go ahead

1:14:38 ↗ I think one if I may I think one of the

1:14:41 ↗ ways we've tried to address that is by

1:14:43 ↗ putting in the project phases so one of

1:14:46 ↗ the things that we heard from Council in

1:14:47 ↗ the past was that the CIP project page

1:14:50 ↗ would just have the name of the project

1:14:52 ↗ and money and put it you know in

1:14:55 ↗ different years and we would never

1:14:57 ↗ describe well actually these three years

1:14:58 ↗ are still designed we haven't even

1:15:00 ↗ gotten to the construction phase and and

1:15:02 ↗ so why is it some why is it going to

1:15:03 ↗ take this long so we we tried to address

1:15:05 ↗ that in this CIP it's different you may

1:15:08 ↗ note that there's actual phases for the

1:15:11 ↗ the larger projects that have a design

1:15:13 ↗ phase or construction phase Etc so

1:15:15 ↗ that's one of the ways that we've tried

1:15:17 ↗ to make that pathway more clear but but

1:15:20 ↗ I understand your feedback and thank you

1:15:22 ↗ for that

1:15:23 ↗ okay maybe I need to look outside of the

1:15:25 ↗ storm letter area to find some of those

1:15:28 ↗ because I I didn't see any of that in

1:15:30 ↗ the storm water but that might make

1:15:32 ↗ sense

1:15:34 ↗ um let's see I talked about

1:15:36 ↗ long-standing needs goal number three

1:15:39 ↗ um one thing I would love to know what

1:15:41 ↗ was the hardest criteria for staff to

1:15:46 ↗ either determine or agree upon

1:15:49 ↗ um for the green yellow red ratings and

1:15:52 ↗ does that indicate there should be any

1:15:54 ↗ changes to additional kind of underneath

1:15:57 ↗ criteria to give

1:16:00 ↗ more clarity

1:16:03 ↗ I I can talk about that criteria all

1:16:06 ↗ night so I will say I'll try to keep it

1:16:07 ↗ brief um two two were really difficult

1:16:10 ↗ Equity being our first year and trying

1:16:12 ↗ to make sure that we're defining it well

1:16:15 ↗ um and really in accordance with the

1:16:18 ↗ guidance that our Equity board has

1:16:19 ↗ provided us and then figuring out how to

1:16:21 ↗ apply that so that that was difficult we

1:16:24 ↗ got some great feedback from the equity

1:16:26 ↗ board that we look forward to

1:16:28 ↗ implementing in the future and

1:16:31 ↗ um and also the environmental benefit

1:16:33 ↗ and climate resiliency criteria that was

1:16:36 ↗ difficult because it attacks or it tries

1:16:39 ↗ to

1:16:40 ↗ um it tries to

1:16:43 ↗ address

1:16:44 ↗ multiple sides of environmental benefit

1:16:47 ↗ and climate resiliency habitat

1:16:49 ↗ ecosystems Etc and so something may be

1:16:52 ↗ good for climate but maybe not good for

1:16:53 ↗ Habitat so how do you weigh all that

1:16:54 ↗ together

1:16:55 ↗ um so that was something we also

1:16:57 ↗ grappled with and have some good

1:16:58 ↗ feedback from the environmental board

1:16:59 ↗ that we'll pursue in the future

1:17:03 ↗ great

1:17:06 ↗ let's see if anything

1:17:08 ↗ else

1:17:10 ↗ um

1:17:11 ↗ I guess I would ask my fellow committee

1:17:14 ↗ members

1:17:15 ↗ whether

1:17:17 ↗ we think the criteria resulted in kind

1:17:21 ↗ of the correct timeline of projects I

1:17:23 ↗ had kind of highlighted oh that's into

1:17:25 ↗ the project feedback I guess so I'll

1:17:29 ↗ wait on that

1:17:30 ↗ okay

1:17:37 ↗ um I'll be very since I think

1:17:41 ↗ lots of great comments so far and

1:17:42 ↗ similar I think a lot of what we heard

1:17:44 ↗ mobility and infrastructure too I will

1:17:48 ↗ push back

1:17:49 ↗ um

1:17:50 ↗ on a couple couple things I I do think

1:17:52 ↗ it actually it does to me as like a

1:17:56 ↗ policy maker user of the document feel

1:17:59 ↗ um night and day from previous like much

1:18:02 ↗ much better and just the ability to see

1:18:05 ↗ I could see where you can kind of get

1:18:07 ↗ into

1:18:09 ↗ um a conversation about well do they

1:18:10 ↗ really have a clear path

1:18:12 ↗ um to inclusion into the CIP

1:18:15 ↗ um and how am I supposed to evaluate

1:18:17 ↗ that and that makes sense in my head but

1:18:19 ↗ at the same time I've been thinking of

1:18:20 ↗ it as the desired outcomes that we all

1:18:22 ↗ agreed on as part of our goal goals and

1:18:27 ↗ desired outcomes chart are how we're

1:18:29 ↗ evaluating that so I've just been trying

1:18:31 ↗ to think about it that way and to me it

1:18:33 ↗ does seem like we're meeting most of

1:18:36 ↗ these

1:18:37 ↗ um the obvious one is was brought up

1:18:40 ↗ earlier which is that long-standing

1:18:41 ↗ commitment has no criteria and we have

1:18:43 ↗ absolutely no idea what that means it's

1:18:45 ↗ right now it seems like it's a you know

1:18:47 ↗ you know when you see it kind of kind of

1:18:50 ↗ thing and so it would be great for us to

1:18:51 ↗ be able to really Define that

1:18:53 ↗ or consider morphing it so I'm sure

1:18:56 ↗ that'll be a good conversation for us

1:18:58 ↗ um I also

1:19:00 ↗ um I think this conversation about the

1:19:01 ↗ equity criteria is an interesting one I

1:19:04 ↗ I actually was happy not to see any red

1:19:07 ↗ especially because red means that we're

1:19:09 ↗ directly harming an underserved

1:19:11 ↗ Community

1:19:12 ↗ um but yeah maybe that's a conversation

1:19:14 ↗ we need to continue to have with the

1:19:16 ↗ equity board going into the future I

1:19:18 ↗ mean you've probably pulled out so much

1:19:20 ↗ um potential things that we won't be

1:19:22 ↗ able to do this CIP cycle but we'll

1:19:24 ↗ continue to kind of explore and consider

1:19:27 ↗ moving into the next one to improve it

1:19:29 ↗ again and that might be a good

1:19:31 ↗ conversation

1:19:32 ↗ um where I will already evaluating it

1:19:34 ↗ correctly then and also time will tell

1:19:37 ↗ right if if a project happens and we

1:19:40 ↗ find out actually there was some harm

1:19:43 ↗ done to a particular Community

1:19:45 ↗ um time will tell whether our evaluation

1:19:47 ↗ of that project was flawed and that will

1:19:50 ↗ help us in itself too but that takes

1:19:52 ↗ time and so um yeah again that's a

1:19:54 ↗ conversation then I'll need to have them

1:19:56 ↗ at the equity board

1:19:57 ↗ um I don't think I have anything else

1:19:59 ↗ that was

1:20:01 ↗ new

1:20:03 ↗ except for yes supportive

1:20:05 ↗ viewing the CIP and do an interesting

1:20:08 ↗ and interactive ways that's really

1:20:10 ↗ exciting

1:20:18 ↗ project comments becomes president

1:20:21 ↗ Washington yeah so generally I think

1:20:24 ↗ this does a pretty darn good job for the

1:20:27 ↗ stormwater area I noticed that there are

1:20:29 ↗ eight new projects

1:20:31 ↗ um they seem to score pretty high

1:20:34 ↗ I appreciate that

1:20:37 ↗ st043 which was just storm and surface

1:20:40 ↗ water master plan implementation was

1:20:42 ↗ removed and then replaced with the

1:20:45 ↗ actual implementation item so that's

1:20:47 ↗ certainly an upgrade

1:20:50 ↗ um

1:20:51 ↗ I think you know I could quibble with a

1:20:56 ↗ few things but generally

1:21:04 ↗ yeah I think generally it's good my

1:21:08 ↗ concern will be when we come to sto18

1:21:11 ↗ the water quality and low impact

1:21:12 ↗ development retrofits whether or not we

1:21:15 ↗ can effectively Target those in areas

1:21:17 ↗ because in many cases when we're doing a

1:21:19 ↗ project like this it creates opportunity

1:21:22 ↗ to

1:21:23 ↗ you know

1:21:24 ↗ build a sidewalk or build a crosswalk or

1:21:28 ↗ add lighting or something else like that

1:21:30 ↗ because you're already digging up the

1:21:31 ↗ road and so being able to make sure that

1:21:34 ↗ we target them to the right areas I

1:21:36 ↗ think will be important

1:21:39 ↗ um

1:21:40 ↗ yeah and then I think the kind of other

1:21:44 ↗ question on some of this concept is

1:21:49 ↗ is this the right number of projects in

1:21:53 ↗ the stormwater area and how it Compares

1:21:55 ↗ overall because I know we did that

1:21:58 ↗ thing for the Strategic plan areas

1:22:03 ↗ um

1:22:04 ↗ showing like what percentage of the

1:22:06 ↗ dollars and what percent of the projects

1:22:08 ↗ come from each area

1:22:10 ↗ um

1:22:11 ↗ but because I haven't looked really in

1:22:13 ↗ depth into the other areas I don't know

1:22:15 ↗ if this growing by x amount is also

1:22:20 ↗ matched by other areas or whether it

1:22:22 ↗ became a larger component because of

1:22:25 ↗ some criteria

1:22:27 ↗ or whether it's just balance because

1:22:29 ↗ these are what our needs are and there

1:22:31 ↗ shouldn't necessarily be a balance

1:22:32 ↗ between areas

1:22:35 ↗ I'm sensing a question so I I'd like to

1:22:37 ↗ yeah chime in uh so so some of the

1:22:41 ↗ criteria have have are factors that we

1:22:43 ↗ consider right so when we talk about

1:22:45 ↗ maintenance and replacement of capital

1:22:47 ↗ assets that was a criteria that we

1:22:49 ↗ evaluated and overall

1:22:51 ↗ um look to projects that did more of

1:22:53 ↗ that uh in the CIP that's why we see it

1:22:56 ↗ more in the CIP

1:22:59 ↗ um

1:22:59 ↗ but a lot of it is is what can we get

1:23:02 ↗ done and what's what are the needs it's

1:23:05 ↗ driven by needs um we have heard input

1:23:09 ↗ from the Capital Finance Community task

1:23:12 ↗ force that there isn't a desire to

1:23:14 ↗ spread the the peanut butter or spread

1:23:17 ↗ the Investments evenly there's a desire

1:23:19 ↗ instead to focus on different types of

1:23:21 ↗ infrastructure over others and so we

1:23:24 ↗ want to make sure with our utilities

1:23:25 ↗ that we are meeting the needs that we

1:23:27 ↗ have that we're not being negligent in

1:23:29 ↗ our maintenance or in providing for the

1:23:32 ↗ needs that are there but we're not

1:23:34 ↗ looking to really focus on stormwater

1:23:38 ↗ more than what the needs would suggest

1:23:39 ↗ and that's because we are trying to

1:23:41 ↗ focus on Transportation Mobility as the

1:23:43 ↗ community has directed us to do

1:23:46 ↗ so overall I'm pretty satisfied with

1:23:49 ↗ what's out there

1:23:50 ↗ thanks

1:23:55 ↗ um I am too although you've just given

1:23:56 ↗ me a question

1:23:59 ↗ um so when we do a raid study we're

1:24:02 ↗ considering all of our infrastructure

1:24:05 ↗ needs abilities and then

1:24:08 ↗ um coming up with the rates needed to

1:24:11 ↗ support that

1:24:13 ↗ um does that cover all of the known need

1:24:17 ↗ that the city is aware of or do we have

1:24:20 ↗ some sort of list of like all potential

1:24:23 ↗ need in the rates that he's going to

1:24:25 ↗ cover

1:24:26 ↗ X percent of all that

1:24:28 ↗ so that that goes back to the master

1:24:30 ↗ plan so the the storm and surface water

1:24:33 ↗ master plan covers

1:24:35 ↗ um a number of years I'm not going to

1:24:36 ↗ know how many years off the top of my

1:24:38 ↗ head I don't remember but it covers well

1:24:40 ↗ into the future several years beyond the

1:24:42 ↗ the span of the CIP and we look at the

1:24:45 ↗ those Master plans especially for the

1:24:47 ↗ utilities to then determine what are the

1:24:49 ↗ utility rates so those Master plans look

1:24:51 ↗ at what are the needs now what do we

1:24:53 ↗ know about our maintenance needs in the

1:24:55 ↗ future and the other needs you know

1:24:56 ↗ based off of projected growth Etc so we

1:24:59 ↗ look at all of that in the master

1:25:00 ↗ planning process and then the rate study

1:25:02 ↗ examines okay

1:25:04 ↗ what do the rates need to be in order to

1:25:07 ↗ pay for the projects that are in the

1:25:09 ↗ master plan so that's generally how we

1:25:12 ↗ how we conduct the right study so then

1:25:15 ↗ the rate study assumes you know having a

1:25:16 ↗ certain balance having enough money to

1:25:18 ↗ pay for emergencies should emergencies

1:25:21 ↗ arise as well

1:25:26 ↗ no thank you

1:25:27 ↗ thank you um

1:25:29 ↗ yeah no I don't have very I don't have

1:25:31 ↗ any particular Project Specific

1:25:33 ↗ comments I think this is a balanced mix

1:25:35 ↗ of projects for our utility needs

1:25:39 ↗ well done Matt and everyone who was

1:25:41 ↗ involved in this Dr Moon

1:25:48 ↗ um

1:25:49 ↗ well so firstly your comment about not

1:25:54 ↗ wanting or you know being happy that we

1:25:55 ↗ didn't see any red on the equity

1:25:57 ↗ criteria

1:25:59 ↗ um I agree so I think one

1:26:03 ↗ um

1:26:04 ↗ one consideration for the equity board

1:26:06 ↗ for next time are rounds would be that

1:26:10 ↗ we have these criteria for the

1:26:13 ↗ environmental benefit where we have in

1:26:16 ↗ the red that the project will have no

1:26:17 ↗ environmental impact or we'll have

1:26:19 ↗ negative environmental impact

1:26:21 ↗ um and then for equity

1:26:24 ↗ the red is the project would result in

1:26:26 ↗ disproportionate and unmitigated harm

1:26:28 ↗ and so I think

1:26:31 ↗ um since we never use that because we

1:26:33 ↗ rule out those projects as we should

1:26:36 ↗ um I think as as decision makers it

1:26:38 ↗ might be good to consider a criteria

1:26:40 ↗ that is more giving us more information

1:26:43 ↗ like that and then adjusting the yellow

1:26:46 ↗ so that we do see the projects filtered

1:26:50 ↗ into those three categories or similarly

1:26:53 ↗ to that environmental benefit criteria

1:26:56 ↗ again something for consideration I know

1:26:58 ↗ this was the first time we've done the

1:26:59 ↗ equity criteria

1:27:02 ↗ that might give us a little bit more

1:27:03 ↗ information as decision makers so

1:27:05 ↗ something to consider for next time

1:27:08 ↗ um on the projects

1:27:10 ↗ I am very happy to see laughing Jacob's

1:27:14 ↗ Creek uh offended I I I yes I did

1:27:20 ↗ um talk about it yesterday when I was

1:27:21 ↗ not on the agenda so I do talk about

1:27:24 ↗ that a fair amount we are in a city that

1:27:26 ↗ very much values salmon we have salmon

1:27:30 ↗ behind me here salmon and our cities

1:27:33 ↗ logo it's salmon days city of salmon

1:27:36 ↗ days or a community that very much

1:27:38 ↗ values salmon and the Kokanee in

1:27:40 ↗ particular we have I think a

1:27:42 ↗ responsibility to do this project

1:27:44 ↗ because they live their entire life

1:27:46 ↗ cycle right in this Watershed they never

1:27:48 ↗ go out to the ocean so these projects

1:27:51 ↗ are extremely important for the

1:27:53 ↗ continued survival of that

1:27:55 ↗ Kokanee population and it is also very

1:27:58 ↗ important for the Snoqualmie tribe and

1:28:00 ↗ for other partners in the region that we

1:28:02 ↗ do what do our part to conserve spokanee

1:28:07 ↗ so

1:28:07 ↗ I'm very happy to see that funded

1:28:11 ↗ um and that going forward

1:28:14 ↗ um

1:28:15 ↗ thank you for that and then I've

1:28:18 ↗ similarly happy to see other projects

1:28:20 ↗ that are in that stormwater master plan

1:28:22 ↗ um coming into reality in this

1:28:25 ↗ dip plan

1:28:27 ↗ um and generally uh yes generally

1:28:30 ↗ supportive of the stormwater part of

1:28:32 ↗ this plan

1:28:34 ↗ um

1:28:35 ↗ I've had I've had similar thoughts

1:28:38 ↗ looking at the work plan as far as the

1:28:39 ↗ timeline slipping I I understand that it

1:28:43 ↗ is

1:28:43 ↗ difficult because there are many reasons

1:28:46 ↗ why timelines change but I do think it's

1:28:50 ↗ something that

1:28:51 ↗ as we as we continue to improve our

1:28:55 ↗ process

1:28:56 ↗ um that would be good to have more

1:28:58 ↗ information about how the timelines are

1:29:00 ↗ changing

1:29:02 ↗ um from one CIP to the next if there is

1:29:05 ↗ a reason that there's a or if there is a

1:29:07 ↗ delay in a project

1:29:09 ↗ um just to have that flagged in a

1:29:11 ↗ transparent way or if there's a project

1:29:14 ↗ that was in the CIP didn't get grant

1:29:16 ↗ funding for example and and is no longer

1:29:18 ↗ in the CIP or in the CIP with a

1:29:20 ↗ different timeline those sorts of things

1:29:22 ↗ that's helpful for us I think as council

1:29:25 ↗ members to to understand so that

1:29:28 ↗ continues to be something that I think

1:29:29 ↗ we could work on adding I do agree with

1:29:33 ↗ councilmember Hall that this uh the

1:29:36 ↗ criteria and the way that it's laid out

1:29:39 ↗ this year is a big Improvement and gives

1:29:41 ↗ us a lot more information to work with

1:29:42 ↗ so I really appreciate that

1:29:45 ↗ those are my comments so

1:29:48 ↗ if you have any other last comments you

1:29:51 ↗ have what you need from this committee

1:29:53 ↗ on this topic I do thank you very much

1:30:03 ↗ great well that is our second of two

1:30:05 ↗ items

1:30:06 ↗ and are there any announcements my

1:30:09 ↗ committee

1:30:12 ↗ just to note that your July meeting has

1:30:14 ↗ been canceled

1:30:16 ↗ so we'll see you

1:30:19 ↗ it's the July 5th meeting

1:30:22 ↗ um Regular meeting had no items

1:30:24 ↗ this time is canceled

1:30:27 ↗ thank you for that

1:30:29 ↗ um and there's no announcements then

1:30:31 ↗ there are no further business and this

1:30:32 ↗ meeting is adjourned at exactly 8 pm

1:30:36 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF